Differences Between Plasma & LCD Screens?

mark403 · 10-08-2004, 20:46

hi,

can someone let me know what the differences between plasma Tv's are and LCD tv's are. I.E . does one last longer than the other, is one usually thinner than the other, better quality etc??

Thanx

GDB2freeview · 10-08-2004, 21:05

For a TV set you really cannot beat a good quality CRT...

mark403 · 10-08-2004, 21:12

youve got to be joking??

GDB2freeview · 10-08-2004, 21:19

Deadly serious!

If you are viewing analogue TV on a 15" LCD screen for example, the TFT will be running at a resolution of 1024x768, while the vertical resolution of PAL TV is only 576 lines. You will either have (a) a tiny screen with black borders, or (b) a horrible stretched image as the screen converts the image into 768 lines. It will probably do this by interpolation - guessing the extra pixels it needs.

Also, during fast action scenes of films, or fast football action, the chances are the screen will experience lag as it cannot keep up.

I'm not sure if Plasma suffers from this but I still doubt the picture will beup to CRT quality.

Wheras on a CRT, these problems disapper!

iamthenewnumbertwo · 11-08-2004, 09:30

That is correct, a 'good' CRT will generally be better than a Plasma or LCD for the reasons stated (though the job of up or down scaling is done extremely well and the sports 'lag' is more a feature of older LCDs)... BUT ...the Plasma and LCD will have none of the negative CRT issues. You know, things like straight lines being curved, magnetic fields effecting PQ and the size !!! I worked out that a 32" WS CRT would take up £5,000 worth of floor space [(House price/floor space)*CRT foot print], my plasma only cost half that and hangs on the wall.

One more thing, it feels good when someone enters your living room and comments on how good your setup is

flagpole · 11-08-2004, 11:31

LCDs will one day be king but for the moment Plasma is best.

Look at contrast ratios.

GDB2freeview · 11-08-2004, 18:41

Well I will be buying CRT TVs and monitors for a long while yet (ie forever)

cyberdog · 11-08-2004, 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDB2freeview

Well I will be buying CRT TVs and monitors for a long while yet (ie forever)

May be a "shorter while" than you think...at least one of the big Japanese manufacturers is stopping production of CRTs.
Expect the others to follow suit as sales of Plasma and LCD take off and prices continue dropping.

Chparmar · 11-08-2004, 23:05

Plasmas burn a lot of power; therefore get very HOT! The fan noises on older models are a drag too!

However, Plasmas higher contrast in picture quality; gives it that special thing that is needed when watching at night!

Rodney · 12-08-2004, 17:13

I agree that the best screen by far is a CRT. LCDs might come into their own when HDTV eventually makes it to Europe, although their relatively small size may put them at a disadvantage with the larger plasma sets.

BexTech · 12-08-2004, 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDB2freeview

Well I will be buying CRT TVs and monitors for a long while yet (ie forever)

Me too, can't beat a CRT TV or Monitor, which is why I'm in no hurry in replacing my CRT monitor or CRT W/S TV.

digi al · 12-08-2004, 21:09

lcd screens require a backlight in order to see a picture.this means that they are always at full power and only the amount of light let through the crystals varies.it also means in a dark room the light behind the crystals can become slightly visable causing blacks to look more grey.the other problem is that on large lcd's even lighting can be an issue,however at the small size they can look very good with a very sharp image.
plasmas produce their own light so if the screen is very dark it is using less power than if the screen is very bright.it also means you do not get the uneven light problem you can get on large lcd's

meltcity · 12-08-2004, 21:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodney

I agree that the best screen by far is a CRT. LCDs might come into their own when HDTV eventually makes it to Europe, although their relatively small size may put them at a disadvantage with the larger plasma sets.

LCDs with screen sizes in excess of 50" have already been developed. Family size 40" models should be commonplace by the time HDTV hits Europe.

The real problem with LCDs is the poor picture quality. On most LCDs HD looks like SD. Plasmas are a lot better, though they have their own set of problems, such as lack of brightness and burn-in.

Chparmar · 12-08-2004, 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by meltcity

Plasmas are a lot better, though they have their own set of problems, such as lack of brightness and burn-in.

The lack of brightness on Plasmas tend to occur in a daytime lit room; in which case LCDs are better; but not by much.

However LCDs lack of contrast; does not make it a perfect choice; for the night time watching movies as I mentioned before.

0piumDea1er · 12-08-2004, 23:42

I think you guys should forget plasmas and LCD. They will be dead in about 2 years time.

If you can wait 18 months, then hold on to your money. Go get yourself a HD-TV

I have seem them in action, and it's awesome. Plasmas and LCD sucks when compared to HD-TV.

In terms of 1-10 for picture quality, analogue TV will be a 1, Sky a possible 3, DVD 5ish and HD-TV will be a 9.....

I've been informed Plasmas and LCD TV are dead in the US, HD-TV is the new King in town.

diablo · 13-08-2004, 07:12

There is no doubt that both lcd and plasma quality has improved over the last couple of years.
I've been quite impressed by some of them recently. They seem to be almost as good as 'normal' TVs these days. But the best of them compare to the average CRT set and cost much more.
Main advantage is bigger screen size and smaller physical size.

The problem is that the signals broadcast (or put onto DVDs) expect a match between the pixels they put out and the display. With plasma and lcd this doesn't usually happen, so they have to use software to guess the best result. This software has improved recently.

Best to wait for a while, to see what version of HDTV is introduced into the UK. Prices will also fall in this time, so you will get a better set at a lower price.
Something like this HDTV capable Samsung will probably be available for £1500 in a couple of years and will show normal pics with style.

Dan27 · 13-08-2004, 08:35

Diablo, you are now responsible for the messy dribble that is all over my keyboard...

(queue Homer Simpson voice):

MMMMM. HDTV...

meltcity · 13-08-2004, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0piumDea1er

I think you guys should forget plasmas and LCD. They will be dead in about 2 years time.

If you can wait 18 months, then hold on to your money. Go get yourself a HD-TV

I have seem them in action, and it's awesome. Plasmas and LCD sucks when compared to HD-TV.

What are you on about? HDTV is a broadcast format; you still need a television to watch it on! So you will still have to make a choice between CRT, LCD, DLP, plasma etc.

If by "HD-TV" you were referring to CRT HDTV sets, don't forget that they have their own drawbacks for the future. Screen sizes are limited to 36" for direct view models, 720p is not supported, and 1080i branded CRTs only resolve about 1400 horizontal pixels, 25% less than the full HD resolution (1400 x 1080 is a lot more than most modern progressive displays can handle though).

Personally I'm looking forward to seeing what Intel brings to the TV market. They are promising 50", 7" deep 1080p LCOS RPTVs with better picture quality than any competing technology, and at a much lower price. It may of course be all hype. I don't know if they have even started mass producing their LCOS chipsets yet.

GDB2freeview · 13-08-2004, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by meltcity

It may of course be all hype.

Which it invariably is with Intel

digi al · 13-08-2004, 19:45

have seen hd broadcast on the pioneer pdp504hde abd it looks superb as the pioneer is designed for the hd market in japan and usa.

ginja · 14-08-2004, 12:08

Also worth remembering is Screen burn Plasma suffers but Lcd dos`nt.

ginja

Typhoid-X · 14-08-2004, 12:11

It's all - LCD this, Plasma that, CRT blah blah

Nobody mentions projectors - whilst they also have some con's - i beleive they represent the best bang for your buck when considering screensize and resolution and prices on DLP models are tumbling.

You can pickup a budget models for as little as £550 - (Infocus x1 @ ebyuer) across a small room with a 10ft throw - you've got a 60-70" screen (diagonal)

Doctorb · 15-08-2004, 11:41

Technically CRT's are better than plasma's and LCD's but what are we comparing it to?
Compare a panasonic PW6 plasma to a pixel plus phillips CRT and you find that the plasma has better picture quality.

BexTech · 15-08-2004, 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctorb

Technically CRT's are better than plasma's and LCD's but what are we comparing it to?
Compare a panasonic PW6 plasma to a pixel plus phillips CRT and you find that the plasma has better picture quality.

Disable signal processing features on the Philips when watching digital and the picture is excellent.

Doctorb · 15-08-2004, 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by BexTech

Disable signal processing features on the Philips when watching digital and the picture is excellent.

Or just get the 50hz.
Ok the philips was just an example, insert a toshiba picture frame instead, theres many others.
My point was that sometimes the best picture quality comes down to the digital processing, a ten year old 50hz sony will beat most digital processed modern tv's in straight up picture quality.

10-08-2004, 20:46	#1
mark403 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 47	Differences Between Plasma & LCD Screens? hi, can someone let me know what the differences between plasma Tv's are and LCD tv's are. I.E . does one last longer than the other, is one usually thinner than the other, better quality etc?? Thanx

10-08-2004, 21:05	#2
GDB2freeview Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: England; receiving sat through an Amstrad SRD510 from ASTRA 19.2E Posts: 1,986	For a TV set you really cannot beat a good quality CRT...

10-08-2004, 21:12	#3
mark403 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 47	youve got to be joking??

10-08-2004, 21:19	#4
GDB2freeview Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: England; receiving sat through an Amstrad SRD510 from ASTRA 19.2E Posts: 1,986	Deadly serious! If you are viewing analogue TV on a 15" LCD screen for example, the TFT will be running at a resolution of 1024x768, while the vertical resolution of PAL TV is only 576 lines. You will either have (a) a tiny screen with black borders, or (b) a horrible stretched image as the screen converts the image into 768 lines. It will probably do this by interpolation - guessing the extra pixels it needs. Also, during fast action scenes of films, or fast football action, the chances are the screen will experience lag as it cannot keep up. I'm not sure if Plasma suffers from this but I still doubt the picture will beup to CRT quality. Wheras on a CRT, these problems disapper!

11-08-2004, 09:30	#5
iamthenewnumbertwo Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Kent Posts: 977	That is correct, a 'good' CRT will generally be better than a Plasma or LCD for the reasons stated (though the job of up or down scaling is done extremely well and the sports 'lag' is more a feature of older LCDs)... BUT ...the Plasma and LCD will have none of the negative CRT issues. You know, things like straight lines being curved, magnetic fields effecting PQ and the size !!! I worked out that a 32" WS CRT would take up £5,000 worth of floor space [(House price/floor space)*CRT foot print], my plasma only cost half that and hangs on the wall. One more thing, it feels good when someone enters your living room and comments on how good your setup is

11-08-2004, 11:31	#6
flagpole Inactive Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,524	LCDs will one day be king but for the moment Plasma is best. Look at contrast ratios.

11-08-2004, 18:41	#7
GDB2freeview Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: England; receiving sat through an Amstrad SRD510 from ASTRA 19.2E Posts: 1,986	Well I will be buying CRT TVs and monitors for a long while yet (ie forever)

11-08-2004, 19:35	#8
cyberdog Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: herts Posts: 318	Quote: Originally Posted by GDB2freeview Well I will be buying CRT TVs and monitors for a long while yet (ie forever) May be a "shorter while" than you think...at least one of the big Japanese manufacturers is stopping production of CRTs. Expect the others to follow suit as sales of Plasma and LCD take off and prices continue dropping.

11-08-2004, 23:05	#9
Chparmar Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,307	Plasmas burn a lot of power; therefore get very HOT! The fan noises on older models are a drag too! However, Plasmas higher contrast in picture quality; gives it that special thing that is needed when watching at night!

12-08-2004, 17:13	#10
Rodney Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Craigavon, Northern Ireland Posts: 2,373	I agree that the best screen by far is a CRT. LCDs might come into their own when HDTV eventually makes it to Europe, although their relatively small size may put them at a disadvantage with the larger plasma sets.

12-08-2004, 19:27	#11
BexTech Banned User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Back where I belong. Posts: 12,574	Quote: Originally Posted by GDB2freeview Well I will be buying CRT TVs and monitors for a long while yet (ie forever) Me too, can't beat a CRT TV or Monitor, which is why I'm in no hurry in replacing my CRT monitor or CRT W/S TV.

12-08-2004, 21:09	#12
digi al Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Enfield,London Posts: 1,178	lcd screens require a backlight in order to see a picture.this means that they are always at full power and only the amount of light let through the crystals varies.it also means in a dark room the light behind the crystals can become slightly visable causing blacks to look more grey.the other problem is that on large lcd's even lighting can be an issue,however at the small size they can look very good with a very sharp image. plasmas produce their own light so if the screen is very dark it is using less power than if the screen is very bright.it also means you do not get the uneven light problem you can get on large lcd's

12-08-2004, 21:14	#13
meltcity Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,770	Quote: Originally Posted by Rodney I agree that the best screen by far is a CRT. LCDs might come into their own when HDTV eventually makes it to Europe, although their relatively small size may put them at a disadvantage with the larger plasma sets. LCDs with screen sizes in excess of 50" have already been developed. Family size 40" models should be commonplace by the time HDTV hits Europe. The real problem with LCDs is the poor picture quality. On most LCDs HD looks like SD. Plasmas are a lot better, though they have their own set of problems, such as lack of brightness and burn-in.

12-08-2004, 21:55	#14
Chparmar Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,307	Quote: Originally Posted by meltcity Plasmas are a lot better, though they have their own set of problems, such as lack of brightness and burn-in. The lack of brightness on Plasmas tend to occur in a daytime lit room; in which case LCDs are better; but not by much. However LCDs lack of contrast; does not make it a perfect choice; for the night time watching movies as I mentioned before.

12-08-2004, 23:42	#15
0piumDea1er Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,723	I think you guys should forget plasmas and LCD. They will be dead in about 2 years time. If you can wait 18 months, then hold on to your money. Go get yourself a HD-TV I have seem them in action, and it's awesome. Plasmas and LCD sucks when compared to HD-TV. In terms of 1-10 for picture quality, analogue TV will be a 1, Sky a possible 3, DVD 5ish and HD-TV will be a 9..... I've been informed Plasmas and LCD TV are dead in the US, HD-TV is the new King in town.

13-08-2004, 07:12	#16
diablo Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Fylde Coast Posts: 8,103	There is no doubt that both lcd and plasma quality has improved over the last couple of years. I've been quite impressed by some of them recently. They seem to be almost as good as 'normal' TVs these days. But the best of them compare to the average CRT set and cost much more. Main advantage is bigger screen size and smaller physical size. The problem is that the signals broadcast (or put onto DVDs) expect a match between the pixels they put out and the display. With plasma and lcd this doesn't usually happen, so they have to use software to guess the best result. This software has improved recently. Best to wait for a while, to see what version of HDTV is introduced into the UK. Prices will also fall in this time, so you will get a better set at a lower price. Something like this HDTV capable Samsung will probably be available for £1500 in a couple of years and will show normal pics with style.

13-08-2004, 08:35	#17
Dan27 Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: By The Sea Posts: 9,574	Diablo, you are now responsible for the messy dribble that is all over my keyboard... (queue Homer Simpson voice): MMMMM. HDTV...

13-08-2004, 10:51	#18
meltcity Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,770	Quote: Originally Posted by 0piumDea1er I think you guys should forget plasmas and LCD. They will be dead in about 2 years time. If you can wait 18 months, then hold on to your money. Go get yourself a HD-TV I have seem them in action, and it's awesome. Plasmas and LCD sucks when compared to HD-TV. What are you on about? HDTV is a broadcast format; you still need a television to watch it on! So you will still have to make a choice between CRT, LCD, DLP, plasma etc. If by "HD-TV" you were referring to CRT HDTV sets, don't forget that they have their own drawbacks for the future. Screen sizes are limited to 36" for direct view models, 720p is not supported, and 1080i branded CRTs only resolve about 1400 horizontal pixels, 25% less than the full HD resolution (1400 x 1080 is a lot more than most modern progressive displays can handle though). Personally I'm looking forward to seeing what Intel brings to the TV market. They are promising 50", 7" deep 1080p LCOS RPTVs with better picture quality than any competing technology, and at a much lower price. It may of course be all hype. I don't know if they have even started mass producing their LCOS chipsets yet.

13-08-2004, 19:42	#19
GDB2freeview Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: England; receiving sat through an Amstrad SRD510 from ASTRA 19.2E Posts: 1,986	Quote: Originally Posted by meltcity It may of course be all hype. Which it invariably is with Intel

13-08-2004, 19:45	#20
digi al Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Enfield,London Posts: 1,178	have seen hd broadcast on the pioneer pdp504hde abd it looks superb as the pioneer is designed for the hd market in japan and usa.

14-08-2004, 12:08	#21
ginja Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: ESSEX Posts: 39	Also worth remembering is Screen burn Plasma suffers but Lcd dos`nt. ginja

DS Forums

Differences Between Plasma & LCD Screens?

14-08-2004, 12:11	#22
Typhoid-X Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Dover Posts: 634	It's all - LCD this, Plasma that, CRT blah blah Nobody mentions projectors - whilst they also have some con's - i beleive they represent the best bang for your buck when considering screensize and resolution and prices on DLP models are tumbling. You can pickup a budget models for as little as £550 - (Infocus x1 @ ebyuer) across a small room with a 10ft throw - you've got a 60-70" screen (diagonal)

15-08-2004, 11:41	#23
Doctorb Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 3,232	Technically CRT's are better than plasma's and LCD's but what are we comparing it to? Compare a panasonic PW6 plasma to a pixel plus phillips CRT and you find that the plasma has better picture quality.

15-08-2004, 11:56	#24
BexTech Banned User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Back where I belong. Posts: 12,574	Quote: Originally Posted by Doctorb Technically CRT's are better than plasma's and LCD's but what are we comparing it to? Compare a panasonic PW6 plasma to a pixel plus phillips CRT and you find that the plasma has better picture quality. Disable signal processing features on the Philips when watching digital and the picture is excellent.

15-08-2004, 12:51	#25
Doctorb Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 3,232	Quote: Originally Posted by BexTech Disable signal processing features on the Philips when watching digital and the picture is excellent. Or just get the 50hz. Ok the philips was just an example, insert a toshiba picture frame instead, theres many others. My point was that sometimes the best picture quality comes down to the digital processing, a ten year old 50hz sony will beat most digital processed modern tv's in straight up picture quality.