Plasma vs. lcd

[Stu]

Hey:

I am looking at TVs and from what I've seen, LCD is a better bargain than plasma. Saw an Hitachi 50-inch LCD today for about $2,500.

I also saw something called LCOS, which means Liquid Cristal On Silicone projection. Is that the same as LCD, or better/worse?

What specs should I look for in buying a high-end TV?  I see things like "16:9 projection," "accepts 1080i signal," etc. Can anyone fill me in on this stuff?

 

[kalra2411]

Hey:

I am looking at TVs and from what I've seen, LCD is a better bargain than plasma. Saw an Hitachi 50-inch LCD today for about $2,500.

I also saw something called LCOS, which means Liquid Cristal On Silicone projection. Is that the same as LCD, or better/worse?

What specs should I look for in buying a high-end TV?  I see things like "16:9 projection," "accepts 1080i signal," etc. Can anyone fill me in on this stuff?

LCD is supposed to be better, but I have Plasmas, because I bought early.

You should definatily get HDTV, you cannot get it in the UK, but it is supposed to be very good.

 

[VMan]

Stu, I think the 50" LCD part is confusing me a bit. If it cost $2,500, it must not have been a flat-panel LCD monitor? I'll just assume it was an LCD projection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll try to lay some points down. I think that LCOS is a term used to describe LCD projection TVs - basically a projection TV with a higher-quality image due to the LCD factor. The image would be extra-high quality with an added 'LSD' factor (

sarcastic). An LCD panel TV is much different - basically it resembles a smaller plasma flat-panel TV and has an ultra-sharp image. The image quality is higher than a plasma TV, but the only problem is that a 30" flat panel LCD is the same price (roughly) as a 50" plasma. 16:9 is just an aspect ratio, basically it is wide-screen, like a screen at a movie theatre. At home, we've got a high-definition (HDTV) widescreen (16:9 aspect ratio) 60" LCD projection TV, and the picture is amazing. The picture quality on this TV is higher than a non-high-def plasma TV (but it's not as good as a high-def plasma).

 

[kalra2411]

Stu, I think the 50" LCD part is confusing me a bit. Â If it cost $2,500, it must not have been a flat-panel LCD monitor? Â I'll just assume it was an LCD projection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll try to lay some points down. Â I think that LCOS is a term used to describe LCD projection TVs - basically a projection TV with a higher-quality image due to the LCD factor. Â The image would be extra-high quality with an added 'LSD' factor ( Â

 sarcastic).  An LCD panel TV is much different - basically it resembles a smaller plasma flat-panel TV and has an ultra-sharp image.  The image quality is higher than a plasma TV, but the only problem is that a 30" flat panel LCD is the same price (roughly) as a 50" plasma. 16:9 is just an aspect ratio, basically it is wide-screen, like a screen at a movie theatre. At home, we've got a high-definition (HDTV) widescreen (16:9 aspect ratio) 60" LCD projection TV, and the picture is amazing.  The picture quality on this TV is higher than a non-high-def plasma TV (but it's not as good as a high-def plasma).

Good point, it must be a rear projection, a LCD flat panel would cost a lot more.

 

[VMan]

Quote:

(VersaceMan @ 21 July 2004, 6:42) Stu, I think the 50" LCD part is confusing me a bit. Â If it cost $2,500, it must not have been a flat-panel LCD monitor? Â I'll just assume it was an LCD projection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll try to lay some points down. Â I think that LCOS is a term used to describe LCD projection TVs - basically a projection TV with a higher-quality image due to the LCD factor. Â The image would be extra-high quality with an added 'LSD' factor ( Â

 sarcastic).  An LCD panel TV is much different - basically it resembles a smaller plasma flat-panel TV and has an ultra-sharp image.  The image quality is higher than a plasma TV, but the only problem is that a 30" flat panel LCD is the same price (roughly) as a 50" plasma. 16:9 is just an aspect ratio, basically it is wide-screen, like a screen at a movie theatre. At home, we've got a high-definition (HDTV) widescreen (16:9 aspect ratio) 60" LCD projection TV, and the picture is amazing.  The picture quality on this TV is higher than a non-high-def plasma TV (but it's not as good as a high-def plasma).
Good point, it must be a rear projection, a LCD flat panel would cost a lot more.
Yeah, a 50" flat-panel LCD would be a hell of a lot more than $2500. I do not know if it is even possible to manufacture one that large - the largest I've seen at this point is in the 30-something inch range.

 

[kalra2411]

Quote:

(kalra2411 @ 21 July 2004, 1:08)

Originally Posted by VersaceMan,21 July 2004, 6:42

Stu, I think the 50" LCD part is confusing me a bit. Â If it cost $2,500, it must not have been a flat-panel LCD monitor? Â I'll just assume it was an LCD projection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll try to lay some points down. Â I think that LCOS is a term used to describe LCD projection TVs - basically a projection TV with a higher-quality image due to the LCD factor. Â The image would be extra-high quality with an added 'LSD' factor ( Â

 sarcastic).  An LCD panel TV is much different - basically it resembles a smaller plasma flat-panel TV and has an ultra-sharp image.  The image quality is higher than a plasma TV, but the only problem is that a 30" flat panel LCD is the same price (roughly) as a 50" plasma. 16:9 is just an aspect ratio, basically it is wide-screen, like a screen at a movie theatre. At home, we've got a high-definition (HDTV) widescreen (16:9 aspect ratio) 60" LCD projection TV, and the picture is amazing.  The picture quality on this TV is higher than a non-high-def plasma TV (but it's not as good as a high-def plasma).
Good point, it must be a rear projection, a LCD flat panel would cost a lot more.
Yeah, a 50" flat-panel LCD would be a hell of a lot more than $2500. Â I do not know if it is even possible to manufacture one that large - the largest I've seen at this point is in the 30-something inch range.
I once saw a 52" LCD, but I think it is for commercial use only.

 

[kalra2411]

Also, LCD Flat panels cost more than Plasmas.

 

[imageWIS]

Interestingly enough, HDTV has existed since the early 90's, but it was not made available by the broadcast media until recently, plus only a few top-of-the-line TV's came with HDTV compatibility.

If I remember correctly (I could be wrong) HDTV was partially made to enhance the performance of Laserdiscs, but since that particular media came and went as fast as Betamax, HDTV was then adopted to more conventional broadcasts, like cable and satellite transmissions.

Jon.

 

[HRHAndrew]

I am looking at TVs and from what I've seen, LCD is a better bargain than plasma. Saw an Hitachi 50-inch LCD today for about $2,500.

There are a couple things to consider.
1)Space considerations.
2)Budget/TV Size.
3)Signal.

With point one. LCD tv's get very hot when operated, and really shouldn't put in an enclosed space. Plasmas do not run as hot, but still should not be in an enclosed space.

On budget, for the 50" LCD at $2500. You could get a far superior HDTV Projection at that same price. For instance you could probably get a 53" Mitsubishi Diamond Vision HDTV CRT Rear Projection for about the same price, and it would blow any LCD or Plasma out of the water. Kind of like suits, do you want best quality, or the newest thing?

TTHe signal you are going to use is the most important factor. If you are getting HD service either from a dish or cable, than points one and two are the important factors. If you are just going to be using standard cable or dish, save the cash until prices drop as you will not be using the sets to their capabilities. As with all electronics, the price is dropping so I don't advocate making the plunge unless you are getting and HDTV feed.

 

[HRHAndrew]

Sorry, forgot about the specs. It has to be 1080i/720p. HD Ready is not HDTV and you would need a receiver. As for the 16:9, I don't think you can by a HDTV in 4:3 anymore. Any other specific questions, just ask.

 

[Stu]

Thanks Guys: Here is the TV I saw for $2,500 in my Sunday paper. What do you all think?

 

[TomW]

If I remember correctly (I could be wrong) HDTV was partially made to enhance the performance of Laserdiscs, but since that particular media came and went as fast as Betamax, HDTV was then adopted to more conventional broadcasts, like cable and satellite transmissions.

Jon.

Laserdisc lasted significantly longer than Betamax. Laserdiscs were introduced in 1978 or 79 and were continually manufactured until 2002 and only died due to the widespread adoption of DVD as that technology became relatively inexpensive. Laserdisc was always a very expensive niche market, but it so superior to VHS it was amazing. Large format TVs weren't widely available or affordable during the heyday of Laserdisc which meant most people could not see enough of an improvement over VHS on their 21-27" TV to justify the higher price.

 

[NavyStyles]

Stu,

That's a nice model in the link. I highly advise going with LCD, which apparently you are. Plasmas tend to "burn" images onto their screens if you leave the same thing showing for too long (ie, pause a DVD or video game). This ruins pixels to a non-repairable state.

 

[BjornH]

One surprise to watch out for is that some LCD screens run so hot that they require an internal fan to keep them cool so you end up with a fan noise all the time while watching tv. Also, look out for the viewing angle of the screen and the contrast (or brightness) ratio when compairing models.

I've always thought that one gets better viewing angles and contrast with plasma screens but I haven't been following this lately so I could be wrong.

B

 

[DSKent]

Interestingly enough, HDTV has existed since the early 90's, but it was not made available by the broadcast media until recently, plus only a few top-of-the-line TV's came with HDTV compatibility.

The Japanese company NHK actually started developing the technology in the early 1970s and the first demonstration was, I believe, with CBS in 1981. Â The reason it hasn't caught on until now is because it took quite a while for the FCC to decide on one of the half-dozen or so standards that were out there and how to best implement it. Â So, broadcasters had the technology, it was just stupid for them to use it until they knew what standard the FCC was going to require them to use. NHK is already working on the next generation of television broadcast technology, but if the FCC proceeds as usual, it could very well be another 30 years until we have to upgrade again. Â All the years mentioned above are from memory, so there is probably a +/- 3 year margin of error