32" FullHD LCD or 42" HD ready Plasma?

[vramak]

..Anyway as I always say, just like audio, video is subjective as well and I respect that difference....

Actually, there is rational explanation why audio quality is subjective - anyone above 20 is partially deaf and won't hear certain frequencies and this only worsens as one gets older. That's why every person hears music/sound differently and will prefer equipment with a sound signature that suits his hearing spectrum. That's why it's best to carefully audition audio equipment before buying.

On the other hand, video quality is not subjective because everyone (who has 20/20 vision or is wearing specs to get 20/20 vision) has the same level of eye sensitivity. Also, video qualities like brightness, contrast, color accuracy etc. can be easily measured with hardware. So, it's easy to quantify picture quality.

Here's an objective report and it favors plasma for picture quality - LCD-Plasma Display Technology Shoot-Out

The models compared of course are 2008 models. Since then LCDs, LEDs have improved no doubt but plasma's have improved too. So these results should hold good to date.

So, it's a well known fact that at the same price point a plasma screen will have better picture quality than an LCD screen. That's the reason why every reviewer keeps a Pioneer KURO plasma as reference display to use it as a benchmark to compare other TVs with.

To the OP : Dude, don't get confused by all the posts here. Simply get an LCD because it's very impractical to use a 720p 42" plasma as computer monitor. Trust me, I've tried.

 

[sam9s]

Actually, there is rational explanation why audio quality is subjective - anyone above 20 is partially deaf and won't hear certain frequencies and this only worsens as one gets older. That's why every person hears music/sound differently and will prefer equipment with a sound signature that suits his hearing spectrum. That's why it's best to carefully audition audio equipment before buying.

On the other hand, video quality is not subjective because everyone (who has 20/20 vision or is wearing specs to get 20/20 vision) has the same level of eye sensitivity. Also, video qualities like brightness, contrast, color accuracy etc. can be easily measured with hardware. So, it's easy to quantify picture quality.

Here's an objective report and it favors plasma for picture quality - LCD-Plasma Display Technology Shoot-Out

lol, do you even know what does subjective mean..........just having a 20/20 eye vision does not make/give the same preference to what you are viewing......What you see depends on various factors apart from just the fact that your eye sight is 20/20 ....lol......There can be a huge variation in color gamut, which a person can persive according to his/her liking of the color itself. The tint can be adjusted for the same. Some people might like matt finish, some may enjoy glossey image. Some would not enjoy the high contrast, while some would prefer to have the high Gamma.......all having 20/20 eye vision......

Also Audio as well has loads of hardware that can measure it technically, the fact that both A/V can be measured with hardware does not mean you can quantify indivisual preference...........evrything that is pertaining to the characteristic of an individual is subjective.......be it Sound, Vision, Feel, Smell or Tast.........got it.

 

[vramak]

sam9s, you haven't got my point.

You are talking about perception (what the brain does) and I'm talking about sensitivity (attribute of eyes,ears). There is wide variance in the ears' sensitivity across the population but there is very little variance in the eyes' sensitivity across the population. So, practically everyone 'sees' the same picture but not everyone 'hears' the same music. What an individual 'perceives' or 'analyzes' from a picture or from music depends on visual/auditory intelligence. What emotion the perceived image/music creates depends on individual 'taste'.

But neither individual 'taste' nor 'perception' define what audio/visual quality is. As far as AV equipment is concerned, quality is fidelity and it's easier to quantify a TV's fidelity than quantify, say, a speaker's fidelity. This is main reason why we have $100,000 speakers but no TVs in that price range - it's very hard to quantify the fidelity (and thus quality) of audio equipment and this is the main selling force behind insanely priced audiophile equipment.

Finally, the whole point of this post is - don't dare question my verbal intelligence!

 

[sam9s]

So, practically everyone 'sees' the same picture but not everyone 'hears' the same music. What an individual 'perceives' or 'analyzes' from a picture or from music depends on visual/auditory intelligence. What emotion the perceived image/music creates depends on individual 'taste'.

Everybody sees the same thing but not necessarily percieves that way and that is what subjectivity is and is applicable to both audio and video, irrespective of weather technically 2 people are seeing or hearing the same thing..........which you yourself have explained actually.

As far as AV equipment is concerned, quality is fidelity and it's easier to quantify a TV's fidelity than quantify, say, a speaker's fidelity. This is main reason why we have $100,000 speakers but no TVs in that price range - it's very hard to quantify the fidelity (and thus quality) of audio equipment and this is the main selling force behind insanely priced audiophile equipment.

Poor examples...lol....what has fedility to do with subjectiveness......you questioned if video was subjective I said yes and backed up my theory. In return what you are doing is pouring in some technicall jargon to justify your own vague point.........which BTW I was open to understand but frankly your last statement was a total looser arrogant shot.

 

[vramak]

Buddy, I was only trying to lighten up the seriousness. Absolutely no offense intended.

Just to clarify, I was equating fidelity and quality, not fidelity and subjectiveness. The intention of my posts were to express my disagreement with your belief that a TV's picture quality is a matter of personal tastes.

I believe picture quality is quantifiable because the parameters of picture quality (contrast, color accuracy, motion handling, resolution etc) can be easily quantified, unlike audio quality which cannot be easily quantified. (Again, quality here is fidelity or the degree of faithfulness to the source.)

If you think I am wrong, so be it. I am too lazy to participate in forum arguments especially if it's of no use to the forum in general. This is about as much effort as I can put to refute a single person's argument.

I am deeply sorry if anything I said had offended you.

 

[sam9s]

Buddy, I was only trying to lighten up the seriousness. Absolutely no offense intended.

Just to clarify, I was equating fidelity and quality, not fidelity and subjectiveness. The intention of my posts were to express my disagreement with your belief that a TV's picture quality is a matter of personal tastes.

I believe picture quality is quantifiable because the parameters of picture quality (contrast, color accuracy, motion handling, resolution etc) can be easily quantified, unlike audio quality which cannot be easily quantified. (Again, quality here is fidelity or the degree of faithfulness to the source.)

If you think I am wrong, so be it. I am too lazy to participate in forum arguments especially if it's of no use to the forum in general. This is about as much effort as I can put to refute a single person's argument.

I am deeply sorry if anything I said had offended you.

Then my friend you drifted away from the subject of the argument, personal tast and subjectiveness might sound same but have a thin line of difference......though personal tast is also a part of it, and in that sence I still say Video is subjective......

As far as quantify is concerned we can quantify AUDIO as well........, frequency, amplitude, total harmonic distortion, noise level, AC level, DC level all are the parameters that can be used to quantify audio electronics........

Anyway.....

In the end I'd again say even if we can quantify the source, does not mean it wont remain subjective to an indivisual, as i said..........everything that is pertaining to the characteristic of an individual is subjective.......be it Sound, Vision, Feel, Smell or Tast......irrespective of weather it can be quantified or not.

 

[BLASTO]

Again thats old news todays gen IPS pannel LCDs have same viewing angle as Plasmas have........~180D

I would suggest you go around and have comparative demos before claiming such things.

Nothing is old news. If you think that IPS LCDs have same viewing like plasmas, you are either ill informed yourself or you haven't seen a plasma for good enough period of time.

 

[alokbharti]

Sam,

I have demoed samsung b650 lcd and b450 plasma (both in home condition).
Personally I felt plasma is way ahead in motion, color and viewing angle. blacks I found more or less similar when viewing angle is straight..

First of all, on LCDs colors don't look natural to me..
Then color and black level changes on LCD once the viewing angle is more than 45 degree..try this yourself side by side if possible.. in many shops you will find plasma and lcds hanging next to each other..


to OP..
as others have suggested,
If you are going to use the TV as computer monitor then LCDs is recommended..a big NO to plasma for this purpose..

 

[reignofchaos]

LCDs are prone to contrast shifts compared to plasmas - even IPS based LCDs. I definitely see a color shift in my TV compared to my classmate's Pio 5080HD.

However one thing to consider for real is that plasmas start becoming dimmer with age. The 5080HD has started losing its brightness and the images are no longer as vivid as they were when I saw it first time a couple of years ago. This is a very very real phenomenon and if it happens on a Pioneer, god help the cheap LG/Panasonic/Samsungs.

 

[sam9s]

I would suggest you go around and have comparative demos before claiming such things.

Nothing is old news. If you think that IPS LCDs have same viewing like plasmas, you are either ill informed yourself or you haven't seen a plasma for good enough period of time.

I think I have written enough to conclude that I have gone around enough to pass a judgement, not only viewing angle of LCDs have improved technically on paper, but practically as well there is hardly any difference left for an argument.......

 

[sam9s]

Sam,

I have demoed samsung b650 lcd and b450 plasma (both in home condition).
Personally I felt plasma is way ahead in motion, color and viewing angle. blacks I found more or less similar when viewing angle is straight..

First of all, on LCDs colors don't look natural to me..
Then color and black level changes on LCD once the viewing angle is more than 45 degree..try this yourself side by side if possible.. in many shops you will find plasma and lcds hanging next to each other....

Respect your preference......this is what subjectivity is......BTW what was your source for comparision.......dont tell me the videos that the store was playing.....

When I compared with BR. LCDs clearity outshined Plasma easily, Just a year old Plasma hanging on the show room was dull in comparision to the sam age LCD........

 

[alokbharti]

Respect your preference......this is what subjectivity is......BTW what was your source for comparision.......dont tell me the videos that the store was playing.....

When I compared with BR. LCDs clearity outshined Plasma easily, Just a year old Plasma hanging on the show room was dull in comparision to the sam age LCD........

dude.. i did write.. "(both in home condition)".

variety of content from DTH, DVDs, avi, 720p HDclips to 1080p BR content.
I agree that 1080p Blue Ray looks better on FullHD LCDs from a close distance..

 

[sam9s]

dude.. i did write.. "(both in home condition)".

Apologies I missed that....

I agree that 1080p Blue Ray looks better on FullHD LCDs from a close distance..

Not only that, HQ HD rips, Upscaled DVDs and Gaming all looks better on Current gen LCDs, The only things that might look good on Plasma is DTH, DVDs VCDs, 3GPs... ....etc....etc....

 

[shredder]

My thanks to one and all for such helpful inputs.

 

[thevortex]

Not only that, HQ HD rips, Upscaled DVDs and Gaming all looks better on Current gen LCDs, The only things that might look good on Plasma is DTH, DVDs VCDs, 3GPs... ....etc....etc....

Sam9 - it might sound like irony. But even if I had not had a Plasma TV at home I would still have said that what you have written above is not true. Easily not true.

If its just a subjective statement then I guess we have to just disagree and move on. On the other hand if you have a technical basis for what you said I would love to know what that is.

 

[shredder]

Totally irrelevant question, but in Cricket Crazy there is a Philips TV on display behind Cyrus and company. Is it their Cinema 21:9 series?

The only thing consistent about the Indian cricket team is its inconsistency.
No offense at all to those die hard fans who look on cricketers as demi-gods.
By the way one of the news channels suggested that cricketers put in more effort in IPL, than national games because of greater pressure from their franchises. Does this mean that the selectors (and fans by extension) are not giving them enough g@#nd me danda?

 

[vramak]

Apologies I missed that....



Not only that, HQ HD rips, Upscaled DVDs and Gaming all looks better on Current gen LCDs, The only things that might look good on Plasma is DTH, DVDs VCDs, 3GPs... ....etc....etc....

:lol: You've mentioned DVDs on both sides.

Dude, are you being serious or are you just trolling ? If you're serious, then it's apparent that you've done very little research. Subjective or objective, not a single person in this forum would agree with that claim of yours.

I don't care if you find this post offensive. Blatant misinformation does not need to be tolerated.

 

[sam9s]

:lol: You've mentioned DVDs on both sides.

Dude, are you being serious or are you just trolling ? If you're serious, then it's apparent that you've done very little research. Subjective or objective, not a single person in this forum would agree with that claim of yours.

I don't care if you find this post offensive. Blatant misinformation does not need to be tolerated.

Better use specs and see there is a word as Upscaled DVDs
And about people not agreeing, just check the reputation and thanked, and that should give you an idea, how much people agree with me. And I dont get offended, so easily, I am hard core fourm guy participating in atleast 7-8 forums and I get loads of people like you every day on various threads.......no big deal...........so chill...

 

[vramak]

Better use specs and see there is a word as Upscaled DVDs

:lol: So you mean the internal upscaler in plasma's is better than the internal upscaler in LCDs. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm no hardcore forum guy. I find it boring arguing with your misinformation. Have fun living in your imagined heaven! All the best with your forum reputation hunting and wish you someday buy a castle and a yacht with your forum reputation points! Adios!

 

[sam9s]

:lol: So you mean the internal upscaler in plasma's is better than the internal upscaler in LCDs. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh My Goosh God, who on mother earth said anything about internal upscalers.....lol you dont even know what DVD Upscaling is, the scalers present in a LCD or Plasma does not upscale DVDs Llololslsssssss.......man you call yourself technical.........I am talking about any player that sends upscaled signals to the display, and LCD displays those upscaled signals better than Plasma........God!!!!

I'm no hardcore forum guy. I find it boring arguing with your misinformation. Have fun living in your imagined heaven! All the best with your forum reputation hunting and wish you someday but a castle and a yacht with your forum reputation points! Adios!

****comment removed by the member himself*****

Member warned for violating forum rule!