On an LCD screen, the picture quality is different when viewed from different angles, whereas on a plasma screen, the picture remains constant no matter what angle you view it from. A good case in point is a laptop. If you move it about a bit and look at it from different angles, you can easily see the images, even the colours, look different.

Decent LCDs (like mine) dont. Though I have seen this on my laptop and on other peoples scabby inferior LCD TVs..

A cheap LCD will almost certainly have a worse picture than a CRT of the same price. Now, can we all please settle this debate. If you can afford a 42"+ screen.. get a plasma. It is better. End of Discussion.

If you are just looking for a 32" TV to replace your old knackered CRT. Get a LCD. You dont want or have a need for a plasma of any kind or size.

-Chris

Look, we're talking about TVs here, not frigging laptops. Have you looked at a good LCD TV lately? I guess not. It's only when you get to a very oblique angle that the picture begins to deteriorate. I'll gladly trade this for the much sharper picture definition, lack of burn, lower power consumption and greater reliability.

Not any more, according to the reviews. LCD has caught up. That's why some manufacturers are paying to advertise "Plasma is better than LCD" disinformation. If it really was, they wouldn't need to. Go and look at, say, a Sony Bravia side by side with a Pioneer plasma and see if you still think the plasma is better. They're very similar, but the sharper picture gives the LCD the edge IMO.

Just recently I installed a home cinema sound system at a friends house, he has just purchased a Sony Bravia LCD TV. The picture quality via Sky SD was disgusting IMO. It was very grainy looking, poor sharpness and colours looked washed out. There was little improvement even after I ran a test disc through the set.

I have a 50" plasma in one room and a 100" screen in another, the SD picture quality on both my displays are far more superior. I did have a LCD in the bedroom, have now sold it, I am now looking for a plasma to replace it.

May be a closer contest with HD. I have only seen a handful of LCD TV's playing HD content, including my own, and IMO I have to say plasma still comes out on top. A few things stand out for me on plasma displays, vibrant colours, sharpness, contrast.

Nope...Reputable recent brands ony sold from the store In question.

Ok you don't beleive there is still a problem. You don'r believe facts are being suppressed. Ok then below is a copy of an e-mail I sent to Panasonic with two specific questions which could have been answered with a yes or no. Not only were the questions not answered they admitted there is a potential problem with image retention.

Please read the following questions sent and their reply.......

Start......

I am considering the purchase of a Panasonic Plazma TV however what worries me
about Plazma is the potential issue of "image retention burn in" of the Plazma
technology.

Can you advise me as to what design features Panasonic have introduced to
minimize the problem.

Please answer the below technical questions

1...I read about "Green phosphores being more resilient to burn in" Has
Panasonic adopted such technology in its range..

2...I read about the picture position being slowly readjusted to avoid burn in
by TV logos. Once again is this feature built into the Panasonic range.

I have downloaded and studied your manuals but I cannot find any reference as
to what anti burn in technology you deploy..

Regards.




Reply........

Thank you for your e-mail enquiry.

In response, I would explain that as specified in the operating manual there is the potential for permanent images to be retained on screen if displayed for long periods of time. This is not specific to Panasonic plasma screens but can occur with any flat panel, and to a lesser degree CRT televisions.

The most effective method of preventing this occurrence is to turn down the brightness and contrast levels, and/or zoom out any logos where possible. We would also recommend switching the channel during the adverts where possible.

As you state this can also be an issue when displaying 4:3 pictures.

Whilst we cannot give a definitive time period for image retention, permanent retention is only likely to occur after a period of some hours and the risk will be lessened by following the instructions given above.

I trust that the above information will be of assistance to you. However, of course, if you should have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us on 08705 357357 or customer.care@panasonic.co.uk and we will endeavour to assist.

Customer Support


A reply with neither easy to answer question being answered and an attempt to even blame CRT tubes of the same problem to some degree.....Should that give one confidence in believing optimistic reports that "burn in" is not much of a problem...I don't think so..

Pixel shift sort of admits they do burn but pixel shift should sort it.... to an extent.

SO true, I haven't seen a LCD come even close to a plasma when showing SD but HD they are closer, but the plasma still has better blacks & more natural colours.

I have compared them side by side, and I have watched a good deal of both SD and HD on various models in a home environment, and I have never seen an LCD that matches the picture quality of a good quality plasma.

AV mags have a vested interest in promoting LCD. What else are they going to do; end each LCD review by saying 'This LCD is inferior to our reference PDP'? That would do wonders for circulation given that LCD now owns a large proportion of the flat panel TV market.

Some of the most honest views I have read on this forum are from LCD owners who have admitted that the picture quality on their LCD screens is inferior to their friends' plasmas.
Last edited by meltcity : 06-12-2006 at 23:15

I'll ignore the stuff about the mags having a vested interest in pushing LCDs as it's plainly ludicrous.

Has it occurred to you that the development curve of the LCD is on a steeper slope than plasma? Plasma has been delivering a reasonable picture for a few years - albeit at an initially very high price. LCD has been inferior for years but has been catching up rapidly and the price has been dropping to make it more competitive. A lot of those who complain about LCD picture quality have outdated screens. Anything bought pre-2006 will be inferior to a good plasma and a lot of the LCD stuff you can buy today is not that great as it's based on old panels.

You are 100% correct those plasma screens are much better.
You are also correct in plasma screen do have problems. (Did have problems, but that was 5 years ago and not in today’s time)

New and upcoming models made in the last 2 years are some of the best flat screen picture around be that Plasma or LCD.

Most people compare new LCD to a large plasma screen and come to the answer that LCD looks much better, and they are correct to a point. Remember most shops do not know how to set up screens and plasma displayed in shops look poor when in fact the screen is very good. LCD need less work to look great in shops.

[*] LCD are today very good and caught up with plasma
[*] Plasma screens today are too very good.

What you need to answer are:

Which size are you after.?
How bright the room is that the screen is to be place in.?
What do you require the screen for ?

The 2 options I would consider are:
[*] Pioneer 42inch Latest Model Plasma
[*] Sony 42inch Latest Model LCD.

Both will serve you well. It is down to the outer look and price

LCDs have improved, but not to the point where they are equal to plasmas.

Motion lag is still a problem, even on screens with the lowest response time. Most people claim not to see any lag when viewing SDTV, but it is a common complaint among HDTV viewers. Philips has made great advances in this area with the introduction of the ClearLCD strobing backlight, which it claims to dramatically improve motion sharpness and eliminate motion lag. I have seen ClearLCD and it works brilliantly - it is the most vibrant LCD picture I have seen - but the fact that the strobing effect doesn't work with HD signals is a serious drawback. When are other manufacturers going to adopt similar technology?

LCD colours are still inaccurate, even on the latest models (including ClearLCD). LCDs produce colour by taking a white light source (the CCFL backlight) and splitting it into red, green and blue light wavelengths via a colour filter. In theory this should produce all possible colours but the light output from CCFL lamps is off-white, not pure white, so the gamut of colours is mathematically limited.

Black levels are still poor on LCD because the liquid crystals are unable to block the backlight completely, so contrast suffers as well.

LED backlighting should solve this problem because LEDs can be dimmed or turned off completely; colour accuracy will improve because white LEDs are a source of pure white light; and since LEDs can be dimmed or turned off motion lag will no longer be an issue. But it will be a few years before LED backlighting becomes standard.

LCDs definitely have a future, but in the meantime anyone shopping for a large screen flat panel TV would be foolish to disregard plasma.
Last edited by meltcity : 07-12-2006 at 23:26

I guess it depends on what you're watching to an extent. You certainly seem to be very clued up on the technical issues - more so than me - but the trouble is that it's the end result that is important. In practice there isn't much difference between the best plasma and the best LCD, with the exception that the LCD is sharper - I don't know what the technical reason is for this but it looks that way to me and the reviewers acknowledge this. The plasma picture is softer and "more cinematic" as they say.

Motion blur may be more than a plasma but the fact is it's not really noticeable. As for colour, this seems very dependent on the quality of the input. If you're watching a good qality source (e.g. BBC nature stuff) the colours look accurate (when correctly set up). If you're watching an American soap, for example, they look wrong but I don't think this is the TV's fault. Blacks, in theory, must be worse on an LCD than a plasma admittedly, but again, in practice there isn't much wrong with the blacks on a good LCD. An adjustable backlight can help in this area. The Sony range has this feature and I find I tend to have the backlight on minimum most of the time.

I still suspect that plasma's days are numbered and LCD will take over the whole market, until the next thing arrives, like SED or whatever.

Having seen a few up-and-coming developments of LCD panels, I'd say that LCD-based technologies will soon be offering the Plasma experience but without the issue of burn-in and (hopefully) same price or cheaper.

I've seen demos of LCD screens with <1ms refresh rates (no motion blurring at all visible) and with vibrant, sharp colours.

Off the record, speaking to people in the industry (manufacturers, not salesmen), I get the impression that LCD is the preferred technology and that Plasma has only got where it has in the market due to lack of large format LCD panels at affordable prices.

I work for a company who develop and install hardware and software kiosk solutions in shopping centres. We use 63" commercial Samsung PDP panels for the most part as we could not get 63" LCD panels at the time. Ideally, we'd have gone for 80" Plasma but no-one was prepared to tool up to make them for us, or at least they would but for an unacceptable cost.

Most of the screens are about 2-3 years old now and showing extreme signs of burn-in.

We are now looking at all alternative technologies available now and in the near-future and will probably make the shift to LCD panels when we've exhausted our stock of Plasma panels.

Having said that, I've witnessed the worlds largest plasma display (at the time) - 103" - an LG showcase unit, I think. There are only 4 in the world. Now that was impressive.

Anyone in London should go and see the £50,000, 103 inch Panasonic plasma at John Lewis in Oxford Street - incredible! Of course it's properly set up with HD sources - don't think they'd do a Currys style RF feed somehow.