1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Plasma or LCD

Discussion in 'LCD & LED LCD TVs' started by jwilco, May 13, 2004.

  1. jwilco

    jwilco
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    :lease:

    I Have just started looking into either plasma or LCD, probably 30-42".

    I cannot decide whether to go for plasma or LCD. If money was no object what would you advise for best quality pictures & why?

    Be grateful for any advise or help.

    thanks
     
  2. Liam @ Prog AV

    Liam @ Prog AV
    Well-known Member AVForums Sponsor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,498
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +827
    Plasma all the way baby!!! If you do a search on plasma vs LCD it's been thrashed out quite a few times.

    (assuming for home use, for public display LCD is usually the better option)
     
  3. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    I am not sure I entirely buy into this. Both technologies have strengths and weaknesses and which is best is determined by your situation.
     
  4. SimonO

    SimonO
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    3,193
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Hertfordshire
    Ratings:
    +64
    For home cinema use in what situation would you prefer LCD..?
     
  5. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    Where I was after expoiting the full resolution of my system. where I had static images like PC / Computer and SKY, where I wanted a more transportable system (say have to move from room to room), where I had less money to spend, where I had need for a smaller screen, where I wanted better compatibility with DVI, ....................................

    It is not the obvious answer many would have you believe.

    £500 for 20 ich LCD TV nowdays. It opens a whole range of 'options' for the punter according to the users situation.
     
  6. SimonO

    SimonO
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    3,193
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Hertfordshire
    Ratings:
    +64
    Don't disagree with any of that, but it's not really home cinema... I feel that LCD will dominate the sub 40" bracket whilst 40" above will be plasma territory... Can't see it changing much...
     
  7. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    very applicable in my home cinema ;) Your comment of < 40 and > 40 has much merit however. But size is just one criteria unfortunately. It defines many purchases however. :)
     
  8. calscot

    calscot
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    659
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Milton Keynes
    Ratings:
    +0
    I thought the main differences were:

    Plasma: Large, High contrast ratio, low resolution - for affordable models, fast response - good for action, prone to screen burn, not good as a computer monitor.

    LCD: Smaller - for affordable models, low contrast, high resolution, slower response - not so good with fast action, no screen burn but risk of dead pixels, perfect as a computer monitor.

    I would go for plasma as a home cinema solution, but as I have a projector I think an LCD would be better for me as a non cinema tv and computer monitor.

    My budget is also only about £1200 which rules out plasma anyway and I need a tv to fit on my AV unit and still be below the bottom of my projector screen.
     
  9. Liam @ Prog AV

    Liam @ Prog AV
    Well-known Member AVForums Sponsor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,498
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +827
    Beekeeper - :smoke: on paper there should be situations where an LCD should be better than plasma in a money no object Home Cinema, usually where HCPCs, scalers etc come to play. But the fact of the matter is that despite it's resolution (which is the only relevant advantage here) the picture on moving images is always better on a decent plasma! :smoke:

    (and from typical Home Cinema viewing distances I would be surprised if the extra resolution on a 30" or 40" was that noticeable :zonked: )

    There may be situations where PQ should be sacrificed for resolution to display PC output - I can't think of many in the Home Cinema environment unless the Home Cinema was also heavily used for commercial applications, or web browsing or something. But the sacrifice in PQ :rolleyes: would be significant so it would have to be worth it...

    LCD advantages in addition to those pointed out by Calscot are also longer life expectancy (except when Panasonic's 60,000hr life plasma panel comes out :eek: ), lightweight (in comparison to similar size plasma) and lower power consumption. Irrelevant for Home Cinema but ideal conditions for exhibitions (light), reception areas (more efficient to leave on all day) and conference rooms (high res for PC display).

    to answer jwilco's original post - the ideal 30" - 42" display technology for best quality pictures is plasma! :thumbsup:
     
  10. LV426

    LV426
    Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    12,753
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Somewhere in South Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +4,907
    Thrashed out so many times before......indeed.

    For ANY application, there are plus and minus points for either technology. Many of the cited shortcomings of LCD are decreasingly true - examples of reduced viewing angle, and slow responses are decreasingly valid points to make.

    My take on the subject is this:

    Plasma and LCD have quite a different "look". This is a wholly subjective statement. Other factors aside (pounds per inch etc) it is down to personal preference. Some prefer the "look" of Plasma; others prefer LCD.

    You can really only make this decision for yourself. You need to spend some time demoing both, at roughly equal sizes, to gain a view.

    Watch from a sensible viewing distance - don't press your nose up to the screen looking for artefacts - you WILL find them.

    Get the thing driven with a decent clean source - RGB from a DVD player say - and not the usual, interference-ridden analog RF signal that most stores use. A decent shop, faced with a potential sale of a couple of grand or more ought to be accomodating - if not, go somewhere else that is.
     
  11. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    Although I acknowledge and recommend Panny plasmas as the best of the breed, if anyone takes the trouble to measue the contrast on plasma they are MUCH lower than you realise and are really not any different to many current generation LCDs. If you don't believe me, hasn't HCC juist reviewed some plasmans and quoted contrast rations? Although I don't have it here to hand I seem to remember all the quoted contrat figures are in the low 100s range, ceratinly not over 400:1. Now if you compare that with the manufacturers claimed figures / LCDs it does open a the whole game upto debate. Now I know much of this is down to how you measure this but I beieve in 5 years time LCD will be the norm and plasma will be a yesterdays toy.

    I certainly remain unconvinced one gives a better picture than the other, they are different. pros and cons to both.

    Hasn't What Hifi just done this with a punter who couldn't decide. They took CRT, Plasma and LCD to his home. He ranked them as CRT then LCD then Plasma. The ratings were the punters in his home and NOT What HiFis.
     
  12. SimonO

    SimonO
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    3,193
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Hertfordshire
    Ratings:
    +64
    Was it a blindfold test..? ;)
     
  13. Liam @ Prog AV

    Liam @ Prog AV
    Well-known Member AVForums Sponsor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,498
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +827
    My opinion is that contrast Ratio is getting over hyped. What it tries to convey is important and it's a good measure to start out with to give you a rough idea of how a display is going to perform. But it's still a quantitative value put onto something that is viewed subjectively and qualititatively. I think we are too quick to try and give something a number and attempt to rank it to find a "winner" without actually looking at a display and deciding if you like it or not. (fuelled through our fear of choosing the wrong thing and wasting a huge amount of dosh on it while not really understanding what we are buying!) When I make a point about something having a 3000:1 contrast I mean that in terms of contrast it is really very good, not that i's good but the 4000:1 contrast is 33% better so the 3000:1 model is obviously pants. (same as that wonderful resolution debate we had a while ago where 16% or something of our picture was "lost" if we got an SD panel)

    At normal daylight viewing environment I think the Pioneer plasma is 120:1, the Panasonic 160:1 and LCDs down in double figures somewhere. The manufacturers quotes are in ridiculous conditions and further support my above point that you can only use them as a guideline or pointer, you cannot make a solid conclusion from them.

    If we were gonna have a debate in figures this years Panasonic PX300 (Jap model, see other thread) is XGA res 42" (almost XGA res 37" too), does 3.6 billion colours, goes 60,000 hours and is much more resistant to screenburn... and will be cheaper than the nearest LCD TV which to my eyes won't offer as realistic a picture... It is with this in mind that I personally find it very difficult to conclude that LCD is going to take over as dominant display technology.

    What Hifi is another story (the Magazine that gives a Toshiba PJ 3/5 and the almost identical InFocus model 5/5). The cynic in me says it couldn't have been a fair test. But it does support the point that you've got to see these new technologies to really rate them.

    It's good to get the old Plasma Vs LCD debate going again with the light of all these new models out since the last time we had one. But there is still no evidence to suggest to me that LCD is gonna suddenly get cheaper, and better, and more popular than plasma. What's more worrying is that if it does it'll probably have nothing to do with quality, more these huge corporation's marketing machines flexing their muscles!!!

    It's quote funny really cos when i'm in the pub (a lot) and people ask me what I do, I get the usual resistance to new technology comments "plasmas run out of gas, waste of money", "plasmas give out radiation, i'm not buying one cos i'll get cancer" etc etc but the most common one I get is "LCD is better, you're in the wrong game mate". The people making these comments had never seen either....
     
  14. calscot

    calscot
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    659
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Milton Keynes
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think the trouble is that you don't really know how something performs till you've had it a while. You may think a screen has an acceptable contrast ratio at first, but when you've been watching
    at home in low ambient light for a while, the grey and undetailed dark scenes may start to get to you.

    Sometimes a subjective measurement can take time to become accurate, we really need objective measurements to allow us to judge more easily for the long term.

    As an analogy, imagine you have the choice of 2 carts on a circuit. After a well driven lap in each they subjectively both "feel" identically fast, but the objective clock says one is 2 sec a lap faster. If you choose the wrong cart, after while you'll probably find yourself a lap down.

    The plasma v lcd war will be won by the cheapest manufacturing process. I think that will be lcd.

    One thing plasma has over lcd is the name. "Plasma" sounds cool and has connotations of desirability. LCD needs a better name.
     
  15. jwilco

    jwilco
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Phew ! This decision could give me quite quite a headache.
    Thanks to everybody for your thoughts, it has I think pointed me in the right direction.
     
  16. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    Liam

    interesting points as ever

    Very possibly, there is much more to getting a good picture but it is important but not in isolation but a technical talk on gamma, colour etc is not relevant here :).

    where does that resolution go if it is not lost then? These plasmas are built to NTSC 'guides' and hence we get 480p resolution. In PAL world we have higher resolution, pure and simple (with a similar bandwidth). USA also has a higher resolution. Would you or any one else be happy feed a 720p signal to a SD panel only capable of 480p?:laugh: of course you never loose resolution.....:smashin:

    As I said this was the punters view when he saw all three is his room, it wasn't What Hifi

    Agree totally, get the plasma and LCD in the room together and decide, that is what I have always advocated here and is what the above punter did :)

    Yeah :thumbsup: It always wakes Nigel up :) Re eveidence for LCD getting cheaper, well this is my sort of field supply the raw materials to this technology and yes there is tons of evidence to suggest the LCD market will be HUGE. In fact I have recently been headhunted to be the director of a national facility in this area (raw materials to LCD amongst other things).

    No they don't run out of gas, they just don't work on their back :)
    Yes they do give out radiation
    No you won't get cancer
    LCD is better?, well I still think there are pros and cons to both technologies. What you pick is down to the customers personal situation.

    Did I mention plasma are based on 100 + year old thermionic technolgy? :devil:
     
  17. cb31

    cb31
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ratings:
    +1
    Where are these 20" LCD's for £500? Have you any links?


    My take on plasma vs lcd. Plasma all the way at the moment. What happens in the future, who knows but at present no contest. I have both and just love the plasma, shame they don't do them in smaller sizes. The lcd is cool but doesn't compare picture wise.

    All the advantages of lcd are not really relevant. Weight? Both very heavy and very difficult to move, even if lcd is a few kg's lighter. Resolution? Irrelevant when it comes to picture quality for tv. Using it as a pc yes, but 99% of all users wouldn't dream of connecting a computer to a tv. Burn in? A bit of a non-issue in real world conditions. Of course you can burn a plasma but you really would have to be extremely negligent to do it. Going off the number of lcd monitors at work, Compaq 18" ers, dead/stuck/flashing pixels are of much greater concern.

    Still, you have to decide for yourself. Look at examples in the shops, if you can find one setup properly with a decent feed. They always look better at home.
     

Share This Page

Loading...