TVs - Plasma vs LCD

[prawn_86]

Hi all,

Just wondering on members experinces out there. I am looking at buying a new TV, around the 100cm size and am confused by the whole plasma vs lcd thing.

At this stage my research indicates that it is pretty much a toss of the coin for me to decide which type to buy, as there are pros and cons to both, expecially with improved LCD technology

Any other comments out there...

 

[doctorj]

Re: TVs - Plasma Vs. LCD

Depends what you're going to use it for (sports?) and where the TV is going to be (is it a bright room?)....

 

[sam76]

Anything under 40" it's a free choice.

Anything over 40" Plasma.

If you watch a lot of sport/fast paced tv (action movies etc...) then Plasma is the go.

Watch out for the high contast on LCD's in the shops (which are naturally brighter then your typical family home)

Check out Panasonic website they have a comparison of Plasma v's LCD

(Pana sell both so it's pretty unbiased)

Also check out http://www.dtvforum.info/ - pretty good info there

 

[motorway]

Re: TVs - Plasma Vs. LCD

I went for plasma , 127cm ,

Better contrast
Better with fast motion

LCD's are getting better and better

But even at 100 cm I found Plasma the better option

LCD can look better in a show room ( because of the strong lighting.. causing reflection ) and when a fairly stationary scene is playing on a loop

All screens are getting better and better

But I went for plasma because I found it superior to my eyes

and comparing with the neighbours high end LCD
both sets in ideal positions
even more so




motorway

 

[prawn_86]

Re: TVs - Plasma Vs. LCD

Depends what you're going to use it for (sports?) and where the TV is going to be (is it a bright room?)....

Room will be dark if it needs to be, even during the day.

Will be watching general TV, plus a good dose of sports, video games (Wii) and some dvd movies

 

[sam76]

The best TV on the market is the mighty Pioneer Kuro (which recently had a price drop)

The second best TV on the market is Panasonic 50pz700a

Good luck with what you choose.

You'll never regret upgrading a tv

 

[doctorj]

I went plasma for the reasons already mentioned and would go plasma again - but then I primarily use it for sports.

 

[prawn_86]

Cheers guys,

I am leaning towards plasma.

I suppose it is also best to stick to a known brand, rather than the cheap knock offs? or are the cheap ones just as good?

 

[motorway]

I think you get what you pay for

For me it came down to
the Pioneer or the Panasonic

went for the Pioneer

motorway

 

[sam76]

Cheers guys,

I am leaning towards plasma.

I suppose it is also best to stick to a known brand, rather than the cheap knock offs? or are the cheap ones just as good?

No. That's why they are cheap.

How much do you want to spend Prawn?

 

[sam76]

Depending on how long you want to keep it for:

You will need at least 3 HDMI ports

To truly future proof, go for 1080P or at a minimum 1080i

 

[prawn_86]

At this stage i am tossing up between a Panasonic Viera or an NEC.

Both 42" with 1 HDMI slot

However the Viera has 1080p (not that i know what that is ) whereas the NEC does not.

The Veira is $200 more expensive, but it is what i am leaning towards...

 

[Sprinter79]

I'd still go for a CRT. We bought an LG CRT WideScreen just under a year ago, and have never had a problem.

The picture you get from a CRT is superior to both Plasma and LCD, but the weight and the size of them make them unpopular.

 

[Nyden]

You mentioned video games; to me, that says LCD immediately. I know I certainly leave mine sitting at the menu screen for periods of time ... imagine if you forgot for an hour! Perhaps they have screen savers, though?

I'm very pro-LCD, many reasons I guess.

• Less power usage (in many cases, at least)
• No image burn-in issues
• Long-life (LCD TV's don't die, they merely need the light to be replaced eventually ... Plasma TVs die, flat dead)

However, there is the issue of price. A 100cm plasma would be relatively cheap, but to buy a true high def LCD 1080p (that means a higher resolution, as many LCD TVs are not high res, & only have a resolution of 720 (the amount of lines displayed) ... which is just crap) with a good contrast ratio, & minimal response time, will set you back a few thousand.

Oh ... & the Wii doesn't display true high def either ... if that helps your decision! You'll need to buy new cables as well, if you want to at least enjoy 480i. MK looks alright though on LCD

 

[doctorj]

I'm very pro-LCD, many reasons I guess.

• Less power usage (in many cases, at least)
• No image burn-in issues
• Long-life (LCD TV's don't die, they merely need the light to be replaced eventually ... Plasma TVs die, flat dead)

I've heard from a number of sources that power usage of an LCD is comparable to plasma. A quick google turns up http://whychooseplasma.com.au/html/tpd_power_consumption.cfm

However, burn in can be an issue with plasma - particularly those pesky station watermarks.

 

[Prospector]

Plasma's are better for fast action, like sports. LCD's are much cheaper. We have a plasma at home (Panasonic Viera HD) for almost 2 years and love it. We watch A LOT of sport. We have an LCD in a furnished IP. It is fine!

When I was doing the research for it, I found out that you can't go on what it looks like in the showroom, because the sales people can tweak the picture in order to move brands they have an excess of. Far better to go with the recommendations of people in ther homes. Panasonic seems to be very reliable, which was why I got that brand.

The burn-in problem has been long gone, so dont use this as a reason not to buy a plasma. We have left the picture on still for several minutes and have never had any problems. Nor with the station's watermarks.

And while I am all for saving dollars on electricity usage, I wouldnt use this as a major criteria in deciding what to buy.

You will love it, especially if you also combine it with a PVR, and have foxtel IQ! God I love technology!

 

[Nyden]

[/LIST]I've heard from a number of sources that power usage of an LCD is comparable to plasma. A quick google turns up http://whychooseplasma.com.au/html/tpd_power_consumption.cfm

However, burn in can be an issue with plasma - particularly those pesky station watermarks.

It all depends on the use ... certain things cause either to use extra power, but I was under the impression that it was the general consensus that on average, the LCD came out as more energy-efficient.

 

[Nyden]

Plasma's are better for fast action, like sports. LCD's are much cheaper. We have a plasma at home (Panasonic Viera HD) for almost 2 years and love it. We have an LCD in a furnished IP. It is fine!

Think you got that backwards Prospector! A 100cm Plasma will set you back about 2k, whilst the same size in true high def LCD will set you back about 3.

 

[prawn_86]

However, burn in can be an issue with plasma - particularly those pesky station watermarks.

Have you noticed this with yours or others Doc? As i was wondering about this.

Also, how prominent is the burn in?

 

[motorway]

You always have to DYOR

But power usage can be presented in various ways


A back light on a LCD is always lit

While if a scene has a fair amount of black ( and most do )
Then those pixels on a plasma are not lit

ie you can not assume all the pixels on a plasma are drawing 100% power

half life of plasma is so great now that

life span is not a problem ( what 15+ years of normal use )

My nephew plays a playstation on the plasma

looks awesome

burn in........is I think overstated
logos are not a problem ( no issues with mine )

But even so I would not leave a static image for long periods

motorway