Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Plasma vs LCD
12
Plasma vs LCD
2008-05-28, 1:54 PM #1
I'm planning on buying a new HDTV within the next month or so and I've been reading up on which would be better to get, LCD screen or plasma screen. From what I've read, LCD has a better resolution, image sharpness, lifespan, power usage and are lighter weight while plasma has better color depiction, better image clarity, larger viewing angle, better price to size ratio, and won't blur the image during fast moving scenes.

A lot of the articles I've read have suggested LCD for gaming (because of the burn-in risk with plasma)and plasma for home theatre systems, but what is Massassi's take on the subject?
2008-05-28, 1:56 PM #2
I'd suggest an LCD TV if only because Plasma TVs as I recall have shorter lifespans on average and require periodic maintenance/adjustment.
2008-05-28, 1:58 PM #3
I've got a 46" LCD TV at my apartment - the thing lights up the room in the middle of the night easily. I don't notice any real problems with blurring during high-action scenes, and it does just fine with videogames and the like. I recommend going with LCD, myself.
the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot - LC Tusken
2008-05-28, 2:00 PM #4
LCD.

Plasma causes blurs when it's daylight.

My only quarrel with LCD is that you have to configure it to set on different light settings (It's way to bright at night when all the lights off. I have to go in and set it to "Nighttime" for it to not burn the eyes).
2008-05-28, 2:07 PM #5
LCD is superior in nearly every way except price.
2008-05-28, 2:13 PM #6
Originally posted by Anovis:
LCD.

Plasma causes blurs when it's daylight.

My only quarrel with LCD is that you have to configure it to set on different light settings (It's way to bright at night when all the lights off. I have to go in and set it to "Nighttime" for it to not burn the eyes).

My TV (Sony Bravia KDL-37M3000 37" LCD) has an "ambient light sensor" that automatically adjusts the brightness based on, well, the ambient light. Not sure how common that feature is but it's kind of neat. The lighting conditions in the room my TV is in are almost always the same, though, so I don't get much use out of it.

I vote LCD, for the reasons the others have posted.
2008-05-28, 2:14 PM #7
In this day and age, aren't LCD much better at preventing issues such as ghosting, atleast when it comes to standard, quality products? Maybe it's personal experience, but the once-common blurry-motion issues of LCD displays from ~2000 seem to have almost disappeared in nowaday product lines. On the other hand, do plasma TVs still have concerns of "burnt-in" images?
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2008-05-28, 2:15 PM #8
LCD tvs major drawback is that they have ****ty contrast.
2008-05-28, 2:26 PM #9
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
LCD is superior in nearly every way except price.


Really..? Even in contrast and trying to produce the color black (color saturation)?
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2008-05-28, 2:29 PM #10
I would say go LCD. They're getting much better with the refresh rates (120 Hz now), their contrast ratio is improving, they don't weight 24000 lbs, and everything else.
2008-05-28, 2:32 PM #11
Originally posted by Demon_Nightmare:
...they don't weight 24000 lbs, and everything else.


We're talking about television sets, not mb.
2008-05-28, 2:56 PM #12
Originally posted by ECHOMAN:
Really..? Even in contrast and trying to produce the color black (color saturation)?

No, plasma is better at color reproduction. You have to pay a lot for an LCD that is wide gamut.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-05-28, 3:03 PM #13
Originally posted by ECHOMAN:
Really..? Even in contrast and trying to produce the color black (color saturation)?


Most LCDs nowadays have the ability to selectively control parts of the backlight to produce a much richer black color.
2008-05-28, 3:10 PM #14
Originally posted by Rob:
LCD tvs major drawback is that they have ****ty contrast.

Sorta. A lot of them have 3000:1 and up.

Originally posted by Emon:
No, plasma is better at color reproduction. You have to pay a lot for an LCD that is wide gamut.

Blacks mainly, and they've made a workaround that makes blacks and other colors in LCDs much much better.

I'd say go LCD if you need it now, but the first SED displays are supposed to roll out soon (got caught up in legalities, now they're done), and OLED displays are popping up with insane specs, though for insane prices.

Your call.
D E A T H
2008-05-28, 3:10 PM #15
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
Most LCDs nowadays have the ability to selectively control parts of the backlight to produce a much richer black color.

Er, no, they don't. High gamut LCDs that have LED arrays to control the backlighting are very expensive. The NEC line of LCDs with SpectraView run around $1,200 for 21" models.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-05-28, 3:14 PM #16
Originally posted by Emon:
Er, no, they don't. High gamut LCDs that have LED arrays to control the backlighting are very expensive. The NEC line of LCDs with SpectraView run around $1,200 for 21" models.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_contrast_ratio dynamic contrast ratio.
D E A T H
2008-05-28, 4:02 PM #17
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_contrast_ratio dynamic contrast ratio.

The displays I've seen with dynamic contrast have been horrible. The switch is incredibly noticeable and distracting. I don't know if they're all like that, mind you.
2008-05-28, 4:07 PM #18
I use mine all the time with it on, and I have never seen anything distracting at all. It makes the blacks far... blacker and I never notice any "switching" effect.
2008-05-28, 4:09 PM #19
Originally posted by Aglar:
The displays I've seen with dynamic contrast have been horrible. The switch is incredibly noticeable and distracting. I don't know if they're all like that, mind you.

IIRC, all the Dell FPW line uses it, and it's wonderful. Everyone I've seen with it on works pretty well from what I can see.
D E A T H
2008-05-28, 4:43 PM #20
unless you only watch in a room with dimmed lights and no sunlight coming in at all i say go for the LCD

plasmas don't give the best picture with alot of light in the room
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2008-05-28, 5:18 PM #21
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_contrast_ratio dynamic contrast ratio.

That controls the entire backlight, not just portions of it.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-05-28, 5:19 PM #22
New LCD models are constantly being released. Newer Samsung and Sony LCDs now have a 120 mhz refresh rate that's great for gaming and movies with a lot of movement. This Samsung model has a 25k contrast ratio. I don't remember seeing a new Plasma model released for a long time.
2008-05-28, 5:34 PM #23
the 120Hz (not MHz) thing only has one advantage

it's a multiple of both 60 and 24 so it allows movies that support it (blurays hd dvds and i think some dvds) to run in 24p mode which displays the correct framerate for film

the 120Hz interpolation modes (sony calls it motionflow not sure about the others) are garbage
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2008-05-28, 8:10 PM #24
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
I use mine all the time with it on, and I have never seen anything distracting at all. It makes the blacks far... blacker and I never notice any "switching" effect.

Interesting. I have an LG L204WT 22" LCD for my PC and the monitor is great, but the dynamic contrast is terrible. You know how in games with HDR when you go from sunlight to a dark room it takes a second or two for your "eyes" to adjust? The dyanmic contrast on this monitor works the same way. It's annoying and I just disable it.

Cool if other displays can pull it off, though. It's a good idea in theory.
2008-05-28, 8:15 PM #25
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi:
Sorta. A lot of them have 3000:1 and up.


Doesn't your average CRT have a contrast ratio of something like 10,000:1?
2008-05-28, 9:12 PM #26
Your average crt is a big enclosed box. Black is the color of the inside of the box.

So yes. Crts have good contrast.
2008-05-28, 9:35 PM #27
CRTs generally have the absolute best contrast ratios of course the technology has pretty much been phased out on the high end side (people wanting to drop big bucks for an HDTV want a large 1080p screen largest CRT was a 40" model from sony)
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2008-05-28, 10:48 PM #28
For sheer contrast and gamut, high end CRTs (which are rarely available anymore) still destroy high end LCDs. By "high end" I mean for graphic artists who stare at Photoshop all day for their job.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-05-28, 11:15 PM #29
Originally posted by DrkJedi82:
(largest CRT was a 40" model from sony)


and it was one heavy son of a *****
"Nulla tenaci invia est via"
2008-05-29, 12:56 AM #30
304 pounds not counting the stand (which weights 69lbs)... it's a fun day any time i need to get behind mine... scooting it from it's corner isn't easy

and emon... we're talking about TVs and you bring up computer monitors... *shakes head*
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2008-05-29, 5:16 AM #31
I can't stand to look at a curved screen anymore.
2008-05-29, 6:54 AM #32
Talking about monitors again, but CRTs are a lot better if you're working with images. The curve and the blurriness don't really affect what you're doing too much. But when you edit text, well... I'd give my left nut for 3 30" LCDs and I wouldn't even care what the contrast ratios, refresh rates or color quality were.
2008-05-29, 7:14 AM #33
Don't they make CRTs with a flat screen now anyway?
nope.
2008-05-29, 7:19 AM #34
I'd stick with LCD, from what I've been reading there are a lot of companies moving away from plasma as they don't see a future in it.
People of our generation should not be subjected to mornings.

Rbots
2008-05-29, 7:38 AM #35
Originally posted by Baconfish:
Don't they make CRTs with a flat screen now anyway?


No, they just have a longer tube. CRTs use a point electron source so it's actually impossible to make them completely flat.
2008-05-29, 7:45 AM #36
My plasma is beautiful, I absolutely love it, however.. I didn't pay for it.

If money's no object whatsoever, go for the plasma, otherwise go for the LCD.
"If you watch television news, you will know less about the world than if you just drink gin straight out of the bottle."
--Garrison Keillor
2008-05-29, 7:47 AM #37
Originally posted by Jon`C:
No, they just have a longer tube. CRTs use a point electron source so it's actually impossible to make them completely flat.


Thats what I reckoned, just thought I'd check.

:P
nope.
2008-05-29, 1:00 PM #38
Well, they have flat screens on the outside. On the inside it's still curved, but they shape the glass so that the image appears flat.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-05-29, 1:16 PM #39
well, if you used a high-density gamma source and a kilometer-long tube you'd get it almost flat.
2008-05-29, 1:21 PM #40
Pretty sure it's more practical to just lens the image. :P
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
12

↑ Up to the top!