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 3

post #31 of 65
Saw a 50" Pioneer Elite at Costco in Glenview IL. today. Price was 2500.00. FWIW, I watch a Tube (CRT) TV by Sony because I couldn't decide between the other options. Takes minimum of two people to lift it. Weighs 190 lbs.
post #32 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.
Um, there's really no contest as to which type of TV has better picture quality. It's not a matter of preference, it's quantifiable; color saturation, contrast ratio, and especially motion are all better on plasmas. LCD certainly has its advantages, but none of them are related to picture quality. And if anything's being overstated here, it's the performance of LCD vs plasma in bright rooms. I have the same TV you do btw.
post #33 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despos View Post
Saw a 50" Pioneer Elite at Costco in Glenview IL. today. Price was 2500.00.

FWIW, I watch a Tube (CRT) TV by Sony because I couldn't decide between the other options. Takes minimum of two people to lift it. Weighs 190 lbs.

I threw away a very old RCA 25" TV the other day, from 1989 or 1990... it weighed at least 50 lbs.
post #34 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
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.

God bless ya' for mentioning DLP. I loved my old Samsung DLP. 56 inches of movie watching joy. Yeah, my current Panasonic V10 Plasma has a better picture, live sports are much better and Blu Rays look unbelievable on it. But there's something theater-like about viewing on a DLP. You can get an enormous screen on the cheap. And the non-reflective matte screen of the DLP (with no bezzel) is something that added a totally underrated aspect to movie viewing. With the DLP, it felt like a mini-theater, whereas the awesome new plasma feels like a big, perfect television.


NOTE TO THOSE CONSIDERING PLASMA:
Someone mentioned that Panasonic is the new king of plasmas. Panasonic is currently under fire for what some are categorizing as an enormous screw-up. The incredible black levels that these plasmas are known for go bye-bye after a certain number of hours. In many cases, they double (or halve, however you want to say it). In other words, they go from incredible blacks, down to the black level performance of a 2008 mid-range LCD screen. Panasonic just acknowledged this and are claiming that this was intentional to extend the longevity of the set. However, they are fixing this in their 2010 models so that the change in black level performance is more gradual, rather than over-night.

Since CNET feels a little badly for rating this plasmas so highly and sky-rocketing their sales, they are posting Editor's Notes on all their Panasonic reviews with a link to Panasonic's explanation:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...?tag=mncol;txt

Lots of pissed off consumers out there. Okay, it's not all that bad as you need to have a blacked-out room to really notice the drop in performance. Not many of us actually have that environment. And it's still probably going to do everything else fantastically (color, for example), but still... we paid a premium for "Kuro-like black levels" and this is really disappointing.

The word on the street is that Panasonic's 2010 plasmas will also be using the Kuro tech that they purchased from Pioneer. Some of you may know that the Pioneer Kuro's were the best damn TVs on Earth, but were way too expensive for this economy. So if you are considering a plasma, I'd wait to see what Panasonic offers this Spring.
post #35 of 65
What's the deal with resolutions?

Obviously 1080P gets you the most pixels and has you ready for 1080p games and bluray but what if I don't watch bluray or own a system that can do 1080p?

I know that some of the networks broadcast 720P while others do 1080i. When I download TV shows, they come in with 720 lines (and I watch most TV this way). If I am going for a mid-sized set (32 or 37"), is it better to go 1080p and have to scale up all of the 720 content or go 720p and have to scale down the 1080i broadcast (which I don't really watch that much of).
post #36 of 65
Quote:
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.

Low lighting has always benefited TV viewing. For decades, people have been lowering the blinds, turning off the lights, etc. to reduce glare. Or am I just living in crazy world here?
post #37 of 65
The amount of effort people will expand to have maybe a marginally better image quality on the TV they use to watch their culturally inferior products always amazes me. Go to store, try a few tvs, read a few reviews, buy. Get a LCD not a Plasma cause your fat westerner ass already consumes so much energy it's a shame.
post #38 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post
What's the deal with resolutions?

Obviously 1080P gets you the most pixels and has you ready for 1080p games and bluray but what if I don't watch bluray or own a system that can do 1080p?

I know that some of the networks broadcast 720P while others do 1080i. When I download TV shows, they come in with 720 lines (and I watch most TV this way). If I am going for a mid-sized set (32 or 37"), is it better to go 1080p and have to scale up all of the 720 content or go 720p and have to scale down the 1080i broadcast (which I don't really watch that much of).

At 32-37", 720p will be fine at normal viewing distances. If you can get a better deal in contrast ratio or color performance with the low resolution, do it. Up/downconverting should be good enough in all current sets to handle network broadcasts or compressed video, which are low bandwidth streams.

However, if you're watching downloaded TV shows via computer, then I think the 1080i is a better choice, just for the computing resolution.
post #39 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post
What's the deal with resolutions? Obviously 1080P gets you the most pixels and has you ready for 1080p games and bluray but what if I don't watch bluray or own a system that can do 1080p? I know that some of the networks broadcast 720P while others do 1080i. When I download TV shows, they come in with 720 lines (and I watch most TV this way). If I am going for a mid-sized set (32 or 37"), is it better to go 1080p and have to scale up all of the 720 content or go 720p and have to scale down the 1080i broadcast (which I don't really watch that much of).
Agree with NYF. While content generally looks better at its native resolution, on 32"- 37" display, you probably will not see a difference from a few feet away. If you do plan to connect the display to your PC I would try to get the 1080 display for clearer text, etc. IMHO, 1080p is where all HD is slowly moving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD View Post
Low lighting has always benefited TV viewing. For decades, people have been lowering the blinds, turning off the lights, etc. to reduce glare. Or am I just living in crazy world here?
Given that CRTs were made of glass I'm sure people were trying to avoid reflections long before plasmas came along. A lot of the big ass crt rear-projection TVs popular in the '80s were pretty dim, IMO, and would look much better in a dark environment.
post #40 of 65
In order to get the best bang for the buck, you should do some more research by reading the expert reviews for various brands of televisions while comparing their respective LCD TV ratings as well. Just saying.
post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verno Inferno View Post
NOTE TO THOSE CONSIDERING PLASMA: Since CNET feels a little badly for rating this plasmas so highly and sky-rocketing their sales, they are posting Editor's Notes on all their Panasonic reviews with a link to Panasonic's explanation: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...?tag=mncol;txt The word on the street is that Panasonic's 2010 plasmas will also be using the Kuro tech that they purchased from Pioneer. Some of you may know that the Pioneer Kuro's were the best damn TVs on Earth, but were way too expensive for this economy. So if you are considering a plasma, I'd wait to see what Panasonic offers this Spring.
What a kick in the balls.... I was JUST getting ready to do all of my research & shopping around (with the Panasonic's preferably at the top of my list), and now we run into this. I went to the Audio/Video forum mentioned in the story, and now my eyes are glazed over and my head hurts (see user-name)! Seriously, though... what's the best way to stay on top of this (with information for the common man)? I was hoping to pull the trigger in the next couple of weeks, but could wait a bit if I had to. Oh, and BTW... nifty forum. Thanks again, guys.
post #42 of 65
Where are the bigtimers in this thread? Runco DLP Projector. That is all. Edit: Serious answer, I agree with Foo, rear projectors have incredible picture quality. I personally like Sony the best, but it has been years since I looked around at all the options.
post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despos View Post
Saw a 50" Pioneer Elite at Costco in Glenview IL. today. Price was 2500.00.

FWIW, I watch a Tube (CRT) TV by Sony because I couldn't decide between the other options. Takes minimum of two people to lift it. Weighs 190 lbs.

If it is a digital version of CRT you are getting the best picture available on the market. The only benefit of flat screens that they are flat and somewhat lighter. All flat screens loose in picture quality to cathode tube.

As far as LCD VS. Plasma ; well the universal success of LCD screens is a further proof that one should never try to copy what majority of humans are doing.

P.S. I have not looked at DLP TVs in a last 3 years and unless someone would tell me that they are better now than Pioneer plasmas I do not intend to look at them again.
post #44 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pezzaturra View Post
If it is a digital version of CRT you are getting the best picture available on the market. The only benefit of flat screens that they are flat and somewhat lighter. All flat screens loose in picture quality to cathode tube.

As far as LCD VS. Plasma ; well the universal success of LCD screens is a further proof that one should never try to copy what majority of humans are doing.

Except that they pretty much stopped making normal CRT hdtvs. Even when they did, they were flawed. I was considering getting an older one since I thought it would handle different resolutions (like a computer CRT can be many different resolutions). Turns out they don't...they just interpolate every input to native instead of jumping between resolutions.

I switched from CRT to LCD on the computer screen long ago and so has my father who is a professional photographer (where image quality is far more important than watching some DVDs). It took them a while to figure out how to make good LCDs bigger...but CRT is definately NOT the future.
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by dusty View Post
Um, there's really no contest as to which type of TV has better picture quality. It's not a matter of preference, it's quantifiable; color saturation, contrast ratio, and especially motion are all better on plasmas. LCD certainly has its advantages, but none of them are related to picture quality. And if anything's being overstated here, it's the performance of LCD vs plasma in bright rooms.
But it's not all quantifiable. Contrast ratios are more or less academic these days, like megapixel counts in digital cameras. Plasmas have blacker blacks in part because they are dimmer displays. There is no dispute that LCDs are brighter--that, of course, affects picture quality, particularly when you want to be able to watch TV without dimming the lights. And in a dim or dark room, why not just use a DLP?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verno Inferno View Post
God bless ya' for mentioning DLP. I loved my old Samsung DLP. 56 inches of movie watching joy. Yeah, my current Panasonic V10 Plasma has a better picture, live sports are much better and Blu Rays look unbelievable on it. But there's something theater-like about viewing on a DLP. You can get an enormous screen on the cheap. And the non-reflective matte screen of the DLP (with no bezzel) is something that added a totally underrated aspect to movie viewing. With the DLP, it felt like a mini-theater, whereas the awesome new plasma feels like a big, perfect television.
The failure of rear projection DLPs to catch-on is just further evidence that the mass market cares more about the sex appeal of a television's exterior than pure image quality. Most people don't take advantage of the form factor offered by LCDs and plasmas, merely standing them up where they used to put their tube sets, so it boggles me that they put so much value in slimness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verno Inferno View Post
However, they are fixing this in their 2010 models so that the change in black level performance is more gradual, rather than over-night.
Wait, so even the best plasmas will still degrade over time, just more gradually?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD View Post
Low lighting has always benefited TV viewing. For decades, people have been lowering the blinds, turning off the lights, etc. to reduce glare. Or am I just living in crazy world here?
No, you are right that low lighting benefits TV viewing across the board. However, my point is that the best plasma needs to be in a dimmer room in order to decidedly outperform the best LCD. I don't know about your personal experience, but I've never been accustomed to turning off the lights to watch regular television programming (movies are a different story).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
The amount of effort people will expand to have maybe a marginally better image quality on the TV they use to watch their culturally inferior products always amazes me. Go to store, try a few tvs, read a few reviews, buy. Get a LCD not a Plasma cause your fat westerner ass already consumes so much energy it's a shame.
Aww, come on--the most culturally inferior products are often those that benefit the most from superior technology! For example: Revenge of the Fallen on Blu-ray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post
Runco DLP Projector. That is all. Edit: Serious answer, I agree with Foo, rear projectors have incredible picture quality. I personally like Sony the best, but it has been years since I looked around at all the options.
I think Samsung was making the best DLP sets. They had the most advanced chips from Texas Instruments and used the most gorgeous matte screens. I love our Sharp LCD, but movie viewing was more special on our old DLP.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Plasma vs. LCD vs. LED?