[JoshK]

I am having this discussion with a gentleman in PM, but thought I'd open it up for more feedback from others on issues and decisions to weigh.  Below is a copy of my response when the question why I would choose a plasma over an LCD was asked.   To be honest I haven't compared real recently but I am going on what I have seen over the few years I have been comparing (bought my plasma in '01).

Back when I bought my plasma ('01) that you saw, I did a lot of research on the topic.   I hadn't kept up with what was going on in the last few years, but was under the impression that plasma was still on top for my applications.  I am still inclined to think so myself, but I'll have to explain.

For me heat has never been a problem.  The plasma's do run hot, but not that hot, and unless you put them in a tight cabinet, this is moot IMO.  How about our tubes? 

Again, the weight and the mildly extra depth isn't a big deal in my setup as my plasma mounts in a brick wall with mortar anchors.   Noise?  I have only ever noticed noise when the power was really bad or the antenna created a ground loop.  When the power was filtered (I have a 18" 1500 watt balanced power transformer mounted right at the source of my dedicated line) and the ground loops eliminated there is zero hum or noise at all.  They kind of act like a magnifying glass for noise in your system. 

When it comes to price, the plasma still has the nod in the same size category, not by a huge margin but by a little it seems.  More important in my targeted price, is that I can only find a 52" LCD versus a 58" plasma.  That is a pretty significant difference IMO.

The LCD's are true 1080p whereas the plasmas I can afford are 720p.  I do notice a difference when standing 3' away in the stores, but not at 10' away like I would in my living room. 

Burn-in?  Entirely overstated IMO.  Sure, you need to be aware of the possibility when you own an expensive display but the same is true of CRT, front-proj, etc.  I had never had an issue and I was only careful for maybe the first 50 hours.  I don't play video games either and never will. 

The real important issue is picture quality though, and I have to say that I am skeptical of the claim of LCD's superiority.  Now this is subjective like audio and different people are more susceptible or bothered by different flaws.

I need to go take a good look at the latest generation of displays to see if my previous conclusions still hold, but this is what I decided or concluded from past examinations:
- LCD's were too bright and looked surreal and unnatural to me.  This could be a purposeful tweaking of the display to flaunt their positives and I know calibration could correct this
- Plasmas had a lot better blacks and the viewing angle on LCD's sucked (even when they were suppose to be so much better).  I understand the viewing angle thing is moot now, but I am still hearing many say the blacks still aren't there. 
- I am far from eagle eyes (finally need to look into getting glasses for driving) but I notice the pixelation of LCDs more than any artifact that the plasmas had. 
- I read some talk on avs about how some feel that the extra resolution 1080p v 720p of the LCD is moot with slow moving pixels, especially for sports (not that I watch sports).

So I haven't made up my mind yet, but I feel the burden of proof falls on the LCD based on what I have seen in the past.  I primarily watch movies and OTA TV and value color depth, clarity and dark levels.

Anything I should be aware of that I have overlooked or is dated?

[BobM]

Josh,

I don't know if this will help you or not, but I bought a 32" LCD for our bedroom over the summer, believing the story that LCD was better. It's great for that location, but we're also viewing it from about 10'-12' away. Up close I can say that the picture isn't the greatest IMHO. But I am using a standard Verizon FIOS connection, not HD. With an upconverting Samsung DVD player it is far better, but not up to CRT quality. And yes, I do see motion problems with it.

Bottom line, I just bought a 42" plasma for the den.

Bob

[brj]

If you haven't seen them yet, the www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com and www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com websites are full of useful information, including calibration settings for the newest reviews of certain sets.  This page is almost a year out of date, but compares the two technologies in a useful manner.  Both technologies are miles ahead of where they were a few years ago...

[PhilNYC]

I've never heard the claim that "LCDs are superior".  Everything I read prior to buying my plasma this past July was that "LCDs are finally catching up"...

[bubba966]

Josh,

Go with what looks better to you. If you can take your source into a shop and hook it up to various sets and figure out what you like and don't like.

I once took my Japanese HD LaserDisc player into Magnolia Hi-Fi and hooked it up to a few displays after we'd quickly calibrated them with Avia. Yes, I spent more than a coupld of hours there that day with my player. But it gave me a really good idea of what I liked & didn't like.

And as it seems your displays are something that you don't change out every other week, get the best set that you can w/out spending insane amounts. The higher the resolution the better. The "ED is fine, you can't tell the difference between it and HD" line is a load if you ask me. But then again I'm highly picky about my video and I don't like most displays. Which is why I've got what I've got now. It's not so big, but as Wayne said when I had a couple of beers with him & Warner in Portland a couple of moths ago "Brian's got the most transparent display I've ever seen".

Personally I've liked a good plasma over an LCD. But the plasmas I like are usually the Elite's. And those aren't cheap.

[GHM]

I must say I really like the Plasma's display,but I'm a little shy about the longevity of the Plasma TVs as a whole. I've been going through the same wrestling thoughts..infact I just got in from looking at both. The prices are very nice on the plasma's but from everything I've read they're not as reliable as the LCDs. Which have caught up in resolution and depth IMHO.

If the Plasma's were as easy to maintain as a LCD, I would buy one in a minute! Once the gas bulbs start to burn out, the only thing that can fix a Plasma is a dumpster. You can change the bulb out in the LCDs..if I'm not mistaken.

[G Georgopoulos]

LCD is better, the problem with LCD is that it comes in various qualities
most LCDs were in relatively smaller sizes until now you can buy a large
screen LCD that has top quality picture

some of key features of LCD

  -high resolution
  -reliability
  -less power consumption
  -sharp picture
 
some of the best brands
  -sharp
  -sony
  -philips
  -apple
  -many others

cheers

[tvyankee]

hey

i don't think anyone can say that one is better then the other.they are very close.i have been around video for work for a long time and i have to tell you that if you are looking at any real video you have to go crt.plasma or lcd just doesn't cut it for real detail or black level or color saturation.

if i had to pick one over the other it would have to be plasma.i say this because the blacks are better and color saturation seems more life like.

the one thing that lcd does have over plasma is the weight factor.

i am not saying I'm right but i have been around multi cam shoots for 15years and there is not one studio or production truck that uses lcd or plasma in there video position.they just wouldn't have it.

[PhilNYC]

LCD is better, the problem with LCD is that it comes in various qualities
most LCDs were in relatively smaller sizes until now you can buy a large
screen LCD that has top quality picture

plasmas still have a slight edge in refresh rates, so watching programs with a lot of movement (eg. sports) is still slightly better on plasmas...

Most of the areas that LCDs have over plasmas seem to be in ease of maintenance and reliability, not picture quality...

[NealH]

Keep your eye on a football or, basketball as it flies through the air.  Note the rough flavor (edge jaggedness or loss of definition) to it while in flight - only to become pristinely clear once the movement stops.   Same with cymbals on a drum set.  Watch the cymbals from a drummer vibrate and, you will see the loss of definition occurring - only to have them become perfectly clear as they stop shimmering.  Then look at the same on a regular tube set.  The definition is always apparent  whether in flight or, while vibrating.  I don't know if this is the time lag response phenomena or, a limitation of modern digital video engines in the flat displays.  But it's there.   

Neither LCD nor Plasma will totally equal a tube in this test but, the Plasmas tend to do better as a rule (in my opinion of course).  But, in fairness the newer LCD's take a bit of starring and comparing with Plasmas to see the difference.  They are getting pretty darn close to the better plasma sets.     

[Steve Vol]

Question, so how do DLP's rank in comparison to LCD's and Plasma?  I don't see them discussed as much.

[PhilNYC]

Question, so how do DLP's rank in comparison to LCD's and Plasma?  I don't see them discussed as much.

DLP is primarily used in rear projectors, right?  From the ones I've seen, the main benefit is that they are cheaper; otherwise, they have a smaller viewing angle and don't have the same levels of brightness/contrast that either plasmas or LCDs have...

[LightFire]

LCD is a better, more recent technology.

Plasma spends a lot more energy.

Plasma luminosity will fade away with time (just like your old TV).

The larger sizes still available only on plasma.

Some old LCD models have "slow" refreshing rate.

[PhilNYC]

LCD is a better, more recent technology.

Is that true?  I thought both were invented in the 1960s...

[LightFire]

LCD is a better, more recent technology.

Is that true?  I thought both were invented in the 1960s...

To be sincere I can't tell you for sure the one that was invented first. But I remember the first time in my life I saw a laptop computer. It was in a computer show in 1985 (not for sale, only demo). It had a colour screen very similar to today's laptops, and I was told it was a plasma screen!

[Kishore]

Like Audio, it depends on the room  

Bright room+light reflections in your room would mean that LCD is a beter fit.  

Newer LCDs are narrowing the gap wrt pic quality with Plasmas...but so far if all conditions are equal (say dark room etc) plasmas offer better blacks, smoother pic, and higher value for larger size-IMHO. You need to stick to major brands for getting bestest pic.

(I don't think resolution is THE most important aspect- I had Pioneer Elite 53" RPTV before, and when I had both plasma and RPTV in my room...all eyes were on the plasma for same feed)

Cheers,
Kishore


 

[SET Man]

Hey!

   Hmmm... interesting

   I'm not a HT buff. And all I have is a cheap Olevia 27" of which I'm very happy with. I did spend almost 3 weeks in Thailand watching my Dad's 42" Pioneer Plasma.... pretty impressive. Seem like the Plasma still have an edge on the black level over LCD.

   But if I had to choose between LCD or Plasma of the same size for myself. I would go for LCD. I don't know why but LCD seem to have smoother picture quality to me of which I like. Well maybe is just me And now the viewing angle of LCD is now greatly improved.

   Oh! and the other big plus for the LCD for me is that it take a lot less energy to run!

Take care,
Buddy

[JoshK]

Plasma luminosity will fade away with time (just like your old TV).

Another claim I have seen that does not seem to be substaintiated in practice.  I have had my plasma for over 5 years, going on 6 and I have not seen any fading.  When I bought it back when and some were saying this, I read an article by an independent source that tested plasmas and said that it would take close to 20 years before you start to notice the fading. 

I will go take a look again at the units in the stores but mostly likely I am still leaning towards the Panasonic 58".  Its $3400 on Amazon (2 G's less than what I paid for my 42" way back then) but I have a line for even a bit less than that.

[PhilNYC]

Another claim I have seen that does not seem to be substaintiated in practice.  I have had my plasma for over 5 years, going on 6 and I have not seen any fading.  When I bought it back when and some were saying this, I read an article by an independent source that tested plasmas and said that it would take close to 20 years before you start to notice the fading. 

My understanding is that the "60,000 hour" specification is a half-life rating, meaning that at full illumination (ie. a completely white picture), it takes 60,000 hours for the brightness on the screen to decrease by a factor of 2x.  I've had one of my plasma TVs since 2002, and I don't notice any signs of fading...

[JoshK]

If you watched 4 hours of TV a day, 365 days a year that would still take you 40 years to reach the half life.  I don't watch nearly that much TV and I had my set <6 years and I am upgrading (42"er is going in the bedroom), which is probably about normal.