ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
LCD vs. Plasma?
- Thread starter BenWall
- Start date
B
Brown.
check out rear projection for HD...its unreal!!!..........but with regards to the above.... plasma uses suspended particles which can burn out with certain inputs. also lcd has unlimited viewing angles.
Audi TT Stronic
Wtf ? suspended particles ? burn out with certain inputs ? unlimited viewing angles ?
LCD has always been the one that suffered dodgy viewing angles.. plasma doesnt matter what angle you look at it from, its more like a CRT in that respect.. dude you need to stop smoking that crack lol
Plasma wins for me.. sister has had 4 LCD panels from samsung and all of them have had dead pixels.. ive had my plasma for 1.5 years and its been perfect.. no problems whatsoever.. ive even accidenly left it on overnight on a static image with no negative effects.
If you are looking for a screen over 37" then go plasma. Even at 1024x768 or the more recent 1365x768 look miles better than any 1920X1080 LCD on both SD and HD sources.
More resolution does not alway equal better picture quality.
The best plasma's are from Pioneer, Panasonic and Fujitsu (not neccessary in that order).
More resolution does not alway equal better picture quality.
The best plasma's are from Pioneer, Panasonic and Fujitsu (not neccessary in that order).
182FF c/w Recaros
As an owner of a Panny 37" Plasma, I like reading posts like yours lol:approve:
The LCD Plasma debate will no dobut rage for a while yet.
It's like who's gonna win the Premiership lol. Man U/Chelski, Man U, Chelski etc etc.
More imoprtantly. It's which one can do the better job with SD material.
Both are going to looks great with HD material, that's pretty much a given. HD is such an improvement over most SD material.
It's with SD that Plasma has the advantage (imo) and since I'm still watching mostly SD that's why I go with Plasma.
If/When more HD is available i'll consider LCD for sure. Along with the other new technologies that are around the corner.
Last edited:
ive been looking into this lately and its felt that plasma is better for real life true colours such as skin tones etc and lcd's are better for others such as gaming etc. Also having looked around it seems you need to spend around £500 more to get a comparable lcd to be plasma quality.
Audi TT Stronic
Panasonic ran ads saying dont buy LCD.. its s**t.. or words to that effect.. even although they make LCD's (admitedly not bigger than 32" though IIRC) lol.. least they are honest..
RS 200
Have to agree, we have a 37" Panny Plasma and it is a superb picture. We also have a couple of smaller LCD's aswell but I dont think I'd go over 32" max, for an LCD.
What a load of rubbish.
Plasma never needs recharging.
Both LCD and Plasma now exceed CRT in usage hours.
D
dick
the general rule AFAIK - less than 32" go for LCd, aboive that, go for plasma.
D
dick
oops evoo said same trhing as me....
Polo + Micra
plasma tv's use the same technology as flourecent lights
so yeah they will die. as everyone has seen them go black on the ends?
182FF c/w Recaros
LMFAO!
60000 hours.
Even at 8 hours a day that's 20 years viewing lol.
Not exactly gonna give me sleepless nights
Will have moved onto the next super dooper technology by then in ultra 10000*5000 HD
That's why Panasonic have just opened a brand new Plasma factory for £900m in Japan, with the capability to make 6 million 42" plasmas a year.
Plasma gases are inert and sealed within tiny cells that are sandwiched between glass plates. There is never any need to charge or refill a Plasma.
Electricity consumption is virtually the same and the lifespan is is virtually the same if you watched them for the same duration. 60000 hours is double the life of a normal CRT TV.
All the above was taken from an advertisement in Sky Movies magazine for Panasonic TV's comparing there Plasma and LCD screens.
LCD is a nasty cheap inferior technology, that is easy to mass produce.
The more educated buyer will always choose plasma over LCD for large screen viewing.
LCD may have sold more units worldwide but thats because it has a bigger market. ie they don't make plasma screens smaller than 37".
Be very carefull of instore demos as all LCD supplied demo material will be slow moving shots, as the best LCDs only have a 8 milliseconds refresh rate.
The more educated buyer will always choose plasma over LCD for large screen viewing.
LCD may have sold more units worldwide but thats because it has a bigger market. ie they don't make plasma screens smaller than 37".
Be very carefull of instore demos as all LCD supplied demo material will be slow moving shots, as the best LCDs only have a 8 milliseconds refresh rate.
Audi TT Stronic
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Racin Blue 182
As far as I see it, the only advantages that LCD have over plasma are the ability to have 'full' HD resolution of 1920*1080 on smaller screen sizes (40") - which tbh can be a double edged sword - someone posted earlier that increased resolution doesn't give a better picture, which, when dealing with SD source material is true - the image has to be upscaled far more to fit the panels native resolution. These panels only benefit when showing 'full' HD material, which is a little hard to come by in this country at the moment.
The other advantage for LCD is lack of or lower chance of suffering from any screen burn/retention issues. Screen burn is virtually non-existent in plasma displays today, and when run in properly, retention is a minor problem lasting only a few seconds.
Against these points, plasma has better response times, better colours (not brighter), better blacks and gives a generally more 'cinematic' experience. Over the last month or two, plasma prices have fallen to now be more competitive than equivalent LCD screens.
The other advantage for LCD is lack of or lower chance of suffering from any screen burn/retention issues. Screen burn is virtually non-existent in plasma displays today, and when run in properly, retention is a minor problem lasting only a few seconds.
Against these points, plasma has better response times, better colours (not brighter), better blacks and gives a generally more 'cinematic' experience. Over the last month or two, plasma prices have fallen to now be more competitive than equivalent LCD screens.
They both have advantages and disadvantages. Yes plasmas do better blacks. Typically in home conditions where lots of varying ambient light sources are the LCD's can often produce better brightness and contrast in there final picture versus a plasma. Even though specs say otherwise.
But thats only a small bit of the display. You have refresh rates etc. Burn in on plasma is pretty much non existent now. They both have pros and cons. Either way a half life of 60,000 hours for the display is more than enough time. If you left the display on day and night 24hours a day never turning it off it would still take nearly 7 years for the display to reach its half life. And by then the new emerging technologies will have likely taken over.
Such as OLED which is being put forward as the one to replace them both.
But thats only a small bit of the display. You have refresh rates etc. Burn in on plasma is pretty much non existent now. They both have pros and cons. Either way a half life of 60,000 hours for the display is more than enough time. If you left the display on day and night 24hours a day never turning it off it would still take nearly 7 years for the display to reach its half life. And by then the new emerging technologies will have likely taken over.
Such as OLED which is being put forward as the one to replace them both.
Better than yours. C*nt.
Plasma surpasses LCD in every way bar one - you can burn an image onto a Plasma screen. Blacks are infinitely better on Plasma screens than on LCDs, however LCDs are cheaper because of the panels. Hi res Plasma panels cost an absolute fortune - the cheapest 1920x1080 Plasma screen is £5k.
Funny I watched the Matrix yesterday upscaled to 1080i on my PDP-507XD. The lobby scene is my all time favourite! I just love hearing the shells drop behind my head.
Clio 197 RB
i work in a Panasonic Shop and LCD s*ck balls compared to there plasmas on HD, watching Xmen 3 on it on Blueray in 1080p was amazing, the LCD cant refresh as quickly as the plasmas and suffers from blurring on fast images, as for the argument that loads more LCD's have been sold that’s because you can buy them for 10p down Safeway’s because its a naff technology.
Clio S Maxim
True true, the blurring on LCD's is annoying especially if you are watching the footie! but on Digital TV (like sky/ntl etc..) its fine...only on analogue its ballbags.
Otherwise LCD tv's get my vote every single time...i advise the Phillips Ambilight TV's! They are the shiz!! we got one as a joint xmas present for the famz and i wudnt swap it for Plasma..nooo way!:nono:
Watch Planet Earth on my TV you won't want to watch anything else!
Otherwise LCD tv's get my vote every single time...i advise the Phillips Ambilight TV's! They are the shiz!! we got one as a joint xmas present for the famz and i wudnt swap it for Plasma..nooo way!:nono:
Watch Planet Earth on my TV you won't want to watch anything else!
.
Lol, this old chesnut!
Having said that I disagree with some comments on here about Plasma being the superior option. As technology has progressed LCD has surpassed a lot of more expensive plasma screens in terms of picture quality on blind testing (this is what manufacturers do to compare against the competition, sit people dowm in front of a number of tvs with only the screen visible - badging taken off). This was shown on the Gadget Show (ok, this show is a bit sh*t!) recently and the LCD screens came out on top on a lot of the criteria.
Horses for courses though, some LCD screens are better than some plasma screens, and some plasma screens are better than some LCD screens. These days it comes down to the individual TV itself, no whether its an LCD or plasma panel.
Having said that I disagree with some comments on here about Plasma being the superior option. As technology has progressed LCD has surpassed a lot of more expensive plasma screens in terms of picture quality on blind testing (this is what manufacturers do to compare against the competition, sit people dowm in front of a number of tvs with only the screen visible - badging taken off). This was shown on the Gadget Show (ok, this show is a bit sh*t!) recently and the LCD screens came out on top on a lot of the criteria.
Horses for courses though, some LCD screens are better than some plasma screens, and some plasma screens are better than some LCD screens. These days it comes down to the individual TV itself, no whether its an LCD or plasma panel.
