Should I get a Plasma or LCD?

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
LCD.

Uses less electricity, produces less waste heat, lighter.

yeah these are all things that make the picture better ;confused;

WTF is everyone so concerned with weight on these things. If you mount either properly it's not a concern unless you are planning on carting it around.

 

[sao123]

do large LCD's still suffer fast motion blur?
Especially since I wastch mostly sports...

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
The 4 quotes I posted are from other sites and reviews. I have found none to back up your claims. So you have some links?

And did you even read what it said?

Though plasma manufacturers have improved voltage consumption requirements a plasma TV will consume around a third more power for the same size display.


In lamen terms for you. It was worse but they are now not as bad.

There is plenty of info. The problem is that the "LCD uses less electricity" has become so entrenched that it has not been tested thoroughly in real world situations until recently. But there is plenty of information out there if you take the time to search.

Power!
AVS Thread

BTW, you links don't really provide any real data. They just regurgitate the popular misconception, probably put forth by LCD manufacturers.

QFT! this is the same reason the internet is so commonly bashed as a reliable source of information.

It's no different than going on the facts printed in many books out there that are merely old wives tales regurgitated.

The masses seem to think LCDs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>any display.

Those that know, know for best picture quality CRT is usually a bit ahead but the problem is sizing is limited.

At this moment for the amount the average consumer wants to spend; Plasma is really the better looking set and LCD a close second.

LCD is beneficial for those that worry their gaming will burn the screen. Many people young and old now have game consoles attached to their main screens.

 

[Billyzeke]

I prefer LCD over plasma.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Billyzeke
I prefer LCD over plasma.

Why?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
The 4 quotes I posted are from other sites and reviews. I have found none to back up your claims. So you have some links?

And did you even read what it said?

Though plasma manufacturers have improved voltage consumption requirements a plasma TV will consume around a third more power for the same size display.


In lamen terms for you. It was worse but they are now not as bad.

There is plenty of info. The problem is that the "LCD uses less electricity" has become so entrenched that it has not been tested thoroughly in real world situations until recently. But there is plenty of information out there if you take the time to search.

Power!
AVS Thread

BTW, you links don't really provide any real data. They just regurgitate the popular misconception, probably put forth by LCD manufacturers.

Even your own link shows LCD uses less. Power!

The Plasma uses up to $2 on average and the LCD uses about a $1 on average. And that is with the plasma having its contrast turned down and the LCD at full. The site trys to spin it as hard as they can. But their test show the max watts the LCD uses was 223 while the max watts the Plasma used were 337. WOW its like about 1/3 different.
The only way he got the plasma to win is by turning the light to full on the LCD and down on the Plasma. But most people like myself turn the light down on the LCD as it is to bright out of the box and most seem to turn up the plasma as it does not do well in light up rooms so people turn the light up to help.

Are there cases where plasma uses less power, yes. But on average and a no spin level playing field, the LCD uses less. Even reading your link shows that, as long as you get through the major spin.


A quote from your link.

"The test loop, which is fairly bright throughout, shows that the plasma is the power fiend, needing 236 watts, even at 80 percent brightness."

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Even your own link shows LCD uses less. Power!

The Plasma uses up to $2 on average and the LCD uses about a $1 on average. And that is with the plasma having its contrast turned down and the LCD at full. The site trys to spin it as hard as they can. But their test show the max watts the LCD uses was 223 while the max watts the Plasma used were 337. WOW its like about 1/3 different.
The only way he got the plasma to win is by turning the light to full on the LCD and down on the Plasma. But most people like myself turn the light down on the LCD as it is to bright out of the box and most seem to turn up the plasma as it does not do well in light up rooms so people turn the light up to help.

Are there cases where plasma uses less power, yes. But on average and a no spin level playing field, the LCD uses less. Even reading your link shows that, as long as you get through the major spin.


A quote from your link.

"The test loop, which is fairly bright throughout, shows that the plasma is the power fiend, needing 236 watts, even at 80 percent brightness."

If you actually read the article, you would understand that Plasma energy usage depends on what is being displayed on the screen. If you want to take a test loop, which in no way is indicative of how a TV is used in everyday viewing, and use that to make yourself feel better, then be my guest.

The fact is that LCD does use slightly less energy than plasma. but it is so slight under normal viewing conditions that using this as a reason to discount Plasma technology is silly. Do you think people would be blindly spouting this information if it was common knowledge that the difference in their yearly electrical bill would be less than $20?

Of course, even more important and more likely to be overlooked regarding energy usage is brand. There exists quality plasmas like the Panasonic which use less electricity on average than some brands of LCD's. It's really got less to do with the technology and more to do with he implementation.

Either way you slice it, claims that plasmas use twice the electricity (one of the more common claims I see) are totally incorrect. That is what I was trying to dispel.

 

[spidey07]

If image quality is important to you then your choice is a 1080p plasma. There are some very nice LCDs out there but they are expensive.

I wouldn't mess with a 720 set as it's essentially dead technology.

 

[jackbristow]

I've been a long fan of LCDs both for less energy comsumption (varying degree depending on your viewing habits) and little chance of burn in. I bought a plasma recently and there is really no denying the image superiority of Plasmas. Blacks are better and looks more realistic and has a 3D quality to the image because of the glass screen. It was a Samsung plasma and I eventually sold it because of energy use (the amount of heat the thing generated is scary) and image retention (happened a lot on the Wii).

I have a Sony Bravia now which is better than most LCDs out there and it still does not compare with the old Plasma. I love my lcd and I can play video games on it without a single worry. Overall the picture difference wasn't big enough to convince me to keep my plasma but I still have to admit the image superiority of plasmas.

 

[Linux23]

Plasma, cause LCD's PQ generally suck. If you like the screen door effect and washed out black, go for the LCD.

 

[Pepsi90919]

plasma

 

[Fritzo]

I don't see plasmas as lasting. LCD's are being used everywhere, so they're being perfected everyday. Plasmas are only being used in large TV's, and are pretty fragile, so I see them as a dead end technology.

Just my opinion though.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Linux23
Plasma, cause LCD's PQ generally suck. If you like the screen door effect and washed out black, go for the LCD.

I think the screen door effect was vastly removed from LCD's last year with the 7th generation screens.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Plasma if you don't have a lot of direct light behind you while viewing or you have a strange viewing angle.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Where's funboy42? He'll be in soon to tell you about a sweet projector deal.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: MasterOfKtulu109
unless you are buying HD dvds or playing xbox/ps3, 1080p is a waste of money. nobody broadcasts in it (and probably never will), and you pay A LOT more.

get a plasma. better picture quality and viewing angle. i'd look at panasonics. ive heard they are the best for the money (pioneer is the best overall, but you pay a premium and the difference isn't worth it, from what ive heard).

my plasma tv auto selects based on the signal sent to it, with my dvd player it chooses 480p, ps2 takes 720i and my cable box broadcasts in 1080i. i wonder if the box is just default to it, or if cox cable is actually broadcasting in 1080i?

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: MasterOfKtulu109
unless you are buying HD dvds or playing xbox/ps3, 1080p is a waste of money. nobody broadcasts in it (and probably never will), and you pay A LOT more.

get a plasma. better picture quality and viewing angle. i'd look at panasonics. ive heard they are the best for the money (pioneer is the best overall, but you pay a premium and the difference isn't worth it, from what ive heard).

my plasma tv auto selects based on the signal sent to it, with my dvd player it chooses 480p, ps2 takes 720i and my cable box broadcasts in 1080i. i wonder if the box is just default to it, or if cox cable is actually broadcasting in 1080i?

There's a difference between 1080i and 1080p. Most HD stations I get broadcast in 1080i, except for ESPN.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
I don't see plasmas as lasting. LCD's are being used everywhere, so they're being perfected everyday. Plasmas are only being used in large TV's, and are pretty fragile, so I see them as a dead end technology.

Just my opinion though.

by that logic, ferrari is a dead end technology, along with all custom cars that dont get max efficient fuel mileage and fit the "norm" of everyday grocery getters.

i like my plasma, it looks good. i dont feel the heat generated from it, i sit back on my couch. the extra power consumption is negligible, my power bill hasnt creeped up at all in the last year and a half that ive owned it. if those are the only reasons to not get one, then ill stay with it. LCD always looked crappy to me, too bright and kind of weird. i hate the screen look.

so plasma is basically the sports car of tvs. not the most efficient or cost effective, but definitely more fun than driving a corolla.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: MasterOfKtulu109
unless you are buying HD dvds or playing xbox/ps3, 1080p is a waste of money. nobody broadcasts in it (and probably never will), and you pay A LOT more.

get a plasma. better picture quality and viewing angle. i'd look at panasonics. ive heard they are the best for the money (pioneer is the best overall, but you pay a premium and the difference isn't worth it, from what ive heard).

my plasma tv auto selects based on the signal sent to it, with my dvd player it chooses 480p, ps2 takes 720i and my cable box broadcasts in 1080i. i wonder if the box is just default to it, or if cox cable is actually broadcasting in 1080i?

There's a difference between 1080i and 1080p. Most HD stations I get broadcast in 1080i, except for ESPN.

i wasnt questioning a difference between 1080i and p, thats the order the lines get drawn in. i was saying that my tv auto selects what res to use based on the signal, so i dont see it selecting 1080i if no one (read: my cable provider does) broadcasts in it. if the cable box is accepting a 720i or p signal and changing it to 1080i was my question. is that a possibility? either way it doesnt matter to me, it looks great.

 

[dwell]

LCDs have pretty much caught up to plasma at this point. The black levels are finally there, the refresh rates are no longer an issue. One is not considerably better than the other at this point, it's just a matter of taste.

 

[Abel007]

Buy both. Fuse them together and have the best of both worlds.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: MasterOfKtulu109
unless you are buying HD dvds or playing xbox/ps3, 1080p is a waste of money. nobody broadcasts in it (and probably never will), and you pay A LOT more.

get a plasma. better picture quality and viewing angle. i'd look at panasonics. ive heard they are the best for the money (pioneer is the best overall, but you pay a premium and the difference isn't worth it, from what ive heard).

my plasma tv auto selects based on the signal sent to it, with my dvd player it chooses 480p, ps2 takes 720i and my cable box broadcasts in 1080i. i wonder if the box is just default to it, or if cox cable is actually broadcasting in 1080i?

There's a difference between 1080i and 1080p. Most HD stations I get broadcast in 1080i, except for ESPN.

i wasnt questioning a difference between 1080i and p, thats the order the lines get drawn in. i was saying that my tv auto selects what res to use based on the signal, so i dont see it selecting 1080i if no one (read: my cable provider does) broadcasts in it. if the cable box is accepting a 720i or p signal and changing it to 1080i was my question. is that a possibility? either way it doesnt matter to me, it looks great.

My cable box has a setting for picture format. I can either pass through the resolution it's broadcast in, or upconvert everything to 1080i. I prefer pass through, as the upconversion on my box is pretty bad.

 

[watdahel]

Is screen burn-in with Plasmas something I should really worry about? In all my TV-viewing and video game playing years, I've never had a TV or monitor suffer from the dreaded burn-in syndrome. Since Plasmas use the same phosphors as CRTs of days soon to go bye bye, I wouldn't expect it to be more or less susceptible to burn-ins or am I missing something?

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: erwin1978
Is screen burn-in with Plasmas something I should really worry about? In all my TV-viewing and video game playing years, I've never had a TV or monitor suffer from the dreaded burn-in syndrome. Since Plasmas use the same phosphors as CRTs of days soon to go bye bye, I wouldn't expect it to be more or less susceptible to burn-ins or am I missing something?

I've owned a plasma for a year and haven't had any issues. I play PS2, PS3, and Wii games on it daily and watch ESPN, which has a lot of static content on the screen.

 

[JackBurton]

Let me make this EASY for you...

Panasonic TH-50PZ700U - Coming VERY soon

Or if you have a little more cash, the Panasonic TH-50PZ750U, which slaps the $8000 Pioneer Pro-FHD1 in the face with its MUCH better black levels and color accuracy. This display will also be released VERY soon and from the sounds of it, worth waiting for.

I personally can't stand LCDs for HDTVs. When you put it beside a good plasma, the best LCD (Sony XBR3) just pails in comparison. I'd actually take a Pioneer 5070 over ANY LCD, and it is only a 720p set. Now that the new Panasonic and Pioneers are coming out with their new gen plasma, LCDs look every worse.

If you want to see what Pioneer can deliver, they're set to make an announcement on their super plasma shortly, and should give the specs. And from all the talk, these plasma are freakin' amazing! However, Panasonic may just have stolen Pioneer's thunder with their displays that came out of nowhere (PZ700U and PZ750U). I'm REALLY eyeing the 50PZ750U.

Oh yeah, and those plasmas mentioned above are both 1080p.