Plasma or LCD?

LCD by mgabrys_sf · 2006-12-27 22:50 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:LCD by networkBoy · 2006-12-27 22:55 · Score: 4, Informative

That and reflection. TFA mentions flourescent lights which is bunk, we don't have shop lights in our living rooms, but we do have windows, which can be worse. Flipside is the contrast and dMax of the blacks on plasma are hands above LCD.

In a nutshell: GP TV? LCD
Theatre? Plasma.
That's it.
-nB

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:LCD by mgabrys_sf · 2006-12-27 23:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Don't forget rez. If you're ever going to see a 1080p Blue Ray movie - you're going to shell out huge bucks for plasma - and get a huge screen. That and a sizable power-bill.
Re:LCD by mewyn · 2006-12-28 01:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Basically, the most popular way for PDP manufacturers to mask out burn-in is to burn-in all pixels equally. So, basically if the burn-in detection sees that you are likely to have burn-in in one small zone of the screen, it will drive that one zone with less intensity, and the rest of the screen harder to equalize the burn-in rate. This, of course, is less than ideal, as it leads to an overall loss of black level on the display, and driving one zone too hard with a static image will reduce the life of the PDP display overall.
Re:LCD by mgabrys_sf · 2006-12-28 01:06 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes. Static images like score and gameplay gauges tend to burn into plasma very fast. The latest available fixes attempt to erase these burns by turning on every pixel very bright and for a long time to burn-in the whole of the screen (they call this "wear your new plasma's phosphors evenly" which is bullshit - they're basically burning down the remaining screen to match the burn). This of course lessens the life of the screen and reduces overall brightness. Basically it's a fix that breaks the whole of the screen. Unless brightness isn't important to you of course (or the lifespan of your screen), don't bother. It's the edsel of the 21st century in screen tech.

http://www.plasmasaver.com/
Re:LCD by fyngyrz · 2006-12-28 04:37 · Score: 5, Informative

Nah, projector.

Absolutely agree. No box display can give you even a fraction of the quality a well-planned projection installation can. You go from getting a "that's nice" reaction to your media system to dropped jaws.

There are basically two types of projection systems. One is based on high-temperature, high density LCD panels. The other is based on Texas Instrument's DLP (Digital Light Processing) technology, which places many tiny mirrors on a chip and actually moves them to modulate brightness. Because the mirror can deflect the light entirely off screen, this results in deep, deep blacks. LCDs produce blacks by becoming as opaque as they can, but light still leaks through. Lately, compensating technology in the form of stopping down the lens to aid in darkening the overall projection range in relatively dim scenes has appeared, but this isn't really the same as a system that can actually go from very bright to deep black. Still, LCD projectors look very good, it's just that DLP looks astonishing.

And of course, you'll pay more for DLP — with the better picture, they do charge a premium and no one really has too much to say about it.

Prices seem to be settling at about $3000 for a 1080p system in the coming year; they've been about $5000 during $2006 and $10000 during 2005 for 1920 x 1080, though progressive scan is really just now appearing; 1080i was the top a couple years back.

You can shoot for 720p and really save a huge amount of money, and you still get a fabulous picture. The key here is to find the single largest surface you can dedicate to the projection system and then design around that. My sweetheart and I were looking for a place to remake, so we were looking at old stores, businesses, and so on. We found an 1940's church, and behind the pulpit was a blank wall space that was very close to 16:9 above the chair-rail; to make a long story short, we bought the church, made a home out of it, and we ended up with a display surface that is quite large. Not all projectors will focus on a large surface, so watch out for the spec that tells you how many inches they'll service, in focus. When you see 200 or 300 inches, you know you're good to go.

If you can't dedicate a wall, then a drop-down screen is just a couple of hundred bucks and you can easily get them in that price range up to 100 inches with remotes that command them to drop down.

There are downsides. The bulbs for the projector last a few thousand hours, and they dim over time. While life is advertised as 5000 hours or so, you'll probably be thinking about replacing them at closer to about half of that. And they are relatively expensive; typically several hundred dollars. On the other hand, if you put a dime in a jar for every hour you watch, you'll have "bulb money" all ready to go when the time comes. A dime an hour for the best home theater experience I can possibly have isn't too much for me; I don't use it to watch broadcast television more than a couple hours a month. We watch lots of movies and we spend a fair amount of time gaming in hi-def.

Here is a shot of my system with my sweetheart at the lower left for scale. You can see how close the wall space is to 16:9... we totally lucked out.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:LCD by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 05:12 · Score: 1, Informative

In any case, we compared plasma and LCD side by side at the store and went for the LCD.

There are some problems with this approach:

1. Stores use fluorescent lighting which you are unlikely to have in your living room.
2. Store employees are usually incompetent at setting up the display, so you may not be viewing the best quality the set can produce.
3. When store employees are competent they can set the displays up so the model which earns them the highest profit looks the best (so you still may not be viewing the best quality the set can produce).
Re:LCD by iocat · 2006-12-28 05:17 · Score: 3, Informative

DLP can cause fleeting rainbow images in whites (not just large white areas -- even tiny whites) that some people find very disconcerting. Some people see them, some don't. But you should check out a DLP image before you purchase. Also, at the consumer level, low-end DLP can be cheaper than low-end LCD.
I agree projectors are great for home theaters, but I find that they are not great for a wide variety of applications -- for instance, I am sitting in my family room right now, with no blinds pulled, and lots of light in the room, and my HD CRT looks a lot better than my projector would in this situation! (Yes, I said HD CRT. It weights a million pounds, but the picture quality is > than plasma or LCD with my 1080i cable input.)

--
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Re:LCD by Technomonics · 2006-12-28 05:38 · Score: 5, Informative

Further advancements in DLP now replace the single bulb approach with multiple bright LED's. With this new approach, there is no "rainbow effect" and the resulting resolution is now higher than the 1080i standard.
Here is a blurb about a new model by Samsung: "Samsung must realize those DLP bulbs don't last long enough and cost too much because the new 56-inch HL-S5679W DLP set uses LED lighting. Hey, Samsung, while you're under the hood, why not kill that color wheel too? Oh wait, they did that too with red, green and blue LEDs, which is killer because there's no gold at the end of that rainbow effect. The new tweaks give the HL-S5679W a sweet seven-second startup time and 20,000 hours of little lamp lives. There's no wobulation in this 1080p set, it's full 1920 x 1080 in a progressive format with dual 1080p inputs. Samsung states these will handle 1080p signals, so if it's the real deal, these should be paired up PlayStation 3's, no? Watch for it in April around $4,200."
So, it would seem the new DLP LED would be perfect to prevent burn-in while providing a incredible picture and resolution. -kevin
Re:LCD by khelms · 2006-12-28 05:40 · Score: 2, Informative

I just bought a 52" LCD and it looks awesome. The unit has 1920x1080 resolution and supports 1080P. I passed on Plasma because they supposedly have a humming problem at higher altitudes (I'm at 6200") and I've been pleased with a smaller 26" LCD TV and with the LCD monitors I use with my PCs.
Re:LCD by Junta · 2006-12-28 06:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Three solutions commonly exist for that.

One, most single-chip DLP units nowadays have the color wheel spin at such a high velocity as to render the effect impossible to perceive. My color wheel spins about three times as fast as color wheels during the time people complained some could notice the transitioning.

Second, on more expensive DLP they have multi-chip units, with a chip per color and no wheel. You are back to worrying about convergence, but rainbow effect is impossible.

Third, newer sets are starting to employ high-output LED arrays instead of lamps. This means that for one lower power and heat as well as longer life than bulbs (not to mention cutting out the need for some moving parts), and for another they can flash the different primaries very quickly to the chip. Of course, if they don't flash quickly enough, it could still happen.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:LCD by zukakog · 2006-12-28 07:22 · Score: 2, Informative

1. Stores use fluorescent lighting which you are unlikely to have in your living room.
Quite a few people have florescent lights in their living rooms. Maybe not the big tubes, but the small ones that screw in to your lamp. I have 4 floor lamps with nice bright florescent bulbs, and the 4 of them togeather burn cooler and cheaper than one 100w incandescent bulb. Now, I'm not sure if these bulbs have the same drawbacks as the big tubes, concerning TV's.
Re:LCD by larryj · 2006-12-28 08:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Wow. Someone is selling a DVD that you can download for free. Check out the plasma/lcd forum at htt://www.avsforum.com and download the image for free.

I recently upgraded my 2 year old Panasonic 42" plasma to a Panasonic 50" plasma. Even though I play lots of console games, I've never seen any sign of burn-in or image retention on either one. I followed the advice posted at avsforum, lowering my brightness and contrast (which matched my Video Essentials calibration results anyway) and just used common sense. Not only have the static images not burnt in 'very fast', they haven't burnt in at all.

--
What if the Hokey-Pokey really is what it's all about?
Re:LCD by uradu · 2006-12-28 15:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Right, and even if you want a high gain screen, the GrayWolf II with a gain of 1.8 can be had for well under $200. The main problem with these is that they don't work very well with a ceiling mounted projector, which is where most permanent projectors end up. With reflector screens most of the light is reflected back to the source, so you as the potato on the couch are well off-axis wrt the projector up on the ceiling. A better approach for good blacks would be to get--or paint--a gray screen and a higher lumen DLP projector with still decent blacks such as the Mitsu HD1000U. That way, dark scenes will be darker because of the gray screen, but bright scenes will still be punchy because of the higher output of the machine.

PS I realize you probably know all this, I'm just adding it for the benefit of the crowd that seems to have gathered in this thread by the look of all the +5 Insightful moderation.

Google is your friend by subreality · 2006-12-27 23:00 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Flat displays by Oryn · 2006-12-28 00:24 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Re:I'm cynical by catwh0re · 2006-12-28 00:34 · Score: 2, Informative

The warranty on my plasma (sanyo brand) reveals that they will not cover burn in from video games. My friend that sourced it for me reveals that they can get burn in remarkably quickly (hours not days). So for example a game's score counter on the screen will burn in quite quickly..

Re:Panasonic say: Buy Our TVs Film At 11. by KozmoStevnNaut · 2006-12-28 01:05 · Score: 5, Informative

Disclaimer: I work for Bang & Olufsen.

Much of the added price is the name and the nice box, which is more expensive than you might think, being that "everything is what it seems to be", ie. the metal-looking bits really are metal all the way through (mostly aluminum, seeing as they have their own very highly regarded aluminum works), the build quality is very sturdy and well-built and so on.

But the internal components are also B&O-spec and developed in house with high-grade components, and the internal testing of both assembled components and finished products is very rigorous.

The image calibration and automatic adjustments ("Adaptive Black", contrast adjustments according to ambient light, image filtering and smoothing of analog inputs on LCDs and plasmas etc.) are very nicely done as well. You really don't notice the adjustments working until you really look for it, since it's so smoothly and non-intrusively implemented. Bang & Olufsen have long been known for having some of the very best and most consistent image quality.

Also, the integration between products of various kinds is second to none. The Beo4 remote controls every single Bang & Olufsen product from the last 25 years or so, and everything including lighting and curtains can be controlled using a single remote.

So yes, you pay for the name. Bang & Olufsen being a premium "scandinavian lifestyle" type brand, it's pretty much implied that a premium will be charged. But you also pay for the quality and the integration. You admittedly won't really enjoy the integration until you have lots of Bang & Olufsen stuff, but it is possible to control products from other manufacturers, via an IR receiver and IR blaster.

Bang & Olufsen is like Apple, in a way. They have the same "It just works" mentality, and lots of people really like that, especially after having tried it themselves. More tech-savvy people may scoff at their products for being to simple and too expensive, but they are not the target market. The target market is people with enough money to spend and no interest in tweaking.

--
Eat the rich.

Re:CRT by gad_zuki! · 2006-12-28 01:49 · Score: 2, Informative

The 27" sony trinitron I just moved from the car to a second floor apartment (almost dying in the process) weighs 98lbs. Thats 62lbs less than what you weigh. Moving these things is a serious pain and with no good grips.

I own both, by torxic · 2006-12-28 01:53 · Score: 1, Informative

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.

my plasma experience by Rylfaeth · 2006-12-28 02:15 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Re:Down with phosphors! by walt-sjc · 2006-12-28 03:05 · Score: 3, Informative

There isn't no chance

Syntax Error

LCD's don't have burn-in, they have retention. Retention can be fixed with a number of utilities (search Google.) There is nothing to "burn-in" on an LCD.

Re:what about DLP? by MarkAD88 · 2006-12-28 03:12 · Score: 2, Informative

When I was in the market for a new HDTV last year I desperatley wanted to get a DLP. To me the images seem clearer, the colors mor vibrant and the blacks are almost CRT level blacks. Unfortunatley for me my living room layout requires that my TV be placed in a media-nitch that sits roughly 4-feet off the ground so between viewing angle problems and size restrictions I could not get a DLP. If you're not one of the "oh look how thin it is" or "I've gotta hang it on my wall" crowd then I'd suggeest a DLP set. The 52" models start out at around 16" deep and go up from there. Mitsubishi and even HP offer some beautiful models all of which are 1080p.

It could burn in TV also... by VGfort · 2006-12-28 04:02 · Score: 3, Informative

If you have CNN, Fox, NFL or a certain channel on all the time those logos, scorebars, scrolling bars are gonna burn in also.

Re:HELP MEEEEEE by chriswaco · 2006-12-28 04:20 · Score: 3, Informative

Plasma has better viewing angles than LCDs. Newer LCDs are coming close, though.

A good plasma set still looks better at rapidly moving images, like sports. Newer LCDs are coming close, though.

Plasma seems to have more color and contrast, but Sony LCDs look pretty nice too.

I suspect LCDs will win, but I'm pretty happy with my plasma right now. If prices keep coming down, we'll be able to afford a few of each soon. :-)

Why I Just Purchased a Rear ProjectionLCD Set by tompatman · 2006-12-28 06:20 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:Be sure to *look* at them first by smoker2 · 2006-12-28 10:02 · Score: 2, Informative

... comparably-priced plasmas looked a LOT better than their LCD counterparts. Their color and contrast was way better (more vivid and rich) than the LCD's (which looked grayish and "washed-out").

You do realise that they turn the brightness / contrast up way too high in stores to compensate for the fluorescent lighting.

Re:I got the burn... by cjsm · 2006-12-28 13:08 · Score: 2, Informative

This reminds me of a local news station in St. Louis, that has a consumer watchdog reporter. They did a segment on a family having a problem with plamsa burn in, and what was burned into the plasma was their own station screen logo. The family was apprantly unaware of the burn in problem, so they just left it on that station all day long. No one from the station apologized for ruining their expensive plasma with their constant broadcast of the logo. Instead they contacted the store it was purchased at and the manufacturer to see if they would help with the problem.

On screen logos are one of the reasons I don't watch much TV, even though I have a HD receiver. On my DLP front projector system and 92" screen, a logo which is mildly annoying on a small screen, becomes hugely distracting. I can pick up Smallville in High Definition, but the local station has a large obnoxious yellow logo, which makes it unwatchable. So I just buy or rent the discs of TV shows I want to watch.

--
This ad space for rent.

28 of 356 comments (clear)