I am looking to buy a new 1080 FLATSCREEN TV and am still deciding on which way to go, in terms of PLAMSA or LCD. My main worry is that We watch a lot of football/sport, and the picture on SKY is always pixelating, on our normal CRT, So im assuming this will look even worse on an LCD TV am i right. We also have the big three consoles to connect to it, so which format produces the best gaming experience, and finally which is the more reliable and have a good service life thanks for any advice its much appreciated
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 103
LCD lasts longer than Plasma. If you have pixelation already, you're going to see it on any HDTV you buy. One of the knocks on LCD in the early days is that the viewing angle was much narrower than Plasma, but that's no longer true. I can see a perfect viewable image on my Samsung LCD HDTV (it does 1080p natively) when standing at the extreme sides of the TV. In fact, I can see the image until I get past the sides. My father told me that his LCD TV (a few years older than mine) doesn't have anywhere near the viewing angle mine does.
I don't game at all, so I can't help you there. Make sure that you use high quality video connections for ALL your video sources, including any cable or satellite TV. High quality connections include:
High quality video connections are NOT:
coax like used in the USA for cable TV
SCART (shudder! I hope you don't have this.)
I very strongly recommend for best results that you not just watch everything in 16:9. Non-widescreen sources like 4:3 DVDs, standard def TV shows, game consoles, VHS tapes, etc. should really only be watched in 4:3. If you just watch everything in 16:9, you will find that standard definition video expands to 16:9 in a fairly ugly way and it magnifies any flaws in the source. Use your remote control to switch the TV between 4:3 and 16:9 as needed for best viewing results.
Plasmas are considered to have better blacks than LCDs as a general rule. My TV has gotten very good reviews but some have said that the blacks are not all that great. They look OK to me, but I may be less sensitive to this than others. If you are one of those people, you may need to go to Plasma. Look at LCDs and Plasmas in stores and see what you think.
One factor that many people overlook about plasma TVs is the burn-in factor. They figure it doesn't matter because they don't have a computer connected to it.
However, if you have your HDTV or your HD source (satellite, cable, etc.) set up to show normal SD 4:3 pictures with vertical side bars, these will burn in to your plasma and when you view a full-screen 16:9 or 16:10 picture on it, you will see off-color areas on both the left and right where the side bars are located on 4:3 pictures. This is assuming you watch a lot of SD 4:3 video. This is especially true if the side bars are gray or brown. Black side bars may not be as much of an issue, but there may still be a vertical line burned in where the black side bar begins and the 4:3 picture ends.
great advice, thanks chaps.
LCD displays last much longer, but not true for all LCDr backlights. So, if you are looking to buy one to last, then pick one that you can replace the light source, or with LED backlight.
Originally Posted by Jim44
I am very pleased with my Sharp Aquos 46" lcd 1080p TV system. The picture quality is excellent - blacks are really deep black (not dark gray like some tv's), the high contrast ratio seems to make the viewing quite vivid and the 4ms response time of the panel eliminates all fast action trailing artifacts. I watch all programming in the aspect ratio of the original program, and my Sony upconverting dvd player makes my anamorphic dvd movies look terrific on this TV.
Usually plasma should be better than the LCD,but it also has something to do woth many other features for say the birghtness and resolution.
Originally Posted by fairytale00I have the staff of power, now it's up to me to use it to its full potential to command my life and be successful.
I run my LCDs at 50% Backlight. The average life for this with 10 hours of TV a day, everyday is 12.1 years. Now I have looked at a lot of plasmas and LCDs, and personally I think LCDs offers a better picture and better resolutions. Not to mention the LCD's are typically a lot lighter as well. I imagine in time that that the true answer to this question will be given to us within 5 years. Its like buying a car, I tell my daughter who is 16 and wants a car now to take a good look at what still on the road now if you want to learn anything about longevity. What vehicles do you see the most of?
Honda Civics, Toyota Corollas, Ford Rangers, Ford F150's. What cars do you not see a lot of that are old?
I know this is probably a real newbie question, but I'm planning on getting a new HDTV. Does it take a special DVD recorder/player to play High Def DVDs?
Originally Posted by carlab
One of the first niggles about plasma was that they consumed humongous amounts of power compared with a similar-sized LCD. Is this still the case??For the nth time, with the possible exception of certain Intel processors, I don't have/ever owned anything whose name starts with "i".
I've got both plasma and LCD. I've heard that plasma produces a 'softer' picture, maybe this is the reason why my LCD seems to show pixelation in low bandwidth transmission more than plasma.Regards,
Originally Posted by turk690
I tried LCD before the plasma, the plasma is far better than LCD. But again, I watch in a dark room.
CNET gives power consumption reports with many of their reviews, both at the factory default settings and after calibration. LCD typically consumes a lot less power than Plasma.
Any recommendations on upconerting DVD recorders to go along with a new plasma 720p?
I believe the plasma is the better unit. I own a Samsung 42" and love it. Samsung makes 80% of the computer screens out there. They are now the biggest producer in the world. Samsung is top of the line.
LCD vs plasma: You hear a lot about both. Bottom line is plasma costs more to make. Plasma is more substantial. Feel the goods. Plasma set weighs a lot more than an LCD unit. The glass plate over the screen on a plasma will hold up over time. The LCD screens are soft and can be damaged easily. Samsung has plasma life up 20 years. Life and burn in are no longer issues on quality units.
The push is to sell you an LCD because they cost less to produce and therefore have higher profit margins. Plasma production lines are closing in the orient. LCD lines are opening. I would guess that within a couple of years plasma will be hard to find a deal on. Now is the time to buy plasma.
Originally Posted by jman98
Any new TV will have at least 2 SCART connections. SCART must be the most misunderstood connection known to man (outside of Europe). All it does is combine multiple formats into a single connector. It can be used as composite (not recommended), S-Video (getting better) and component (without multiple phono connectors just a nice simple single plug). My HD capable TV has 2 SCARTS, 2 HDMI, Composite, S-Video, Component and VGA, most recent sets will have similar.
The cause of the pixellation on Sky is the appallingly low bitrates they broadcast. This has got worse recently since they introduced their HD service and have had to reduce the bandwidth on the others to fit it in. I have a 32" LCD Integrated Digital TV and a Sky receiver. Switching between Freeview terrestrial DTV and Sky on the same channel shows just how poor the quality is on Sky (some channels are nearly as bad as SD NTSC, it's that bad!). Thankfully, I don't pay a subscription and only have the free to air channels so use it very rarely.
As for comments about watching 4:3 on a widescreen TV, you will have difficulty finding any. Unlike the US, virtually all DVDs and most broadcast TV is in widescreen anyway. The UK has been broadcasting widescreen for a number of years and it is very difficult to buy a non-widescreen TV (except for small portables) for this reason. I haven't seen a 4:3 TV larger than 21" on sale in years. When some of the older stuff that is in 4:3 is broadcast most TVs will adjust the set to either display bars on either side or show the picture over the full width of the screen but cutting off the top and bottom. Unless you spend all your life watching UKTV Gold, burn in isn't going to be a problem.
OK, no expert here as I made my evaluation a bit over 1 year ago....but I went Plazma because no matter how hard the salesman tried to convince me I could see problems in LCD fast motion scenes. The demo HD program they run at the stores carefully avoids fast camera movements as you'd see watching a long pass in football (or soccer/fotball for you Euros). So, with the response times down to 4ms or whatever, maybe you'd see a problem, maybe not. Again, 1 year ago I could see this issue on the most expensive LCD screen.
Plazmas have one big REAL issue - they are very reflective.....so in a room with many windows or whatever, it may cause some problems. We have to turn off the Xmas tree lights to watch "important" stuff as from certain angles the tree reflection is VERY visable.
Plasma= Betamax"There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon." -- Raoul Duke
It is probably just a matter of relative cost, but the market seems to have spoken loudly -- in favor of LCD. No quality judgments in this particular post: given sufficient budget and the desire for a 42" or larger display, I would take a hard look at the state of projectors these day, but could easily wind up going for one of the better plasma screens.
I gather that bulbs or mirrors on DLP sets need replacing every so often, but I just read something referring to "filters" in plasma screens that need replacing every 2 - 4 years (?). Did I read that right, and if so, what exactly are they referring to ?When in Las Vegas, don't miss the Pinball Hall of Fame Museum http://www.pinballmuseum.org/ -- with over 150 tables from 6+ decades of this quintessentially American art form.
My take on plasma vs lcd is, it depends on its location. Both are excellent under the right conditions. Will you be watching in a room with windows? Get a LCD. There is very little to no reflection. Or will you be watching in a dark room? Get a Plasma. Both formats set-up correctly look beautiful.
I'll agree with mrswla. I live in an apartment with big windows and have a 32" LCD, my gf lives in an old house (over 400 years) with small windows and has a Panasonic 42" plasma. Both give as good a picture as you are going to get (both are IDTV Freeview digital).
The latest models of both technologies will give good performance but try to avoid the cheapies. You can get a 32" LCD from about £350 but the picture quality isn't as good as paying a bit more on a better brand such as Sony or Panasonic. If you look at somewhere like RicherSounds (www.richersounds.co.uk), you should be able to get a pretty good deal on the better models.
Projectors are a non-starter unless you only want to watch TV in the dark. For sitting down in the evening to watch a film in a pseudo-cinema setting, a projector is fine, for everyday use as a TV, forget it.
I use to favor Plasma screens, but the later LCD TVs won me!
Those made by Samsung (and Sony that use Samsung's panels), present some new technologies, like adding additional frames to the framerate. Those technologies do make the difference.
On the other hand, the plasma "burn" still exists today. And IMO, watching 4:3 with grey or flashing boarders so to prevent it, it's not my favorite choice.
Regarding the EuroSCART connections, they are the best alternative we have for standard definition through analogue connections. They offer audio / video in one cable, simply device connectivity and automatic control and fair good picture quality. Not Component - as Richard_G mentioned, but RGB.
RGB is good. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow HDTV definitions. But it has one benefit: You can't lock it, as you can with component. So, for us in Europe, SCART guarantees the existence of the "analogue hole" for a long time to come. And that is good.
There are a lot of myths about Plasma and/or LCD.
I think one of the better sites explaining the differences and reviewing Plasma's as wel as LCD's is:
For more reviews:
My (simplified) conclusion:
If you really like watching movies: buy Plasma
If your main interest is gaming: buy LCD
I already own a Sony plasma 42 inch for 2,5 years. Burn in is really a unnecessary concern. I really watch a lot of 4:3 material and play games etc. I have no burn in whatsoever !
I'm going to buy a bigger TV, and yes it's going to be another Plasma. A Panasonic 50inch HD.
If you can wait, at the CES (now held in Las Vegas) Panasonic introduced there new Plasma line, probably hitting the market in the spring :P . http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/news/2008/01/07/CES-2008-Panasonic-Press-Conference/p1
One discussion that pops-up everytime is about the power consumption. Who cares ? What are we talking about ? 30 Euro's/dollars per year ! This is the same as deciding wether to buy a Porsche or a Ferrari based on their fuel consumption differences.
Still it's also a question of personal taste.
I really, really hate MPEG artifacts and exagerated colors, so for me no LCD.
well good luck deciding !
Originally Posted by coen99