Plasma Or Lcd?

[NinjaPigeon]

LCD has some other advantages over plasma.

It does not have the burn-in problem that plasma does. So if you watch a lot of a channel with a constant image, like cnbc or something, it can permanently put that image on your screen. LCD is immune to this.

Also, plasmas naturally get dimmer over time. This takes several years of consistent usage, though. So as your plasma gets dimmer, an LCD set would have had the same consistent brightness.

Plasmas also cannot be moved as easily, as they are very sensitive to being turned upside down. LCDs have no such restriction. This was a huge boon for me a month ago when I had to move my 46inch LCD.

The viewing angle on LCD is not as good, but for me, this wasn't an issue. The difference is very little and unless you are sitting more than 45 degrees off center, you won't see it. This is probably a bigger concern for those of you with huge living rooms

All that being said, you really can't go wrong with either type. They are both fabulous. So try one out in a store and see what you you feel gives the best picture quality.

[IBWino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinjaPigeon LCD has some other advantages over plasma. It does not have the burn-in problem that plasma does. So if you watch a lot of a channel with a constant image, like cnbc or something, it can permanently put that image on your screen. LCD is immune to this. Also, plasmas naturally get dimmer over time. This takes several years of consistent usage, though. So as your plasma gets dimmer, an LCD set would have had the same consistent brightness. Plasmas also cannot be moved as easily, as they are very sensitive to being turned upside down. LCDs have no such restriction. This was a huge boon for me a month ago when I had to move my 46inch LCD. The viewing angle on LCD is not as good, but for me, this wasn't an issue. The difference is very little and unless you are sitting more than 45 degrees off center, you won't see it. This is probably a bigger concern for those of you with huge living rooms All that being said, you really can't go wrong with either type. They are both fabulous. So try one out in a store and see what you you feel gives the best picture quality.

With all due respect, much of what you wrote is simply not true. Burn-in has not been a significant problem for several years and is no worse than on a standard CRT based TV. We've owned a plasma for five years and have absolutely no visible signs of burn-in or image retention. FYI, LCD displays can also suffer from image retention. In either display type, image retention disappears quickly when the displayed image is changed.

Plasma displays now have a 100,000 hour to half brightness rating (over 30 years at 8 hours a day usage), which equals or exceeds the current rating of the CCFL backlights used to illuminate most LCD displays.

Plasmas can be transported as easily as LCDs. For both display types, it is highly recommended that you transport them upright, as there is some risk of cracking the glass panel if laid flat.

Both display types have their merits, and anyone considering either should take time to do some basic research before making a decision. One is not likely to get good advice from the usual salesperson at a big-box store.

[aenlighten]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888 I still don't get it, pay 2 or 3K for a TV?? Huh??

My 50" Vizio was only $1500, in real terms less than the old CRT it replaced. It seems to me brightness falls off by half, 30 degrees off axis on a LCD, though I wouldn't mind a smaller one for an office or bedroom. I think viewing angle is probably more important in a smaller room where seating has to be spread out more relative to the TV orientation. In a large room it is easy to put the TV at one end and the seating all at the other. It depends on how much seating is involved though as an office or bedroom doesn't offer much.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBWino Both display types have their merits, and anyone considering either should take time to do some basic research before making a decision. One is not likely to get good advice from the usual salesperson at a big-box store.

This was my point about the Cnet and Consumer's Reports web pages. The Reviews on their sites are nice (I suppose) but the articles are invaluable. Granted, they are extensive and quite time-consuming but you won't be able to say "I didn't know what I was getting into" if you spend some time at it.

And while I am on the subject: Our "main" television set, a 42" Sharp Aquos (LCD), cost around $1,500 (last September) -- we also have a couple smaller Digital HD TVs. I don't feel, then or now, that was a very large sum for what I got. (I agree that 42" does seems much smaller today than a couple months ago, however.) My big complaint economically is the cost of the Surround Sound system that became "necessary" as the result of the TV purchase. It (much too) quickly shot past the cost of the TV set. I still am looking for a HD-DVD player/recorder that I can afford. Nevertheless, it does "feel" worth it.

And, for what it is worth, I do save a huge chunk of change by not subscribing to a cable/satellite service. Living in Denver gives me access to a plethora of Digital High Definition channels using a thirty year old roof-mounted antennae.

19" CRT. Hrrrumph!

[eddieb]

hey guys, thanks for your responses. i saw a good deal on a 42" plasma online, and i think i'll go with that. take care all

[Rustic23]

I would not count rear projection out. If off angle is not important, you don't need flat panel to hang on the wall, then rear projection will give you a bigger screen for your money. The new Samsung LED rear projection is what we went with. The bulb life is 20,000 hours or more than ten years with our viewing habits. 61" from Amazon was about $1,800.

As far as LBYM goes, we are! If you are spending less that you make, IMHO, you are LBYM. As we retired two years ago, and we live in a more rural area, we watch more TV. Movies, sports, you name it. The new TV and surround sound was worth every penny!

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 I would not count rear projection out. If off angle is not important, you don't need flat panel to hang on the wall, then rear projection will give you a bigger screen for your money. The new Samsung LED rear projection is what we went with. The bulb life is 20,000 hours or more than ten years with our viewing habits. 61" from Amazon was about $1,800.

Is that DLP? My brother just got a Mitsubishi about that size, and it looks great! I'm going to start looking real soon, and DLP seems to give you the most for your money if you don't want to hang it. Any drawbacks, other than eventually you have to replace the lamp?

[Rustic23]

Yes it is a DLP. It has three LED's so their is no rainbow effect. My research indicated that a regular projection bulb last 5,000 hrs. The LED's last 20,000 hours, and the TV was about the same price. Our TV is on from about 9 in the morning till 10 at night, 5 to 6 days a week. So the longer lasting LED's were definitely a player. We have had it for about two months now and I have no complaints. We coupled it with a Onkyo receiver, SVS speaker system, and Dish HD.

[camefromnothing]

Someone summed it up this way:

Plasma will give you true-to-life picture while LCD will give you larger-than-life picture. Or PLasma = Natural color, LCD = brighter color.

We have a plasma in the living room and an LCD in my son's room, and I'm saving up for another plasma for our bedroom.

[freddyw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Almost as good as this one: http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...lot-33902.html

REWahoo Question...do you own a car? Two cars? If so, I'll bet you bought a model that's LBYM. Given the fact that probably 3/4 of the world's population do NOT own cars then you must be buying stuff not considered necessary by the rest of the world.

My point is that owning an aircraft is no different than owning your car if one can afford it in FIRE. I own a '78 Mooney that I use to visit relatives that normally would be a day or more travel time by car. It has allowed my family to visit much more often yet we LBYM. I'll bet the majority of pilots who posted on the "Anybody a Pilot Out There" will attest that they LBYM even with an aircraft as part of their family. It is a passion that makes life worth living and if one wants it bad enough they will sacrifice elsewhere to live the dream. Extravagant perhaps but for those of us fortunate enough to follow our dreams and are FIRE then what's your issue?

[REWahoo]

Freddyw, I'm in complete agreement with you. My post wasn't a slam on those who own or fly general aviation aircraft. It was a response to the individual who was questioning the LBYM "spirit" of this thread. The point I was attempting to make was he is the same person who spoke of flying private aircraft - not what you typically think of when you consider a LBYM lifestyle.

I don't claim to live a LBYM lifestyle or question how others define what is "right" or "wrong" about how people choose to spend money to entertain themselves, be it on plasma tv's, private planes, or motorhomes.

I don't have a dog in this fight, just trying to point out what I considered a bit of inconsistency.

[NinjaPigeon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBWino With all due respect, much of what you wrote is simply not true. Burn-in has not been a significant problem for several years and is no worse than on a standard CRT based TV. We've owned a plasma for five years and have absolutely no visible signs of burn-in or image retention. FYI, LCD displays can also suffer from image retention. In either display type, image retention disappears quickly when the displayed image is changed. Plasma displays now have a 100,000 hour to half brightness rating (over 30 years at 8 hours a day usage), which equals or exceeds the current rating of the CCFL backlights used to illuminate most LCD displays. Plasmas can be transported as easily as LCDs. For both display types, it is highly recommended that you transport them upright, as there is some risk of cracking the glass panel if laid flat. Both display types have their merits, and anyone considering either should take time to do some basic research before making a decision. One is not likely to get good advice from the usual salesperson at a big-box store.

I'd appreciate seeing some sources cited for that. Sadly this debate mainly happens on forums and blog posts and not in credited magazines or journals. One of the better articles I found that would support some of your comments: Plasma TV vs LCD TV - Plasma TV Buying Guide

But even he states burn in is still possible. So, LCD is not prone to it, plasma is but the risk is fairly small and generally not permanent. So, it's still a factor in LCDs favor and one an owner of a plasma set should be cognizant of.

For brightness, I couldn't find any source corroborating the 100k mark, but they did all say that plasma should survive as long as an LCD set provided you don't run it at the brightest setting. So they seem to be a tie there. And honestly, neither of the sets are gonna last 30 years anyway Heck, my IPod only lasted 12.5 months.

As for moving them, that's what I was told, admittedly by a salesman. So that one may not be true. I know I have turned my LCD up, down, and every which way and it's still a champ.

[NinjaPigeon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888 I still don't get it, pay 2 or 3K for a TV?? Huh?? Why? You are told HDTV is the next best thing since white bread. But quite frankly, a 19 inch color TV works just fine. Do you really need to see the zits on a talking heads face?? Again the sheeple are told what to buy and are hoodwinked into thinking they just gotta have it.

I used to be on that side of the fence too. And then I started watching sports again. Watching a game on a normal CRT is terrible once you've seen it in HD. To me, it boils down to being able to recognize a player's face. If I know Kobe has the ball, that's a heck of a lot different than just "some dude in the Lakers jersey". I find I get into the game more on HD.

But yah, it's not for everyone. You gotta pick and choose what you feel is the best use of your resources. I still save about 20% of my income, so while it's a guilty pleasure to have purchased the TV, it was not irresponsible, imo.

[JPatrick]

Here's another part of the decision for some of us. Our locals are not HD,so when I went TV shopping 18 months ago, the sales people acknowledged that a good CRT would outperform any plasma or LCD on SD signals. The in store demonstration proved the point. So I bought a nice CRT 32" Sharp which has been a great set. I would like a bigger screen, but with HD perhaps 18 months away I'm hesitant to go with a plasma or LCD which may jeopardize the SD picture quality. So my question is.. For those who watch substantial amounts of SD, has the picture gotten better? In other words, does your plasma/LCD outperform your former CRT on SD pictures?

[Texarkandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 I would not count rear projection out. If off angle is not important, you don't need flat panel to hang on the wall, then rear projection will give you a bigger screen for your money. The new Samsung LED rear projection is what we went with. The bulb life is 20,000 hours or more than ten years with our viewing habits. 61" from Amazon was about $1,800. As far as LBYM goes, we are! If you are spending less that you make, IMHO, you are LBYM. As we retired two years ago, and we live in a more rural area, we watch more TV. Movies, sports, you name it. The new TV and surround sound was worth every penny!

Agreed - we finally splurged last year after I spent six months thoroughly studying the LCD/Plasma/DLP controversy & DW was thoroughly fed-up with my research.

Finally, I realized what I really wanted was: the biggest screen I could get with a decent picture for under 2K to try to fill some of the void in our bigger-than-we-need living room. Upon coming to this realization DLP was a no-brainer.

So - I moved the 15 y/o 32" Toshiba CRT to the bedroom (still plays great, but Boy, er I mean, Jeepers! that thing is heavy ), the bedroom 25" up to the playroom, & the playroom 21" to the exercise room -

Then I moved the new 61" Samsung DLP ($1800 out the door incl tax from Sam's) into the living room. Picture's more than decent, no rainbow effect noticed, & I've accepted I'll be buying an overpriced bulb for it someday. I know there's better pictures out there (if you want to pay for them) - but it's good enough for me & I'm happy. (Natl Geo HD is fantastic on it)

I'm not saying my reasoning would apply to everyone. Some are more perfectionist on picture quality, some don't need the size, picture quality is more important to others, & some are not as cheap as I am. (though probably not so many on this forum ) I guess you have to decide what's important to you as an individual in a TV when trying to choose between DLP/Plasma/LCD. For me it came down to a combination of size - price - picture quality (pretty much in that order)

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPatrick So my question is.. For those who watch substantial amounts of SD, has the picture gotten better? In other words, does your plasma/LCD outperform your former CRT on SD pictures?

I don't watch a lot of SD -- only one station (ION) here is delivered solely in SD and one of the PBS stations transmits their SD and HD programs at different times -- but... I can tell you that the picture is improved with a DTV set. By how much? I am not sure because I am comparing it to my memory of a fifteen year old 27" CRT. I will say that you can certainly watch SD on a DTV without having any negative comparisons. I might add that the SD programming that is designed to "fit your screen" is better to watch on a wide-screen if only because the black bars (top/bottom or sides) are eliminated.

[NinjaPigeon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPatrick Here's another part of the decision for some of us. Our locals are not HD,so when I went TV shopping 18 months ago, the sales people acknowledged that a good CRT would outperform any plasma or LCD on SD signals. The in store demonstration proved the point. So I bought a nice CRT 32" Sharp which has been a great set. I would like a bigger screen, but with HD perhaps 18 months away I'm hesitant to go with a plasma or LCD which may jeopardize the SD picture quality. So my question is.. For those who watch substantial amounts of SD, has the picture gotten better? In other words, does your plasma/LCD outperform your former CRT on SD pictures?

I actually think SD looks terrible on an HDTV. You never realize how different the quality is when you watch on a normal TV. Even if the picture looks good you often end up with vertical bars on either side of the TV since HDTV is 16:9 and regular is 4:3. All of the picture modes try to mask this but they just give you the hobbit effect (they stretch the screen wide so people look short and squat).

So, if you aren't gonna get a nice cable package, it's something to consider. DVDs you can upscale at least, even though they are 480p. The PS3 is a nice upscaler and your DVDs will look better than before.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinjaPigeon So, if you aren't gonna get a nice cable package,...

We get lots of HD stations over the air. Availability depends on your area, but the OTA broadcast quality is fantastic.

-ERD50

[Grizz]

Just bought a 92" screen, HD quality 720P/1080I projector, and good surround system for under $1500 (check Costco). My basement is a wonderful place now.

The projectors are getting so cheap and yet the picture is amazingly clear. 2 friends with fairly new plasmas couldn't believe how good the picture is. Check the lumens output if you are going this way because the newer models seem to be coming out with a higher # which means that you can watch in well lit areas, though the absolute best picture will always be achieved in the dark. Even in a darked out room, the projector itself throws enough light to easily see and make your way around the room.

[aenlighten]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPatrick So my question is.. For those who watch substantial amounts of SD, has the picture gotten better? In other words, does your plasma/LCD outperform your former CRT on SD pictures?

SD is a lot worse than HD, but you have to expect that. SD outperforms on DTV due to reception, until the reception becomes too poor and the picture pixelates. As far as analog SD, I don't watch that anymore. Who would with DTV?