Plasma or LCD? 356
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?"
LCD (Score:5, Informative)
Re:LCD (Score:5, Informative)
In a nutshell: GP TV? LCD
Theatre? Plasma.
That's it.
-nB
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Works for us (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
LCD uses less electricity (Score:2)
LCD uses less electricity. This will save you money.
Re:LCD uses less electricity (Score:5, Funny)
Re:LCD (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, projector. Cheaper and much larger picture. Not for everyone, but if you're on
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That will make true home cinema.
Re:LCD (Score:5, Informative)
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 [ideaspike.com] 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.
Re:LCD (Score:4, Informative)
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.)
Re:LCD (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
The LEDs definitely have shorter time to full brightness, I hear they enable the sets to do a richer color gamut, and of course are much more longer lasting and less sensitive to power cycles. With LEDs DLPs ought be *the* sets to have if you have longevity in mind. LCD panels theoretically could break down more easily under heat, and I know damn well how easily LCD panels get dead pixels (every flat panel I've had developed at least one screwed up pixel within two years). The heat doesn't apply to flat-panel sets so much, but the dead pixels do. Plasma I hear has been criticized for losing quality over years, as well as burn-in. There have been improvements, but still... You're left with LCoS type systems, CRT, and DLP. DLP and LCoS may benefit equally from LED light instead of lamp. CRT projection has been very solid over the years, but subject to burn in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 r
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 start
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:LCD (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:LCD (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.plasmasaver.com/ [plasmasaver.com]
It could burn in TV also... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 s
I got the burn... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mistubishi (Score:2)
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 actua
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Neither (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
wood grain... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Neither (Score:4, Interesting)
If the (currently vaporware) SED TV [wikipedia.org] ever gets out it will make plasma and LCD obsolete.
I'm cynical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I had a plasma for 4 days.
On day 3 I watched an inning of baseball. Turned off the TV. Went to the store.
When I came back I could still see the score. (The red sox were winning). I was very angry.
The next morning the score was still there.
I returned the TV on day 4.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If I buy the "wrong" technology today, I'm going to spend $1500 on a TV that will be burnt out in 5-6 years... unless I play video games, which will burn it out in a few months.
Panasonic say: Buy Our TVs Film At 11. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Panasonic say: Buy Our TVs Film At 11. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
In the meantime I will console myself with a laugh every time I walk by their store and realize that the title still sounds like a cheap Porno movie from the 80's.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'm an owner of a seven year old B&O CRT and
Re: (Score:2)
The reason you need an IR receiver/blaster is that B&O uses a 455khz carrier frequency for their IR and most other manufacturers use 36, 38 or 56khz.
It's no worse than buying a normal universal remote control and teaching it, really.
Google is your friend (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Most people choose where they want a TV to go, and buy one that is the right size for the space, or smaller if they can't afford one that big. If you've got a 50" space to fill, then sure, Plasma is the winner. If it's 32" or lower, Plasma can't fit your needs. Overall, I think it's a fairly neutral thing - 40" seems to be the hotspot, and bo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I just got a funny picture in my head of a TV salesman punching me for "feeling for myself".
Re: (Score:2)
Be sure to *look* at them first (Score:5, Insightful)
So, be sure to actually look before you buy. It sure changed my mind.
-Eric
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is very common practice to modify screen settings to sell the preferred (ie larger profit) display.
If you have the time (and patience), you can sit there and tweak each individual display to see the 'best' picture each can achieve.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
I like my CRTs (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I like my CRT's too but LCD's have their benefits, usually they are easier on the eyes the new Samsung Gaming LCD is very good in terms of colors, the Samsung 931c. CRT's have better colors but their screens fade over time and get dirty, right now on my CRT I can see that the inside has gotten a bit of dirt/dust over the years, and this CRT has to be at least 5+ years old.
CRT (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:CRT (Score:4, Interesting)
Then there's the fact that the two of us nearly did ourselves serious injury taking my 32" CRT up the stairs. The 32" LCD that replaced it weighed 17kg. Including the packaging, which never made it up with the CRT, because that wouldn't have negotiated the corner.
For small sets, CRT is still unbeatable on value and image quality. But for the living room it's dead as a dead thing.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm only 29, and when I was about your age, we moved my mother's 36" CRT. It took 2 of us and we had a HELL of a time moving it from the living room, through the sliding glass door in the living, to the pickup truck right outside. It's like 20 feet, maybe.
I now have a 37" LCD in my house. I could actually move it by myself if I really wanted to. Family's close enough by that I've never actually done so, though.
I realize that there's a fair weight diffe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My CRT Sony WEGA weighs over 200 pounds and I think that most of the weight is in the face of the CRT. This set requires a special TV stand just to hold the weight and there is NOTHING to hold onto when moving it. The old Sony TVs were rectangular boxes that had carrying handles, the newer ones are odd shaped round cornered blobs with no handles; the only flat parts are the bottom of the cabinet and the face of the CRT.
It pissed me off when t
Re: (Score:2)
I also go along with you in praising the geometry of flat-panel matrix displays, but note that CRT geometry *can be*, not *is*, a problem.
More to the point, in Denmark (where I live) and Germany there are if not plenty, then at least a number of
Re: (Score:2)
yes, there is
plasma and lcd don't have the horrible refresh rate that crt's have
and for people with bad eyes, refresh rate counts, a lot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DLP is a better price per pixel vaue. My money is DLP over LCD and Plasma.
SED is vaporware - development for 20+ years and still nothing to show for it.
We'll see SED displays when Best Buy has a 4 foot section dedicated to Linux.
Laser TV looks promising but so does SED. They're both nonexistent at the moment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LCD (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:LCD (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry dude, but you are full of crap. TVs, regardless of the tech they use, all have the same purpose - to display a video stream! Therefore, the comparison is legitimate. Automobiles and happy meal toys however, do not have this common use and a comparison would be redundant.
Given that you're an idiot, please let me explain.
You see, automobiles [wikipedia.org] are primarily used as a form of transportation. Happy Meal Toys [wikipedia.org] on the other hand, are intended to entertain children while they eat fatty foods. As you can see, both of these things have a different purpose so it would be rather difficult to compare them.
For example, it is pointless to compare:
Futurama to the Challenger Space Shuttle
Saving Private Ryan to an iMac
Tomato soup to the Latin language
Fish to skyscrapers
But we can easily compare:
LCDs to Plasmas
BMWs to Toyotas
PS3s to XBox 360s
Your brain to a wet sponge
Re:LCD (Score:4, Funny)
Down with phosphors! (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Down with phosphors! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Don't trust em (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no expert, but this was what I learned after searching the net and going around to a number of TV stores.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Big screens == large power bills (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 roo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and projectors are just great when someone walks in front of the beam. And the picture is washed out.
Flat displays (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
what about DLP? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, when I go large screen, it'll be a front-projector in my basement. Who the hell needs 50+" in their livingroom??
Third Option (Score:2)
Neither (Score:2)
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 [slashdot.org] 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-c [canon.com]
my plasma experience (Score:2, Informative)
LCD (Score:2)
If a 32" plasma tv had been available locally, I might have had a harder time picking.
What about the frickin' lasers? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10
personal preference (Score:2)
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 lo
LCD 1080p (Score:2)
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. :-)
DLP (or better) FTW! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Second to CRT in PQ / price is the LCOS (not LCD) projection sets. Sony probably has the best offering followed by JVC. Much bette
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Huh, I should inform Westinghouse that their 47 inch LCD [westinghousedigital.com] doesn't exist, and somehow my TV [westinghousedigital.com] no longer exists.
I can't say that I've seen pixelation attributable to LCD as much as I've seen artifacting due to compression. Occasionally a bit of smear, but that's roughly unavoidable except in 1080p.
Not a single dead pixel, either.
Pro Plasma? (Score:2)
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
Great article in Nov 06 IEEE Spectrum (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just things I've gleaned walking in Fry's Electronics this afternoon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that how often Panasonic says it will need to be replaced, or do you leave the TV on 24x7?
Every DLP set I know of states 3-5 years of "typical" watching. I thought the LCoS projection were the same. April will be 3 years for my Samsung DLP set, so I'll find out soon about replacing the bulb.