Which is better, LCD or Plasma TV in terms of pixelation?

[dzsoul]

Which is better, LCD or Plasma TV in terms of pixelation?

Well I usually have standard DVD movies and i watch them with my CRT TV but right now we are planning to buy a new TV.

Would DVD movies look more blurry or pixelated since LCD or plasma TV's are more wider and bigger? If yes, which TV makes these movies less blurry or pixelated?

Thanks!

PS: If you can elaborate more about these TV's then it would help me a lot. I also have some divx videos in my computer and i have a dvd player that can be connected to the TV with divx support and i hope they would not become too blurry.

[MOVIEGEEK]

Neither are a good choice for VCD or low bitrate videos,the larger the screen the worse it will look.
Plasmas generally have deeper blacks and offer wider viewing angles but LCD's are better for bright rooms,LCDs are also lighter and use less electricity.

[FulciLives]

I've often heard that a 1080p Plasma uses as much as 3 times the electricity of a similar sized 1080p LCD.

I would go LCD and Samsung seems to make the best models right now (knock on wood).

If you want Plasma I have heard very good things about the new Panasonics.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

P.S.
I have an "old school" but late generation 1080i CRT Rear Projection HDTV and the image seems detailed yet I know it hides "uglyness" because I've seen some highly compressed videos on my computer monitor (1280x1024 LCD so basically 720p resolution) that look crappy on said computer monitor but actually look OK on the aforementioned HDTV which is a 51 incher. I mean it doesn't hide really poor quality but as an example I'll use the UK Blu-Ray of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD as an example ... very grainy on my computer monitor (although sharp image) whereas on the HDTV it is sharp but the grain is greatly reduced. I also have some "high quality" XviD DVD rips that show at least some uglyness on the computer monitor but look damn impressive on the HDTV. Alas I don't think anyone still makes CRT RP HDTV's anymore.

On a side note with Plasma / LCD you don't have to worry about focus and convergence issues LOL

[guns1inger]

Also, avoid cheap plasma and LCDs. They give you about the same quality as the average computer monitor.

Also, if it comes down to a choice between buying a bigger TV, or a smaller model with better quality, get the smaller TV. I have a smaller model LCD which, for picture quality in all things, is far better than my mate's much larger Plasma. He "had to have" a 52" plasma (because he has a small . . . anyway . . .). If had spent the same money on a 46" plasma or LCD he would have a decent television instead of the fuzzy, pixellated POS he now owns.

[redwudz]

Not as much difference between plasma and LCDs at present, as far as viewing quality. I do agree trying to watch SD TV or low bitrate movies on a large set is painful, especially after watching a Blu-ray or HD on a large screen. I tried SD TV from my cable on my 12' projection screen. Never again.

[dzsoul]

So to conclude, xvid dvd rips of movies and some old DVDs doesn't really look bad. How about cable/broadcast that is for SDTV on 32"? Because i don't think here in our location, cables offer HDTV connection.

What's in my mind is that only real Blu-ray discs really look good on LCD/plasma TV's.

Our plan is to buy a 32" LCD so that wouldn't be much big?

FulciLives, you were talking about those "high quality" XviD DVD rips that look so damn impressive on a 1080i CRT Rear Projection HDTV. I didn't know there were CRT HDTV or have i misunderstood? Is that a projector or a real TV? and is it really 51"? Is there a huge difference between that kind of HDTV to LCD? If they are somewhat the same, how many inches should LCD be to be comparable to an 1080i CRT RP HDTV that you have?

Thanks a lot guys.

[guns1inger]

I have a 1080p Series 6 Samsung 32" LCD. The image is very good for the $$$s. Bluray looks fantastic coming out of the PS3. It also does a very good job as upscaling DVDs and MP4 files. Divx is acceptable. Not all DVDs upscale as well as each other. Even some very nice studio releases that look great on SD don't upscale as well as some cheaper releases. Can't find a pattern to it.

The built in upscaler that the TV uses for SD input sources is OK, but not as good as what the PS3 can do. SD DVD through these sources is again, acceptable to good. Standard Divx rips don't fare quite as well - again, the PS3 is better for these.

And even at 32" you can clearly see the difference between 720P and 1080P from a good source. Dark Knight is an extraordinary visual experience in 1080p.

[jagabo]

Our plan is to buy a 32" LCD so that wouldn't be much big?

How far away is your normal viewing distance? If that's a 1080p set and you sit within 3 feet you will easily see the difference between good 1080i/p and 720p sources. If you sit over ~10 feet away you'll hardly see a difference between SD and HD.

[dzsoul]

i sit 8 feet away from the TV.

im sorry because i dont really know a lot about these.

So a TV with lesser inches in size but with big resolution will look better than a bigger TV with the same resolution.

In your opinion, which would be a better choice, buying a 32" with 720p/1080i resolution for the sake of some broadcasts and some xvid movies or 32" with 1080p for not to be tempted to buy again in the future when everything is HD?

Or maybe broadcasts, blu-ray and the like become common very soon or still far away?

Im sorry for keep on asking opinions because i really never ever want to waste money. hehehe. ^_^

[guns1inger]

Our plan is to buy a 32" LCD so that wouldn't be much big?

How far away is your normal viewing distance? If that's a 1080p set and you sit within 3 feet you will easily see the difference between good 1080i/p and 720p sources. If you sit over ~10 feet away you'll hardly see a difference between SD and HD.

Gotta disagree. I s1t between 6 and 12 feet from the TV, depending on the couch I am sitting on, and the difference is very apparent between SD and HD, and even between 720 and 1080 TV broadcasts. Once the distance is much greater than that then the difference becomes much harder to spot. But at my normal viewing distances I can easily see the difference between a Bluray and a DVD.

[jman98]

Buy a 1080p TV and you won't regret it.

I have a 42 inch Samsung LCD TV and I sit about 10 feet from it. VCD looks fine on it. As edDV and a few other forum regulars have said before, some of the better HDTV contain sharpening filters and you'll get good results even from low quality video. Honestly, VCDs look fine on my TV. In fact, they look significantly better on my HDTV (which is 1080p) than they did on my smaller standard definition TV.

How good your TV looks depends on a wide variety of factors. How close you sit to it, whether you watch everything in 16:9 (a VERY BAD idea in my opinion) or watch 4:3 video in 4:3 and 16:9 video in 16:9, and whether or not you used high quality video connections to the TV from your various video sources. Also the quality of the TV itself is important with some manufacturers, like Samsung, being much better than others.

[jagabo]

Your eyes can only resolve so much detail at any particular distance. At 8 feet from a 32" HDTV you will see almost no difference between 720p and 1080p resolution . See the chart near the bottom of this page:

http://www.everythinghdtv.com/hdtv-buyers-guide/resolution

You're in the range where the difference between 720p and 480p isn't that big. Even decently encoded ~320x240 Divx/Xvid will be watchable.

About the only thing available at 32" now is LCD. So there's not much point in debating the advantages and disadvantages of LCD vs plasma vs CRT. But in (very) short, the traditional benefits of plasma vs LCD:

Plasma: darker black levels, less motion blur, wider viewing angle
LCD: brighter picture, lower power consumption

The price difference between 720p and 1080p displays isn't that big unless you are looking at bottom of the barrel 720p TVs. I'd just go ahead an get a 1080p HDTV, even though you don't really need it. You'll have the option of watching at 3 feet (with a good 1080i/p source) if you want!

[budz]

Panasonic makes excellent 32 inch LCD TV's. I have one that's going on 2 years old. I paid at the time $750.00. As already mentioned don't buy cheap off name brands. Let your eyes judge which brands/models look good to you.

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Televisions/VIERA-LCD-HDTVs.list.7...00000000005702

[handyguy]

For SD stay with a HD CRT.

Your computer monitor is the same as an LCD tv. Just watch stuff on it & see how you like it.

[jagabo]

Your computer monitor is the same as an LCD tv.

Not really. Video can look very different on a computer monitor compared to an HDTV.

[victoriabears]

I chose my 46 inch Sony V series Wega on the basis it was the best to watch old material on, and I was right.

Unless you watch the latest bang and crash movies, you will watch a lot of SD originated material.
Generally I use a Philips 5990 DVD player via HDMI, although I have also used good old Phono connects ! , but I have also watched VHS from a Panasonic AG W1 worldwide VCR and it looks good sometimes great.

I have never bought anything Sony other than this as am not a fan, but a friend who has been installing these since year zero, so has very day to day practical experience advised me.

[edDV]

Back to original question, pixelation is a function of source video or the image processor in your TV, not the display technology. Most LCD or plasma models offer different levels of image processing. Samsung has 400, 500, 600, 700 and 800 levels. The 900 series is the same and 800 but with LED back light.

There are at least four levels of image quality by screen size and display technology.

Value models as found in discount stores - Generic processing chips.
60fps premium models - Better proprietary deinterlace + inverse telecine.
120fps basic models - Proprietary processor with interpolated 120hz display.
120fps premium models - 120 Hz display plus advanced proprietary image processing.

[vhelp]

There are other things to consider (in addition to everything said (above) here) in all these, too.

1. The resolution of the display (LCD sets)
2. The Image Processor (HDTV set)
..
3. if graphics card, then they may have Image Processor also, problems: artifacts*, etc.
..
4. if {1} and {3} then you have problems: artifacts*, etc.
5. if {2} and {3} then you have the possible compounding of problems: : artifacts*, etc.
6. if {2} only by itself, possible problems depend on source (video) content, etc.
..
7. LCD and HDTV both incorporate Scalling. Each one has pros/cons: artifacts*, etc.
8. HDTV (and possibly LCD) incoporate IVTC (inverse telecine for frame rate conversion, of Film content)
9. again, graphics card w/ onboard Image Processor (and software controled) IVTC functions as {7}

Where: artifacts, etc., is general in its problems, and can range from Bad, Fair, to Good,

Now, with respect to the Image Processor, some of these units can include user adjustments, and even turn them off completely: either by onscreen controls, or with graphics cards: by control applet ie: dxvachecker.exe or ATI Tweaker tool. Or, in other situations, you may get different "video image" quality results if played by software player vs. hardware player, etc. Lots of variations, hard in some cases to pinpoint each pro/con problems to fix.

In the end, what will effect video quality is the:

a) strength of the bitrate: ie, too low bitrate; home-brew (aka, d/l'ed vid files)
b) the condition of the program content: ie, where there aready problems in source
c) further processing of the content (by broadcaster or 3rd party) ie, poor bitrate strategy, etc.
d) improper ivtc processing of certain sources by your tv set, ie: graphics card image processor or hdtv set's.
e) more..

All these and more can effect the final video you view on screen.

So, there's more to it then just picking up an LCD or HDTV set. You have to do your homework and research. But that is not always a luxuray for everyone. For instance, I pickup a new 19" LCD monitor. Most everything looked ok at the store and what-not, but then I realized that the gamma is frustrating-ly impossible to deal with, and I have to live with it, now. But, there's another one I saw recently (this weekend) and it has a good gamma setting, etc.

So, there is no real way of getting that perfect set. Somewhere in the chain of events you will find thing(s) that you will not like or consider bad in the purchase choice. And you can only test so many out before you ware the store out and they start chasing you out.

Only thing I can suggest is to get something (in your region PAL) and ask the questions: start by relaying what you will be using it for, tv viewing only or tv and computer, etc. etc. I don't know

-vhelp 5070

[dzsoul]

thanks for all your help! I will buy a TV soon enough.

Thanks a lot! ^__^

[fritzi93]

Maybe belated, but here goes: I have a 42" plasma and a 47" LCD, neither one top of the line but satisfactory. In my experience, and as others have said, quality of the source material is most important. Low bitrate stuff looks bad on either one. SD looks fine, upconverted DVD better, HD just lovely.

[glenmike]

Quality of the source material is most important: American Idol live is excellent as an HDTV broadcast. Watch it just to see a nearly perfect signal.

[BogieV]

I was also worried for switching to flat display from the traditional CRT TV.

Had some idea from 1.5 year ago when doing some research. At the time I compared many of the main players (Sony, Sharp, JVC, Pana - all fitted with digital tuners etc.) Samsung (no digital tuner at the time) and some 3rd party "junk" brands.
I was really disappointed with the pixelation I could easily see in the order above. Samsung had good price, vibrant colors but slower response and mosaic noise.

Now last Christmas I couldn't wait more and after spending 2 hours comparing several models in the price range I was ready do pay I got Sharp LC-32D30 - one of the cheapest actually but with all connections you can dream of.
Practically what I learned is that the technology hasn't been staying still - all brands were very close in quality with slight differences in color rendition and overall picture quality.

In 2 words - you will be surprised how good are todays brand LCD TVs - very happy with mine.
Stunning for the HD material, excellent original DVD display and what was most suprising - decent in reproducing SD material.
Well it gets really soft - yes, but no mosaic noise or pixelation - simply amazing!

Go for LCD with any of the top brands (Sharp, Sony, Toshiba were my favorites) - you'll not regret it

[turk690]

LCD TVs are pretty much the norm now but like all other display technologies they have peculiarities unique to them. Apart from all the important issues that have so far been discussed, a very important one is that of dead pixels. In general, I have so far not heard from those I know who bought an LCD TV 32" or larger from a top tier brand (Sony, JVC, Sharp, etc.) of any problems in this regard. I'm aware of two cases, though, one involving a brand "TIT" and the other "BEAC" (popular here in Saudi Arabia) which had them. After poking around, I have concluded the following:
1. Top-tier brand or not, insist on opening and actually powering on the TV in the store. Make it display a single color (blue, etc.) and examine the whole screen to see if there are dead pixels (permanently black, white, or red, green, blue). Some stores will allow this but may refuse to exchange a unit that shows dead pixels on inspection for some reason.
2. If they do not allow in-store inspection, take the business elsewhere. Or if you are hell-bent on a particular one, go to the LCD manufacturer's site prior to purchase and see what its policies are about dead pixels. These policies vary widely. Some specify a number before the display is considered defective and warrant replacement, etc.
3. Some dead pixels do not show up until days, weeks, months afterwards. Again, store and manufacturer warranty policies have to be understood.
4. From my small sampling, it pays to buy a top tier brand. House brands and others of the same ilk seem to have a bigger share of this problem.
I gathered that one reason LCDs have vastly dropped down in prices from, say, 10 years ago is that manufacturing efficiencies have gone up. A big component of this is dead pixel-free units. Indeed it takes just one dead pixel in the middle of an otherwise hi-tech 1920x1080 42" LCD TV to drive one bonkers.

[DarrellS]

Bestbuy has the Samsung LN40A550 40" 1080p LCD on sale for $799.99 ($150 cheaper than Newegg on sale and $100 cheaper than Walmart on sale) so I broke down and bought my first HDTV.

HD stuff off the WD MyHD Media Player looked great. An older music DVD on my Philips 5990 not near as good and analog broadcast cable looked pathetic (except for most of the clear QAM channels) so I went down today and picked up an HD cable box from COX.

Hopefully in June when stations are forced to broadcast in HD then I won't have to spend an extra $17 a month to be able to watch a decent picture on my TV but I doubt it. I think the government should get involved and force the cable companies to stop gouging customers for something that they should already be getting. There is no reason why they can't just send the unencrypted digital signal over the cable instead of charging everyone for a decoder box and an extra fee to use it.

They advertise "upgrade and get blah blah for free". You don't get anything for free. You have to pay $17 to $29 on top of the $43 before taxes that you already pay. But what are you gonna do? You can't watch your $43 a month cable on your new TV.

[edDV]

...
Hopefully in June when stations are forced to broadcast in HD then I won't have to spend an extra $17 a month to be able to watch a decent picture on my TV but I doubt it. ...

The only thing that happens in June is TV stations shut off the analog transmitter. Digital channels have been on the air since 2004 in most cities. These will be shifting channels and power but programming stays the same. You should already have most locals via digital QAM on cable.

[jagabo]

Yeah, try running the cable directly from the wall to the coax input on the TV. Scan for clear QAM channels. You'll probably find all your locals and a few other (useless) stations.

[DarrellS]

Yeah, the QAM channels looked pretty good and a couple of local channels didn't look bad but everything else looked like crap.

I'm not very pleased with the digital cable either. Most of the channels look a little better but nothing like the HD content on the WD and I'm not getting much more than I was getting with the QAM channels except for pay per view channels that I'll never use. Doesn't seem worth the $17 a month extra.

Guess I should've bought a 32" or smaller TV if the cable companies aren't going to broadcast much HD content.

[edDV]

Yeah, the QAM channels looked pretty good and a couple of local channels didn't look bad but everything else looked like crap.

I'm not very pleased with the digital cable either. Most of the channels look a little better but nothing like the HD content on the WD and I'm not getting much more than I was getting with the QAM channels except for pay per view channels that I'll never use. Doesn't seem worth the $17 a month extra.

Guess I should've bought a 32" or smaller TV if the cable companies aren't going to broadcast much HD content.

Sounds like you have a crappy local cable system. Ask them to evaluate your reception and explain upgrade plans.

You do have the HD cable box connected HDMI right?

A modern cable system will look good. Older systems must use low bit rates. If they aren't going to improve the system you are a candidate for satellite (Dish or DirectTV). In some cities Verizon (FIOS) or AT&T (U-Verse) have competitive plans.

[guns1inger]

If you are in Australia as I write this, there is a perfect example of very poor HD upscaling. Channel 9 is showing an old western "Springfield Rifle" on both it's SD (9) and HD (90) channels. The HD version is vile. Artifact ridden, noisy, unwatchable. The SD version is clean, and although soft when upscaled to 1080p for display (in this case by my Samsung's internal scaler) the picture is definitely watchable.

[edDV]

The original poster was in the Philippines. DarrellS seems to be in a poorly served US COX cable neighborhood or he has internal issues with his set top cable tuner.