LCD vs Plasma TV--Which Way to Go?

LCDs still don't match CRT or plasma as far as motion is concerned. Looking carefully at the various LCD TVs that were on display at the local department store shows that while some display movement better than others, they all absolutely sucked when compared to CRTs. They were all pixilated and blurry to one degree or another. On the other hand, I can't see laying out 2K for a plasma display that is not guaranteed to last longer than 5 ~ 7 years. I guess it all boils down to: You pick your poison and live with its consequences.

Looking

others,

7

its

I've trying to decide between the two myself right now. I noticed that many plasma screens seem to have more reflective glass then LCD. Is that a known issue with plasma or just the ones I've seen? I'm expecting problems because I have windows that are bound to create reflections unless the screen is really matt.

I like to note,

a fine balanced M.A.M.E. Emulator (PC), 100/120 or 50/60Hz....

Some games are not to play on a LCD kind monitor, TFT, I don't know. (vertical scroller, or horizontal scroller games, for example) No to mention the lack of multi-frequency...

All 60 HZ.... odd.

Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Just make sure you compare power requirements before purchasing so you don't experience any unexpected change in power use. Plasma typicall requires significantly more power than the LCD.

Go look at them, if at all possible. I no longer see the blurring/smearing that used to be a problem with LCDs (on ordinary program material).

LCD screens use polarized filters in part of the construction of the screen. The light from the LCD is polarized, and thus there is less effect from the room light that is not polarized. This is a large part of the reason why LCD screens look better in lit rooms.

CRT's are being phased out of production. Eventually, there will be no CRT sets available.

--

JANA _____

Looking

others,

7

its

I've trying to decide between the two myself right now. I noticed that many plasma screens seem to have more reflective glass then LCD. Is that a known issue with plasma or just the ones I've seen? I'm expecting problems because I have windows that are bound to create reflections unless the screen is really matt.

First read this for a good explanation:

Explanation of some of the differences:

Excellent information site about LCD technology:

--

JANA _____

Wayne T. Watson (Watson Adventures, Prop., Nevada City, CA) (121.015 Deg. W, 39.262 Deg. N) GMT-8 hr std. time) Obz Site: 39° 15' 7" N, 121° 2' 32" W, 2700 feet

"It is better to be ?approximately right? rather than ?exactly wrong." -- John Tukey, Statistican

-- Web Page:

In front of it, 90 degrees... and that, possibly ;)

The Car Engine is much older technique. I would suggest to update the older uneffective things further.

Although, a CRT can be likened to a car. More Power, better acceleration, deeper (longer) drives/trips and not so limited for sideways (thinking to a railway-based train for example. Cost effective yes, but no Angle ;-))))

It is much more to save when driving public rails/roads, than savin'

30-70W compared to a big CRT with ~150W. It makes me almost smile which arguments are thrown to publicpress. Poor, weak, apish arguments, just aligned to PROFITS.

I don't think you will get many advocates :). The TFT is poor picture, the anim is even more poor. Every tech will have it's place in the future. Throwing áway, a good developed tech like CRT and starting a new one, which is known that it will never reach the speed of a light-tube, is crap for me.

You mean obviously, in the near future will everything be filmed via pixel :))) (CCD crap) So the LCD is prepared for the new dual-thinker generatuion Picture. Buhahahhhaaaa, I s... on CCD!

Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

The difference is that there is as yet no practical, economically- competitive replacement for the internal combustion engine in most current applications. There is for the CRT, hence the CRT is going away.

What, in your opinion, is fundamentally wrong with profits as a goal? Profits are driven by the market's willingness to buy a given product at a price that exceeds the cost of manufacturing and sales, and so are an absolutely ruthless judge of the most effective technology for a given application. And on this score, the CRT is losing, for a number of very good reasons.

I have no idea what you mean by "which is known that it will never reach the speed of a light-tube"; if you're talking about response time, the plasma display and various FED types already equal the CRT, and the LCD is getting very, very close in the quality of perceived motion response. The color saturation and contrast of a state-of-the-art LCD already exceed that of the CRT by a considerable margin.

What does "filmed via pixel" mean?

Bob M.

There is.... Air Cars drive ~0.7L diesel/100Km (~60miles). Compressed Air, of course. ~200KM Trips, very good acceleration and no smog near the car.

But as I said... no long trips :) For shortdistance snack delivering purposes (Jaus'n führn) I would drive it!

Are you mad :-)?

You try to dictatate that tech to me. If I say, as a customer, the CRT is my favourite Display, then it is so. Not to mention the longevity and repairability.

Achievable with a low-end CRT and an indoor-aerial.

A crutch for low-end thinker :-)

Well, LCD and brothers do have their operation field :)))), but Video isn't. Surfing, prescribing medecines, waiting-room, still-pictures and so on.

When it comes to seemingly still-standing text, like that on final credits for example, it looses. The motion is too subtile for pixel-dresher. Anti-aliasing crap and such...

Plasma with an indoor-aerial, OK, but you know Plasmas disadvantages. I look one station sometimes the whole day. That would be a problem with a Plasma. Burn-In..., uneconomic (I watch maybe 20%), cost-uneffective. Well, I could take a LCD, which needs lesser power, but I would need a follower-device like in 'Demolition Man' .)

In short, crap.

Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

do you reckon rear projection DLP can compete with CRT?

Bye. Jasen

Not at all. If you disagree, then please give at least SOMETHING resembling a reasoned argument that shows where I'm wrong.

Sure - if YOU, as an individual customer, think that the CRT is the best display, no one is going to try to argue with you. It's your opinion. The problem is that there are no longer enough people in the market who share that opinion - at least to the extent of being unwilling to buy any other technology - to prevent the CRT from being in decline.

I fail to see how an "indoor aerial" is a concern with respect to the performance of the display technology in question. Perhaps you could explain that.

Apparently, but that doesn't help the rest of us understand what you mean by it.

I'm sorry; I understand that English may not be your first language, but I have no idea what you mean when you say "the motion is to subtile for pixel-dresher." Again, would you care to explain?

Not unless that one station is delivering only one static image, it wouldn't be - and since plasma "burn-in" happens for essentially the same reason as CRT burn-in (it just doesn't happen quite as quickly), that would be an even bigger problem for the CRT.

Bob M.

You should read yourself what you write!

Us? What are you? A God?

Someone stole on O :) (too subtile)

There is nothing to explain. LCD arguments are just the top of moron thinking art, business and outsourcing babble tactic. Well, I cannot persuade you what you want to see, but you cannot persuade me as well, you understand? Economy is always a giving and a taking hand, not two handed... (grabbing)

My TV-Set is not burned in. Plasmas I saw burned in, after some months of 12/24H operation. The Station-Logo was visible.

Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Hi jasen!

I saw much of tech. Newer stuff is working better and is even cheaper when LCD and so started. But after some minutes, the first haggle, dazzle appear. Color cyclings look more like 16bit (65536 colors)... and so on.

I know there are limitations with 50/60HZ Video, but that is more likely arabic number playing. That what I see convinces me :) Although, ~720*576 screen resolution is not less ;), but that is already with a crutch in the x-coordinate. If someone develops a tech, which does not even need lines, then I would say it is a progression compared to PAL/NTSC.

Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: Rear Projection? hmmm, I have no money for such... (~400bucks a bulb)

I haven't seen any high-resolution DLP projectors. They sure look good at the resolution they have, but that is less than my normal LCD computer monitor.

Jon

DLP chips (what T.I. calls the "digital micromirror device," or "DMD) are available up to 1920 x 1080 (standard HD format); see

The technology is also a strong contender for digital cinema use, which would probably be at formats of approx. 2k x 1k or 4k x 2k pixels. The basic limitation here is the physical pixel size on the device, which so far (as I recall) is down to about 12 microns on a side.

Bob M.

I've read that 120Hz LCDs look much better with moving edges than the standard 60 Hz onces, I haven't seen them myself yet though. Plasma's have a maximum total light output (like a CRT), which means that if the picture is really bright in many places, it dims to avoid heating the screen. So the advertised high contrast should probably be take as a bright dot on a otherwise black screen, a black dot on a white screen would be very much less. LCDs don't have this problem. Plasma's have typically a higher power consumption than LCDs; that alone might be sufficient reason (costs and environment) to avoid plasma's, it would be for me.

Mat Nieuwenhoven

When I was shopping 6 months ago, the plasma's were only up to around 720 lines while some DLP's were up to 1080 lines. One could see the pixels of the plasmas quite readily and the DLP was far sharper.

The drawback was the DLP had a lower contrast ratio which meant the blacks looked blacker on the plasma. The salesman then, said the plasmas were still prone to image burn in and they had one in their shop where ESPN's logo did a number on it.

What disturbed me with the DLP was some problem I had with their lamp circuitry. It blew a lamp in a couple of weeks. Although under warranty, it sold for $320. Several weeks later the lamp out light came on and the set wouldn't turn on. Another bulb but still no worky. Then it took a ballast. Still nothing and they took it away for a few months. It's back now and they say they changed out the "Light Engine" whatever that is.

They warned me the DLP's lamp may only last for 8-24 months and I might want to keep a "spare" on hand as it's not a usually stocked item.

B~