[R300]

I don't know much about TV's so basically as the title says, Plasma or LCD.

The wife is nagging me for a new telly, preferable HD and about 40". I have heard a fair few bad things about plasma screens and would have bought an LCD, except that she has come home from work after speaking to the IT guys at her place and they told her to go for plasma as the resolution is better and there are more colours and the blacks look better on plasma.

What would be the best bet then do you think for us, plasma or LCD?

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by R300

I don't know much about TV's so basically as the title says, Plasma or LCD.

The wife is nagging me for a new telly, preferable HD and about 40". I have heard a fair few bad things about plasma screens and would have bought an LCD, except that she has come home from work after speaking to the IT guys at her place and they told her to go for plasma as the resolution is better and there are more colours and the blacks look better on plasma.

Plasma has better black, but LCD has better resolution - as for more colours?, I 'think' LCD has more colours as well? - Plasma is limited due to the way it works.

Quote:

What would be the best bet then do you think for us, plasma or LCD?

Best bet is to go and look in the shops, and see what you prefer. LCD outsells Plasma massively - Plasma is very much a minority market now.

Reliability wise Plasma loses out big time - I've now scrapped 7 plasma sets, yet no LCD's so far (except for smashed ones, but I'm not counting smashed Plasma's either). Considering we probably sell more LCD's a week, than all the Plasma's we've sold put together - I don't consider this looks good for Plasma reliability.

[timmillwood]

There are so so many threads on this already.

Basically...
The life span is the same on both.
Plasma often have a higher contrast resulting in better colours but it is getting closer and closer.
LCDs have a slower refresh rate causing bluring on fast moving images.
LCDs often have a higher resolution (1080p) but there are few plasmas on the market now.

I think Plasma is better, but it is very much personal choice, go and have a look.

[oxford4eyes]

For me lcd

[w3dal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Plasma has better black, but LCD has better resolution - as for more colours?, I 'think' LCD has more colours as well? - Plasma is limited due to the way it works.



Best bet is to go and look in the shops, and see what you prefer. LCD outsells Plasma massively - Plasma is very much a minority market now.

Reliability wise Plasma loses out big time - I've now scrapped 7 plasma sets, yet no LCD's so far (except for smashed ones, but I'm not counting smashed Plasma's either). Considering we probably sell more LCD's a week, than all the Plasma's we've sold put together - I don't consider this looks good for Plasma reliability.

what makes were they???

Dal

[skinj]

We've scrapped about 15-20 LCD's and only 3-4 Plasma sets. 2 of those were damaged by impact. The LCD's have various faults from panel failure and psu failure with a couple being dropped.
Also dont the Plasma's have a much larger pallette of colours to choose from.
If LCD did have more colours surley Sony's ad would say "More colours than anyone else" or something similar, as opposed to " Colour like no other" which is a brilliant line as it actuall has no relevent meaning. The colour display could be worse than a Techtronic form Asda but it would still be like "no other"
One of he big selling lines from Panasonic is the 68 Billion on screen colours it is able to display. Pioneer also talk about the quality of their coulour reproduction.
As far as selling more LCD than Plasma I would expect that from a main Sony dealer. I would also expect to sell more LCD generally as they are available in a wider range of sizes from 15" to 65"+.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by w3dal

what makes were they???

Mainly Sony, but a couple of Fujitsu as well - and as a matter of interest, probably half the duff Sony's were Fujitsu panels that were faulty.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinj

As far as selling more LCD than Plasma I would expect that from a main Sony dealer.

Obviously, but it's not just Sony delears - LCD sales far out strip Plasma elsewhere, as you say one obvious reason is the size limitations of Plasma sets.

[Anne C]

I love my plasma...

[R300]

Thanks for the replies.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by R300

Thanks for the replies.

Doesn't really help though does it?.

On an even less helpful note, if I was going out tomorrow to buy a new TV, I've no idea what I'd go for either!.

[Jarrak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

On an even less helpful note, if I was going out tomorrow to buy a new TV, I've no idea what I'd go for either!.

A 50" Pioneer Kuro.

[Kojack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Doesn't really help though does it?.

On an even less helpful note, if I was going out tomorrow to buy a new TV, I've no idea what I'd go for either!.

I prob wouldn't know either, I am very happy with my Plasma as well but I would still search & view both LCD & plasma again as its been well over a year since we bought ours.

LCD will always out sell Plasma because the most popular screen sizes are 28"& 32" I think, of which Plasma don't make & a lot of people buy even smaller LCDs to dual up as a PC monitors.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarrak

A 50" Pioneer Kuro.

Neither Pioneer nor 50 inch would be considerations!

As is usual in the trade, it's most likely a question of what I might 'come across' either cheap or free!

[timmillwood]

i would love a 50" Pioneer Kuro, or even a 60" but the price is sooo high.

If I was buying tomorrow it would be a Sansung 50" 1080p Plasma.

[cbcdesign]

Plasma is the only choice in my opinion. LCD uses a backlight which affects colour rendition and contrast ratio. Plasma will always deliver a better coloir image than LCD as a result and it will always have a much higher contrast ratio. The response time of a plasma pixel is way faster than any lcd pixel ever will be too. If you are looking into buying a big TV, plasma is the best choice by far.

[roddydogs]

Blimey Timmilwoods mellowed! whats happend to the usual "LCD are rubbish buy a Plasma like me bit?

[andy1886]

Have just had this problem myself but went to the local tv shop and compared the two.For the size of screen we wanted (42 inch) the plasma gave a "better,clearer picture."(Not very technical.)But what swung it was that when the wife touched the screen the plasma is a solid glass panel whereas the lcd could be pressed in with a bubble effect appearing on the screen.Due to cleaning,dusting and kids touching the screen this was the reason we went for a plasma.I currently have no regrets about it having purchased a Samsung 42 inch.Also buy on line,saved £250 compared to high street prices.Might sound obvious but so many people I know have the internet but buy these products from the high street at considerably more cost.Ordered on Thursday night and it arrived Monday morning,not bad that.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbcdesign

LCD uses a backlight which affects colour rendition and contrast ratio. Plasma will always deliver a better coloir image than LCD as a result.

I don't have the specs for LCD colours, but I do for plasma colours - and I've posted them here before. Plasma colours are no where near as correct as CRT colours, and I would expect LCD to be nearer to a CRT - if not better.

They work in these ways:

CRT - phosphors convert electrons to light.
Plasma - phosphors convert ultraviolet radiation to light.
LCD - white light passes through coloured filters.

Plasma and CRT obviously use completely different phosphors, and CRT is FAR closer to the required EBU standard. Plasma is considered, by the manufacturers, as 'near enough - people won't notice!'.

Like I said, I don't have similar specs on LCD, but it seems pretty obvious it's far easier to make accurate colout filters than phosphors - and it just depends on how 'white' the original source is.

But claims the Plasma has more accurate colours are probably completely wrong?, and certainly so compared to a CRT.

In any case, all three are 'near enough'.

[carefree cook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbcdesign

Plasma is the only choice in my opinion. LCD uses a backlight which affects colour rendition and contrast ratio. Plasma will always deliver a better coloir image than LCD as a result and it will always have a much higher contrast ratio. The response time of a plasma pixel is way faster than any lcd pixel ever will be too. If you are looking into buying a big TV, plasma is the best choice by far.

the two are far to equal now. pioneer kuro plasma is 20,000:1, other plasmas range about 18000:1.

sony w3000 LCD is 16000:1, sony X3500/X3000 18000:1

response times on LCD is not so much a problem now with 100Hz engines anyway

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinj

We've scrapped about 15-20 LCD's and only 3-4 Plasma sets. 2 of those were damaged by impact. The LCD's have various faults from panel failure and psu failure with a couple being dropped.
.

surly that is too general? i mean that if you buy a B&O set you would expect it to last a lot longer than a cheap vestel set.

even if you do buy a LCD or Plasma.

personally if you want a large screen go for a plasma, eg 42'' upwards, LCD for 'smaller' like 40'' below with everything considered

[cbcdesign]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

I don't have the specs for LCD colours, but I do for plasma colours - and I've posted them here before. Plasma colours are no where near as correct as CRT colours, and I would expect LCD to be nearer to a CRT - if not better.

They work in these ways:

CRT - phosphors convert electrons to light.
Plasma - phosphors convert ultraviolet radiation to light.
LCD - white light passes through coloured filters.

Plasma and CRT obviously use completely different phosphors, and CRT is FAR closer to the required EBU standard. Plasma is considered, by the manufacturers, as 'near enough - people won't notice!'.

Like I said, I don't have similar specs on LCD, but it seems pretty obvious it's far easier to make accurate colout filters than phosphors - and it just depends on how 'white' the original source is.

But claims the Plasma has more accurate colours are probably completely wrong?, and certainly so compared to a CRT.

In any case, all three are 'near enough'.

Granted, the CRT is the best technology for colour rendition, no argument. But where LCD versus plasma is concerned, plasma will outperform an LCD screen in most cases. Lcd does have the edge in brightly lit rooms though.

Virtualy every comparison I have ever read maintains that plasma has the edge over lcd where colour accuracy is concerned and many claim plasma has a wider colour pallete.

A common complaint with LCD is that the colours look too vivid and garish, almost cartoonish in comparison to plasma.

[meltcity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Plasma colours are no where near as correct as CRT colours, and I would expect LCD to be nearer to a CRT - if not better.

We've been through this before Nigel, yet you continue to post your opinions as the gospel truth!

Take another look at this article from BBC Research.

From the article:

Quote:

Plasma (PDP)

Advantages
Excellent viewing angle
Good colour rendition

Disadvantages
Burn-in
Motion rendition may be inadequate
Requires greater bit-depth in blacks

Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)

Advantages
Mass production brings rapidly falling costs

Disadvantages
Colour changes with viewing angle
Contrast changes with viewing angle
Poor grey-scale and colorimetry
Gamma curve very inaccurate near black
Motion rendition may be inadequate

'nuff said.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meltcity

We've been through this before Nigel, yet you continue to post your opinions as the gospel truth!

As do you?, I previously posted the colour gamut graph showing CRT compared with Plasma and the EBU, which shows how poor Plasma performs in that respect.

The LCD gamut graph in the BBC article looks pretty reasonable though?.

Quote:

From the article:

'nuff said.

Nicely editted, ignoring all the later sections where almost all of those problems are listed as fixed on modern sets.

Where I do agree, and always have, is the poorer blacks on LCD than Plasma - although it's not very significant now.

[meltcity]

I wasn't aware I had edited the article to give a false impression. It goes through each issue one by one. Where does it say the problems have been fixed?

I would be interested to see the graph you are talking about that compares LCD and plasma colour gamuts. The graph you linked to in an earlier post compared the EBU standard to plasma, which is of little use on its own. Everyone knows that TVs are unable to produce truly accurate colours, whatever the technology.

Black levels and motion tracking are still poorer on LCD, as indicated by recent reviews in the AV mags. Bottom line is that good plasmas are still considered to deliver better pictures.

[carefree cook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meltcity

Black levels and motion tracking are still poorer on LCD, as indicated by recent reviews in the AV mags. Bottom line is that good plasmas are still considered to deliver better pictures.

on the whole i agree. however, TODAY, i would say a top LCD screen can easily compare with most plasma screens.

many people are still fixed to out dated facts on plasma versus LCD, the common ''LCD have poor contrast and refresh/response rate'' springs to mind. very true on early screens, not so much now.

i use the sony X3500 as an example as above. 18000:1 contrast, sorting out the blacks. 8ms response at 100Hz. there is going to be no shadowing, motion blur, mosquito noise, what ever you want to call it.
but of course this is one of the best LCD screens you could buy, many average sets are far off the spec on the X series, so you could say inferior to plasma