Question: Which is better? Plasma or LCD

Which is better? plasma or LCD. I hear so many different rumors about LCD and Plasmsa's. Can someone shed some real light on the subject please?

As far as I believe, there is no "better". There will always be such a thing as a personal preference.

The technical difference is, of course, in the specifications. LCDs generally have higher display resolutions (seeing a 1080p "Full HD" LCD display isn't something extraordinary), while plasma displays have higher contrast rates - and Full HD plasma displays are relatively expensive when compared to LCD displays.

Personally, I've got a Panasonic 42" plasma display and I have to say I'm very satisfied, the picture is very sharp and has very nice colors - definitely an improvement over my old 24" ordinary TV set.

Of course remember that you need proper digital signal for your digital TV in order to see the difference. Don't expect a smashing difference if you're getting your video via an ordinary aerial.

LED. Without a doubt. For PQ and low power consumption, the new LED sets are beautiful.

Remember that price is a factor for many people (myself included). LEDs are unfortunately (as they truly deliver excellent capabilities) very pricey nowadays.

Too true. I'm holding off on HD until they are affordable...

Get a Plasma. They have come down a lot in price and usually are cheaper than LCD's. Also, most Plasmas nowadays are 1080p. Maybe a few years back you didn't hardly see 1080p plasmas but they are common, at least where I am, now.

IMO, plasma's have a superior PQ compared to LCD's of the same price range. When I bought mine, the only LCD's that even compared to PQ were $1000 more. The only thing I would ding plasma on though is power consumption.

This is a good place to read up on what is the best for the money. It helped me out a lot.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=167

For the normal household the 720p Panasonic plasmas are the way to go. 42" for about $650 makes them a fine choice for the average TV viewer. Nice picture, fine reception and excellent reliability. I get asked often for advice. Many older relatives and friends do not have a furniture layout with the TV as the central feature. Many times they are tucked into a corner and all seating positions are at an angle. Trying to convince them to alter the layout is usually fruitless. In this case plasma is the only choice.

A couple of interesting observations:

What we found in both the measurements and viewing tests is that for LCDs the Viewing Angle where there is noticeable picture degradation is a mere ±10 degrees,

The best examples were the two units with the best picture quality: the Sony LCD and the Panasonic Plasma, which were set right next to one another. Their calibrations were both so close that it was frequently impossible to visually tell them apart. But that was true only when standing exactly dead center in front of the Sony unit. Shifting left or right by just one foot at an optimum viewing distance of 7 feet caused the Sony LCD unit to appear noticeably different from the Panasonic Plasma unit next to it, which delivered a consistent picture independent of viewing angle.

Read the whole article here.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2349236,00.asp

My personal preference is LCD and the reasons:

1. Consumption.
2. Less noise.
3. No burn-ins.
4. Higher native resolution.
5. LCDs are lighter.

Having own both LCD and Plasma, my preference is undoubtedly Plasma.

Unfortunately, burn-in remains a major concern.
My 50" Panasonic Plasma still has a burnt image from my Yamaha Network Receiver on screen. Although it is barely visible as startup, I did not anticipate that a static image would burn after only two and a half hours.

Nevertheless, I'm currently loyal to Panasonic. I've owned LCD sets from several brands and the Panasonics have the most desireable pictures, from my perspective.

For watching blu-ray and DVD, I prefer plasma - and I love the Panasonic Professional Broadcast series plasmas. However, I agree that burn-in is an issue. You simply cannot watch pillar box or letterbox content without it starting to burn in just a few hours. They are more sensitive than CRT screens, and it warns you about this in the owner's manual.

For live TV from cable/sat or off-air, I think LCD with LED backlight is the way to go -- also the best choice for computer use and gaming. For most people, I would recommend LCD with LED backlight as a main television.

No mention of picture quality? Lighter... you carry yours around?

Mystic, I am flattered, you got me. Yes, I do use my TV set for excersizing.
The weight question maybe important in some cases (wall mount, changing places, etc.). Though, you might be right, with Jedi-tricks this is a minor issue.

Picture quality difference...what can I say .... a Full HD LCD with BE and WCG CCFL, you won't see any considerable difference.

1. You are correct. Plasma's do eat more juice.

2. Wrong. My Samsung is quite and makes no noise except when I turn it on and makes that Melody sound that all Samsungs do.

3. LCD's get burn-in and image retention too. Happens all the time on my LCD computer monitor. Modern Plasma's have several features that prevent burn-in: orbital, scrolling gray bars, ect.. However, they do suffer from image retention but that is a minor issue in itself.

4. This isn't true anymore.

5. Meh, that may be true but Plasma's aren't so heavy that you can't mount them too.

LCD's and Plasma's both have their pro's and con's but when it comes to price vs PQ, it is Plasma's that are ahead of the LCD's. When I was shopping for a TV, the Sony LCD's and the like were at least $2500 or more that had the same or inferior PQ that my Samsung PN50A650 has, $1500. I know several people that have LCD's and unless they are the higher-end type, they look like dung. 120hz, 240hz, 480hz, Plasma still beats LCD in that department too.

Seems you have a special plasma tv and a special lcd monitor. The world is full of strange phenomena.

All plasma tv sets have a "buzzing" sound, it is natural, it comes with the technology.

LCDs don't have a burn-in. In this case we are talking about image persistence. And is it permanent? In most cases, no. The crystals do have a natural state and can shift depending upon the amount of current used to generate the desired color. As long as these colors do shift periodically, the crystals at that pixel should fluctuate enough such that the image will not be permanently imprinted into the crystals. Having said that, it is possible that the crystals could get a permanent memory if the screen image does not change at all and the screen is left on all the time. It is very unlikely to have this happen as it is more likely to happen in a fixed display such as those seen as display boards for businesses that do not change.

LOL, no I don't have a "special" plasma or "special" LCD as you put it. Not all Plasmas buzz. I have read some people having certain plasmas that buzzed while others didn't. Never heard a buzzing plasma personally and I have looked about at everyone on the floor around town. I own a Samsung PN50A650 and a Dell FPW2405 so nothing special there.

LCD's do get burn-in and you even admitted to it but in most cases as you pointed out, it is fixable. I have seen some severe burn-in in those cases where the panel was only showing one static image over the course of several weeks constantly without ever powering off. Mine in particular, the wall paper usually burns-in and I never notice it until I am watching a video and I see the outline of the wallpaper in the video. I usually fix this by alternating black and white images for a few hours; however, one time it was so bad I had to do it for a week straight running it at night to morning.

TARRA99
As I said before.I like the way PLASMAS look better. However if
you can afford the high end SAMSUNG series 7 [which are led's]
The picture is pretty fantastic. SAMSUNG series 6 with auto motion
are pretty cool,but so are LG'S with picture wizard. [ Which is just
120hz,or more like the SAMSUNGS blur free auto-motion effect].are
pretty cool. So my suggestion would be check them out ask questions,
then make your choice. At least you won't regret your decision later
on.
ENJOY ZAP.

Let's correct something.


Burn in is one of the most commonly misunderstood concepts regarding television displays. Burn in is a phenomenon associated to television products, where a static image left on the screen, over time, can permanently wear itself into the display. This phenomenon is generally associated to phosphor based television displays, such as tubes, CRT rear projection, and plasma.

A common question is if LCD televisions are susceptible to burn in. The most common answer to this question is no, LCDs are immune to burn in. However, this answer is somewhat of a half-truth. It is a fact that LCD displays are immune to phosphor wear, simply because LCD televisions do not use phosphor to create a television image.

LCD displays have certain characteristics that do not make them completely immune to static images. On LCD displays it's kindly referred to as "video memory." LCD panels use a complicated process of organizing liquid crystal molecules into a twisted or untwisted state, which allows polarized light to pass through the liquid crystal substrate. Over time, it is possible the liquid crystals can "get used to" the state of twist they are in, causing a static image, similar to phosphor burn-in, appear on the screen.

You'll only get video memory buildup on an LCD television if you try to do it on purpose.

I wouldn't say, "on purpose". Mine, just having static wall paper was enough.

Which is a static image.

The nature of LCD products makes them extremely resilient to building up a video memory. The only time you're really going to see this issue is in the computer world. If, for example, the Windows or Macintosh desktop was left uninterrupted on a LCD display with no screen saver for a long period of time, it is likely the video memory will build up and possibly be permanent.

As a television, LCD products get enough movement of the image, or cycled on and off enough, that the buildup of video memory is highly unlikely. Leaving static images on an LCD display for a relatively short period of time will have no damaging effect to the display. In other words, you'll only get video memory buildup on an LCD television if you try to do it on purpose.

If someone tells you to avoid an LCD product because of burn in, you can be sure the person you're speaking to was uninformed on the nature of LCD products. LCD is an excellent and robust technology, and should be considered for any TV owner.

There is no need for the television user to concern themselves with video memory because it's just not possible under normal viewing conditions.

I'll add to this as my personal opinion. If PQ and black levels are your main goal with no possible shadowing then a Plasma. If the PQ just needs to be suffice to get by and watch HD content a LCD would do the trick and be a bit cheaper. So it really is what is your personal tastes. Also something to factor is the Plasma's tend to be more power consumptive where the LCD's aren't.

LCD screen is better because it has brighter colors but it's more expensive that Plasma

I would llike to buy LCD but it's expensive! i think i'm ganna stick on the plasma

Well I guess this thread can now be marked 'Solved'.

Ahh come on Mystic, you know he is right.

Anyways, PLASMA RULES!!!!! Nothing else needs to be said!!!

That makes me smile. Anyways, stubborness rules.