LCD vs Plasma - Fact vs Myth

[sanjay0864]

Contrast Ratio: Advantage - Plasma
Even the best of LCDs are still unable to produce 'deep blacks'.

Pixel Response & Blurring: Advantage - Plasma
This is specially so, with Fast-Moving video. Even the fastest LCDs struggle to produce blur-free images.

Bad Pixels: Advantage - Plasma
LCDs have a higher tendency to develop dead pixels.

Screen Burn-In: Advantage - LCD
Not a big concern any more with current Plasmas.

Colours: Advantage - Plasma
Plasma's can show billions of combinations of red, green & blue, while LCDs tend to have over-dominant greens & reds with an overall colour temperature unsuitable for video material.

Viewing Angle: Advantage Plasma
LCDs suffer from picture quality loss, if watched from angles even as small as 45 degrees.

Power Consumption: Advantage - LCD
Advantage is minimized, when compared to current Plasma models.

Overall Picture Quality: Advantage - Plasma
LCDs perform better only in unnaturally brightly lit showrooms. While, Plasmas have a more, natural looking picture, under normal household conditions.

Picture Resolution: Advantage - Tie
This is a non-issue for sizes over 40".

Longevity: Advantage - Tie
Plasma life is 100,000 hrs i.e. 45 yrs @ 6 hrs/day.

Price to Size Ratio: Advantage - Plasma
This advantage is even greater with larger sizes.


Imaging Science Foundation (ISF) states the the most important aspects of picture quality are (in order of preference):
1) Contrast Ratio
2) Color Saturation
3) Color Accuracy
4) Resolution

Plasmas are generally superior to LCD in all of the areas except for 'resolution'. But not only is 'resolution' 4th on the list, but even that too is an issue, only in sizes below 42". LCDs on the other hand are very difficult to manufacture in large sizes. The largest commercially available LCD is available from Sharp, which is 1920x1080 and is 108". Panasonic on the other hand has a commercially available 150" Plasma with 4K resolution. That's right, that is only, 'FOUR times' the resolution of FULL HD 1920x1080.

Plasmas are preferrable over LCDs, for almost all situations except the following:
In smaller sizes than 42".
For display of static text.
For very bright overly lit public places.
When quality of picture is less important and energy consumption is important, such as always on public displays.

More conclusive, scientific and non subjective comparisons. For anyone who still has doubts on this issue.
LCD-Plasma Display Technology Shoot-Out

This one, is for those still obsessed with FULL HD in small TVs, ie. below 50".
Here's when, 1080p FULL HD matters (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)

 

[psychotropic]

I am a plasma fan, but it's not so categorical any more. The best LCDs and the best plasmas these are days are pretty close. It's in the budget segment that the plasmas show more of an edge over the budget LCDs.

 

[sam9s]

I am a plasma fan, but it's not so categorical any more. The best LCDs and the best plasmas these are days are pretty close. It's in the budget segment that the plasmas show more of an edge over the budget LCDs.

I think I was speaking french in my explaination of saying the same thing.......Thanks for this post.....BTW

 

[adder]

in terms of contrast ratio the FULL ON/OFF ratio of plasma is less compared to lcds due to ABL.Remember to have good contrast the whites need to bright too.

Anyway one can tailor the facts to favour either a plasma or a lcd.

 

[suri]

but, in the place where i live - and my application -

the LCD is not good enough for video ( the reds are horrible and smeared) and the plasma is not bright enough in daylight -

CRT - rules the roost even now-

perhaps - OLED? on a bigger screen?

 

[moktan]

but, in the place where i live - and my application -

the LCD is not good enough for video ( the reds are horrible and smeared) and the plasma is not bright enough in daylight -

CRT - rules the roost even now-

perhaps - OLED? on a bigger screen?

maybe you should just wait for the wellstone TV to be a reality..

Quantum Dots, Programmable Matter, And Wellstone

HACKING MATTER -LEVITATING CHAIRS, QUANTUM MIRAGES, and the INFINITE WEIRDNESS OF PROGRAMMABLE ATOMS- Will McCarthy

"A wellstone TV might look less like a moving picture and more like a window into a real, three-dimensional space. You could paste these all over the inside of your house, making it look (from the inside) as though you were living in Tahiti, or Antarctica, or on the red-hot surface of the planet Mercury."

"A thin disc of wellstone inside the eye - or a contact lens on the eye's surface - could photodarken to protect the retina against bright lights (even extremely sudden ones). It could also act as a permanent "head-up display," projecting pre-lensed holographic information onto the retina. Piezoelectric wellstone in the ear could serve as both a receiver and a generator of sound waves."

 

[suri]

maybe you should just wait for the wellstone TV to be a reality..

hi moktan -

quantum dots - looking into a window of pseudo-reality (so real - that i would pinch myself) -

all these - i will watch - safely ensconced in the "godhi" of the almighty!

regds

suri

 

[moktan]

a blurb on the back of the book i mentioned earlier makes this telling observation "When he experimented with lightning, Ben Franklin mused that electricity 'might someday prove of use'...."
programmable matter while perhaps decades away from being actually manufactured is conceptually closer to reality.. Fiber incorporating quantum dots as programmable dopants - Patent 7655942
it also has backers in the form of venture capitalists who are actually investing in it ..so it may be sooner than we think...as one of my favorite scifi writers William Gibson says..."The future is already here, it is just unevenly distributed".

 

[marsilians]

I am a bit wary about such comparisons (caveat that I am a plasma TV owner) as it does not state what the aim was for the comparison nor does it do justice by taking all features into account such as

heat dissipation
price
technology life
max screen sizes
mean time to failure
cost of repair

and so on.

 

[Dushie]

Bottom line is buy that suits your budget and pleases your eyes.

 

[sanjay0864]

I am a bit wary about such comparisons (caveat that I am a plasma TV owner) as it does not state what the aim was for the comparison

The "aim" or purpose of the post, is clearly spelled out in the 'Title' of the thread. More specifically, the purpose is to 'try' to dispel some of the myths that are so commonly spread by tv salesman and by some over zealous, yet misinformed, members of this forum.

nor does it do justice by taking all features into account such as

heat dissipation
price
technology life
max screen sizes
mean time to failure
cost of repair

and so on.

As for not taking into account the "features" listed by you.

"heat dissipation" - Personally I don't know of any myths related to this, nor as a consumer, do I care too much about this issue, for it has no bearing on the picture quality of the TV.

"price" I think this is covered under:
Price to Size Ratio: Advantage - Plasma
This advantage is even greater with larger sizes.

"technology life" - I wonder who has a crystal ball to predict this. In any case how does it matter how much longer a particular technology lasts, ie. as long as the TV continues to function as expected. It's not like your TV will suddenly stop working, in case all manufacturers decided to, over night stop manufacturing either of the two technologies.

"max screen sizes" - This too is covered under:
Price to Size Ratio: Advantage - Plasma
This advantage is even greater with larger sizes.
The largest commercially available LCD is available from Sharp, which is 1920x1080 and is 108". Panasonic on the other hand has a commercially available 150" Plasma with 4K resolution. That's right, that is only, 'FOUR times' the resolution of FULL HD 1920x1080.

"mean time to failure" - Covered under:
Longevity: Advantage - Tie
Plasma life is 100,000 hrs i.e. 45 yrs @ 6 hrs/day.

PS: You are free to add to the discussion, ie. if you find it worthy. Ofcourse, you are also free, not to read, or post in this thread, if you find it "aimless".

 

[sam9s]

@psychotropic @adder @marsilians @dushie, Thank you all, you have stated things, which are very near to what I was screaming about. But as i said I guess the language was in french.....

 

[sanjay0864]

More conclusive, scientific and non subjective comparisons. For anyone who still has doubts on this issue.
LCD-Plasma Display Technology Shoot-Out

This one, is for those still obsessed with FULL HD in small TVs, ie. below 50".
Here's when, 1080p FULL HD matters (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)

 

[sam9s]

The "aim" or purpose of the post, is clearly spelled out in the 'Title' of the thread. More specifically, the purpose is to 'try' to dispel some of the myths that are so commonly spread by tv salesman and by some over zealous, yet misinformed, members of this forum.

And that "Misinformed" member is me BTW .......for sake of information......

........actually OP is so pissed off by a simple fact I brought that though Plasma had a clear advantage over LCD, .... current gen LCDs have come a long way and have drastically bridged the gap. Though technically on paper reviewes still put plasma over LCD with X,Y,Z advantage, (as stated here) the fact I think people would agree is LCDs have come a long way since Plasma ruled...... and now practically the differecne is not as much as..... that we can claim plasma way too ahead or a clear winner over LCD, viewing angle, contrast ratio...blah blah ....every things has been improved so much in LCDs that we cannot now say Plasma is the obvious choise.........that my fellow members was all I was trying to put .......and yes there was one more thing I emphasized .......much like audio, video is also to an extent subjective and so even though technically on paper Plasma has an edge, people should still go and do an extensive auditioning for both the displayes specially with a HD source like a BR keeping all the setting neutral and judge side by side......only then make a decission........simple...


That was the entire crux of the debate for which OP started this thread ............ PEACE

 

[adder]

More conclusive, scientific and non subjective comparisons. For anyone who still has doubts on this issue.
LCD-Plasma Display Technology Shoot-Out

This one, is for those still obsessed with FULL HD in small TVs, ie. below 50".
Here's when, 1080p FULL HD matters (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)

Every plasma fan boys in AVS bring out this shootout which is moot compared to todays lcds,in the article they say that the XBR4 is a 08 model which infact is a 07.
the XBR range in 08 were the XBR6 our Z450a,XBR7 our Z450A & 40X450 ,XBR8 our 46,55X450A arguably the best lcd in 08.

If they had tested the plasma with XBR8 which is widely refered to as the kuro challenger,wins in FULL ON/OFF contrast against any kuro.

HT lab measurement for the kuro PRO111
HT Labs Measures

Black: 0.001
White: 37.7
Full-On/Full-Off Contrast Ratio: 37,700:1

HT lab measurement for the XBR8
Black: 0.000
White: 38.64
Full-On/Full-Off Contrast Ratio: Infinite

offcourse the pioneer will still have the edge in pixel level blacks & viewing angle.
So comparing a 07 lcd and showing the test here in 2010 is baseless since lcd tech is improving rapidly,we still haven't seen the upcoming sony/samsung lcds with AU optronics AMVA5 and sony/sharp lcds with UV2A+dimming.

Next year the samsung bluephase lcd will also start rolling out,which i believe will make samsung quit the plasma business.

 

[sam9s]

so comparing a 07 lcd and showing the test here in 2010 is baseless since lcd tech is improving rapidly,we still haven't seen the upcoming sony/samsung lcds with au optronics amva5 and sony/sharp lcds with uv2a+dimming.

Next year the samsung bluephase lcd will also start rolling out,which i believe will make samsung quit the plasma business.

++++1! ....

 

[venkatcr]

Sam, you have already been warned once. Please do not push this discussion into a personal war between you and Sanjay by jumping and clapping every time someone takes the side of LCD.

And Sanjay, it is much better to use words such as 'I agree', and 'I disagree', rather than using words such as 'absurd', 'sound like a stuck record' and so on. Such words will only increase the provocation to people who are already heated up.

This is simple discussion on LCD/Plasma. What ever information you have, just post it politely. It is upto the reader to read what is written and come to whatever conclusion he wants and likes.

I am repeating the same post in the other thread.

Cheers

 

[marsilians]

The "aim" or purpose of the post, is clearly spelled out in the 'Title' of the thread.

The title is too generic since you should have considered all issues that fall into fact/myth criteria. There is nothing wrong with what you posted - just that it is inadequate esp. when you try to address such a generic issue.

More specifically, the purpose is to 'try' to dispel some of the myths that are so commonly spread by tv salesman and by some over zealous, yet misinformed, members of this forum.

Fair enough and its a good start from that perspective.

 

[longshanks]

HT lab measurement for the kuro PRO111
HT Labs Measures

Black: 0.001
White: 37.7
Full-On/Full-Off Contrast Ratio: 37,700:1

HT lab measurement for the XBR8
Black: 0.000
White: 38.64
Full-On/Full-Off Contrast Ratio: Infinite

Source?

Methodology used for these measurements?

Full on and full off contrast ratio is just useless in day to day use of any flat panel television even if we consider that Sony infinite numbers are any where close to the truth.


Kuro is widely considered as the reference for flat panel display as of to date, even many LCD fan boys know this but wont admit.There have been only a few websites ive known which praised the xbr8 but most other website had admitted the truth that the kuro is yet to beaten in terms of HD picture quality, any one who has even some decent amount of goggling skill can know this info.


Having seen both the XBR8 and the kuro personally i can say that in terms of pic quality kuro is so much ahead.I have not done a direct comparison between the two but have compared the XBR8 with the 50" Panasonic neo pdp in a dim lit demo room , Panasonic plasma clearly had better overall pic quality, costs way less than the insanely over priced XBR8.

XBR8 was no match to the Panasonic in terms of picture depth,details, contrast, blacks or even motion handling, but it had slightly better brightness which kind of looked unnatural and the brightness taking over the entire screen in that dim room.

Any one who has really seen the XBR8 and the KURO personally will immediately understand that it is pointless to compare these TV's ,as XBR8 is way overrated and not even the best of what LCD has to offer IMHO.

If someone feels that XBR8 has great pic quality the he should buy it with no second thoughts

 

[adder]

Source?

Methodology used for these measurements?

Full on and full off contrast ratio is just useless in day to day use of any flat panel television even if we consider that Sony infinite numbers are any where close to the truth.


Kuro is widely considered as the reference for flat panel display as of to date, even many LCD fan boys know this but wont admit.There have been only a few websites ive known which praised the xbr8 but most other website had admitted the truth that the kuro is yet to beaten in terms of HD picture quality, any one who has even some decent amount of goggling skill can know this info.


Having seen both the XBR8 and the kuro personally i can say that in terms of pic quality kuro is so much ahead.I have not done a direct comparison between the two but have compared the XBR8 with the 50" Panasonic neo pdp in a dim lit demo room , Panasonic plasma clearly had better overall pic quality, costs way less than the insanely over priced XBR8.

XBR8 was no match to the Panasonic in terms of picture depth,details, contrast, blacks or even motion handling, but it had slightly better brightness which kind of looked unnatural and the brightness taking over the entire screen in that dim room.

Any one who has really seen the XBR8 and the KURO personally will immediately understand that it is pointless to compare these TV's ,as XBR8 is way overrated and not even the best of what LCD has to offer IMHO.

If someone feels that XBR8 has great pic quality the he should buy it with no second thoughts

Well here is the source Home Theater: Sony BRAVIA KDL-55XBR8 LCD HDTV

Well the thing is FULL on OFF contrast is important many review sites are opting for this,since the ANSI checkboard testing methodology the amount of white checks and blacks check will roughly be 50:50.
When one test the full screen capability of whites and blacks the plasma will suffer due to ABL.Again each testing favours one kind a of tv or the other.
But discounting the plasma limitations in full on capability isn't wise

I have also specifically said that the kuro still has the lead in pixel level blacks.It will however loose those deep blacks with it a fair bit of ambient light more then the semi matter XBR8.

Well i respect your subjective opinion about the panasonic and xbr8,

Anyway XBR8 is one of the top lcds,sure it has some of limitation of lcds like viewing angle ,but many respected websites and unbiased people will appreciate it.
I for one don't feel the XBR8 is overrated in anyway,overpriced perhaps.

the main point of the post, was comparing a old lcds with a plasma is moot in 2010.their is a huge difference 07 lcd like the XBR4 & 08 lcd like XBR6/7/8.

If some people find the kuro or the XBr8 picture quality great he should buy them, if they can afford them or find one.