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

[PurdueRy]

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

 

[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.

 

[PurdueRy]

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.

Its all the people that think burn in is an unavoidable problem. As soon as you turn it on...theres burn in!....right.....

Next gen plasmas have 60,000 hours and burn in protection. Plus cheaper. I agree with you....the only reason to get an LCD is if you need small...or are MASSIVELY gaming

 

[Rudee]

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

 

[bandana163]

Originally posted by: Jamie571
One thing to keep in mind about 1080 displays and high resolution displays is the fact that human eye at 12' can only make out 874 x 492 individual cones or fragments on a 42" display and this is with 20/20 perfect vision.

A friend of mine is an optometrist and gave me an excel document on visual acuity.

However, the resolution of the human vision (with two eyes) is roughly 580 MP.
A high resolution like 1920x1080 is absolutely not meaningless, image quality improves a lot, even if you can only perceive a smaller resolution at a certain distance (and you can't focus on everything at the same time).

 

[RollWave]

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.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: toekramp
LCD > plasma

ummm......no

overall, yes.

LCD is cooler than plasma, longer life than plasma, lower power consumption than plasma.
Plasma has better overall motion and picture quality as is cheaper.

For my money, I got a 32" LCD.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: toekramp
LCD > plasma

ummm......no

overall, yes.

LCD is cooler than plasma, longer life than plasma, lower power consumption than plasma.
Plasma has better overall motion and picture quality as is cheaper.

For my money, I got a 32" LCD.

So let me get this staight...PQ is better for a TV....and you consider the other one overall better....makes sense....right...

I think the most imporatn thing for a TV is PQ. I doubt many people really look at the power consumption and heat output of plasma. People almost all have AC nowadays and run it 24/7

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: toekramp
LCD > plasma

ummm......no

overall, yes.

LCD is cooler than plasma, longer life than plasma, lower power consumption than plasma.
Plasma has better overall motion and picture quality as is cheaper.

For my money, I got a 32" LCD.

The other thing is contrast. LCDs have major contrast problems. Look at your own LCD monitors.. 750:1?? Damn.

they can easily make 10000:1 contrast plasma screens..

 

[MustISO]

CRT's still rule. I've never seen any display that does it better. The closest to a CRT's picture quality is the Sony SXRD TV's.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: MustISO
CRT's still rule. I've never seen any display that does it better. The closest to a CRT's picture quality is the Sony SXRD TV's.

if you are talking about computer monitors, maybe, but as far as TVs you are incorrect.

 

[Jadow]

DLP causes headaches and eye strain because of it's just slightly faster than perception flickering.

And to answer the original question, LCD > Plasma

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: toekramp
LCD > plasma

QFT

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: toekramp
LCD > plasma

ummm......I'm a noob

Agreed.

 

[imported_goku]

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.

I'm sorry but you don't know what your talking about. We've got two plasma screens, 42" and a 72", and one LCD screen; 42". I've got to say that out of all of them, the LCD screen is the best. Picture is digustingly crisp and clean, it just looks amazing and thats only low definition content! :shocked:

 

[RollWave]

Originally posted by: goku

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.

I'm sorry but you don't know what your talking about. We've got two plasma screens, 42" and a 72", and one LCD screen; 42". I've got to say that out of all of them, the LCD screen is the best. Picture is digustingly crisp and clean, it just looks amazing and thats only low definition content! :shocked:

What LCD do you have.

 

[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.

 

[MrDudeMan]

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.

 

[RollWave]

😕

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: rnp614
😕

Sorry, "the ones in the know" are trying to help but only confusing you more.

The answer to your question is this...

As a display technolgy in terms of quality Plamsa offers a higher quality display than LCD for all sources.

As far as comparing one model of LCD to one model of Plasma...."it depends"

 

[olds]

Just bought this at Magnolia AV in Roseville, CA for $3800.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Just bought this at Magnolia AV in Roseville, CA for $3800.

Nice.. damn that looks good. Enjoy sports in HD with that brotha!

 

[RollWave]

SPORTS! 😕

 

[LongCoolMother]

i thin kfor the most part everybody agrees that:

plasma PQ>LCD PQ (contrast ratio, color, brightness, etc. etc.)
plasma practicality<LCD practicality (heat, weight)
Plasma price>LCD price (size)

there really is no "better" it just depends what you're looking for. I have a 42" plasma from vizio with 5000:1 contrast ratio and its awesome. it does generate a lot of heat/power though.

 

[dds14u]

projecter FTW!