or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Plasma vs. LCD vs. LED?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Plasma vs. LCD vs. LED? - Page 2

post #16 of 65
I have a Panasonic Viera Plasma and love it. It's even in a room with large bay window and looks just fine. I too, was torn between LCD & Plasma and what clinched it for me was watching football on both side by side. The thrown ball was so much smoother on the plasma.
post #17 of 65
Thread Starter 
Right now I am considering this, it has great reviews, and is relatively cheap.
post #18 of 65
Thread Starter 
post #19 of 65
I think the superiority of plasma screens is completely overstated and somewhat misleading. First of all, there is a humongous price and quality spread amongst LCD screens, so any generalizations should be taken loosely. Second, I have a hard time understanding how anybody can so readily declare one kind of television superior to another when it must be viewed under very particular conditions to look better and it looks worse normally. If you really want to setup a proper home theater in a room without light, a DLP projector makes the most sense. Hell, if I had a dedicated home theater, I'd pick a DLP rear-projection set over an LCD or a Plasma. We had an excellent Samsung DLP set before we moved to Chicago: it did not perform as well as an LCD during the day, but it was amazing at night. In my opinion, neither plasmas nor LCDs can look so film-like at their best. Refresh rates are a non-issue for DLPs. Currently, we have a year-and-a-half old Sharp AQUOS LC-52SE94U screen that was a top-of-the-line LCD when we bought it. We thought its image looked a lot more natural and detailed than the super-bright, super-contrasty Samsung screens everyone was raving about. People forget that personal preferences matter a lot.
post #20 of 65
I have a Samsung. Absolutely amazing picture quality.
post #21 of 65
I have an LCD in the bedroom and a plasma in the main room. I like both very much, but the plasma, to my eye, is the more organic image. The LCD is by nature a little more saturated. I don't think anyone would be unhappy with either one, though.
post #22 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
I think the superiority of plasma screens is completely overstated and somewhat misleading. First of all, there is a humongous price and quality spread amongst LCD screens, so any generalizations should be taken loosely. Second, I have a hard time understanding how anybody can so readily declare one kind of television superior to another when it must be viewed under very particular conditions to look better and it looks worse normally.

If you really want to setup a proper home theater in a room without light, a DLP projector makes the most sense. Hell, if I had a dedicated home theater, I'd pick a DLP rear-projection set over an LCD or a Plasma. We had an excellent Samsung DLP set before we moved to Chicago: it did not perform as well as an LCD during the day, but it was amazing at night. In my opinion, neither plasmas nor LCDs can look so film-like at their best. Refresh rates are a non-issue for DLPs.

Currently, we have a year-and-a-half old Sharp AQUOS LC-52SE94U screen that was a top-of-the-line LCD when we bought it. We thought its image looked a lot more natural and detailed than the super-bright, super-contrasty Samsung screens everyone was raving about. People forget that personal preferences matter a lot.

Pulling down the shades is hardly a peculiar circumstance.

The best home TV's I've seen are all plasmas, Panasonic, Pioneer and Fujitsu all make (made?) excellent ones.
post #23 of 65
We're hoping plasma works. Pioneer got out of the game last year so we were able to get a massively marked-down model last year. Still haven't tried it-- the renovations surrounding its destination continue.
post #24 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concordia View Post
We're hoping plasma works. Pioneer got out of the game last year so we were able to get a massively marked-down model last year. Still haven't tried it-- the renovations surrounding its destination continue.

I have had one for about 18 months now. I like it a lot. It's in a room without blinds, though, and it suffers in the daytime. But I pretty much only watch it at night.

Weighs more than our car.
post #25 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAnton View Post
I have had one for about 18 months now. I like it a lot. It's in a room without blinds, though, and it suffers in the daytime. But I pretty much only watch it at night.

Weighs more than our car.

I think there's a bracket we can use to attach it to studs. So the weight won't be an issue.

As far as the quality goes, we're not going to be encouraging daytime use. It is the summer house we're talking about.
post #26 of 65
I can't tell much difference between LCD or plasma unless they are side by side. But when I compare, I like the color in Plasma TVs more. The 120 Hz LCDs look fake to me - figures in the foreground look hyperreal compared to the background. I don't notice this so much on the Plasma TVs.
post #27 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
I think the superiority of plasma screens is completely overstated and somewhat misleading. First of all, there is a humongous price and quality spread amongst LCD screens, so any generalizations should be taken loosely. Second, I have a hard time understanding how anybody can so readily declare one kind of television superior to another when it must be viewed under very particular conditions to look better and it looks worse normally.

If you really want to setup a proper home theater in a room without light, a DLP projector makes the most sense. Hell, if I had a dedicated home theater, I'd pick a DLP rear-projection set over an LCD or a Plasma. We had an excellent Samsung DLP set before we moved to Chicago: it did not perform as well as an LCD during the day, but it was amazing at night. In my opinion, neither plasmas nor LCDs can look so film-like at their best. Refresh rates are a non-issue for DLPs.

Currently, we have a year-and-a-half old Sharp AQUOS LC-52SE94U screen that was a top-of-the-line LCD when we bought it. We thought its image looked a lot more natural and detailed than the super-bright, super-contrasty Samsung screens everyone was raving about. People forget that personal preferences matter a lot.

Understatement of the century.
post #28 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD View Post
Pulling down the shades is hardly a peculiar circumstance. The best home TV's I've seen are all plasmas, Panasonic, Pioneer and Fujitsu all make (made?) excellent ones.
It is a peculiar circumstance. I don't want to have to adjust the lighting in my living room every time I want to watch TV. For decades, nobody has had to dim the lights or pull down the shades to get a decent image out of their television set--why should plasma screens by measured by a different standard? Keep in mind, you aren't always sitting down to watch a movie. Anyway, the best plasma screen in the world doesn't look as good as a DLP (either front or rear projected) in the dark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poorsod View Post
I can't tell much difference between LCD or plasma unless they are side by side. But when I compare, I like the color in Plasma TVs more. The 120 Hz LCDs look fake to me - figures in the foreground look hyperreal compared to the background. I don't notice this so much on the Plasma TVs.
Well, I think it depends on the LCD. A lot of LCDs (Samsungs come to mind) are targeted at the mass market, where bright, vivid colors are more valued than natural-looking ones. When LCDs were less of a commodity, the high-end Sharp AQUOS sets were very hyped amongst the enthusiast audience because of how realistic and natural the image looked. Since then, Sharp has lost a lot of market share to Samsung, as well as downmarket competitors. The rise of LED-backlit LCDs is a pretty telling indicator of what the average consumer cares about. When I was comparing Sharps to Samsungs last year, the guy at the store could not understand why I'd want a Sharp when the Samsungs produced such higher-contrast images. However, in my opinion, the top end Samsungs tended to make everything look like a video game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS View Post
Understatement of the century.
In the sense that I'm very right or very wrong?
post #29 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Anyway, the best plasma screen in the world doesn't look as good as a DLP (either front or rear projected) in the dark.
I think you are mistaken. Or at the least, only stating your opinion as opposed to a widely accepted one. Most professional reviewers and A/V magazine writers, maybe even our own GQGeek, consider a calibrated Pioneer plasma the best display ever made at least in the 43-60".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Well, I think it depends on the LCD. A lot of LCDs (Samsungs come to mind) are targeted at the mass market, where bright, vivid colors are more valued than natural-looking ones. When LCDs were less of a commodity, the high-end Sharp AQUOS sets were very hyped amongst the enthusiast audience because of how realistic and natural the image looked. Since then, Sharp has lost a lot of market share to Samsung, as well as downmarket competitors. The rise of LED-backlit LCDs is a pretty telling indicator of what the average consumer cares about. When I was comparing Sharps to Samsungs last year, the guy at the store could not understand why I'd want a Sharp when the Samsungs produced such higher-contrast images. However, in my opinion, the top end Samsungs tended to make everything look like a video game.
You are wrong to believe that vivid colors indicate an inferior display. If the colors are un-natural, the TV may just need to be calibrated. Another thing to keep in mind is that most TVs are set to some variation of "vivid" mode from the factory so that the display looks brighter on the showroom floor when compared to the competition. All LCDs and Plasmas usually have several viewing modes, called something like vivid, sport, movie and user selected. The movie mode tends to have more natural looking colors but in a lot of cases it just looks dimmer. Sometimes you can get lucky and get decent picture with accurate colors by copying the "user mode" settings from other people on AVSforum. Though I realize the added expense is not for everyone, if you really care about picture quality a pro calibration is the only way to make sure you are getting the the best possible picture from your display.
post #30 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
In the sense that I'm very right or very wrong?

Very right.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Plasma vs. LCD vs. LED?