LCD or Plasma

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View


Hi I am in the market for a new TV, can someone give me the pro's and con's
of each.
Thanks kindly



Re: LCD or Plasma


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Plasma is cheaper if you are after 42" or larger.
Plasma generally has a better contrast ratio, better response time,
brighter, and is better for darker environments (e.g. watching movies
in a dark room).

LCD is really your only option for <40"
LCD is generally a more reliable technology.
LCD are all high resolution.
LCD is better in bright rooms.

Power consumption is similar for both under average conditions.

If you are after a really big screen for watching movies, save your
money and go Plasma. If you want a small to average size TV for
everyday use, go LCD.
If you go Plasma, do not touch a "Standard Definition" 480 line
screen, they are a piece of proverbial excrement.

But as always, YMMV.

Dave.


Re: LCD or Plasma


My preference is for Plasma, especialy for at home. The Plasma screen
is better for viewing in a dark or poorly lit room. LCD is better for
viewing in a bright environment.

With Plasma, the contrast ratio is higher, and the details in the
black levels of the picture are better defined. Plasma is lower in
cost for the size of screen.

LCD is able to display a sharper picture, but in the native mode only.
The LCD has a limited contrast ratio.

If you have children at home, there is the danger of a toy or ball
hitting the screen. With LCD, this would be an expensive disaster. LCD
screens can be damaged from simply being touched too hard, unless
there is a safety glass in front of it. Plasma screens are a lot less
sensitive to be touched, or knocked in to.

I myself am in the market for a new HDTV.  I am definately going for a
Plasma set.  I am looking for something in the 50 inch size range. My
preference for a manufacture is Panasonic as a first choice.


Jerry G.
======




Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: LCD or Plasma


Yes.
Stay away from plasma. Crap technology.

Rudolf

Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: LCD or Plasma



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Agreed, so are current LCD's.
One day there will be a flat screen technology to beat CRT. There is plenty
of development work being done to that end.

MrT.



Re: LCD or Plasma


I am doing a lot of repairs, including warranty repairs.
Plasma and LCD are crap, but lasma is "crappier". Nothing beats good old
CRT.
I am keeping my Panasonic CRT Rear-pro.

Rudolf

Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: LCD or Plasma


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sure, but what are the average stats re percentage of screens returned
in X years etc?
If you are in the TV repair business then you are obviously going to
see lots of TV's in for repair :->
What are the common failure modes?
etc...

It's easy to say Plasma and LCD are crap, but millions of people are
buying them and have been doing so for a fair while now, so they must
have something going for them.
If they were really "crap" technology then no-one would buy them and
the manufacturers would go out of business. So they obviously aren't
entirely crap.

Yes they are complicated technology and almost certainly not as robust
as some CRT sets. But if a CRT gets say an average of X years life
before service and plasma or LCD gets say half of that before service,
does that really make plasma and LCD "crap"?

Both Plasma and LCD have a lot going for them, you can't just label
them as crap. I could say CRT's are crap because they are big, heavy,
ugly, and the scan lines are more visible.

Dave.


Re: LCD or Plasma



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well all of my previous CRT TV's have lasted longer than LCD/Plasma have
even been available, before any repairs.
The fact that quite a few LCD/Plasma's are needing repair, and in many cases
being written off because they can't be repaired, and considering the
selling price, you have to wonder if they are worth it IMO. I recommend an
extended warranty to those who must have one.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Isn't marketing wonderfull :-)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Most people cannot be told, they have to find out the hard way. And of
course everyones needs and expectations are different. For example, I'm very
happy with my new $300 66cm flat widescreen CRT in the bedroom. Most people
I know would prefer to pay far more for a worse picture, simply to reduce
the size and weight, regardless of any reliability issues.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If it also costs far more, and gives an inferior picture, then IMO.... YES.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

See, everyone's entitled to spend their own money in the manner they choose
themselves.
However technical issues can actually be measured against the required
performance criteria, just as size and weight can.
LCD and Plasma don't perform as well in those areas. You get to choose
what's important to you.

And what the hell are you on about scan lines? That is more a function of
the video system. True High Def CRT TV's are available with progressive
scan. The only reason the scan lines would be any more visible is because
the resolution was better. That's a good thing IMO.

MrT.



Re: LCD or Plasma


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I know people with the exact opposite experience. They have early
generation LCD's and plasma that have lasted longer than their CRT's
have. Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats, and I suspect CRT
would win out but I don't think it's as big a problem with Plasma's
and LCD's as some people make out.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

They are "worth it" if they do what you want. Plasma offers large
screen and the form factor advantage at a reasonable price. Yes there
are CRT rear projection sets, but they are an immature technology, the
picture is crap in a bright environment, and they don't have the same
form factor advantages as plasma.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yeah, but people are still getting what they want, i.e. a really big
screen that looks great, can be wall mounted, and doesn't take up much
space.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Worse picture?
The picture on both my Plasma and LCD shit over my old (by only a few
years) top of the range european 76cm 100Hz widescreen CRT. There is
no contest in my mind.
I though my CRT was the ducks guts until I sat my LCD next to it and
did an A-B.
Most people I know also think Plasma and LCD kills CRT in picture
quality, and I think you'll find that is the general public consensus.
But it's up to the individual of course, if you think CRT looks
better, then it does, to you, no problem with that.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

See above re the "inferior" picture.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

By that I mean that LCD's don't have visible "scan lines" like CRT's
do, they are pixel based. This gives a sharper picture without any
visible dead space between the lines. When you have them side-by-side
it's plainly obvious. I have not seen a hi-def CRT so cannot comment
on that, but I am comparing a top-of the-line standard-def CRT with a
"standard" 768 line LCD.

BTW, who would buy a hi-def CRT? Not too many of them around, and for
how long?
Wonder what the sales figures are...

Dave.


Re: LCD or Plasma



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Of course.

price.

That's all relative.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Agreed, not much impressed by any projection TV.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And having just done an A-B between a $300 CRT and a $1000 LCD, no doubt in
my mind which had the better contrast, brightness, and color gamut, not to
mention a rather large price advantage :-)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Maybe, but not shown in any actual measurement I have seen.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, if you have any actual measurements, not marketing hype, that shows LCD
brightness, contrast and color gamut figures equal to or better than CRT,
I'd love to see them too. LCD's are forced to use tricks like dynamic
backlighting in an attempt to pretend the contrast is adequate. I find the
dark grey blacks, and light grey whites on a single scene rather
disappointing myself.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
of
because

What crap, space between pixels is the same as space between phosphor dots.
Use a CRT with a smaller dot pitch! And yes I do realise it is possible to
have smaller dot pitch with LCD, but to do that would cost even more money.
As I said, a new technology is required that allows more pixels at less
cost, without getting more dead ones. Plus higher brightness and contrast
ratio's.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you compare with a crap CRT. But then the 720*480 pixel Plasma's I've
seen are far worse IMO.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Exactly!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Me for one, but I agree most people are not after viewing performance.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No problem at the moment. Hopefully there will be something better than
LCD/plasma by the time I want another one :-)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Who cares? Sales figures for the Bugatti Veyron are extremely small, but I'd
love to have one :-)
You might just complain about the petrol consumption though. Each to their
own.

MrT.



Re: LCD or Plasma


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well I did an A-B against my $2700 Thomson CRT and my new $1300 Sony
Bravia LCD. The Bravia won hands down, as it does against any other
CRT I've even owned or saw.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Most people would rather watch the TV that looks best to them, not
what the measurements say.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's why I also have a Plasma for my more discerning movie viewing,
I find it better, and yes, even better than my CRT in actual image
quality.

I didn't say LCD or Plasma are technically superior to CRT's in actual
image performance, but they do *look* better to most people.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

We aren't talking about 480 pixel plasma's here, we are talking CRT vs
LCD or 768 line plasma. And yes, I agree, 480 line Plasma's are
horrible and always have been. I refused to buy one on principle.

If you can't notice the scan lines on a CRT (even a top quality one)
when A-B'ing CRT and LCD then I think an eye checkup is in order!
I compared my $2700 Thomson Scenium 76cm, hardly a "crap" CRT. I find
the same results can be clearly seen in any TV store where CRT and LCD
are side-by-side. LCD clearly has a more "solid" image, and as such it
makes the scan lines on the CRT really stand out.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Funny, I don't recall seeing one in any shop I've been into lately.
Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough and have been overly distracted
by the vastly superior image on all those gorgeous LCD's and
Plasma's :->
I do rather like the HD video loop they show in some stores, the one
with the girl in the white bikini...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'd buy your Hi-Def CRT now, they won't be around in another a year or
two.

Dave.


Re: LCD or Plasma



Quoted text here. Click to load it

An opinion you are entitled to.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Agreed, and I have no problem with people preferring something technically
inferior. It's their money, and their own reasons.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Again, so what?
As the ad says, most people prefer plasma to LCD too. You don't appear to be
one of them.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Why not, they are still more expensive than CRT?
If you truly must have a 40" screen at a reasonable price, they are the only
option for many.
But if price is of absolutely no consideration, then good luck to you.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, you are simply redefining/narrowing the context to suit your argument.
As I said, all things are relative.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Me too.


This from a man who admited he hasn't even seen a HiDef CRT!!!!!!!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Never seen one so can't say, but that must have been the price some time
ago, a bit like comparing it with the $10K plasma's of a few years back.
Truly awful regardless of the huge price.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Check out the LG 32FS4D for about $1,000 now including inbuilt Hi Def tuner.
Some shops carry them.
Please name any LCD or Plasma that really offers a better picture for the
same price and I will check it out.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Again, an opinion you are welcome to. I'm not interested in an "my opinion
is better than yours" discussion.
Truly pointless!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm betting mine will still be working by then. And with no dead pixels :-)

MrT.





Re: LCD or Plasma


Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is probably the main reason why people have ditched CRT and rear-
pro in favour of Plasma and LCD.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

As I've said before, LCD and Plasma have there PRO's and CON's, that
is why I have one of each, they are used for different purposes.
I prefer either depending on the use.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sure, and the picture is crap of course. But some people don't mind,
they have their big screen at the lowest price.

I've noticed that rear-projection is getting very cheap, I think I saw
a fairly decent looking Sony 40" for <$1000 recently. If you want a
big screen at a budget price, they are still a reasonable option I
think. I'd certainly have a rear-pro any day over a 480 line Plasma.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No need to thanks, I am comparing regular def CRT's to LCD's that have
almost replaced them.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If I ever see one before they get discontinued and dropped from the
range as all hi-def CRT's will, I'll let you know!

Dave.


Re: LCD or Plasma



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Tha's one of the big problems IMO. What is needed is a new technology with
the benefits of both, and better than either, because I'm not sure what your
other use is besides watching TV?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Agreed, if you can afford the home cinema room to go with it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

So apples with oranges then. The only way you can make your case I guess.
And you also refuse to compare regular def CRT's with 480 line plasma's
because you know which one wins there too.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Don't bother, I'll still be happily enjoying mine whatever your opinion.

MrT.



Re: LCD or Plasma


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Surprisingly, watching movies on DVD.
Most of the regular TV watching gets done in the (bright) kitchen/
living room on the LCD, but that's no place to relax and watch a movie
for several hours. That's what the dark loungeroom, comfy leather
couches, 5.1 surround and bigger screen plasma is for.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No apples with apples.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Of course I know which one wins there, 480 lines on the plasma does
not cut the mustard. It does not even let you see Region 4 PAL DVD's
or SD Digital TV at their full resolution (576 lines).
The reason I don't compare them is because they are not in the same
market, so that would be comparing apples with oranges. You can't get
a plasma under 40" or so, and you can't get a CRT over 32" or so, they
are two entirely different market segments.

LCD's on the other hand are designed to replace replace CRT in the
smaller screen market, so it is fair to compare those. And I don't
think there are any LCD's under 768 lines (I stand to be corrected
though), so the resolution is a whole lot better than standard def
CRT's.

Dave.


Re: LCD or Plasma



Quoted text here. Click to load it
with
your

I use my TV to do that too. I'm glad then that I don't need a Plasma *AND*
an LCD to watch both. How awful, not to mention expensive.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Or two much cheaper CRT screens like I have, (In fact I have three, and all
3 combined still cost less than either of yours I'll bet)

Quoted text here. Click to load it
guess.

 Or maybe you just can't tell the difference between an apple and a banana?

If you really think a Hires LCD can only be compared to a standard def CRT,
then I agree with you.
And I also agree that a 480 line plasma is inferior too.
By default that makes a HiDef CRT best, so we are not disagreeing after all.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm glad you agree.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not in the same market would apply to comparing a low cost standard def CRT
to a FAR more expensive Hires LCD or plasma, rather than compare with a
still cheaper HiDef CRT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Agreed, IF size is the only consideration.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And you still insist on comparing LCD to the far cheaper standard def CRT's
rather than the still cheaper HiDef CRT's, just to make some stupid point.

The only thing you have proven is that you haven't even seen the real
competition, so your whole rant is completely pointless.

I'm still waiting for your list of 32" LCD monitors with HiDef tuner for
$1000 that you think beat the LG 32FS4D? That would be comparing at the same
price point at least!

MrT.



Re: LCD or Plasma


Quoted text here. Click to load it

*yawn*
This is indeed getting very boring MrT
You think I bought both types and have two sets because I *have* to?
No, I *wanted to*.

I had a top-of-the-line 76cm widscreen European CRT that was only a
couple of years old, but I wanted to upgrade to a larger screen, as a
great majority of people do these days.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm incredibly happy for you.
I would rather have *one* of my big screen, smaller, lighter, and much
better looking TV's to your 3 smaller, heavier and uglier CRT's any
day, thanks.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Most people want bigger and better looking screens these days, didn't
you know?
In the smaller market segment people prefer LCD over CRT for many
reasons, that is why CRT's are almost dead.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm doing that because that is basically all you can see and get in
most shops. I bet the average Joe doesn't even know you can get hi-def
CRT's, not that they would care I suspect, as they like LCD better
even if they are more expensive.
Hi-def CRT's came along far too late, they have missed the boat
completely and get hardly any shelf space in the shops (as do most
CRT's now).
Hi-def CRT's will *never* sell and will die an early death, stock up
now dude.

It is clear we are making two entirely different points, neither of
which is "stupid".

Dave.


Re: LCD or Plasma



Oh, another advantage of LCD over CRTs (even your beloved LG hi-def
I'm sure) I don't think I've mentioned (only in relation to plasma),
CRT's suck in bright light conditions. The glare and washed out
colours are awful, LCD perform much better in this respect.

Dave.


Re: LCD or Plasma



Quoted text here. Click to load it

So true, and yet you still want to flog a dead horse.

<snip more garbage>

MrT.



Re: LCD or Plasma


I must agree with you.  I have used HDTV in CRT, LCD, and Plasma.  I found
the CRT to not come close to a good quality properly set up Plasma or LCD.

LCD sets are best viewed in a lit area, while the Plasma are better viewed
in a dark or low lit area. LCD sets are more sensitive to be used in their
native mode. Plasma sets are more forgiving when it comes to having to use
them in the native mode.

My personal preference for at home, is a good HDTV Plasma set. What is neat
about the Plasma set, is that I can mount it right on the wall. When viewing
the Plasma from off to the side there is almost zero visible contrast
fall-off, and there is no discolouration in the pictures.

--

Jerry G.
======


We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline