Plasma vs. LCD vs. LED?

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

  1. Despos

    Despos Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    1,114
    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.
     


  2. dusty

    dusty Senior member

    Messages:
    4,859
    Likes Received:
    20
    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.
     


  3. imageWIS

    imageWIS Senior member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Likes Received:
    97
    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.
     


  4. Verno Inferno

    Verno Inferno Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     


  5. otc

    otc Senior member

    Messages:
    14,510
    Likes Received:
    4,136
    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).
     


  6. Brian SD

    Brian SD Moderator

    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    122
    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?
     


  7. Fuuma

    Fuuma Franchouillard Modasse

    Messages:
    25,918
    Likes Received:
    10,529
    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.
     


  8. brimley

    brimley Senior member

    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    9
    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.
     


  9. Dmax

    Dmax Senior member

    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    6
    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.
     


  10. elruoy

    elruoy New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     


  11. AdderallJack

    AdderallJack New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Location:
    the 'burbs
    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.
     


  12. origenesprit

    origenesprit Senior member

    Messages:
    3,685
    Likes Received:
    388
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Location:
    On the good ship Serenity
    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.
     


  13. Pezzaturra

    Pezzaturra Senior member

    Messages:
    1,616
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Location:
    United States of Albania
    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.
     


  14. otc

    otc Senior member

    Messages:
    14,510
    Likes Received:
    4,136
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    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.
     


  15. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,843
    Likes Received:
    2,053
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    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?
    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.
    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?
    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).
    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.
    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.
     


Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by