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?"

I'm cynical

[blake182]

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.

Re:HELP MEEEEEE

[Goeland86]

Plasma doesn't have the longevity of LCD TVs, and to be honest, LCD TVs have in general better viewing angles. And LCD TVs are cheaper for sizes up to 42".
Just things I've gleaned walking in Fry's Electronics this afternoon.

I like my CRTs

[simm1701]

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.

CRT

[KlaymenDK]

Why not go for a CRT?

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 ... but make sure you do what's right for you, not just what's modern.

LCD

[datafr0g]

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!

Down with phosphors!

[Osty]

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 [wikipedia.org] 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!

Don't trust em

[LordVader717]

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.

Just bought an LCD

[AlXtreme]

A few days ago I bought a new LCD TV to replace my decades-old CRT TV. Why didn't I go for Plasma?

• 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.

Big screens == large power bills

[GreatDrok]

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.

Re:Down with phosphors!

[steelcobra]

Plus DLP costs half as much as a plasma at the same size. AND new advances keep improving DLP. Such as the newest 1080p three-chip models with separate red, green, and blue LED lamps instead of the single-chip color-wheel based white lamp.

Re:Neither

[VernonNemitz]

I agree that neither LCD nor Plasma is enough better than the old-fashioned CRT that I would want to replace mine with one of those. The main thing against them is "pixel size"; the smallest possible pixel on a modern CRT allows it to easily and cleanly support a huge list of different screen-resolutions, while the pixels of LCD and plasma units are so much larger that they can only cleanly support a very limited list --else the image just plain looks ugly. So I'm waiting for flat-screen technology to advance to the point where pixel size has shrunk to roughly the same size that a CRT can do. So far as I know, the closest contender for that, still under development, is this one [qualcomm.com].

I got the burn...

[WeeLad]

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.

Re:Big screens == large power bills

[Jearil]

But what if you want to watch TV or play a game or whatever with a light on in the house? Or better yet, a window open with sunlight coming in?

The best argument I've heard against projectors of any kind is: If you have a white wall, go look at it. Look at that white wall and think to yourself "Is that white wall an acceptable black level for watching TV? Because that's as dark as the image is going to get."

I know some friends who have some really nice projectors, but they all look washed out unless in a room with absolute darkness. I find not all rooms can achieve that. A lot of rooms in a house are connected to other rooms with an archway rather than a door. Someone else in the house might be doing something that requires light, and that will spill over into a room with a TV. Heck, even something as simple as a kid wanting to do their homework on a coffee table will become either impossible for the kid, or if they have proper lighting, the picture on the projection screen will look horrible.

Re:Just bought an LCD

[Manmademan]

You do realize that the backlight in yout LCD screen will fail sooner or later - it will certainly NOT last 20 years.

replacing the lamp is ridiculously easy and currently costs about $100-200 and only needs to be done once every 3-5 years or so. Compared to the $1200+ cost of replacing an entire TV, it's peanuts.

You've seen Plasmas fail becasue you;ve seen a first generation screen fail - we're at 10th generation plasmas and let me tell you, there is a world of difference - (Apollo vs. Space shuttle). LCD screens of plasma size have not been around as long.

"tenth generation" plasmas still don't overcome a lot of the issues present when the technology was introduced. Burn in is STILL a problem (where this is NOT the case with LCD's and DLP) and the current method to "prevent" it ends up decreasing brightness- given that brightness is often touted as an advantage over LCD, this is less than ideal. Plasmas are also for some bizarre reason STILL ridiculously expensive under 50 inches or so, despite being "tenth generation" and proven technology.

LCD's also burn in - yes - I've seen it computer monitors to 32" TV's. The LCD shutters get "lazy" when consitantly displaying the same image and do not turn "FULL" on leaving a strange "coffee spill" effect on the screen.

While it's possible (but difficult) to get a burn in image on an LCD, displaying an all white image on the set for a minute or so will correct this immediately. "burn in" as it exists on Plasmas and CRTs does not exist on LCD sets.

Be sure to *look* at them first

[elrous0]

Well, I just made the decision to buy an HDTV myself. At first, I was going to buy a LCD. It certainly looks a lot better on paper than plasma. But then I went and actually LOOKED at them at my local Best Buy (granted, not the best place to gage them, but a lot better than nothing). I found that (to my eyes, anyway), 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"). And, despite recent improvements, I could still see some annoying "ghosting" during movement on the LCD's.

So, be sure to actually look before you buy. It sure changed my mind.

-Eric

Re:LCD

[uradu]

> Theatre? Plasma.

Nah, projector. Cheaper and much larger picture. Not for everyone, but if you're on /. most likely yes.

Re:LCD

[jackharrer]

Good point. And for cash you'll save on plasma you can buy those nice electric blinds - I've seen them somewhere for less than 300 quid.
That will make true home cinema.

Re:Just bought an LCD

[drsquare]

That may be the case, but plasma has a much better picture, which is what counts at the end of the day. LCDs look washed out whereas plasma looks vibrant. Longevity doesn't count for much, in five years HDTVs will have gone down in price so you can get one of those to replace it.

Re:Big screens == large power bills

[tolan-b]

That's a bit misleading to be honest. Yes that white is your black, but if your actual white is 50 times brighter then your iris will close right down and that white will look a lot blacker. Try turning on your lights on a sunny day. They barely register.

A lot of home cinema projectors are designed for use in a properly prepared room with next no light, those are probably what your friends have. However if you have a higher lumen projector, especially with a grey screen instead of a white one, then you can get pretty good performance with the lights on. Daylight is always going to be pushing it sure, but that's the price you pay for a 150" screen :)

Re:LCD

[jaymaxSEA]

LCD for me. I own a 30" LCD and a 42" plasma, both Philips. The LCD just rocks. It uses less power, runs cooler, and doesn't have glare. With my plasma, when the sun is out, you can't see the screen all that well, whereas with my LCD, it's not a problem. Having said that, however, I still like my plasma, I just think LCDs are better for my needs.

Re:CRT

[Listen Up]

I will tell you one reason, because CRT's are unbelievably fucking heavy. My fiancee and I have a 32" HDTV 1080i glass CRT. We just moved half way across the country and had to lift and carry that goddamn heavy HDTV with us. At one point we had to put the HDTV down and ask a neighbor to help us carry it. It was ridiculous to get it home in the first place, it was ridiculous to lift it up a flight of stairs into our living room, and it was ridiculous to have to repeat that exercise two more times when we moved. The CRT screen image is not better than a great LCD or plasma, that's just a bunch of bullshit. Sit 8-10' away from a CRT and it looks just like an LCD or plasma at 8-10'. Even at 3-4' there isn't any difference. And my Apple flat-panel display looks absolutely amazing. The major difference is that I helped my brother move his 42" plasma a few months before I moved and it barely took two of us to move it. Plus his plasma doesn't take up ~27 cubic feet of space in his house either like our 32" HDTV CRT does.

CRT my ass. Good riddance. A 1080p LCD is perfectly fine with me.

Re:LCD

[fyngyrz]

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.

No question about it. When you are sharing the room, that is, it isn't a "home theatre room" but just "a" room with a television in it, projection is not optimum. Projection pretty much requires the room be used as a theatre for the duration of the event, or else it'll suffer from ambient light. But really, non-dedicated or shared room use for media has always been a problem. If someone is in there talking on the phone, everyone else wants to stuff it down their throats. If kids are running in front of the TV, one wants to go buy a bundling bag. If lights are turned on in a theatre, one wants them off, and right now, too. If you can't design the space so that you can be reasonably assured that no one will be wrecking your experience with light, noise, display-blocking, telephone calls, and so forth, then you are probably better off with a less expensive system. Your irritation will go up with the amount of effort and cash you spend for each interference with your experience.

The thing is, there are so many interesting media things you can do now - computers, PS3, XBox360, Wii, HD-DVD, Blueray, HD-satellite, HD-cable, standard DVD, HD broadcast - even the old XBox and PS2 can do component quality output - that in my mind, at least, it has become more than worthwhile to dedicate a space for it. Think about typical room assignments in a home. Perhaps there is one that isn't really doing anything much beyond "being what it is", meaning, you don't really use it. Formal dining rooms are often mostly unused, living rooms too; it's difficult to generalize because there are so many different configurations for homes, but what I am getting at is that media is a big experience and dedicating a room isn't really that crazy an idea. I don't watch much TV, as I said (that's a whole 'nuther discussion) but most people do; given the hours people spend watching, divide the cost of dedicating a space into that time and if the space is simply available, I think for many people it makes immediate sense.

Re:Be sure to *look* at them first

[elrous0]

Yes, but the LCD's and Plasmas were both in the same place in the store. And the plasma I looked at was one of the cheapest models available ($200 cheaper than the LCD I was looking at), so it's unlikely they would have had any incentive to make it look better than the more expensive LCD's.

The fact is that the plasma had a 10000:1 contrast ratio and the LCD had a 1600:1 contrast ratio. You can't make up for that with a few adjustments in some menu.

-Eric