Why choose LCD on screens 40in+?

[Tootingyellow]

I am a very confused consumer looking for a 40-46in tv. Is it not accepted that Plasmas offer a better pitcure than LCDs on screens 40+ inches?

 

[doublej]

Very generally speaking, LCD is preferred upto 40 and plasma after that. It's a very subject area and margins are tiny.

Take a walk around a showroom - bigger higher street stores have a huge number of panels on display.

JJ

 

[reckless]

"better" is subjective - "different" is probably more accurate. There's lots of pros and cons for both types but for what it's worth, I just think it's personal preference. I've got a plasma 43" Pio but if I was replacing it I'd probably be looking at a Sony 46" (the 52" would just be toooo big )

 

[CHFels]

I am a very confused consumer looking for a 40-46in tv. Is it not accepted that Plasmas offer a better pitcure than LCDs on screens 40+ inches?

By most people it is, especially over on the plasma section of the forum!

Now that Panasonic has two lines of 42" and 50" full-HD plasmas on the market, and another to come before X-mas, the argument for large LCDs is even harder to make. They even have anti-glare screens, so they diffuse reflections like an LCD.

However, I can think of a few reasons one might buy an LCD in this range anyway.

1. "Gotta have a Sony to go with all my other Sony equipment!"
2. You want a screen that is EXACTLY 40" [or 46"] diagonal!
3. You play videogames for up to 24 hours straight, and are afraid of screen burn.

Others may have more reasons to add, of a general or specific nature.

CHFels

 

[gasteropod]

I fell asleep watching my LCD last night; if that had been a plasma, it would now be covered in burn-in. That is why people choose LCDs.

 

[LV426]

You may already be getting a feeling for the true reason.

I'd choose LCD, regardless of size.

I could go on and on about the technical differences, and acknowledge that is certain technical and measurable respects, Plasma may exceed some aspect of an LCD of similar standard.

In fact I fully expect a barrage of such contributions to be repeated in this very thread. To try and save those who feel so motivated the effort, here is a link to another thread
http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5406837
which has a pretty good technical post in it, and also contains links to a selection of other threads on the LCD vs. Plasma "debate".

What I would say is - all the technical and theoretical data is meaningless if someone prefers the look of one over the other.

I prefer to overall experience of watching a properly set up and connected LCD to anything else - regardless of any technical shortcomings it may have.

That's a wholly subjective view.

 

[NinjaMonkeyUK]

I fell asleep watching my LCD last night; if that had been a plasma, it would now be covered in burn-in. That is why people choose LCDs.

What do you think the "off timer" is for? I fall asleep pretty much every night with my plasma on & I've never got screenburn on it yet...

 

[gasteropod]

What do you think the "off timer" is for? I fall asleep pretty much every night with my plasma on & I've never got screenburn on it yet...

Setting the timer implies that you know you're going to fall asleep watching it. My falling asleep with it last night was a one-off. I don't think a plasma could have survived having the static DVD menu on its screen for 8 hours like my LCD did.

 

[Raitzi]

power consumption of plasmas goes up fast if talk about above 40" or 1080p.

 

[cerebros]

What I would say is - all the technical and theoretical data is meaningless if someone prefers the look of one over the other.

hear, hear

'Course, won't stop this descending into another Plasma V LCD argument but still...

(For the record I'm currently on the fence and likely to be for a while yet)

 

[deaf cat]

Reading out of interest, as I'm just starting to look into a new tv,

This plasma burn in thing, are tv makers not clever enough to build in a little technology that would switch the thing into standby if the screen was inactive for, say 10 mins? seems a bit daft to me if burn in has the potential to cock the picture up

 

[LV426]

...are tv makers not clever enough to build in a little technology that would switch the thing into standby if the screen was inactive for, say 10 mins?..

The trick is detecting when someone is, or isn't watching. Burn-in can occur from on-screen logos. They are there whether you're watching or not. Games can present static elements and yet can carry on moving images without user input. It might be annoying if your TV kept turning itself off every 10 minutes. But then, you could put an option to disable the mechanism in the menu somewhere. Back to sq.1, I think.

 

[hefestobis]

By most people it is, especially over on the plasma section of the forum!

Now that Panasonic has two lines of 42" and 50" full-HD plasmas on the market, and another to come before X-mas, the argument for large LCDs is even harder to make. They even have anti-glare screens, so they diffuse reflections like an LCD.

CHFels

Is this an overstatement? Are there any plasmas with the same (zero) reflections as an LCD (i.e Sony w2000? I personally hate reflections