1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Plasma vs. LCD vs. LED?

Discussion in 'Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto' started by BrianVarick, Feb 4, 2010.

  1. Trip English

    Trip English New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    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.
     
  2. Brian SD

    Brian SD Senior member

    Messages:
    9,760
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Location:
    Tokyo
    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.
     
  3. Concordia

    Concordia Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    5,778
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    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.
     
  4. Manton

    Manton Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    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.
     
  5. Concordia

    Concordia Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    5,778
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    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.
     
  6. poorsod

    poorsod Senior member

    Messages:
    4,057
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    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.
     
  7. imageWIS

    imageWIS Senior member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    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.
     
  8. mafoofan

    mafoofan Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,795
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    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.
    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.
    Understatement of the century.
    In the sense that I'm very right or very wrong? [​IMG]
     
  9. Dmax

    Dmax Senior member

    Messages:
    1,302
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    People's Republic of the Five Boroughs
    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".
    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.
     
  10. imageWIS

    imageWIS Senior member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    In the sense that I'm very right or very wrong? [​IMG]

    Very right.
     
  11. Despos

    Despos Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    6,102
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    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.
     
  12. dusty

    dusty Senior member

    Messages:
    4,859
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Location:
    ohio
    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.
     
  13. imageWIS

    imageWIS Senior member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    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.
     
  14. Verno Inferno

    Verno Inferno Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    88
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    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.
     
  15. otc

    otc Senior member

    Messages:
    14,213
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    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).
     
  16. Brian SD

    Brian SD Senior member

    Messages:
    9,760
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Location:
    Tokyo
    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?
     
  17. Fuuma

    Fuuma Senior member

    Messages:
    25,818
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    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.
     
  18. brimley

    brimley Senior member

    Messages:
    793
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    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.
     
  19. Dmax

    Dmax Senior member

    Messages:
    1,302
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    People's Republic of the Five Boroughs
    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.
    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.
     
  20. elruoy

    elruoy New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    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.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by