Slashdot Mirror
Plasma or LCD?
WeeBit asks: "I saw a news article on why you should buy Plasma instead of LCD TV's. It just sparked my interest. Flat panel TV's have the market now, and our analog TV's are on their way out. I am sure many will be thinking of purchasing their new flat panel within the next couple years. Have you given this any thought? Panasonic, has been pushing ads that sell the consumer on the plasma TV's over the LCD's. Is this a good argument, or is it just hype? Which do you prefer Plasma or LCD? Why?"
Screen burn. I play console games. New plasmas attempt to mask the dammage by doing an entire screen burn - which reduces brightness. That isn't a fix.
My old CRT TV from 1983 won't be replaced until it fails!
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
Boy, this could not be more timely.... /.ers, I have a few $K burning a hole in my pocket, what should it be?????????
Come on
I presume that there is some amount of "we spent all this damn money making all this capacity to manufacture plasma, so we better recover that investment as much as we can". My assumption is that between plasma and LCD, LCD is going to win. If you believe that and you manufacture both, push plasma as much as possible to cut your losses, and LCD will take care of itself.
Panasonic are the best manufacturer of Plasma displays, bar just about none. Even those painfully expensive Bang & Olufsen plasmas are Panasonic panels with upgraded processing components and a nice box.
Meanwhile, their current range of LCDs aren't that great, and are generally considered to be, if anything, worse than their previous generation (they're cheaper to make, though). They're losing market share hand over fist to Sony right now.
Exactly how unbiased do you think a press release from them extolling the virtues of Plasma are going to be? Roughly as much as the one explaining why you should buy one of their Blu-Ray players, instead of Toshiba's HD-DVD, really.
Personally, I think both technologies have their place. Plasma really comes into its own at 50" and larger sizes, where LCD's finer dot-pitch is less of an issue, and you can't even get a decent-value plasma below 42" - the rare 37" ones are ludicrously overpriced in comparison to LCD. But Panasonic are definitely over-selling Plasma in their marketing.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
I was going to write up a quick bit about this, but then I realized that someone probably already has. Sure enough, second hit for "Plasma vs lcd": http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/lcd-vs-plasm a.asp
They've already covered what I was going to say, and more.
Bottom line: Neither is superior in all ways. Pick the things that matter to you.
For price, game performance, creen quality give me a nice 21" - 24" CRT
Ok so they are heavy and take up a lot of space... I have a big desk and work out - its not an issue.
For the living room? Well given the choice I'll go for a couple of projectors, a media linux box and a remote control for the curtains and the screen.
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
For a TV to be good, it needs to actually look good with a broad variety of programs -- everything from HDTV to VHS tapes. The modern plasma set handles most everything, delivering consistently crisp pictures with a smooth contrast range and clean, vivid colors, IMO. The only thing I miss is greater shadow depth, but I've had the same experience with many other plasma TVs in the past. Interestingly, shadow depth was an area where the LCD shined -- that and its incredibly bright image, which retained good contrast even with the lights turned on. But compared with the plasma, the LCD's picture lacks subtlety.
So the bottom line: it's just a matter of taste: There are incredibly good Plasma TVs that could be outshine by an even better LCD or viceversa. I *generally* prefer plasma image, though.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Why not go for a CRT?
... but make sure you do what's right for you, not just what's modern.
There are still solid players on the CRT market, and apart from the form factor, there is nothing they can't do as well as the modern LCD/Plasma screens.
Gone are the days of insane power needs, gone are the days of 50Hz tellies.
Yet to come are the days of SED TV and even lower power needs, and there will always be that next thing coming up real soon now (tm).
If you have a modest amount of money, you get far more quality in the form of a high-end CRT than a mid-end LCD. (If you have oodles of money, nothing of this post applies to you...)
I'm not saying boo to NEW tech; I'm just saying that it is still VERY new tech, and the curve of improvement over time is still quite steep. Spend your money how you like
"Good news, everyone!"
Today, Plasma sets and LCD TV's are both pretty much the same in terms of quality. The only problems with Plasmas that I see are that they weigh a ton and are more fragile than LCD's but if you're not worried about dropping one it probably wont make much difference which one you'd choose.
Personally I'd go with LCD for reasons above but also because I believe that the technology has more longevity than Plasma. LCD screens are used in just about every device with a display these days - phones, desktops, portable media players, etc. and there's a lot of it about which means the cost of common materials comes down. Plasma tech on the other hand, as far as I know, is only used in TV sets.
Go for 1080p too, if possible!
"Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
...that wasn't mentioned explicitly in that list - but it should have. There's a clear win for LCD's there.
In Europe, a region of the earth were people have to pay a bit more for their electricity, this has proven to be a big plus in the selling of LCD TV's. People don't want to pay a fortune to run the TV's. And as that also makes the LCD market bigger, they should prove cheaper in the longer run. My vote is on LCD.
I'd pick LCDs unless I had a specific reason to go for something really big and yet there's still room for improvement. LCDs can't properly display dark areas and they're still a bit too expensive.
Plasma TVs still use phosphors to emit colored light, just like CRTs. This is the reason they're so prone to burn-in. The upcoming SED displays will also use phosphors. I say, no more phosphors!
LCD, LCoS, and DLP use filters to emit colored light rather than phosphors. There's no chance of burn-in with any of these technologies. I for one prefer my DLP rear-projection TV to any LCD or plasma flat-panel on the market today. I don't care to hang my TV on a wall, and the depth of LCD, LCoS, and DLP projection TVs are a mere fraction of older CRT-based RPTVs. While these technologies do have their problems (dead pixels, thicker form factor, rainbow effect on DLPs), to me they show much more promise than any phosphor-based technology currently or yet-to-be available.
Down with phosphors! No more burn-in!
There's a reason Panasonic are pushing Plasmas: That's their main market. If you want a Plasma, go for Panasonic, whereas you're best to go with Samsumg for LCD. It doesn't make them unbiased just because they do make a few LCDs too.
You can tell how useless their claims are when they come with shit like "LCD's are all right in kitchens", or that LCD's "cannot reproduce the full range of colors in a HDTV broadcast".
Then they come with some blatently false claims such as that Plasma's are environmentally freindly (they are the biggest electricity-guzzlers in consumer-electronics history), or that Plasmas have better viewing angles.
LCD's don't fade with time, and don't suffer from burn in. That's good for me.
- Screen burn - Plasmas are known to 'burn in' after a few years. This is especially the case with static images, and I want to use my TV as an additional computer screen (gaming, movies etc)
- Longetivity - This LCD should last me another 20 years. Plasmas have been known to fail in less than 5
- Power usage - I don't want to pay 50 euros/month just to have my TV on. LCDs use less energy than CRT, which use less energy than Plasma.
The only pro's for Plasmas would be the 'warmer colors' and the larger screens. But I really don't need a 1.5m screen and if I want to be warmer I'll turn up the heating.I'm no expert, but this was what I learned after searching the net and going around to a number of TV stores.
This sig is intentionally left blank
I won't try to do a technical or short/long term cost analysis. Simply put, at least for non-HD content (especially DVD's), every Plasma I have seen looks much better than any LCD I have seen.
For other uses it is another matter of course.
I was horrified when I found out how much electricity these large LCDs and plasmas use, especially in the 50" or bigger sizes. My current front projection system runs at 70" although it is perfectly capable of throwing a 120" image in a bigger room. With the DLP projector, DTS/DD receiver and LD/DVD combi player running the whole setup draws 280 watts. An equivalent size plasma is going to draw >600 watts on its own. LCD is better but if you really want a large screen experience a projection system is cheaper and more energy efficient. Also, for normal TV viewing we simply have a small 28" widescreen CRT which uses about 80 watts. Material shot for TV still looks better on a smaller screen so the projector is used for movies rather than general viewing. Also, if colour fidelity are important to you then LCDs and plasmas are a poor choice.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
What will you be watching? If you're only going to watch HD-stuff in a bright environment, you'd probably want an LCD. For non-HD-content (especially in a dark room), plasma generally performs better.
IMHO
Any flat panel display is only as good as its video processor. Usually its kindof related to the price.
LCD displays work by running a backlight at full whack and blocking light pixel by pixel and boy can you feel it, just put your hand in front of one and feel the heat coming from it. Larger LCD displays can be quite a drain on your electricity supply as well as your wallet. LCD also tend to run higher screen resolutions than plasmas.
Without decent video processing also tend to make standard (low definition) TV look horrific and seem to make MPEG artifacts look much more noticeable.
Plasmas on the other hand tend to be of lower screen resolution and also seem to mostly have non-square pixels ie run 1024x768 but stretched to 16:9, this is important if you want to run a PC into your display. Other things I have noticed are dithering to produce some colours and also flicker (which I have never seen on an LCD screen).
That said, Plasmas seem to give a much sharper looking image than LCD (I think this may be due to a small black border round each pixel) Low def TV looks great on a plasma and there are never any viewing angle problems.
Black looks black and not gray.
Power wize even on large plasmas the power requirements average out as less than those of LCD displays.
Alot of the larger displays I have come across (mostly LCD) seem to be at some odd ball screen res 1366x768 this is a totaly stupid size because its not divisible by 8. Most graphics cards have a hard time driving a screen of this resolution.
The screen I have is of this size but only supports a PC input of 1360x768@60 so anything I throw up from my PC has 5 blury areas because it tries to scale 1360 to 1366
If you are looking to run a screen from your PC check the following:
Does the display have both DVI and DB15 Inputs (useful not essential)
Does it support its native screen res on both the DB15 and the DVI (pretty essential)
Does it support a refresh higher than 60Hz on the DB15 (pretty essential)
Does it have at least one HDMI input (most if not all cable / sat boxes need this for HDTV)
Its worth a note that 1366x768 is not a hi-def broadcast resolution and any hi-def broadcast material is going to have to be scaled through that same video scaler that does such a bad job of upscaling low-def TV.
One way to get round this problem with upscaling low def TV is to do it on your PC.
I get outstanding results using a brooktree 848 based capture card (yup thats the old style wintv card) and a linux program called tvtime (http://tvtime.sf.net). As far as I know there is something for windows called descaler. Tvtime actually seems to reduce mpeg artifacting.
The problem with using a PC is that there is no way to sync whats going out with whats coming in. If both input and output are 60Hz you will get a problem known as tairing.
Tairing (for those who don't know)
Is where the top and bottom of the picture seems to break away from each other, its mostly noticeable on side to side panning movements and the effect is like that of a postcard where someone has cut it in 2 with a knife and put the 2 bits back together, but not quite in the right place
One way to reduce this effect is to run your display at a higher refresh IE 70-80hz. Its unlikely that the DVI connector will support this so you'll have to choose the DB15 analog route. This does not get rid of the tairing, but causes it to happen in a random place with every frame (which is less noticeable to the eye)
Its also worth noting that there are some displays that are native hi-def resolution ie 1280x720 and 1920x1080. These displays will give the best results when running at these native resolutions. I live in the UK and here our HD TV is broadcast in 1080i so there is very little point in getting a 1280x720 display.
If you want to run a PC at 1920x1080 its hard to read standard 11 point fonts at 10ft distance on a 42" display (which is what we have at work)
Finally My best advice is t
What about LCD vs Rear projection DLP? on top of that, is 720p fine or should I spend the extra 700ish dollars and get the 1080p screen?
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
Up to 50" get LCD - no reflection/burn-in. New LCDs have a wide viewing angle and if you do some research you can find really good ones pretty inexpensive (42" under $1500, 37" under $1,000). If you need more then 50" you'll probably be better off with a midrange projector.
I mean, come on. Get a life.
Deleted
Choose neither. If you must choose something then pick a DLP rear projection screen. It might cost a small percentage more for an eqault screen size.
:)
All these display technologies have drawbacks. Price, reliability, viewing angle, color purity, resolution (both kinds) longevitiy, contrast, ambient lighting conditions and space needed. Rate those criteria in order of importance to you and spend your money wisely.
I happen to think that DLP rear projection has the most value given all those criteria and the owner will be the happier longer with their purchase.
Or you could save your money and wait for SED or Laser TV or other new display technologies coming out soon. Or read books. Or spend some quality time with the family / significant other(s). Or play games. Or go meet the neighbors, become friends with them, and enjoy their TV instead.
I bought a Panasonic Plasma around May of this year. I can already notice the burn from the vertical bars that show up on non-HD channels to compensate for the aspect ratio. I watch whatever I can justified/stretched to fill the screen, but it makes everyone look short and squat.
Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
LOL, there's always one.
Funny how people that don't watch TV seem to think about it all the time and make sure to bring it up at every opportunity.
"vi or EMACS?" or "Windows or Linux?" or "FreeBSD or BeOS?"
(okay, I'm kidding on the last one)
Save your money. How about a book? You can save even more by frequenting your local library.
and i say, each has it's own merit.
If these matter to you
1. Contrast Ratio
2. Dark Room Viewing
3. Colour Depth
4. Accuracy of colour reproduction
Choose Plasma
Else If these matter to you
1. Being able to view in a bright room, without having to max contrast n brightness
2. Pixel Count
3. Saving energy cost
4. Longevity
Then take a LCD.
I know many people shun Plasma due to the burn in issue, all i can say is that choose Panasonic and you won't go wrong. Now, one year later, after plentiful abuse, i can't find a single hint of burn-in. Look through any A/V forums and you'll find the same thing - Pannys are almost insusceptible to burn-in.
I've never been impressed with the black levels on either LCD or Plasma panels - they both suck, although Plasma is (usually) better.
It's said that Plasma panels no longer suffer from burn-in, but they have too-short a warranty for me to take that gamble. HDR LCD panels should be coming out in 2007, and will certainly give Plasma a shot to the head. Panasonic is panicking and trying to clear-out their Plasma stocks because they perceive the impending threat.
For my money, I'm holding out for SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) panels. Millions of CRT's in a flat panel - neither LCD nor Plasma will be able to match its colour gamut, tonal range nor its power consumption. Now if only Canon and Toshiba (the SED research and production partners) would get off their butts and launch them to markets outside of Japan, instead of cancelling US demonstrations, I'd actually go out and buy one. Although I'd probably settle for a HDR LCD if SED never arrives.
So, be sure to actually look before you buy. It sure changed my mind.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
LCD uses less electricity. This will save you money.
www.wavefront-av.com
I've got a 42" plasma EDTV from Zenith. I've had it for going on 2 years and bought it specifically at the lower resolution based on the fact that I simply wouldn't be using it for any other purpose than hooking it up to a living room PC via DVI connection and playing SD-DVDs or xvid downloads through it, as well as the occasional analog cable broadcast. The display itself is extremely bright and has a wide viewing angle (to the point where nobody notices a "bad viewing angle"), and out-shone all of the other displays at the store when I purchased it. The kid working there actually attempted to talk me out of buying it, insinuating that it's a waste of money compared to full HD displays despite my insistance that a person should buy a screen with features that compliment what they'll be using it to display.
I haven't experienced any long-term burn-in or any problems at all using the device. As long as you turn on the pixel orbiter function, you should be gold. I did notice that after a month or so of watching morning news for traffic reports daily, the station's very bright red watermark logo left a faint burn-in that quickly disappeared after leaving the screen on 'inverse' for a half hour and then turning pixel orbiter on (I thought it shipped with it turned on by default, but didn't).
Honestly, I couldn't be happier. I've got a display that is essentially tailored to the content that I own and consume (since I have no desire to mess around with HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, and I don't game at all). Also, YMMV but in the middle of the day, when the room is very bright, the screen is just as brilliant as it always is, and I can't say the same for LCD panels (albeit smaller, PC-oriented LCD panels) that I've set up next to it for comparison.
-Rylfaeth
I prefer LCD. Then again, I'm not after a living-room-dominating TV either, and plasma tvs seem to be 40+ inch.
If a 32" plasma tv had been available locally, I might have had a harder time picking.
My wife and I just bought the Samsung LN-4695D, which is their new 46" LCD flat-panel 1080p HDTV. We were going to buy plasma (Pioneer) until this particular LCD caught our attention with better picture quality, resolution, and burn-in resistance for the price.
The picture quality is *amazing*. Although most LCDs paled when compared to strong plasmas (Pioneer/ELITE and Samsung plasmas were my basis for comparison), Samsung's latest line of LCD displays beats all the plasmas I saw. When I first saw it in the store, I mistook it for a plasma until I read the product description. When I got up close (6-8 feet away) I really noticed how much crisper the picture was and how much more visible dark images were than on the plasmas. But all the older LCDs I looked at (even the previous model 720p Samsung LCDs) looked like crap next to the plasmas.
I found in my online research that there have apparently been massive improvements (in numerous aspects) to LCD panel technology in just the last year. All of Samsungs new 1080p LCDs clearly use the new technology. They are less prone to burn-in, have better brightness and contrast, and offer higher resolution. And no comparably-priced comparably-sized plasmas currently on the market will do 1080 lines of resolution -- they're all 768.
Although screen burn-in is still more of an issue with LCD than CRT, it's less of an issue than with plasma, and the newest LCD panels are highly resistant to burn-in. The manual for our TV has a few vague disclaimers about not leaving still images or letterboxing on the screen for "too long", but then goes on to recommend a limit of two straight hours of such usage at one sitting and says you can back the brightness/contrast down during such usage to further reduce the odds of burn-in. So you play a single game or watch a 4:3 standard-def feed with left/right letterboxing for a couple hours, and then you either give the TV a rest or switch the image around to something different for a while -- I don't consider that a big deal. Then again, I'm not some hardcore gamer who would spend 8 hours straight playing a single game.
Are LCD screens fragile/delicate? Honestly, yes. This TV has a surface like any other LCD monitor or display -- if you push on it, it gives and exhibits discoloration temporarily just under where you're pressing. If you were to really push it hard or ram things into it, it would get permanently damaged. But honestly, unless you have a beastly cat attacking images on the display, or a rotten little kid who likes beating televisions with plastic golf clubs, or you go insanely wild with your Wiimote and throw it into the screen, it's not an issue. Just treat the thing normally and it does fine. If you need to move the TV in a moving truck or something, you'll probably want to put a soft blanket over the screen and then tape a piece of plywood over that to protect the screen. So definitely not tough like a CRT or plasma screen, but not a big issue to me. The great thing is that you get no glare off the LCD surface. I supposed if you were really worried about protecting the screen, you could attach some kind of plexiglass or glass front over it. Maybe manufacturers of LCD panels will start adding that as an accessory/option in future models.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Plasma Pros: Richer color, brighter screen
Plasma Cons: Lower resolution, suffers from burn-in
LCD Pros: Higher resolution, no burn-in, lasts a *lot* longer
LCD Cons: Terrible blacks & contrast, some speed trouble
What happened to the promise of a cheap laser TV? Is this still in the works?
/ 11/0214254
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10
load "linux",8,1
I personally think that plasmas give a much better image. Maybe one day when all our content is HD, I'll like LCDs, but for now, most of my usage is not HD. SD on LCDs looks terrible.
:) Go out to a store, and look for yourself!
:) )
Here's my real advice though, don't listen to anyone here, not even me
Also keep in mind what you're going to use it for. If you're going to watch a lot of DVDs on it (for example), bring a DVD with you, and make them hook up DVD players to the TVs you're interested and see how it looks. Even try out the up-converting DVD players see, how that goes. I even had a sales guy move a TV to where there was a cable outlet, so I can see what regular SD cable TV looked like on it, because frankly, there wasn't that much HD content back when I got my TV (over 3 years ago). (Thankfully, all the primetime TV shows are in HD now, some Leaf games are in HD, and all NFL games are in HD
Anyways, I repeat, go to a store, look at it for yourself, and remember, the stores will splice HD content to their TVs, so if your usage habits are mostly SD, get them to somehow get some SD content on their so you know how good of a job the TV does upconverting.
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
I bought a 55" Mitsubishi CRT rear projection HDTV back in 2001 (yeah, that'd be pre DVI/HDMI days - yippee!).
These TVs came with options to stretch the entire SD picture, just the edges, or expand the picture losing a bit of the top and bottom. The edge stretch leaves most of the picture in the proper aspect ratio, but gives you some wierd effects occassionally on the edges. It's my preferred mode of watching, since the full stretch makes you think you're in a willy wonka world, and the expand option actually results in too much blockiness since the vertical resolution isn't as high as I'd like for regular TV.
Since I'm about to go fully HDTV, a lot of this will no longer matter, although even OTA HDTV broadcasts have a lot of content with bars, and these cannot be stretched by this TV unless that content is first scaled down to 480p. (I'm finally getting an HD DVR, which will free me from most SD channels)
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
it keeps going and going and going, unlike my Panasonic rear-projection LCD which requires the lamp to be replaced every year. For anyone looking to buy a new HDTV (all 10 of you reading this that don't know already), be sure you buy one that doesn't require a lamp/bulb to be replaced and you'll save yourself a lot of headaches and hassles.
Having seen it in action, I am very impressed. The room has a lot of natural light from windows. The picture looked fine to me - no obvious washout or other issues typically attributed to LCDs. Of course, the primary test was The Matrix Lobby Scene.
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
My parents just bought an inexpensive Sylvania/Funai 42" plasma for their bedroom. It looks fantastic, but I was shocked to see persistent pillarboxes "burnt-in" after less than ten hours of use. After a couple weeks, my dad tells me that they are barely noticeable. My guess is that the phosphors are most vulnerable when they are brand new (like an infant in the sun). If I ever buy a new PDP, I'll break it in with a few days of solid grey or white. This is the best looking display I've seen for less than $1000.
Anyway, the week after they bought the plasma, their 35" CRT in the family room died. The only reason they didn't replace it with plasma (they got an lcd) was that almost all plasma displays have highly reflective screens and it would have been blinding in this particular room. Even though the LCD has 30% more resolution, the plasma looks better. LCDs just don't produce the colors as well. That seems to be changing though. I'd give the one they bought an 8/10, but I saw some more expensive Samsungs and Sony's that I'd give 9/10.
As good as rear projection has gotten, they don't look as good as plasma, and even LCDs have surpassed them... IMHO.
Meanwhile, at my house, MythTV does such a nice job deinterlacing NTSC and scaling it to 1024x768, my 35" CRT looks real good. I'll probably wait a couple more years before I consider upgrading it, hopefully with a high-res plasma for a reasonable price.
Upside of each technology:
- CRT projection: (drawing a blank here for what's good about CRT projection)
- Plasma: fluid picture, closest to CRT smoothness.
- LCD: sharp, bright picture.
- DLP: sharp, bright picture. Only one part needs maintenance (bulb). Lowest cost of all technologies. Largest screen sizes available. Wider viewing angle than LCD or plasma. Low power consumption. Lightweight (my wife moved ours out of the van by herself when we bought it).
- LCD projection (LCoS): quality of LCD with size and reliability of projection. Sony (perhaps others) use three LCDs, one for each color light, to prevent "rainbow effect."
- HD-ILA: triple DLP chips removes "rainbow effect" of single DLP (see below). Otherwise same benefits as DLP. (This is a new technology that to my knowledge only JVC has this at this time.)
Downside of each technology:
- CRT projection: heavy and bulky. Requires regular adjustment and annual maintenance by a professional. Smaller viewing angle than any other technology. Dim picture needs dark room.
- Plasma: fades over time (usually 3 years or less) starting with upper (violet) end of the spectrum and requires recharging which costs nearly as much as a new one. Picture burn in. Most expensive. Black levels are gray on most models, and everyone I've seen appears to have a reduced spectrum of color (washed out look).
- LCD: pixel death (much less prevalent now but still a factor). Cost. Screen size limit (40" largest). Pixelization on fast moving pictures (racing, action movie).
- DLP: warm-up time like regular projector (20-30 seconds). Cost of replacement bulb ($300-500). Smallest screen size available is 42". Some viewers experience "rainbow effect" when looking at picture, blinking and looking away (basically you see the separate light channels - I've experienced this once in 3 years and have never been able to repeat it.) Not as thin as Plasma or LCD (18" usually) so not wall-mountable.
- LCD projection: pixel death still a possibility. These may need regular adjustment or maintenance like older CRT projection TVs.
- HD-ILA: same drawbacks as DLP minus the "rainbow effect."
Keep researching to find what fits your needs. If you're only considering LCD or plasma, LCD all the way. I'd rely on home theater or HD forums more than /.
I seriously doubt I'll replace my current DLP for years, but whenever we look to replace our second TV, I'll be looking at the HD-ILA.
I see a lot of comments about LCD being the way but what made me go Plasma was simply the quality of black. I had planned on getting LCD, but looking at the colors at the actual store, I had to go Plasma. At the time, the 40-42 inch price point was about the same for either.
Playing Guitar Hero (PS2) on it did give me a scare about burn-in. So far, the Wii has less problems than TV logos.
I still think Plasma is better image quality since movie watching is what I primarily do. I guess I'll find out in the long run if LCD TVs last longer.
Its "tearing" not "tairing", and it has nothing to do with syncing input and output. Its from trying to convert interlaced to progressive.
Well if you're an AV nerd it has to be Front or Rear Projection surely. Either DLP or a sony SXRD or other LCoS style sets.
LCD? You've got to be kidding. They look great in the store but in a dark room? Wheres the black? I quite like plasma but to get the size of projection you will have to sell your soul. Plus if youre into home theatre the flat panels save you exactly 0 space over RPTV because you still need somewhere to put your amp and floor standing speakers and what not.
If you have CNN, Fox, NFL or a certain channel on all the time those logos, scorebars, scrolling bars are gonna burn in also.
I've seen such wide variances in the qualities and properties of both LCD and Plasma TV's that I'd suggest you really just go out and look at the TV's in your price range, look for models that look good in your environment, and go with one of those - Plasma or LCD or CRT or whatever. That's all that really matters. You can't just group "plasma" and "lcd" together for quality purposes...both have crap, both can shine. People complain about plasma burn-in, but it hasn't happened to me yet (I'm on my second 50+" plasma - I sold the first to get a smaller form factor, it was still working fine - with a total of 5 years of usage between them so far). I suspect that dead-pixels probably happen about as often on LCD's as burn-in happens on Plasma's (and have about an equiv. annoyance factor, at least to me).
Ah... wood grain finish with rounder corners, convex screen, a 13 button knob and a UFH knob, might look into at least a 90s model :p I hear they have RCA jacks now
NTSC CRT televisions display 480 interlaced horizontal lines. The most current displays boast 1080 non-interlaced horizontal lines. While it is true that CRTs do not really have a native resolution, it's a plain and simple fact that high definition signals do not look as good on a CRT television as they do on a 1080p HDTV. Have you ever tried plugging a VGA converter into a standard television and running it at a resolution higher than 640x480? Even ClearType is blurred into illegibility. The lack of native resolution is a fault, not a feature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694
Alot of what I have read in these threads are based on first and second generation Plasma and LCD technology maybe a refresher course in the technology as it stands in a more current state.
d isplaytechnologiesguide.php
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/
Article
In summary, he says 50" is the magic number. If you want a TV >50", buy a projection TV, if you want a TV 50" buy an LCD.
It is important to note the resolution of any Plasma or LCD you buy. For my money buy the LCD.
That's clearly the market Bang & Olufsen aim at, and as long as they keep up fairly well with technologies their customers (their core market, repeat customers, at least) have no need to buy any other brand. People who buy a 50" Bang & Olufsen telly won't generally go out a Phillips HD-DVD player just because it's a few quid cheaper - they buy B&O for the whole style and "experience" (B&O probably use words like "lifestyle" and "enhancing" in their brochures) and so integration with other B&O products is the only important thing.
Stroller.
This year my wife and I decided to spring for a new TV. Yes I'll admit that shopping for a HDTV this Christmas season was a bit of a daunting task. LCD, DLP, PLASMA, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, HDMI, and all of it a bit confusing to the consumer. Seems like everywhere we'd go people where giving us a different answer. Some people would tell me that Plasma though lower resolution is actualy better then lcd because of the contrast ratio. While others would tell me how 720p looks better to the eye then 1080i even though it's lower resolution. Still others would tell me how 1080p is pointless.
:)
I found the truth to be somewhere else entirely. Funny how one thing that people seem forget to take into consideration is "How does it look in person?". After shopping on-line, my head was spinning, but the fact was when I got to the store the 40" Samsung 1080p LCD just looked the best. The screen was big, the black looked black, there didn't seem to be any motion blur, and the resolution was astounding while viewing a blue-ray disc.
And to all you folks that believe that CRTs "always" out perform LCD. I'll just say this, you wont see me going back to my old sony wega any time soon.
-makoffee
I picked up a rear-projection 42" for £320 on eBay last month - sure, it doesn't have HDMI, but it has lots of component inputs for my Wii and at only about 12" deep it's as good as a plasma to me. Doing my research I found lots of reviewers stating it was as good as units twice the price, and this was when it was released 2.5 years ago, retailing at £2000. By the time I want or need HDMI / HDCP / more pixels I'm sure I'll be able to pick something up suitable for the same sort of sum. I don't really care whether that turns out to be TFT or plasma - at these prices I'm able to consider secondhand "old" technology as practically disposable.
I appreciate that there are Slashdotters who want & can appreciate the latest technology - I can myself in many other arenas - but the state of the market this is a great time for those happy to buy secondhand.
Stroller.
What? RCA Jacks? Wow! That's so newfangled! Is there any track record of those actually working? ;-) My TV has this do-dad I bought at RadioShack that fits over the antennae jack, and then cable into that. But, hey! It works great! :-D I for one will also wait until either the vertical or horizontal hold dies (or some such fun) before doing any "upgrading".
I would have to say neither LCD or Plasma, DLP all the way! Ive had a Toshiba 42" DLP, 2006 model since summer. I played my king kong hd-dvd on it from my 360, running 1080i. The picture quality was just amazing, the plus side to DLP is you can leave a game paused as long as ya want and nothing is gonna burn anywhere. Ive left my 360 on dashboard so many times with the tv on and left, came back all is fine. The downside however is *When* the lamp decides to go, simply call Toshiba get a new one, only a whole $200 cdn, i can live with that every couple years for the quality i am getting. I also use Component HD-out so my tv will be displaying my desktop a lot, if i had a Plasma or a LCD, i garuntee it would have some harsh screen burn from that stuff. When i was at the store picking out this tv aslo, it's picture quality stood out. I could have walked out with a 42" LCd for a few bucks more but screen burn just is not worth it.
I've had my 50" Panasonic plasma for a year now and like it a lot. I've read the reviews and looked for myself in the store before deciding. I mostly watch digital tv and DVDs. WIll be getting a high definition decoder shortly. It is really a matter of taste and budget.
Same here with a 1996 Sharp 20" CRT TV. Although I do have a problem with my TV out from my new EVGA GeForce 7950 GT KO video card. I get B&W/gray scale everywhere even outside of Windows. I have no idea what's the problem is. You can read my full details here. I don't know if it is the RCA cable, TV, and/or the VCR. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Everyone knows the pros/cons of plasmas and LCDs. Burn-in is overstated as a risk for home theatre or general TV usage. How many CRTs do you see with burn-in? I think its foolish to say that either is truly better. I just think its great to have 2 competing technologies, which forces companies, that have a large stake in each, to innovate. Competition is this area is a huge gain for the consumer. That is the best thing to come out of the LCD/plasma war.
For instance, my cable company provides 11 HDTV channels (at only 720p) resolution and it would effectively cost me another $30 a month (+$20 to go digital, +$10 equipment rental). My Tivo, which I love, only records standard definition. I could give the cable provider a little more $$ to get their DVR (piece of junk) or spend $1000 more (plus subscription) to get an HD Tivo. All for 11 channels. HD-DVD... BlueRay you say. Fine, chip in another $500 for a player (or compatible game console) to play the few movies out there available in these formats... none of which I could justify buying.
Its all got the initial wow factor in terms of quality. But you'll be saying "wow" along with a few expletives when you find that your $2000 1080p TV is now bottom of the totem pole a couple years from now.
In response to the original thread... Plasma or LCD... it doesn't matter. Everything is personal preference go to a store a see what you like. There are LCDs that look better than Plasmas, there are Plasma that look better than LCDs. People are worried about screen burn in, dead pixels, etc... come on. At this rate, no matter what flat panel you buy, you will be replacing it with something else before those issues even come up.
Plasma is pure marketing and relatively poorer picture. It's not just an opinion - it's a fact!
despite the color/colour typo/tpyo debate the post actually is very informative. I wish I knew about the resolution issue 2 years ago when I bought my plasma, and parent hits this issue perfectly.
Also, he is 100% correct at reading 10-12 pt text, which is made even worse by the resolution issue. Now I need glasses thanks to WOW and the plasma!
If you are even considering playing games on your TV LCD is the way to go. I brought my 360 to my friends house and within an hour of playing it started to burn in on his Plasma. Not only that but even he agreed the picture quality seemed better on my LCD. With the popularity of gaming I can't see Plasma's making it long term. While I love my PC, there is just something about playing a game on a 55" TV with surround sound that can't compare.
I previously made a comparison on my blog on the subject of LCD a couple of days before slashdot made this post.
It's a swedish blog, but Ill to it anyway. lcdguide.se
Basicly, I found that the good points about plasma (color depth, if you're out to watch movies) is weighted up by the long life and many nice features of LCD. An lcd is a multi-tool, use it for computer screen, video-playback. Some plasma-fans cling on to plasmas broad angle of view.. well, tough luck. New lcd's sport almost 180degree view.
Prices of LCD has also come down and even in big screen sizes LCD is able to beat plasma.
If you're out for an investment that'll last, I'd still wait a bit before buying either plasma or LCD.
Prices are coming down, fast.
To sum this up, the thing about plasma which makes it a bad choice is:
High power usage
Fragile
Shorter life (Screen burn issues)
Dated technique...
The picture quality is what I'm all about, and LCD is good but not great. Plasma looks great from almost any angle. Burnin isn't really a big deal any more, what is a big deal is the limited life, 5 or 6 years of continuous use. Even if mine does burn out in 6 years, the way things are going we'll be able to get 80" TVs for $500 by then.
I bought my Panasonic TH-42PX50U 42" plasma in November of 2005. I have had zero problems of any kind with it, and I love it. I mostly watch movies and HD content on it, and play occasional XBox 360 games on it as well. I'm not the type to game for 12 hours straight so I'm not worried about burn-in. This tv is the best technology purchase I have ever made. My only slight regret is that, since I recently moved to a larger house, I wish I had got the 50-inch model instead of the 42-inch. Ah well. The quality of this display is hands down better than any LCD or RP set I could have afforded at the time, or could today really. I paid about $2400 for it at the time, and I figure that was about right. In 3-4 years, if something genuinely better comes along, or if the display has really degraded, I'll replace it. This doesn't bother me. Every few years I pay between $1500 and $2500 to buy the parts to build myself a new PC, and I don't think twice about the fact that in three years or so I'll be replacing that. I look at the TV the same way. I realize that LCD and RP sets (especially RP since the bulbs are replaceable) have longer potential life. But the display isn't as good, and for the money I'd rather get the best I can now. I'm not marrying the technology or making some kind of life commitment to it, I'm just blowing a bunch of money on something I don't need. When I'm watching a movie, I don't think about whether "the technology" is as good, I enjoy the image and that's all there is to it.
I have one of the first gen plasma screens. When purchased (not by me) it was right over 11k. The screen is now about six years old and I'd say the complaints about plasma's longevity are solid. There have been many improvements over the past few years in plasma screens but the downsides really become apparent. My screen has burn in on both sides from watching content in a non-widescreen mode. The screen's anti-burn in feature has now made the entire screen so bright that it is nearly impossible to watch under direct or even indirect sun light. It runs hot as hell (this has been fixed somewhat) and gulps power down in a way that is entirely unhealthy.
My next tv display will be an LCD, given that I don't have the room for a projector.
--- I do not moderate.
CRT beats all because of the brightness and contrast.
Blar.
'ccording to the NY times the reason is the margins on LCD's is failing.
a t.html?ex=1324702800&en=5384410d70a991c4&ei=5088&p artner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/technology/25fl
"There is another issue as well, which is that the profit margins on L.C.D. TVs have fallen sharply because of competition."
AND
"To help Panasonic maintain sales of both technologies, it sells plasma sets from 37 to 65 inches on the diagonal, while its L.C.D. TVs can only be purchased in sizes from 23 to 32 inches. "
Paraphrased, we make 500-1500$ tvs, and we make 1500-3500$ tv's, and we think you should buy the more expensive, and we should know- we make both!
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Currently plasma is cheaper, bigger and has better color and black reproduction. The plasma burn in cons are hugely over hyped and I play Xbox360 and PS3 on mine and have no problems. Maybe in a few yeas LCD will completely beat out plasma, but for today, for the best bang for the buck, plasma is my current favorite.
I just bought a Sony 46" LCD TV. This is not the best technology on the market. It has lower contrast than CRT or Plasma. You can't mount it on a wall. Why did I buy it? I needed a new TV and this was the best combination of size, performance and low price. It looks great for video games and for HDTV (this one supports 720P) there is just no comparison to standard def TV. Others have posted that CRT is still the cleanest looking technology, and they are right. I almost bought A CRT HDTV, but they are on their way out. It is way too heavy to move those TVs and they take up a lot of space. My advice to anyone considering a new set but is hedging on technology and price to consider the following:
- Many stations don't broadcast in HD yet
- Those that do often are carrying 720P quality signals, so buying a 1080P set right now may be a waste of money
- Toshiba is developing a new technology called SED, which might obsolete all existing technologies in the next few years
- A flat panel is not that useful unless you are really tight on space
Given all that, spending $1300 on my 46" rear projection LCD TV was worth the money to me. And I do expect to replace it with a newer tech. in the next 4 to 5 yrs. By then, the costs of HDTVs will be much lower than they are today.
I for one welcome our new optical overlords. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_TV
Since my mom and dad gave me a 43" Pioneer plasma for Christmas last year, I'd say plasma wins hands down for me.
After a year it's still gorgeous. My living room is shaped such that we had to put it on a wall directly across from windows, so during the day there are reflections. They could be handled with a shade, but we usually watch at night anyway. I have seen the burn-in when we accidentally left the tv on a dvd menu screen for a while, but it was only noticeable when the whole screen was dark and it seems to have gone away.
I just got a game console for the first time since the sega genesis this christmas, so we'll see if that causes worse burn-in.
Xantech
Click "Products" and then choose an emitter and/or receiver. Xantech owns a good deal of the patents and originally developed IR repeaters. disclaimer: I work for the company that owns Xantech
That's clearly the market Bang & Olufsen aim at, and as long as they keep up fairly well with technologies their customers (their core market, repeat customers, at least) have no need to buy any other brand. People who buy a 50" Bang & Olufsen telly won't generally go out a Phillips HD-DVD player just because it's a few quid cheaper - they buy B&O for the whole style and "experience" (B&O probably use words like "lifestyle" and "enhancing" in their brochures) and so integration with other B&O products is the only important thing.
Stroller.
Well dear, I may not be in their core customer base, then. I have two of their products, mainly because I like my gear to either look good or be hidden. Hiding a TV set is rather counter productive, so I spent double the price on getting a good looking one.The fact I still like to look at it 8 years later and it hasn't faded in image quality pleases me. A lot. The saying about the pleasure staying while the money spent is forgotten is true for me on this one.
However, they seem to be late with new technologies - I checked with them when I wanted a network music player, and I bought a Squeezebox. I checked with them when I wanted a portable mp3 player and bought an Ipod. I checked with them when I wanted a hard drive recorder and I have a mythtv setup. I always found their 6 CD tower spectacular - but, come on, what's 6 CD's when I have my entire collection on a 120GB drive? They like to handle media, sort of as tokens for the art on it. I can see that it makes for more spectacular design, but it's just not the way I want it to be done.
And bought a big Panasonic plasma screen.
BUT, my circumstances were probably different. I was trying to avoid an addition to the house that my husband really wanted to get. Would have cost us a ridiculous amount of money. My solution was to free up the bedroom we were using as a family room by putting a big flat panel TV of some sort in our living room, over the fireplace. Which then made us examine plasma vs. LCD.
First we figured out what size we'd need. Since the room is long & narrow, and the screen would be on a narrow end, we needed something that could be watched from 16-17 feet away. This meant as big as we could actually fit on the wall. Somewhere in the 55-60 inch widescreen size.
We discovered that LCDs cost more than double plasma of similar sizes. Ouch.
Next we actually went and looked at them. The LCDs are gorgeous. But the depth of the black & dark colors just isn't as good. LCD is still relatively new, and the prices have yet to make the big drop that comes with wide acceptance.
We decided that plasma was the way to go and then did our research on which one. The winner was the Panasonic 58 inch. It also won when we made a trip to our local high end video store and looked at several of the top rated sets.
Essentially, we figure that by the time we wear out the plasma, LCD will be mature enough that the depth of color on the dark/black will be fixed, and the prices will be where plasma is now. But we don't expect anything like this for at least 5 years. Dunno if that's what will happen or not, but there's my 2 cents.
"Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."
Neither plasma nor LCD can compare to the black levels and image clarity achieved by a good CRT. The best example being Sony Trinitron CRTs, which have remained the standard reference monitor for the television and film industries, and for NTSC-M broadcast.
The fact is, while LCD and CRT boast bogus "dynamic" contrast ratios, the human eye at best can detect a 500:1 continuous contrast ratio in an adequately lit room. I say adequately lit because a completely dark room is uncomfortable for the eyes. A bit of lighting around the perimeter of the display relieves the eye from making constant adjustments to focus against the dark areas around the screen and the lit areas of the screen. Motion picture exhibition has a contrast ratio of 500:1 and currently SMPTE is discussing setting the theatrical digital projection contrast ratio standard at 2000:1. Dynamic contrast ratios are bogus because they mangle the luminance of the entire screen area in relation to what it should be.
Another difference is that CRT's are not dependent on a backlight. Regardless of the contrast ratio, the small amount of light bleeding through an LCD display causes noticeably grey black levels. On a plasma, there are no backlight issues but the entire display does lose luminance after just 2000 hours... but colors look mottled and abrupt contrast changes produce mottled transitions.
Of the two, though, the bigger problem is color representation... and suffice it to say that between LCD/Plasma and CRT, there is no comparison. This is important because, while your eyes cannot really discern contrast ratios higher than 500:1, they can detect changes in light wavelength of one nanometer... far narrower than the margin of error for LCD/Plasma color accuracy.
Lastly, there's bang for the buck... The Sony 34" WEGA XBR HDTV Trinitron CRT costs just under $1000. The closest image and color clarity I've seen to this, which is still not quite as accurate but just behind it, is a $7000 Sony SXRD XBR Grand WEGA. Seven times the price... no contest. The irony is that long after that 70 inch SXRD will have died on the user, the Trinitron will probably still be alive and running as accurately as it did when it was purchased.
I suspect that with increased R&D on the SXRD line, which is arguably the best imaging technology amongst LCD/Plasma, these sets will reach a point where they're sufficiently comparable to CRT's and also much more cost-effective. But at the moment this isn't the case.
The article you linked is interesting. Under the "Durability" comparison, the site you linked indicates that LCD is more durable than plasma in real world circumstances, almost the opposite of the claim made by the Panasonic site referred to in TFA that compares LCD and plasma. (The Panasonic site claims that LCD screens are more fragile than plasma screens, since plasma screens have glass surfaces and LCD screens usually have "delicate" polymer surfaces.)
It's also interesting that most retailers will gladly lie to you about the capabilities of the two technologies. Every time I speak to a representative at Ultimate Electronics, they claim that LCD has better black levels than plasma. (The Panasonic comparison site says plasma has better black levels and contrast, and I tend to agree with the Panasonic site in this one matter.) The reason they make this claim is that, when you turn off a LCD television (i.e., when the backlight is off), the screen is much darker than a comparably sized plasma display, which tends to reflect a bit more ambient light from the room. However, most end-users don't have banks of fluorescent lights in their living rooms, and black level must be measured when the set is actually on and running. Once you do that, you realize that even the best LCDs display dark grays instead of true blacks because there's always some leakage of the backlight through the darkened pixels. With plasma, you turn the pixel off and nothing is emitted, period.
In a darkened home theater, a brand new plasma set would probably yield a much better image, due to superior black level and color gamut.
That said, when I made my decision to buy a new flat-panel TV set, I opted for a Sharp Aquos LCD television. The deciding factors for me were power consumption (LCD is more efficient than plasma at the screen sizes I was interested in), heat generation (summers in Arizona are hot enough, so I don't want to put extra thermal load on the A/C), and display longevity (no "burn-in" effect with LCD, though image ghosting can happen -- but in that case, just turn the display off for a few hours and the memory effect dissipates). The fact that a mere mortal could easily carry one of the Sharp LCDs and mount it just about anywhere was a huge bonus. In my living room, the black levels of LCD have never been an issue, and the color gamut looks plenty nice when watching ATSC (terrestrial broadcast) video material. Upscaled DVD video (I've got my Denon player set to output 720p via HDMI) looks almost as vibrant as broadcast, but not nearly as detailed because it's just upscaled. In short, I'm happy.
Most of the comments here people don't have a clue what there talking about. Screen burn this and fade that. What a bunch a hog wash.
All plasmas, LCDs, CRTs, etc are not created equal. It depends what brand and quality you buy.
Although we do have a wall-mounted LCD screen in the bedroom, I am much happier overall with the DLP set in the living room.
Oh, and think LCD's don't burn? Think again. After only a year hooked up to our TiVo, you can see the channel banner when you put a 50% gray field on the screen.
The most effective cure for the DLP Rainbow effect mentioned so far have been spiraled color wheels instead of sectored ones. With spiral wheels, you effectively display more than one color on the screen at the same time (the border between two colors sweeps downwards or upwards through the picture as the wheel spins) and switch between the colors more frequently, both of which serve to make perception of the effect far more unlikely, while not increasing the mechanical complexity of the light engine at all.
Back on topic, B&O people were very loyal. The drawbacks, though, are also mentioned which is a lock into their product offering. To be brutal, their core market is probably going to scoff at most common, cutting edge products (how many 60 year olds do you see with iPods? Not many, and I'm in SoCal where it seems everyone bleeds cash and drives a $70k Benz) so they can get away with it more than an entry level, budget consumer manufacturer (Sony, et al). Ulitimately, the shop I worked for that carried B&O dropped the line, but I think it was to concetrate on core products. The owners still backed and believed in B&O, it was just very hard to move.
I agree it's similar to Apple. Most people use a PC, but if they knew better they might realize that Apple is very good. Same with B&O. If I had the money, I'd buy it and use it. However, I now buy from companies that are associated with my company due to employee discounts (such as Bob Carver's Sunfire, Elan Home Systems, etc). I love Apples, but I have 5 PCs (3 are collecting dust in a corner) and 2 Sun Ultra SPARC servers (bought to keep from getting rusty with my UNIX skills, but ended up being abandoned due to missing parts from Ebay bought systems).
There are lots of ways color info can be lost, like: card sends PAL and
TV only receives NTSC, card has missing signal where the colorburst should
be, R/G/B output buffers are shorted together.
What you probably have, though, is a card with analog RGB outputs, and
you have connected ONE of the three colors to your TV. Check the info
on your video card to see if it outputs COMPOSITE video. Because composite
video is only capable of plain-old-analog (NTSC) performance, it might
be that they didn't give your card that output.
Help is on the way; for digital cable boxes, a single type of output socket (Firewire)
is required, here in the US. Use that, and there's no way to cross the wiring.
Alas, the digital-rights-management crowd wants to define their own
connectors and force incompatibility on the public...
That site doesn't mention screen resolution at all, just physical size. That's an important omission.
Up until a year ago (when I last looked), *consumer* plasmas with native res greater than 1366x768 simply didn't exist at all. That made plasma pretty irrelevant to anyone seeking to upgrade to the full 1080i or 1080p HD experience, and not just up to a transitional 720p.
LCD screens in contrast have for many years existed at native resolutions far higher than the HDTV standards, because of their use in the computer market, but they were available only in fairly small physical sizes, and certainly not in the 50+ inch sizes where plasma dominated. This is now changing of course.
But what's the situation with plasma now? LCD has caught up in the physical size, but has consumer plasma caught up in native resolution for 1920x1080, at LCD-like prices?
the bulb for any projector costs a three figure fortune and it burns out regularly (once every 1-2 years).
Digital cable boxes? Are those supplied by cable TV companies? I don't have cable TV. I just use a bowtie antenna. :) I did set the latest NVIDIA video driver to use NTSC, but that didn't help. The card should be NTSC friendly because I bought it in U.S. (So. CA to be exact). In the video driver, I did see an option for S-Video and composite. I tried both. No help there.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Sounds like you have a cheapie TV ... or something? My 32" Panasonic CRT weighs 140 lbs. Between the plain dead weight of the thing, its size, and its weird balance (most of the weight toward the front, because of the glass) one person cannot shift it from the ground. Two men can expect to be able to move it, but it won't be a comfortable trip.
At this point, it's actually become something of an albatross for me. I want to replace it with a new, fancy LCD or plasma at some point, but what do I do with it when I want to get rid of it? It has some nice features (480p) but pretty much anyone I try to sell it to would choose a new set for all the same reasons that I want one. In California, it's illegal to send a CRT to the dump. And I don't even own a car (and you almost need a truck to fit this set). What the hell am I going to do with this monster?
Breakfast served all day!
I've seen a prototype color laser projector in action. It had a lot of nice features but I kept being distracted by the speckle.
CRT screens have been around for longer then most people reading this article. Give the technolgys a few more years to develop, then you can decide. Now does anyone know a good company in the Portsmouth, NH area I can rent a crane from? I have to move my 24 inch CRT moniter across campsus
Here is my simple opinion of this debate.
Plasma has better colors and definitely better black.
LCD's can show weird pixel blur for fast motion stuff.
Sonys' new LCD TVs rival Plasma in color. (My opinion). They are expensive though.
1080P at 42" or under is currently a lot cheaper with LCD.
The half life of Plasma brightness is a major concern unless you lower it to 50% out of the gate.
The half life of LCD brightness is a major concern, but not as bad as Plasma.
Now for the deciding factor for me.
Ask what a 3 year warranty is on both TV's. For the Panasonic, it was around $2,800 for the TV and a freaking grand for the 3 year warranty. That tells me a lot, and yes I did find it a bit cheaper but come on. If the warranty is more than $150 for a TV like these then there is something seriously in doubt about the quality of the system.
I don't want to bash Plasma, and I would love a 1080P 42" for under $2,000 (with a 5 year warranty), but it appears that LCD is winning this battle and Panasonic was on the wrong end when it chose high end plasmas.
Good luck on your new TV purchase and be sure to ask about the warranty. The last thing you want is a 1 or 2 year old TV that cost you near $3,000.00, broke down with more than a $1,000.00 worth of repairs needed.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
I can (easily) lift my 40" Samsung TV.
Therefore, it's an LCD.
It looks great plugged into my computer (waaaaay too many hours of Civilization IV on it now) and hey it also looks great plugged into the DVR. And most anything else.
I have a 42" Panasonic Plasma, which when was first purchased, made me very happy as an upgrade from the 27" CRT which was previously used (also an upgrade to DirecTV w/ HD was awesome as well). I also put a 27" LCD in my bedroom, which is very nice, colors aren't very vibrant, however the clarity is what makes that television nice. I now placed the 42" plasma in a rec room by a pool table, which is pretty cool, and now have a 65" Mitsubishi 1080p DLP rear-projection. This is, I would say, the best type of standalone set you can purchase. Extremely bright, vibrant colors, and great clarity. I have seen other users reply talking about well-planed projector setups are best, and I agree. However, most people (besides gurus and enthusiasts) would not want to mount the projector to their ceiling, or set up on a shelf in the back of the room, run the wires behind the sheetrock (because it would just be uncivilized to do otherwise) spackle the holes in the sheetrock, set up a motorized screen, run power and video cables from your electrical closet to your projector (again behind the sheetrock) because anyone with this type of system would have an IR extender to keep a nice and clean setup, and then setup speakers in the room as well, with all the fixings. Although this is the best quality, nicest looking, and most fun to set up, most people want a TV they pop out of the box, put onto their 100 dollar stand, set up a sony DVD dream system (or maybe a Bose system if they are rich and dumb) and sit back and watch TV. In this case, I recommend a DLP rear-projection (preferrably Mitsubishi).
I'm currently running a 61 inch Sony WEGA LCD set for my home theatre setup. I looked at DLP, Plasma, and LCD before choosing the Sony.
I also bought from a speciality store rather than Best Buy, etc. They matched the price that everyone else had, so that was not a consideration.
What was "better" was that they were willing to set up a Pioneer Elite Plasma set, an LG DLP set, and the Sony LCD in the same room with hi-def sources and a DVD player identical to the one I own. I brought in DVDs that I know and love, with a wide range of "challenges"; fast motion, dark scenes, etc.
We spent about 4-5 hours playing with all 3 sets and chose the Sony. Still like it, even though it's "only" 720P.
For my next set...in about 1-2 years...I'm thinking about the Sony SXRD sets. Like LCOS, but apparently better. By that time, some SED sets may be out and they'll get a look.
In any and EVERY case, do a lot of homework, gather up some material (DVD is easiest, of course), and go WATCH the sets you're thinking about. Check the menu settings with the remotes...if the set looks "nice and bright", check to see if the Bright and Picture settings are maxed...you won't like that set at home. Check Color Temp settings. "Warm" on most sets SHOULD be close to 6500K. Turn OFF all the noise reduction and other "cool" stuff in the menus as they can add more problems than they "fix".
And, since the world still has 98% standard def programming on cable, etc., check out how the 5 o'clock news looks as well.
Lastly, invest in the Avia software or put aside $2-300 bucks for an ISF-certified tech to calibrate your set when it's installed. Hey, if you're spending $3-5000 on a nice set (or projector), get it dialed in perfectly. It will make a great set a fantastic set, extend the life of the bulb, and always make guests say "man, your TV looks way better than mine!"
I've read about the SpyderTV unit and while it's pretty neat, it's technically something you'll use ONCE. So, I would spend the cash for a pro calibration and be done with it. My Sony was so close to spec, it required almost no adjustments. Color Temp was a smidge low and that was about it.
So, rather than embrace plasma, LCD, smoke and mirrors, etc., I vote for getting the best picture for the material you're going to be viewing the most.
FWIW.........
I am my own gestalt.
Who said anything about what they're putting on their tv's in this thread apart from games and burn-in problems? I personally don't watch much tv apart from news, but it's useful for movies and games and spends 9/10ths it's time as a monitor. What the fuck do you have against monitors? Go play with some sticks you fucking luddite.
I agree with some of the people that projectors are very nice. However, when choosing between Plasma and LCD, i've gotta go with LCD every day of the week. For a while the main reason was life span. Original plasmas only lasted for about 5 to 8 years. Nowadays, plasma life span is somewhere between 10 and 15 years. However, I still choose LCD, but not your standard LCD. I realize that lifespan of a tv isn't something to be too concerned about because in five years something newer and better will be out. but, when i'm going to make a large purchase, i want to get the best life span i can. LCD is the way to go for that. And keep in mind, there are 3 different kinds of LCD: 1- flat panel LCDs, LCD Projection tvs, and LCOS (Liquid Crystal On Silicon, which is another version of LCD Projection) Given the choice, I'd take an LCOS tv over ANYTHING on the market right now. give, these tvs are not meant to be hung on the wall. They are on average 18" to 22" deep, but usually weigh less then 105lbs. which is incredibly light for a 50"+ screen size. My pick for the LCOS tvs goes to the Sony XSRB tvs which come in a 50", 55", 60" and 70". They are very nice with all the connections you would need, including HDMI, DVI, and VGA, and they also come with a 5ms response time, which is just fine for me for the small amount of gaming that I do. Despite my love for the LCOS tvs, I'm also looking forward to the new LCOS2 tvs that are in the works. I haven't heard much on them, but i think they are expected out within the next could of years. A bit of background, I used to sell electronics, and NEVER willing recommended a plasma. If I did, it was only because the customer was set on a plasma, so I was suggesting to them the better bran to go with that we sold.
My big gripe with both LCD and Plasma (more so for LCD) is that Standard Definition totally sucks on both. The larger the screen, the worse it looks, unless you're sitting way far away from it. I ended up getting a widescreen HD CRT for a fraction of the price just for that reason. The HD looks amazing, though not as good as an LCD or Plasma, but the SD looks fine too.
Plasma or LCD?
Book.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Personally, I prefer good ol' CRT. But I may be alone in that.
i'm talking tv now, not game monitor. as long as the cable and satellite companies broadcast analog video signals, the images are crap on lcd and plasma. once you get a decent digital (and/or) HD-video, go for lcd. for most of the above reasons (next to price).
memento mori
DVDs can still be watched via computers, but our little ones get by just fine without any TV shows of any kind.
Small Miss did watch “Bird Television” one morning for breakfast, by sliding the curtains wide & looking out into the front yard. That’s the one regression we’ve seen — & it was cute.
As well as power, you save a lot of space; not just for the box itself, but for the watching area.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
My only comment is that due to Sony's "Sins"[0], no Sony product, service, device, "standard", movie, or music is ever an option in this household. I don't care if it's free; if it's Sony, it's not in my house. (This is a major pain when selecting motherboards as most use a Sony chip here and there.)
Unfortunately, at work, I have to have good technical reasons to refuse to allow a Sony product. I do find them sometimes, other times not.
[0] Things I Hate about Sony: (These are my opinions. You should research the facts and form your own.)
1. Bleem law suits
2. DRM
3. DRM installing root kits.
4. Support for RIAA.
5. Support for MPAA.
6. Various law suits that, in my opinion, are without foundation or merit before being filed.
7. Fake movie reviewer David Manning.
8. Disrespecting religion.
9. Graffiti pushing PlayStation.
10. Racist ads.
11. Astroturfing blogs.
12. Declining technical advantage (EG: What Sony has, others have, but better, cheaper, and less apt to fail.)
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I have a digital cable box. There's no firewire. If there were, my TV wouldn't display it. Most TVs wouldn't. HDMI is the new standard. Yes, it has DRM. It is buggy (in my implementation at least) and it sucks. Oh well, at least I don't need seperate audio cables.
I've been watching DVDs on my 19" CRT @ 1280x1024 wearing a pair of +2 Reading glasses from about a foot away... AWESOME!!! ;-)
Bottom line: Neither is superior in all ways. Pick the things that matter to you.
Dude, you suck at slashdot. You can't start a flamewar like that.
Here, let me help:
Plasmas consume a lot more energy than LCDs. Therefore, the only people buying LCDs are hippies. If you love America, you'd buy a plasma.
Plasma is BRIGHT even in sunlight (tho obviously not as you would wish). The colors contrast nicely. LCDs do not have the contrast. If you live in an area where your home air conditioning consists mostly of heating the plasma adds a nice set of BTUs to the room. If you need mostly cooling go for the LCD.
cursethedarkness
I bought myself LCD from Sharp. Good price. Good resolution. Low power consumption.
In our local store there is side-by-sede exhibit of LCDs and Plasmas (Philips' ones). There are also new LCDs with 3200 dynamic contrast ratio. They look comparable to image quality of plasmas.
General observation for 37". Good plasma & good LCD - of comparable quality, 1080p capable - all cost now +3000€. LCD at 3200 (dynamic) contrast performs very well in side-by-side comparison with plasma. In fact, I wasn't being able to tell one from another. (While normally color reproduction of plasmas stands out.)
Cheap plasmas with high power consumption and low resolution (1024x768 - still performing visually better than LCD's 1366x768) would set you back 1400€+ and improved power bill (200 v. 400 watts (yes, new plasmas are as good as LCDs at power saving)).
Cheap LCDs have now contrast ratio of 1200/1600 (dynamic one). And cost the same 1400€ as cheap plasmas do. Visually less stunning, they still suck less power. But of course, black isn't really black here.
In the end, I went with cheap brand-name LCD and am pretty happy. TV is TV - few movie and lots of TV shows. Movies need good contrast - TV shows don't.
P.S. Piece of advice. Do not buy black LCD TVs. Black frame around screen doesn't bode well with black as seen on LCD screen. Otherwise - it's okay ;)
P.P.S. Word about resolutions. TV native resolution is used nowhere. I have 1366x768 and I thought that my PC would be able to take advantage of it - mistake. TVs do really support only 480i/p, 576i, 720i/p & 1080i/p - the actual number of pixels has nothing to do with it since picture is always approximated. Also, I found that actual visible pixel resolution is smaller than advertised for 720/1080 modes: edges are always left out of screen. Probably I am mistaken, but that seems to be a solution to MPEG compression introduced bugs on screen edges. I googled for it - but found no information. (But probably it is mine geforce7800gt just suck - it produces terribly unwatchable 1080i too.)
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
really, each pixel on a CRT is 3 monochromatic pixels. Think "anti-aliasing". Standard TV looks like crap on every LCD/plasma I've seen. I prefer my 36' CRT. It has a few more scan lines than normal. Remember: The NTSC is a specification for the *signal*. You can throw 800x600 or 640x480 at the exact same TV, and it will look different. The *signal* can be any sort of resolution.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
But I haven't had a monitor for years. I have a separate computer if I need to, say, look at photography images in great detail. I read email, do lots of websurfing, and do plenty of command-line stuff (4NT), cooledit, even photoshop (only for crop jobs, not for color adjustment/detail work!), play games. Oh, and I watch shows. HDTV AVIs look equivalent to paying a DVD with my PS2.
I would prefer the DVI connector, but my TV doesn't have that ): So occasionally I have to open and close my refridgerator to eliminate some of the EM enterference. Damn you Monster Cable!
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
And no, I don't know why I just started talking like Yoda.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
That display is nice (my brother worked at that startup until it was bought by Qualcomm), but its response time is kind of slow. That display, however, takes very little power to display a static image.