Plasma vs. LCD flat panels, has your opinion changed?
10-25-05, 11:53 PM
#1
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
Plasma vs. LCD flat panels, has your opinion changed?
For a long time I thought Plasma was superior to LCD, but recently that started to change. The price point and size offered for LCDs has started to catch up to plasma, though there is still a slight edge to plasma.
So I started thinking about a new tv for the bedroom, and the LCDs were looking good. Definately the way to go for a smaller tv. But I just read an article in [/i]Electronic Home[/i] about the 5 myths of Plasma, and it may have won me back.
They basically had to do with the myth of burn-in, which showed that 48 hours of a static screen would produce burn-in but it would revert to normal after 6 hours of normal viewing.
Another was life span, which was about 60,000 hours to half brightness, which is a lot longer than CRT, etc. They did an aging test, and plasma had less loss than LCD and all the others. Front projectors did the worst, but you can always buy a new bulb to reverse that.
Another was power consumption. They have to show power consumption as though it was a white screen, where everything is on, which isn't how plasma works. Plasmas are usually "on" 10-20% for normal viewing, while the others are all on. They basically are comparable on actual power usage.
Anyway, have your thoughts changed over the years? I am kind of looking at a 37-42 inch plasma or lcd for the bedroom.
So I started thinking about a new tv for the bedroom, and the LCDs were looking good. Definately the way to go for a smaller tv. But I just read an article in [/i]Electronic Home[/i] about the 5 myths of Plasma, and it may have won me back.
They basically had to do with the myth of burn-in, which showed that 48 hours of a static screen would produce burn-in but it would revert to normal after 6 hours of normal viewing.
Another was life span, which was about 60,000 hours to half brightness, which is a lot longer than CRT, etc. They did an aging test, and plasma had less loss than LCD and all the others. Front projectors did the worst, but you can always buy a new bulb to reverse that.
Another was power consumption. They have to show power consumption as though it was a white screen, where everything is on, which isn't how plasma works. Plasmas are usually "on" 10-20% for normal viewing, while the others are all on. They basically are comparable on actual power usage.
Anyway, have your thoughts changed over the years? I am kind of looking at a 37-42 inch plasma or lcd for the bedroom.
10-26-05, 07:35 AM
#2
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
My thoughts on plasma changed after I read about 'the myths' like you've posted and just doing some rudimentary research on the two. What surprises me is how many people believe the myths and spout them as gospel, along with every bad thing that was wrong with the gen 1 plasma screens. Every time I tell someone I own one, they tell me it's only going to last 2 years and it's going to be all burned in if I'm not extremely careful.
I've got LCD too, but I use it mainly for gaming. Overall, I'm happy with both.
I've got LCD too, but I use it mainly for gaming. Overall, I'm happy with both.
10-26-05, 09:23 AM
#4
Moderator
On a somewhat related note... did Sony drop their plasma line? The only thing I can find info on right now is the new BRAVIA LCD line 
WRT to question my opinions haven't really changed either way. I just bought a plasma less than a year ago and I don't regret it. Had I to do again now I might have ended up w/ one of the new LCD instead, but the main consideration for me is features. From what we saw the video was comparable (between LCD/plasma, the DLP is another story though
) and the main reason we ended up w/ the plasma was features and size (since at the time the largest LCDs were still smaller than the plasmas).
WRT to question my opinions haven't really changed either way. I just bought a plasma less than a year ago and I don't regret it. Had I to do again now I might have ended up w/ one of the new LCD instead, but the main consideration for me is features. From what we saw the video was comparable (between LCD/plasma, the DLP is another story though
) and the main reason we ended up w/ the plasma was features and size (since at the time the largest LCDs were still smaller than the plasmas).
10-26-05, 10:49 AM
#6
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinion hasn't changed. If the size range fits, I'd pick plasma since I like the picture better. LCD has improved, but not there, yet. Since it hasn't fit, yet, I don't have a plasma. And won't soon since the next 2 TVs I need to get will be 25-32" widescreens, meaning LCD size range. My wife gets LCD anyway, though. I don't care how much better the latest models are at preventing burn-in. She leaves her TV on QVC for about 60 hours a week. Better just to get the technology that has zero issues.
10-26-05, 10:54 AM
#7
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went with LCD because of gaming.
My main issue with Plasma is that the smaller or less expensive models never have the full resolution. My 23" LCD is 1366x768, or something like that, but the plasmas only come in 1280x760. Both are widescreen, so where did the extra pixels go? My guess is that they stretched the horizontal pixels - which I would never pay money for.
My main issue with Plasma is that the smaller or less expensive models never have the full resolution. My 23" LCD is 1366x768, or something like that, but the plasmas only come in 1280x760. Both are widescreen, so where did the extra pixels go? My guess is that they stretched the horizontal pixels - which I would never pay money for.
10-26-05, 11:18 AM
#8
Moderator
Originally Posted by kvrdave
For a long time I thought Plasma was superior to LCD, but recently that started to change. The price point and size offered for LCDs has started to catch up to plasma, though there is still a slight edge to plasma.
So I started thinking about a new tv for the bedroom, and the LCDs were looking good. Definately the way to go for a smaller tv. But I just read an article in [/i]Electronic Home[/i] about the 5 myths of Plasma, and it may have won me back.
They basically had to do with the myth of burn-in, which showed that 48 hours of a static screen would produce burn-in but it would revert to normal after 6 hours of normal viewing.
Another was life span, which was about 60,000 hours to half brightness, which is a lot longer than CRT, etc. They did an aging test, and plasma had less loss than LCD and all the others. Front projectors did the worst, but you can always buy a new bulb to reverse that.
Another was power consumption. They have to show power consumption as though it was a white screen, where everything is on, which isn't how plasma works. Plasmas are usually "on" 10-20% for normal viewing, while the others are all on. They basically are comparable on actual power usage.
Anyway, have your thoughts changed over the years? I am kind of looking at a 37-42 inch plasma or lcd for the bedroom.
So I started thinking about a new tv for the bedroom, and the LCDs were looking good. Definately the way to go for a smaller tv. But I just read an article in [/i]Electronic Home[/i] about the 5 myths of Plasma, and it may have won me back.
They basically had to do with the myth of burn-in, which showed that 48 hours of a static screen would produce burn-in but it would revert to normal after 6 hours of normal viewing.
Another was life span, which was about 60,000 hours to half brightness, which is a lot longer than CRT, etc. They did an aging test, and plasma had less loss than LCD and all the others. Front projectors did the worst, but you can always buy a new bulb to reverse that.
Another was power consumption. They have to show power consumption as though it was a white screen, where everything is on, which isn't how plasma works. Plasmas are usually "on" 10-20% for normal viewing, while the others are all on. They basically are comparable on actual power usage.
Anyway, have your thoughts changed over the years? I am kind of looking at a 37-42 inch plasma or lcd for the bedroom.
My opinion has only been cemented. Plasma is the only way to go if you watch tv shows, sports, or movies and care about picture quality. Maybe the LCDs will be a watchable picture in a few years, but right now it isn't that close.
nemein,
Yes, Sony bailed on plasma. (I have a friend who works in their corporate offices). It is why I went with a Pioneer Elite model.
10-26-05, 12:32 PM
#9
Moderator
Yes, Sony bailed on plasma. (I have a friend who works in their corporate offices). It is why I went with a Pioneer Elite model.
10-27-05, 02:08 AM
#11
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,260
Received 1,793 Likes
on
1,121 Posts
My opinion hasn't changed. Bypassing the weight and size issue, CRT's still kick both their asses. I'm saying that as I watch David Letterman in HD on my CRT. 
10-27-05, 07:09 AM
#12
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by Giantrobo
My opinion hasn't changed. Bypassing the weight and size issue, CRT's still kick both their asses. I'm saying that as I watch David Letterman in HD on my CRT.
10-27-05, 09:22 AM
#13
DVD Talk Limited Edition
I still love my 65" Mitsu crt rptv, but it does require the occasional teweaking to keep convergence and geometry straight. OTOH, it always has a beautiful, natural-looking picture with a good source.
I have warmed towards the newer plasmas. I still think the larger lcd's aren't at the same level, esp. noticeable when there are moving objects on-screen (which is almost all the time!). Small lcd's do look pretty sharp to me, esp. Sharp & Samsung.
If I were buying a flat panel (and I may be doing so reasonably soon, for th ebedroom), I would hands-down go with the Panasonic 42" EDTV for $1500. It has a clear, natural-looking picture. HD sources and DVDs look great on it. And it is clearly the best bang for the buck today in plasmas or 42" screens in general. (Why buy a dlp or lcd with inferior pq for more money??)
I have warmed towards the newer plasmas. I still think the larger lcd's aren't at the same level, esp. noticeable when there are moving objects on-screen (which is almost all the time!). Small lcd's do look pretty sharp to me, esp. Sharp & Samsung.
If I were buying a flat panel (and I may be doing so reasonably soon, for th ebedroom), I would hands-down go with the Panasonic 42" EDTV for $1500. It has a clear, natural-looking picture. HD sources and DVDs look great on it. And it is clearly the best bang for the buck today in plasmas or 42" screens in general. (Why buy a dlp or lcd with inferior pq for more money??)
10-27-05, 01:56 PM
#14
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
As stated, LCD is getting better, but still looks a little "electronic" to me. If I had to choose though I'd go with plasma. Although I am still a CRT man all the way. I love the aesthetics of plasma, but fast-action scenes still look awful and blurry, that would drive me nuts while watching a movie.
10-27-05, 03:10 PM
#15
I havent researched it lately so my opinions are the same. Have things changed?
If a 'burned in' image reverts to normal, does that mean the image surrounding it just got burned in enough to blur it? What about the 'black bars' around an image when viewing a source that doesnt fill up your whole screen? the contrast of complete black to image would be significant. Especially if you watch enough 4:3 broadcasts.
Now Im trusting enough to believe that these fears are out of date with the newer advances in plasma technology, but in the back of my mind while watching some crap show that doesnt fill up my screen I would KNOW that "its not good for my screen to see those damn black bars." Or if I was playing a video game for 6 hours, Id glance up at that bright green health bar and in the back of my head gnawing at me, JUDGING me that Im spending too much time gaming because THAT DAMN HEALTH BAR IS NOT GOOD FOR MY $3000 SCREEN! I know I should say 'screw it--tests show its hardly an issue!' but no. Not until the day when its proof positive that they invent some plasma that never fades, never burns will I breathe a sigh of relief. Well, in a way they have screens that are like that. LCDs. LCOS etc.
Theres trade offs with all these technologies, but i just didnt want to worry about a damn TV Screen once its glowing happily in my home.
If a 'burned in' image reverts to normal, does that mean the image surrounding it just got burned in enough to blur it? What about the 'black bars' around an image when viewing a source that doesnt fill up your whole screen? the contrast of complete black to image would be significant. Especially if you watch enough 4:3 broadcasts.
Now Im trusting enough to believe that these fears are out of date with the newer advances in plasma technology, but in the back of my mind while watching some crap show that doesnt fill up my screen I would KNOW that "its not good for my screen to see those damn black bars." Or if I was playing a video game for 6 hours, Id glance up at that bright green health bar and in the back of my head gnawing at me, JUDGING me that Im spending too much time gaming because THAT DAMN HEALTH BAR IS NOT GOOD FOR MY $3000 SCREEN! I know I should say 'screw it--tests show its hardly an issue!' but no. Not until the day when its proof positive that they invent some plasma that never fades, never burns will I breathe a sigh of relief. Well, in a way they have screens that are like that. LCDs. LCOS etc.
Theres trade offs with all these technologies, but i just didnt want to worry about a damn TV Screen once its glowing happily in my home.
10-27-05, 07:51 PM
#16
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by Save Ferris
I havent researched it lately so my opinions are the same. Have things changed?
If a 'burned in' image reverts to normal, does that mean the image surrounding it just got burned in enough to blur it? What about the 'black bars' around an image when viewing a source that doesnt fill up your whole screen? the contrast of complete black to image would be significant. Especially if you watch enough 4:3 broadcasts.
Now Im trusting enough to believe that these fears are out of date with the newer advances in plasma technology, but in the back of my mind while watching some crap show that doesnt fill up my screen I would KNOW that "its not good for my screen to see those damn black bars." Or if I was playing a video game for 6 hours, Id glance up at that bright green health bar and in the back of my head gnawing at me, JUDGING me that Im spending too much time gaming because THAT DAMN HEALTH BAR IS NOT GOOD FOR MY $3000 SCREEN! I know I should say 'screw it--tests show its hardly an issue!' but no. Not until the day when its proof positive that they invent some plasma that never fades, never burns will I breathe a sigh of relief. Well, in a way they have screens that are like that. LCDs. LCOS etc.
If a 'burned in' image reverts to normal, does that mean the image surrounding it just got burned in enough to blur it? What about the 'black bars' around an image when viewing a source that doesnt fill up your whole screen? the contrast of complete black to image would be significant. Especially if you watch enough 4:3 broadcasts.
Now Im trusting enough to believe that these fears are out of date with the newer advances in plasma technology, but in the back of my mind while watching some crap show that doesnt fill up my screen I would KNOW that "its not good for my screen to see those damn black bars." Or if I was playing a video game for 6 hours, Id glance up at that bright green health bar and in the back of my head gnawing at me, JUDGING me that Im spending too much time gaming because THAT DAMN HEALTH BAR IS NOT GOOD FOR MY $3000 SCREEN! I know I should say 'screw it--tests show its hardly an issue!' but no. Not until the day when its proof positive that they invent some plasma that never fades, never burns will I breathe a sigh of relief. Well, in a way they have screens that are like that. LCDs. LCOS etc.
10-27-05, 08:33 PM
#17
But by going super bright it doesnt 'fix' the burn in, it just burns everything equally, right? that would be unnerving to know that you had to burn the rest of the screen to equalize it. I didnt know the bars went grey. I think that would be pretty annoying in a dark room. When mine has bars, the black is adjusted enough so that its not really noticible in a dark room. Anyway enough complaining, the plasmas Ive seen look beautiful, they just arent for me.
10-28-05, 09:08 AM
#18
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRTs have phosphor that "burns" over time. Regardless, that's how it works. Plasmas are different, more like a fluorescent light. But they still have some phosphor that can have burn problems, which is why the caution is out there. But these new ones are much better. They've improved plasmas to the point where it really isn't a worry. And, of course, if people treated them properly, there wouldn't be any worry in the first place. Plus, they have a half life of 60,000 hours. That is at least double that of any other TV technology. My DLP lamp has a half life of 2000 hours, maybe.
10-29-05, 12:50 AM
#19
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Damed
I would be interested in reading that article. Is it online? Can you post a link?
Couldn't find it online.
But I did find this link that gives you a lot of articles from all magazines about these subjects. Very comprehensive, and glad I found it.
http://www.ecoustics.com/Home/Home_V...V/TV_Articles/
10-29-05, 07:43 AM
#20
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,260
Received 1,793 Likes
on
1,121 Posts
I'm surprised no Gamemaker/System maker has put in a "No burn" mode for their games/systems. You know what I mean? Like an option to switch off -ALL- static screen info like "health", "ammo", and other things that stay onscreen. Clearly the debate is still raging as far as the Burn issue goes and no one side is 100% right or wrong.
10-29-05, 10:52 AM
#21
DVD Talk Limited Edition
So, if I HAVE the room (which I do since I have a large RPTV), would you recommend an upgrade to another RPTV? I was looking for something with 720p as I will use the TV for the XBOX360 also. I was looking at Sony LCD-RP or some Mits DLP's. I guess I have to see them in action. We'll see....maybe after the holidays and if I can find a buyer for my 55" mits
10-29-05, 12:44 PM
#22
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Giantrobo
My opinion hasn't changed. Bypassing the weight and size issue, CRT's still kick both their asses. I'm saying that as I watch David Letterman in HD on my CRT.
Buying a decent-sized plasma and/or lcd just isn't feasible right now. LCD's are getting better as time goes by...and cheaper. Maybe in a couple of years I'll think about buying the latter.
10-31-05, 12:39 PM
#24
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, this isn't definitive. But a Panny 37" plasma is listed on their site as consuming 325w. A Sharp 37" LCD claims 195w.
Note that I have no idea if they are using comparable methods to rate the power, or even if the specs are accurate in the first place. And this is flat panels, not projection. Projection LCDs would be higher as the lamps are usually over 300w alone.
Note that I have no idea if they are using comparable methods to rate the power, or even if the specs are accurate in the first place. And this is flat panels, not projection. Projection LCDs would be higher as the lamps are usually over 300w alone.
Last edited by Spiky; 10-31-05 at 12:46 PM.
10-31-05, 12:45 PM
#25
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DJ,
Here's an opinionated post. With lots of variables, though.
I would not bother changing now. Why? You already have a nice TV, and there are still lots of changes going on. The current crop MIGHT be final with HDMI and HDCP, etc., or it might not. HD discs and the finalizing of ATSC transmissions are still up in the air. 1080p is available, but not really ready. All the DLPs so far are wobulated instead of using true, full resolution DMD chips.
Now, if it was broken or you wanted to upgrade size or if you run into compatibilitiy issues or something like that, I'd say go for it. Or if you had no HDTV, I'd say get one anytime.
Here's an opinionated post. With lots of variables, though.
I would not bother changing now. Why? You already have a nice TV, and there are still lots of changes going on. The current crop MIGHT be final with HDMI and HDCP, etc., or it might not. HD discs and the finalizing of ATSC transmissions are still up in the air. 1080p is available, but not really ready. All the DLPs so far are wobulated instead of using true, full resolution DMD chips.
Now, if it was broken or you wanted to upgrade size or if you run into compatibilitiy issues or something like that, I'd say go for it. Or if you had no HDTV, I'd say get one anytime.
