How does the picture of a Plasma TV compare to LCD tv?

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: rnp614

Originally posted by: Rudee
Be warned that DVD's will look fabulous, however regular non-HD cable channels will look like crap.

It cant be that bad. I use non-HD cable on a 65" TV and it looks fine. I'm sure on a smaller plasma It wont be so bad. And it would have to be better than the current 25" or so craptastic TV thats there right now.

Those are all factors of the scaler/deinterlacer. The display just does what its told to do. You can infact have very good SD programming on a HD display. It just depends on where and how the scaling/deinterlacing is done.

That being said - some TVs do a much, much, much better job of this than others.

Oh, and to say that LCD > Plasma. You're smoking crack. Because if we're strictly talking technologies video "quality" between LCD and Plasma is already a done deal. LCD cannot approach plasma in terms of video quality all things considered.

agreed. goku, you are obviously an uneducated idiot spewing garbage youve heard propogated by faulty sources to flex your pseudointellectual stength on the subject.

if you can backup your claim with even a shread of truth, maybe we can have a conversation about it. i dont think LCDs suck and people that own them are noobs, but the technology overall when implemented into a TV is < plasma. period. end of sentence. reasons, you ask? look about 20 posts above this one and someone has gone through the list.

if you really care to argue that, go find some reputable sources to prove him wrong.


edit: btw, comparing 2 plasmas to 1 lcd and saying LCD technology is superior is about as stupid of an arguement as is possible to establish. thats like saying i have 2 AMDs and 1 Intel processor and the intel processor is better. first of all, its completely ambiguous, and secondly it is totally unsupported and straight up ignorant. we are talking about technologies here, not particular models.

any model of any technology can be bested by an inferior but higher "quality" competitor.

another example: you have 2 dodge trucks and 1 ford. you say ford makes better trucks because the ford you own is better than both dodge trucks for whatever reason. that is totally illogical and is completely ignoring several factors. not only is your opinion not supported but, typically when people are so blatantly fanboys, most of us only skim your post and certainly dont attempt to be persuaded by your viewpoint. if you want people to listen, and to sum it all up, dont be such an idiot.

I can't find my quote anywhere in your post... First of all, quality is percieved, it varies among users and personally (and others I know as well) say the 42" LCD Sharp aquos looks much better than the plasmas we have. There is a reason why I mentioned the plasmas, 1. The 42" plasma we have was the highest end model at the time (2001?), the 72" plasma was the highest end at the time (2003/4?) and the 42" LCD Sharp Aquos I believe IIRC was the highest end model at the time (2005). The 42" plasma was a sony and the second one was a Zenith. They're both great but I personally believe that the LCD tv is far superior to the plasmas. Don't need to get your panties up in a bunch when this is simply an opionion. Some people believe that a 10" CRT boob tube looks better than a 42" LCD TV. You can't give "facts" about percieved quality.

Lol, You rant on and on in your post about how I'm "an uneducated idiot who is spewing garbage" and yet you didn't even quote me. You quoted some other schmuck and then you go all out about how I'm just reiterating facts that others have said when everything in my post (which you did not quote) was based off of percieved quality, It's not like I said, "It's a known fact that plasma screen tvs are out paced and have poorer quality than LCDs" :roll: n00b.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: goku

I can't find my quote anywhere in your post... First of all, quality is percieved, it varies among users and personally (and others I know as well) say the 42" LCD Sharp aquos looks much better than the plasmas we have. There is a reason why I mentioned the plasmas, 1. The 42" plasma we have was the highest end model at the time (2001?), the 72" plasma was the highest end at the time (2003/4?) and the 42" LCD Sharp Aquos I believe IIRC was the highest end model at the time (2005). The 42" plasma was a sony and the second one was a Zenith. They're both great but I personally believe that the LCD tv is far superior to the plasmas. Don't need to get your panties up in a bunch when this is simply an opionion. Some people believe that a 10" CRT boob tube looks better than a 42" LCD TV. You can't give "facts" about percieved quality.

Lol, You rant on and on in your post about how I'm "an uneducated idiot who is spewing garbage" and yet you didn't even quote me. You quoted some other schmuck and then you go all out about how I'm just reiterating facts that others have said when everything in my post (which you did not quote) was based off of percieved quality, It's not like I said, "It's a known fact that plasma screen tvs are out paced and have poorer quality than LCDs" :roll: n00b.

wow, you suck at the internet. i didnt know i had to quote a post from you in order to address you, idiot :roll:

good job on totally ignoring the whole arguement though. your last sentence pretty much sums up why no one is listening to your worthless opinion...not only because you are wrong, but really stupid in the process of being wrong.

edit: oh, and btw, perceived quality varies due to poor eyesight among certain users. you cant argue with resolution and contrast, among other things as well, but namely those two. people that disagree about clarity are experienceing a conflict because one person probably knows what they are talking about and the other doesnt. it is quite simply actually. its like listening to a song and hearing several background instruments that most people cant hear (musicians usually hear much more than everyone else). just because you dont know there is more to something than what you see doesnt make your opinion ok even though its obviously wrong or misdirected.

FYI, my panties arent in a bunch at all. i was just calling out your stupidity.

 

[Apex]

LCD lifespan is overstated. Apples to apples, it's not longer than plasma life.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: goku

I can't find my quote anywhere in your post... First of all, quality is percieved, it varies among users and personally (and others I know as well) say the 42" LCD Sharp aquos looks much better than the plasmas we have. There is a reason why I mentioned the plasmas, 1. The 42" plasma we have was the highest end model at the time (2001?), the 72" plasma was the highest end at the time (2003/4?) and the 42" LCD Sharp Aquos I believe IIRC was the highest end model at the time (2005). The 42" plasma was a sony and the second one was a Zenith. They're both great but I personally believe that the LCD tv is far superior to the plasmas. Don't need to get your panties up in a bunch when this is simply an opionion. Some people believe that a 10" CRT boob tube looks better than a 42" LCD TV. You can't give "facts" about percieved quality.

Lol, You rant on and on in your post about how I'm "an uneducated idiot who is spewing garbage" and yet you didn't even quote me. You quoted some other schmuck and then you go all out about how I'm just reiterating facts that others have said when everything in my post (which you did not quote) was based off of percieved quality, It's not like I said, "It's a known fact that plasma screen tvs are out paced and have poorer quality than LCDs" :roll: n00b.

wow, you suck at the internet. i didnt know i had to quote a post from you in order to address you, idiot :roll:

good job on totally ignoring the whole arguement though. your last sentence pretty much sums up why no one is listening to your worthless opinion...not only because you are wrong, but really stupid in the process of being wrong.

edit: oh, and btw, perceived quality varies due to poor eyesight among certain users. you cant argue with resolution and contrast, among other things as well, but namely those two. people that disagree about clarity are experienceing a conflict because one person probably knows what they are talking about and the other doesnt. it is quite simply actually. its like listening to a song and hearing several background instruments that most people cant hear (musicians usually hear much more than everyone else). just because you dont know there is more to something than what you see doesnt make your opinion ok even though its obviously wrong or misdirected.

FYI, my panties arent in a bunch at all. i was just calling out your stupidity.

Your right, I guess I should take the advice from one who constructs grammatically incorrect sentences and calls me "stupid" simply because I posted something that was my opinion and was not even attempting to persuade other to my belief.

It's funny that you mention the thing about music because 1. My mother is an artist and a musician. What you said about musicians was absolutely correct. 2. My sister is an artist as well, guess who said that the 10" CRT boob tube was perfectly sufficient over the 42"? Or that couldn't tell the difference between 480i/P content/720P/1080i content? I have very very good eye sight, I wouldn't argue to whether or not "I'm seeing or not seeing things".

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Apex
LCD lifespan is overstated. Apples to apples, it's not longer than plasma life.

Agreed.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: rleemhui

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
How could any of you say LCD > Plasma? Good lord get your heads examined. You may be partial to LCD but resign yourself of the fact LCDs are BETTER than Plasma, that's so untrue. I love LCD but I'm not stupid enough to say its better then Plasma screens, plain and simple plasma looks better, you have no chance of stuck or dead pixels, and response time isn't an issue like it would be for LCD, and those are just a few points.

Most of us are saying that Plasma is better. I pretty much summed up most every advantage in my earlier post

I saw, but a couple posts earlier went the other way with no evidence or facts to back them up, so I figured this had to be said.

i still backup my statement.

LCD RPTV > Plasma

Plasma > LCD Flat Panel

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: rleemhui

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
How could any of you say LCD > Plasma? Good lord get your heads examined. You may be partial to LCD but resign yourself of the fact LCDs are BETTER than Plasma, that's so untrue. I love LCD but I'm not stupid enough to say its better then Plasma screens, plain and simple plasma looks better, you have no chance of stuck or dead pixels, and response time isn't an issue like it would be for LCD, and those are just a few points.

Most of us are saying that Plasma is better. I pretty much summed up most every advantage in my earlier post

I saw, but a couple posts earlier went the other way with no evidence or facts to back them up, so I figured this had to be said.

i still backup my statement.

LCD RPTV > Plasma

Plasma > LCD Flat Panel

And according to those who know what video quality is about you are way off mark.

Few things can approach plasma as far as video quality is concerned, and it certainly isn't LCD and it certainly isn't RP technology.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: rleemhui

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
How could any of you say LCD > Plasma? Good lord get your heads examined. You may be partial to LCD but resign yourself of the fact LCDs are BETTER than Plasma, that's so untrue. I love LCD but I'm not stupid enough to say its better then Plasma screens, plain and simple plasma looks better, you have no chance of stuck or dead pixels, and response time isn't an issue like it would be for LCD, and those are just a few points.

Most of us are saying that Plasma is better. I pretty much summed up most every advantage in my earlier post

I saw, but a couple posts earlier went the other way with no evidence or facts to back them up, so I figured this had to be said.

i still backup my statement.

LCD RPTV > Plasma

Plasma > LCD Flat Panel

And according to those who know what video quality is about you are way off mark.

Few things can approach plasma as far as video quality is concerned, and it certainly isn't LCD and it certainly isn't RP technology.

I don't see how in the hell a LCD RPTV would have better quality than a LCD flat panel 😕

 

[aeroguy]

Originally posted by: rnp614

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Look at size as well. Just following the recent deals at Costco, a good 42" HDTV plasma was $1700, while a good 37" HDTV LCD was $1999.

Also, Panasonic is looking to cut their plasma prices by 20%. That means 50" HDTV plasmas will start to creep under $3000. Sharp charges $4500 for their excellent 1080P 45" LCD.

When is this supposed to happen?

Although I'm only looking to get a 37 or 42 due to some bastardly space constraints

I have the same space limitations as you (39" wide for me) and am thinking about getting the Panasonic TH-37PX50U 37" Plasma. It's 38-1/8" wide and on sale for $2374 at Worst Buy or $2250 at Circuit City.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: goku
I don't see how in the hell a LCD RPTV would have better quality than a LCD flat panel 😕

When we talk about quality, I think it's important to state specifically what we're talking about. Quality is too broad.

There are definitely areas that LCD RPTVs have an advantage over LCD panels.

For instance, LCD RPTVs have a much faster response time. Those tiny LCD panels change phase much faster.

LCD RPTVs also have bulbs, so they have the potential to have more even brightness distribution. You can also change the bulb out and go back to "as new" brightness, whereas LCD panels do not have a practical way to reach "as new" brightness.

Overall though, I think that LCD flat panels have the upper hand when compared with LCD RPTVs.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: rleemhui

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
How could any of you say LCD > Plasma? Good lord get your heads examined. You may be partial to LCD but resign yourself of the fact LCDs are BETTER than Plasma, that's so untrue. I love LCD but I'm not stupid enough to say its better then Plasma screens, plain and simple plasma looks better, you have no chance of stuck or dead pixels, and response time isn't an issue like it would be for LCD, and those are just a few points.

Most of us are saying that Plasma is better. I pretty much summed up most every advantage in my earlier post

I saw, but a couple posts earlier went the other way with no evidence or facts to back them up, so I figured this had to be said.

i still backup my statement.

LCD RPTV > Plasma

Plasma > LCD Flat Panel

And according to those who know what video quality is about you are way off mark.

Few things can approach plasma as far as video quality is concerned, and it certainly isn't LCD and it certainly isn't RP technology.

I don't see how in the hell a LCD RPTV would have better quality than a LCD flat panel 😕

You can control black level a little better via projection.

 

[aeroguy]

So OP, what did you decide?