StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What are the advantages/disadvantages of each format? Is it true that plasmas have superior picture quality but don't age well?

You can't play console games on a plasma. I've been told that it creates a permanent image on the screen, like the really old TV's did with Atari's.

I *believe* the limited-lifespan of plasmas was a problem with the earlier technology, and they're likely to last as long as you're likely to keep it these days.

However, they still suck down the power, often noticably warm the room you're in, can be dangerous around children/idiots, and the middling-range ones in AU (the ones you'd get because they're cheaper than LCDs) have dodgey image quality. I am not a fan.

Cpl Kendall wrote:You can't play console games on a plasma. I've been told that it creates a permanent image on the screen, like the really old TV's did with Atari's.

I've never heard anything like that, but I have read that Plasmas have a "break-in" period where you should avoid static pictures or logos.

That said, my Nieces have played Wii Sports for hours on end on my parents Pioneer plasma with no ill effects (granted, it was top of the line when they bought it) and I've even brought over Rock Band (in HD) for a 4 hour gaming session when my Brother-in-law came into town.

Granted, I have never dealt with what I would label a "cheap" Plasma. So, I would assume if that problem exists, it's a problem with the TV manufacturer.

Stark wrote:I *believe* the limited-lifespan of plasmas was a problem with the earlier technology, and they're likely to last as long as you're likely to keep it these days.

I've been told by a few guys that over time the brightness of a Plasma will diminish, but nothing that should be terribly noticeable and can be easily fixed by cranking the brightness up.

Main Issue: make sure you have a good warranty.

LCDs tend to be better if you're planning on running a computer into it and using it as a media centre. The high end ones will work as well as any computer monitor (depending on specifications), except bigger.

Plasmas give better motion reproduction and look nicer under typical living room conditions (the darker blacks look nicer under low lights). One thing that can be quite deceptive, plasmas tend to reflect more of the bright fluorescent shop lighting making the LCDs look nicer while they're in the shop, however when you get them away from the bright lights the plasmas actually do look a lot nicer.

I don't know if this is still an issue with plasmas, but when I was working retail, plasma screens had to be transported and stored upright at all times, if placed screen down the shift in weight can apparently break them.

What I would personally do, if I wanted to put a TV in the family room that was just going to be used for watching TV and home theatre, I'd probably use a plasma, if I was going to hook a PC to it and use it as a media centre, gaming system, web, and all the other wonder things you do with a PC, I'd lean towards an LCD.

Note: It's been just over a year since I used to work with these things, modern plasmas may have caught up with regard to PC usage. At the time, plugging a PC into a plasma had a similar effect to when you use a TV out into a standard 50/60hz CRT TV (looked fuzzy / small fonts unreadable) your modern customer service drone should be able to demonstrate one to see if they still have that effect.

I'd go with LCD. They last longer and look nicer than plasmas. I don't really like plasmas that much since you can see the individual pixels in them.

Cpl Kendall wrote:You can't play console games on a plasma. I've been told that it creates a permanent image on the screen, like the really old TV's did with Atari's.

Yeah, I had a friend who worked at a pawn shop and got a plasma super-cheap at his store. He ended up having to get rid of it after a week because the HUD from CoD2 was burned into the screen.

You can get bigger plasma set's cheaper than you can with LCD's, but I think the picture quality of LCD's are better.

Darth Wong wrote:What are the advantages/disadvantages of each format? Is it true that plasmas have superior picture quality but don't age well?

Both:

-Flat-panel tech
-Wall-mountable (this is usually a bad idea though)
-Come in HD resolutions
-ATSC tuners for decoding digital broadcasts

LCD:
+Lighter/Easier to move than plasma
+Lower power consumption than plasma
+Cheaper and more available in 1080p at <50" screen size
+Better in rooms with ambient lighting and for daytime viewing
+No chance of burn-in/image retention

LCD tier 1 manufacturers: Sony, Samsung
LCD tier 2 manufacturers: Sharp, Toshiba

Plasma:
+Superior contrast ratios to LCD
+Better in rooms with light control and for night-time viewing
+Cheaper per unit area at >50" screen size
+Better motion handling than LCD/No image smearing
+Wider viewing angles than LCD

Plasma tier 1 manufacturers: Pioneer
Plasma tier 2 manufacturers: Panasonic

Most importantly, have a side-by-side viewing yourself at a home theatre store, and not a big-box electronics shop with crappy lighting.

Also, new models are sure to pop up at CES next week. This should bump down prices for this year's models.

My view on them is really this:

If you want a TV for just watching television and movies, then a plasma is probably the way to go. But if you want a TV to play games on, then go with an LCD.

Xisiqomelir
Could you please explain why wall mounting these TVs is not a good idea?

I'd be curious about the wall-mounting issue too, although I imagine the problem might simply be a question of how solid the mounting is.

Have the manufacturers fixed the "sagging" in the plasmas?

My parents' TV is wallmounted; the brace made it almost impossible to get to the second SCART port and it's a pain to get it off the wall. I suppose those count as downsides...

Darth Wong wrote:I'd be curious about the wall-mounting issue too, although I imagine the problem might simply be a question of how solid the mounting is.

I live in earthquake country so I'm kind of afraid to even attempt it. I find that simply putting it on a sturdy TV stand and using the braces to secure it works for me. If you choose to wall mount it, then get a professional to do it who will warranty the work, so if it falls off and breaks they have to replace it.

The idea behind it is great and all, but you still need a place to put your cable box, DCD player, and in my case, videogame console.

Ace Pace wrote:Xisiqomelir
Could you please explain why wall mounting these TVs is not a good idea?

Wall mounting makes switching connections harder. You're also stuck with the TV in one exact position with not even the option to swivel it a few degrees. You have to be careful not to mount the display too high on the wall (very common mistake) or where it might get damaged or dirty like over a fireplace. Finally, running cable through the walls can be expensive if your house isn't already set up for it.

You're also stuck with the TV in one exact position with not even the option to swivel it a few degrees.

That's when you mount in flat against the wall. These days, many braces are built on a swivel; you can pull the screen forward and tilt/turn it about 10° up/down and 30° side-to-side. Also, they leave just enough room to run the cables.

Xisiqomelir wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:Xisiqomelir
Could you please explain why wall mounting these TVs is not a good idea?

Wall mounting makes switching connections harder. You're also stuck with the TV in one exact position with not even the option to swivel it a few degrees. You have to be careful not to mount the display too high on the wall (very common mistake) or where it might get damaged or dirty like over a fireplace. Finally, running cable through the walls can be expensive if your house isn't already set up for it.

There are some wall mounting systems, however, that allow you to put the TV on an arm that can move the TV to different angles, higher or lower, and of course give you access to the cables in the back. Naturally, you would want to make VERY sure that the attach point is sturdy before attempting this, but it can work.

Bounty wrote:

You're also stuck with the TV in one exact position with not even the option to swivel it a few degrees.

That's when you mount in flat against the wall. These days, many braces are built on a swivel; you can pull the screen forward and tilt/turn it about 10° up/down and 30° side-to-side. Also, they leave just enough room to run the cables.

I don't want to come off as saying "never wall mount", but generally I think people are better served with a TV on top/inside of an entertainment stand.

Xisiqomelir wrote:

Bounty wrote:

You're also stuck with the TV in one exact position with not even the option to swivel it a few degrees.

That's when you mount in flat against the wall. These days, many braces are built on a swivel; you can pull the screen forward and tilt/turn it about 10° up/down and 30° side-to-side. Also, they leave just enough room to run the cables.

I don't want to come off as saying "never wall mount", but generally I think people are better served with a TV on top/inside of an entertainment stand.

You won't hear me say "always wall mount" either - mine's on a stand. There are downsides to wall mounting, granted, but a screen mounted on a wall does look damn good, and if you can get the installation done by a pro for little cost it is, in my opinion, worth it provided you don't plan on frequently moving the TV around.

Darth Wong wrote:What are the advantages/disadvantages of each format? Is it true that plasmas have superior picture quality but don't age well?

A lot of the disadvantages that plasmas had in the past has been mostly taken care of. For most current plasmas, you have to have a static image on display for an entire day or more to have any noticeable burn-in. Even then, it takes a few hours of regular TV watching to clear it up. Like the ol CRTs, they have a half-life brightness, but it's at about 60,000hrs ( according to manufacturers). Plasmas eat more power than LCD's, and they run a bit warmer, which is not a bad thing with your geographical location. If you're gonna mount it on a wall, then it's probably best to have a "professional" mount it, unless you're already a good handyman. My 42" plasma weights about ~70-80 lbs, almost twice as much as a similarly
sized LCD.

Plasmas have better picture quality hands down. As others have mentioned, during fast action shots, LCD's tend produce image blur. Though companies are now toting panels that have a 120hz refresh-rate which supposedly reduces this effect. Plasmas generally produces much deeper black levels than LCDs. LCD's have higher quoted contrast ratios, but since the eye is more sensitive to changes in shades of blacks than white, a plasma with a lower quoted contrast ratio can produce more vibrant colors than an LCD with a higher C.R. However, plasmas don't do well in lit rooms since the glass panel will show glare and reflections from such light sources.

Samsung seems to be the leader in LCDs right now. Toshiba, Sharp, and Sony are all pretty good too.

Pioneer and Panasonic are the leaders in plasmas. Pioneer is a little more pricier than Panasonic, but Pioneer ( especially their new Kuro line) has a bit better black levels IMO.

Yes I'm a bit biased because I own a plasma.


Here's a website that helped me choose, as well as some other technical tidbits:

linky

Personally, I'm a DLP fanboy. It has the truest colour (as long as it uses a colour wheel) of all technologies, and consumes no more power than an LCD set. No pixel burning, little to no pixel lag, and other advantages over LCD and Plasma.

Flagg wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote:You can't play console games on a plasma. I've been told that it creates a permanent image on the screen, like the really old TV's did with Atari's.

Yeah, I had a friend who worked at a pawn shop and got a plasma super-cheap at his store. He ended up having to get rid of it after a week because the HUD from CoD2 was burned into the screen.

You can get bigger plasma set's cheaper than you can with LCD's, but I think the picture quality of LCD's are better.

From my understanding from af riend that sold them, that was a problem with older plasma tvs, where if you left a static image for hours, maybe overnight, it can burn the image into the screen.

SpacedTeddyBear wrote:A lot of the disadvantages that plasmas had in the past has been mostly taken care of. For most current plasmas, you have to have a static image on display for an entire day or more to have any noticeable burn-in. Even then, it takes a few hours of regular TV watching to clear it up. Like the ol CRTs, they have a half-life brightness, but it's at about 60,000hrs ( according to manufacturers). Plasmas eat more power than LCD's, and they run a bit warmer, which is not a bad thing with your geographical location. If you're gonna mount it on a wall, then it's probably best to have a "professional" mount it, unless you're already a good handyman. My 42" plasma weights about ~70-80 lbs, almost twice as much as a similarly sized LCD.

You're kidding, right? I may not be the world's greatest handyman, but it's not exactly rocket science to sturdily attach a mounting bracket to a wall. All you have to do is find the stud. Obviously, you'd be foolish to rely on dry-wall anchors.

Plasmas have better picture quality hands down. As others have mentioned, during fast action shots, LCD's tend produce image blur. Though companies are now toting panels that have a 120hz refresh-rate which supposedly reduces this effect. Plasmas generally produces much deeper black levels than LCDs. LCD's have higher quoted contrast ratios, but since the eye is more sensitive to changes in shades of blacks than white, a plasma with a lower quoted contrast ratio can produce more vibrant colors than an LCD with a higher C.R. However, plasmas don't do well in lit rooms since the glass panel will show glare and reflections from such light sources.

I'll have to check out some of those 120Hz panels to see how well they perform. The motion-blur issue is one that I've noticed before, on the little 23" Samsung LCD that I have hanging from the ceiling in the bedroom.

Samsung seems to be the leader in LCDs right now. Toshiba, Sharp, and Sony are all pretty good too.

Pioneer and Panasonic are the leaders in plasmas. Pioneer is a little more pricier than Panasonic, but Pioneer ( especially their new Kuro line) has a bit better black levels IMO.

Yes I'm a bit biased because I own a plasma.

In my case, I have two kids who will be regularly using it to play games, who always keep the lights on while using it, and who have never demonstrated good discipline about turning it off when not in use, or making sure that a static image is not left on the screen. Even if it takes a week to burn in an image on the latest greatest plasma sets, I think my boys would eventually cause enough cumulative damage to do it (especially given the fact that the"pause" screen on most games always has the same static menu overlay, and they routinely pause games for meals). I think this means that the decision is probably made for me: I have to go with LCD.

Personally I am still a fan of CRT's. I prefer the color, and the motion of CRT's vs the flat screens.

That's pretty irrelevant to the LCD/plasma decision.