LCD vs Plasma

[medjuck]

I keep reading about the differences between the 2 but no ones seems to say defintively which is best. Also is there a good monitor with no receiver or speakers available?

[LennyH]

If someone said definitively which is the best I'd say they are full of crap.

There are pros and cons to each technology and each person should weigh them and decide which works best for them.

I chose LCD rear projection a few years back and will most likely go direct view LCD next time, but it's too early to tell. LCD was my preference but it might not be yours (The weakness of LCDs is the black level and black detail).

Do you need or prefer flat panel? That might be the first question to answer.

Edited November 30, 2006 by LennyH

[.:.impossible]

I was told last week by a legit source that Canon (Canon?) is going to be introducing a technology within the next 8 months that will make both obsolete. I have not done any research on this, but... does this sound realistic?

[sal]

I've seen pleanty of HD programing in both plasma and LCD, and my preference definitely leans towards LCD. However, I think Sony's SXRD, which is a form of rear projection LCD (I think), has the finest picture I've ever seen.

[LennyH]

I think Sony's SXRD, which is a form of rear projection LCD (I think), has the finest picture I've ever seen.

The hard part, I think, is that the "finest picture" is a very elusive thing. You'd really need to bring all of the TVs home and tune them to see what they can do. My Sony looks light years better than it did out of the box and it took hours to get it that way. I bought a 20" LCD a year or so ago and sat it next to my Sony to tune it. It was horrible out of the box. The colors were so far off...pink was showing up as orange, etc.

It's a mess because they set these TVs are set up for the sole purpose of getting your attention. And most people bring them home and don't spend the time to get them right.

[RDK]

If someone said definitively which is the best I'd say they are full of crap.

There are pros and cons to each technology and each person should weigh them and decide which works best for them.

I chose LCD rear projection a few years back and will most likely go direct view LCD next time, but it's too early to tell. LCD was my preference but it might not be yours (The weakness of LCDs is the black level and black detail).

Do you need or prefer flat panel? That might be the first question to answer.

What Lenny said. I'll add that unless you're planning to hang it on the wall, you might do better with a rear projection set (either LCD, DLP, or LCOS) than with a flat panel Plasma or LCD (though personally I prefer plasma). I'm extremely happy with a 56" Sammy DLP that I recently bought for $1500.

[sidewinder]

I went for a 42" Panasonic Viera plasma and am pretty happy with it.

Edited November 30, 2006 by sidewinder

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I'm agonizing over this very thing right now.

Rear projection TV, especially Sony's SXRD set, can have great pictrure quality. However, their off-axis viewing, both vertical & horizontal, leave much to be desired. They all suffer it to some degree and many truly stink unless you're sitting dead center in front of the thing.

To me, here's the differences between LCD and plasma.

LCD

Pluses

1) No burn-in - LCD can burn in images; I've done it on a PC monitor at work. But it takes much much longer than a plasma.

2) No reflections in a brightly-lit room

3) Less power than a plasma

4) No burn-in - Watch 4:3 SD channels with side bars

5) Long life - Replaceable back-lighting can extend the TV's life

6) No burn-in - Play games with static images without worry.

7) Beautiful picture

8) Can be used as a PC monitor.

9) Decent viewing angle - Maybe > 100 degrees off axis and you still have a good picture. Not great, but watchable.

10) No burn-in - Did I mention burn-in?

Minuses

1) Poor pixel response time - Even with today's 4-8 ms response time, I still see "motion blur" in every LCD TV today. This is particularly annoying with sports. Watch the sidelines during a football game. They blur on LCD. They shouldn't.

2) Poor blacks - Blacks look "gray", particularly in a dark room. The darker the room, the more the backlight has to work, lightening the overall picture, including "black".

Plasma

Pluses

1) Beautiful picture - Truly amazing picture on many of these TVs.

2) No motion blur - Although some people can see another artifact, which I think is from plasma's "pixel shifting", that can annoy them as much as motion blur

3) Great off-axis picture. Just like a CRT TV. You can still see the picture even if you're 179 degrees off axis.

Minuses

1) Burn-in - Although the latest sets have nearly eliminated this problem, you still have to run the set for about 100-200 hours with a constantly changing screen.

2) Power hog - Most plasmas use about 1/3 more power than the same size LCD. In the size I'm looking (46"-50"), the Pioneer 5070 is very good, using only 351 Watts. The Panasonic plasmas are above 500 Watts.

3) Glare - Glass screen. Reflections in a brightly lit room can be distracting.

4) Not good for gaming - Burn-in potential

5) Life - ? Supposedly, they've upped the life expectency of plasma to 60,000 hours. The thing is, by then the phosphors will be so dim, who would want to watch the thing? You can't recharge a plasma screen.

I go back & forth between the Pioneer 5070 plasma (5071 at Best Buy) and the Mitsubishi LT-46131 LCD. Motion blur annoys me a lot. I watch a lot of football. I am going to go watch some football on the Mitsu to see how bad the motion blur is. If it's as bad as it has been on the Sony, Sharp & Samsung LCDs, I'll likely go with the Pioneer plasma.

BTW, regarding your inquiry about a "pure" monitor. This seems popular in the plasma industry, but not so in the LCD world. Almost all the LCDs are TVs.

Kevin

Edited November 30, 2006 by Kevin Bresnahan

[.:.impossible]

Here's a link on the Canon technology. I thought Toshiba was going to be marketing this, but didn't want to say anything until I found more info.

SED Next Generation Flat Screen Technology

My source, who used to teach lighting at SCAD, was able to spend a few hours with one of these sets and mentioned that all of the cons above were non-existent. His advice: if you are in the market for a large flat panel television, wait.

[RDK]

Yeah, but SED's have been in development for years - and promised to us for years now - and have yet to be delivered. The goods may still be a few years away, and it will likely be costly for the first few generations.

Seriously, though, I've found that most of the problems listed for any of the HDTV technologies are really pretty minor. Burn-in of plasmas is much less of an issue than before, and taking only minor precautions (such as not watching CNN or playing the same video game permanently) should aleviate them. And the "poor" contrast criticism of LCDs is overstated as well. Yes, it's not as good as plasma or DLP, but a properly set up HDTV with a good signal in "real world" viewing conditions should deliver a great picture. There are subtle differences, of course, but like auditioning speakers, it might be easier to notice a difference than decide which look you prefer.

For me, the biggest difference between plasma and DLP - which led me to buy a DLP even though I initially wanted a "sexier" flat-screen plasma - was due to the much less reflective DLP screen. When I saw them side by side, and saw how reflective the glass screen was on the plasma, it really changed my mind. I've compared it to the difference between a "matte" and "glossy" photo print. The glass/glossy plasma may be better in the right conditions in darkened rooms, but in my living room, with windows and various light sources, the non-glare DLP screen looks much better.

[kh1958]

I just bought a Mistubishi 57 inch DLP (1080P) model, and I must say that I am very happy with it. With a good DVD, the picture is just great--really fabulous. The only viewing issue I have is that if you are standing and looking down at the screen, the picture quality is diminished, but I solve that issue by sitting down. I am glad that I stopped waiting for a better technology to come out--this one is really good.

[porcy62]

Let me tell you one thing, and I am speaking as professional film and video editor. None of the today's LCD or Plasma monitors can reach the definition, the realism and the quality of good catode tube monitor. When I check my final work for broadcasting I do it on a professional Sony catode tube monitor, 15 inch, that cost twice the price of the best flat screen you can find on consumer market. So if you HAVE TO buy a flat screen, do it, I understand all the facilities that a flat screen has compared to a bulky cathode tube. If you HAVE TO buy a biggest TV, buy it, I know that manufacturers deleted from their catalog cathode tube bigger then 17 inch. BUT if you don't need a new TV, just wait. Technology is running fast, companies put huge amount of money in the field. Flat screen IS the THING now. Maybe we will have some pleasant surprise in the next future.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Let me tell you one thing, and I am speaking as professional film and video editor. None of the today's LCD or Plasma monitors can reach the definition, the realism and the quality of good catode tube monitor. When I check my final work for broadcasting I do it on a professional Sony catode tube monitor, 15 inch, that cost twice the price of the best flat screen you can find on consumer market. So if you HAVE TO buy a flat screen, do it, I understand all the facilities that a flat screen has compared to a bulky cathode tube. If you HAVE TO buy a biggest TV, buy it, I know that manufacturers deleted from their catalog cathode tube bigger then 17 inch. BUT if you don't need a new TV, just wait. Technology is running fast, companies put huge amount of money in the field. Flat screen IS the THING now. Maybe we will have some pleasant surprise in the next future.

I have a 36" Sony 4:3 CRT XBR TV now. I've become an HD junkie. I watch it almost exclusively. Georgeous picture. Unfortunately, the 16:9 picture is only 33" diagonal. It's big, but I want bigger.

The biggest 16:9 CRT TV ever made (and still being made) is a 34" by Sony. When you pillar box a 4:3 show, it's 22" diagonal. Microscopic.

BTW, Sony still makes a non-XBR 4:3 36" diagonal CRT. If you don't need or want one bigger, it's a great bargain at less than $900. Be aware that it weighs 216 lbs (75 kg)!

Kevin

[porcy62]

Let me tell you one thing, and I am speaking as professional film and video editor. None of the today's LCD or Plasma monitors can reach the definition, the realism and the quality of good catode tube monitor. When I check my final work for broadcasting I do it on a professional Sony catode tube monitor, 15 inch, that cost twice the price of the best flat screen you can find on consumer market. So if you HAVE TO buy a flat screen, do it, I understand all the facilities that a flat screen has compared to a bulky cathode tube. If you HAVE TO buy a biggest TV, buy it, I know that manufacturers deleted from their catalog cathode tube bigger then 17 inch. BUT if you don't need a new TV, just wait. Technology is running fast, companies put huge amount of money in the field. Flat screen IS the THING now. Maybe we will have some pleasant surprise in the next future.

I have a 36" Sony 4:3 CRT XBR TV now. I've become an HD junkie. I watch it almost exclusively. Georgeous picture. Unfortunately, the 16:9 picture is only 33" diagonal. It's big, but I want bigger.

The biggest 16:9 CRT TV ever made (and still being made) is a 34" by Sony. When you pillar box a 4:3 show, it's 22" diagonal. Microscopic.

BTW, Sony still makes a non-XBR 4:3 36" diagonal CRT. If you don't need or want one bigger, it's a great bargain at less than $900. Be aware that it weighs 216 lbs (75 kg)!

Kevin

I didn't look at your particular model yet, I was talking about my professional experience. (BTW the Pro Sony monitor is 17'', sorry for the mistake)

BTW in Italy it's almost impossible to have a look at CTR bigger then 17" in any shop. So I presumed they didn't produce them anymore.

Anyway, in the broacasting the bigger is the depht of the monitor, the better is the accuracy. Since I am not a physician I haven't got any explanation for it.

And when I was looking for a new TV for my new house, I saw a lots of flat screen models, and nothing that justified their costs, compared to quality.

Edited November 30, 2006 by porcy62

[Jazzmoose]

I've never dropped plasma; what's it like?

[Jazzmoose]

Oh, wait...I've got to get new reading glasses.

[Claude]

And when I was looking for a new TV for my new house, I saw a lots of flat screen models, and nothing that justified their costs, compared to quality.

Picture quality does not seem to be the most important factor for many buyers. Most people just want a large and flat screen.

For that reason, companies usually offer screens in different price ranges. For example, Sony has 5 different 40" LCDs, from $1500-4000. The difference is in the picture quality, the technical features and the design. The cheap models usually have the technology from the previous generation.

[porcy62]

And when I was looking for a new TV for my new house, I saw a lots of flat screen models, and nothing that justified their costs, compared to quality.

Picture quality does not seem to be the most important factor for many buyers. Most people just want a large and flat screen.

For that reason, companies usually offer screens in different price ranges. For example, Sony has 5 different 40" LCDs, from $1500-4000. The difference is in the picture quality, the technical features and the design. The cheap models usually have the technology from the previous generation.

For 4K I would prefer get one or two of that infamous 'Lexington' pressings that pop up on eBay.

[etherbored]

am i the only one who can't see porcy's avatar...?

-e-

[J Larsen]

I think Sony's SXRD, which is a form of rear projection LCD (I think), has the finest picture I've ever seen.

The hard part, I think, is that the "finest picture" is a very elusive thing. You'd really need to bring all of the TVs home and tune them to see what they can do. My Sony looks light years better than it did out of the box and it took hours to get it that way. I bought a 20" LCD a year or so ago and sat it next to my Sony to tune it. It was horrible out of the box. The colors were so far off...pink was showing up as orange, etc.

It's a mess because they set these TVs are set up for the sole purpose of getting your attention. And most people bring them home and don't spend the time to get them right.

Yep, I wasted a whole Saturday a few weeks ago setting up my Sony LCD. There are so many poorly and unexplained features in the new models it is ridiculous. I found that turning them all off is a pretty good start. There are DVDs out on the market designed to help you calibrate the color and brightness settings. I haven't used them, although I found the brightness adjustment test that Lynch added on as a bonus feature to the Eraserhead DVD to be helpful.

[porcy62]

am i the only one who can't see porcy's avatar...?

-e-

Nor do I, but actually I haven't any avatar. My latest one was lost in the one of the server's disaster some times ago, when I lost a lot of posts in the counter. You may say I was reduced in rank by The Big Digital Demon.

[etherbored]

well please do something to correct that.

i found your last one to be quite evocative and i always enjoyed finding your posts alongside our cigar-chomping friend...

-e-

[porcy62]

well please do something to correct that.

i found your last one to be quite evocative and i always enjoyed finding your posts alongside our cigar-chomping friend...

-e-

May you please remember me if it was the Corto Maltese's picture?

[erhodes]

I think Sony's SXRD, which is a form of rear projection LCD (I think), has the finest picture I've ever seen.

The hard part, I think, is that the "finest picture" is a very elusive thing. You'd really need to bring all of the TVs home and tune them to see what they can do. My Sony looks light years better than it did out of the box and it took hours to get it that way. I bought a 20" LCD a year or so ago and sat it next to my Sony to tune it. It was horrible out of the box. The colors were so far off...pink was showing up as orange, etc.

It's a mess because they set these TVs are set up for the sole purpose of getting your attention. And most people bring them home and don't spend the time to get them right.

Yep, I wasted a whole Saturday a few weeks ago setting up my Sony LCD. There are so many poorly and unexplained features in the new models it is ridiculous. I found that turning them all off is a pretty good start. There are DVDs out on the market designed to help you calibrate the color and brightness settings. I haven't used them, although I found the brightness adjustment test that Lynch added on as a bonus feature to the Eraserhead DVD to be helpful.

I'm glad to see I'm not alone.

Just bought a 42" lcd (flat) for a ridiculous price. The manual is 74 pages and one of those things that has been...ah...poorly translated. But the tv must have 25 menus. There's are separate color adjustments for red, green, and blue at 6500 (I assume this is degrees) and 9300 (or 6300 and 9500), plus the usual color, saturation, and tint controls. Many of the picture adjustements are not in the picture menu. And, yes, a lot of unexplained features have a factory default of "on" and it's not at all clear what they are doing.

I was almost dispairing of getting this one adjusted until I read these posts. Many thanks for the commiseration.

[erhodes]

Let me tell you one thing, and I am speaking as professional film and video editor. None of the today's LCD or Plasma monitors can reach the definition, the realism and the quality of good catode tube monitor. When I check my final work for broadcasting I do it on a professional Sony catode tube monitor, 15 inch, that cost twice the price of the best flat screen you can find on consumer market. So if you HAVE TO buy a flat screen, do it, I understand all the facilities that a flat screen has compared to a bulky cathode tube. If you HAVE TO buy a biggest TV, buy it, I know that manufacturers deleted from their catalog cathode tube bigger then 17 inch. BUT if you don't need a new TV, just wait. Technology is running fast, companies put huge amount of money in the field. Flat screen IS the THING now. Maybe we will have some pleasant surprise in the next future.

OTOH...

I had a 32 inch Sony CRT. It was so heavy that my 6'2" weight lifting, body building nephew could not easily lift it. The sound card died after the warranty was up. My local tv repair shop came to get it. Took two hefty guys to get it out of the basement. Some time after they bought it it back, it fell...FELL...on one of my Maggie 1.6's and broke the frame. I had to buy a new box and take half a day off from work to ship the speaker back to Magnapan (they were able to fix it). Then the sound card died on the tv again. I literally paid two guys to take the thing out of my basement. I didn't want to see it...

To each his own, I know, but I'm never buying another crt. Quite some time ago I had experience with a professional monitor, so I have a small sense of what porcy62 describes but I would also say that it has almost nothing to do with the reality of what you can buy in a store. I have 3 lcd flat panels and they all deliver a better picture in my house than any of my Sony crt's...and I had both a 32" and 27".

The motion blur piece that Lenny describes is real, though. I see it on all of my lcd's. I'm distressed to hear that plasmas don't suffer from this, though I think I have seen that pixelated effect on some plasmas in stores. Never was sure how much of that was the tv and how much was the signal because a bad signal will generate something similar on an lcd. I stayed away from plasmas because of the durability, longevity, and burn-in issues. I was very concerned about the last since, in my area there are only 8-10 viable hi def channels and I watch everything else in 4:3 mode...so I don't want 4:3 burn in. I will say, though, that the best picture I have seen in a store was either a Panasonic or Pioneer plasma. Incredible detail on a 46"-50" display, even a foot from the screen. But I'm thinking 3K...way over my pay grade. And I'd have been pissed if it died or burned in before I figure I got my money's worth.

I paid $800 for a 42" lcd with an 8ms display (I'm ashame to admit I hit the stores on Black Friday)...and I don't watch that much football. If I can ever get the damn thing adjusted...