Why Buy Lcd Over Plasma ?

[madjace]

I have owned a plasma for about 4 years and nver thought i would replae it wih an lcd , well all that changed last week when i saw the SONY bravia 200 hz LCD 46 incer ( i had 42 inch plasma and didnt want to go much bigger if at all ) I was amazed at the PQ and ended up buying the TV I have had it at home for about a wek and truly I am amazed at the performance of it ( in blu especially ) I am still madly adjusting settings all over the place to get Mystar and digital tv Settings right and will hopefully calibrat it soon ( no body here in albury does professional calibrations so have to put up with using the disc when i get it )

[ford]

I can vouch for the durability claim that plasmas are more fragile than LCDs. I might be extremely unlucky but after 3 broken plasmas it's hard to say otherwise.

Oh, and I prefer LCD's picture too . Plasmas are just too soft and film-like. If I wanted a natural image I'd go outside and have a walk. You can turn the backlight on the LCDs anyway, I found reducing the backlight setting from 6 to 3 on my Sony helps reduce the brightness a lot.

And so do I,plasma's to ME looked washed out as do rear pro's.

LCD's are vibrant/alive,and as you said you can turn down the backlight and still have a vibrant picture.

Do not see many plasma monitors around.

As for size it only seems to be an issue with some members (yes I know).

Prior to 2000 most people were quite happy with 20"-26" sets and had been for 50 odd years.

[Owen]

I said almost .5. I was exaggerating because I believe it's easier for people to imagine .5 and not .3.

Anyway 376 x .27 = 101.52. Foxtel is 376 interlaced and your Panel has about about 100 cm vertical viewing area.

Doesn't look good anyway you look at it But I believe it looks good to you which is all that is important.

I have personally seen a lot of bad foxtel pictures. The most common would just be wrong format most are ok but samsung series 4 LCD's 42" and above have a lot of trouble. Alot of the LED's especially sony's XBR. That being said you should see them on FoxtelHD just beautiful.

A 70” screen has a height of approx. 880mm and PAL TV signals, which Foxtel and Austar must be for compatibility with OZ TV’s is 576i NOT 376i, that deinterlacers to 576p.

576 lines over a screen height of 880mm works out at a pixel height of 1.5mm or 0.15cm, not the 0.3 or 0.5cm you claim.

The number of lines or pixels in a TV image has little to do with the visible resolution, the visible “resolution” is always lower then the pixel count and can be drastically lower.

Foxtel –Austar deliberately filter high spatial frequencies and noise in the source to improve compression efficiency, this works very effectively and results in overall less noise and artefacts then free to air TV but at the cost of a softer image.

Quality varies depending on the source (often poor quality down converted NTSC TV), and the bandwidth allocated for the channel or program. The movie channels are quite good and very close to DVD quality.

If you see obvious blocking or banding on Foxtel-Austar your TV is the likely problem, excessive sharpening and or edge enhancement in the display is the first thing to look for.

Native resolution people. Buy a screen that matches what you'll use it for don't be impressed by numbers 1080p is for blu ray

The main advantage of 1080 displays is they permit the viewing of large screens at very close relative distances without the pixel structure of the display being visible. This applies no matter what the source.

For people who will not be sitting close enough for the displays pixel structure to be visible on a 768 TV, there is no resolution advantage in going for a 1080 model, even with BluRay as source.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Owen

[HTD]

A 70” screen has a height of approx. 880mm and PAL TV signals, which Foxtel and Austar must be for compatibility with OZ TV’s is 576i NOT 376i, that deinterlacers to 576p.

576 lines over a screen height of 880mm works out at a pixel height of 1.5mm or 0.15cm, not the 0.3 or 0.5cm you claim.

The number of lines or pixels in a TV image has little to do with the visible resolution, the visible “resolution” is always lower then the pixel count and can be drastically lower.

Foxtel –Austar deliberately filter high spatial frequencies and noise in the source to improve compression efficiency, this works very effectively and results in overall less noise and artefacts then free to air TV but at the cost of a softer image.

Quality varies depending on the source (often poor quality down converted NTSC TV), and the bandwidth allocated for the channel or program. The movie channels are quite good and very close to DVD quality.

If you see obvious blocking or banding on Foxtel-Austar your TV is the likely problem, excessive sharpening and or edge enhancement in the display is the first thing to look for.

I see superior knowledge and must retire my argument . Happily I might ad, I read on this forum that Fox was 376i then I did some math 178cm divided by 16 etc. Obviously I was wrong.

But I still believe Fox looks awful on alot of big TVs. I installed a 55" Sony 200hz Z series tonight. Foxtel looked bad compared to an SD picture on the same TV. But then some of the HD channels looked bad as well, prime and one for example and Blu ray looked exquisite.

I have seen SD TVs (plasmas and CRTs) that Fox really pops on. I am starting to think its the up conversion I'm seeing as artifacts. Can anyone help my dilemma.

[hobey123]

I'm viewing my 50" plasma from about 1.5 meters and I think that is about the perfect distance. I tend to agree with Owen. We also got a 60" a little over a year ago and in the beginning (upgrading from a 68cm crt) we were thinking maybe we had gone too big. After about a week we were completely over that line of thought. It's funny now because sitting at about 2 - 2.5 meters away it's almost as though you could go bigger and I think what Owen is talking about is for a true cinematic experience in the home you certainly would want to go bigger. We were thinking about an 80" or so from about 2.5 meters would look pretty amazing with Blu-ray and the HT turned up.

[Owen]

I see superior knowledge and must retire my argument . Happily I might ad, I read on this forum that Fox was 376i then I did some math 178cm divided by 16 etc. Obviously I was wrong.

But I still believe Fox looks awful on alot of big TVs. I installed a 55" Sony 200hz Z series tonight. Foxtel looked bad compared to an SD picture on the same TV. But then some of the HD channels looked bad as well, prime and one for example and Blu ray looked exquisite.

I have seen SD TVs (plasmas and CRTs) that Fox really pops on. I am starting to think its the up conversion I'm seeing as artifacts. Can anyone help my dilemma.

I agree, Foxtel looks bad on a lot of digital TV’s. LCD’s are pretty much universally bad with poor quality source; it’s a good reason to avoid them IMHO. They do improve with high quality source, but still manage to look very harsh, digital and unnatural, not in any way like film. Plasma’s are normally more forgiving and less artificial looking, but still leave much to be desired when it comes to portraying film like images.

[deltanova]

When will they bring out an 80" plasma?

As you wish ... Panasonic unveils 85-inch plasma TV

Close enough, or should that be big enough, for you?

[madjace]

I see superior knowledge and must retire my argument . Happily I might ad, I read on this forum that Fox was 376i then I did some math 178cm divided by 16 etc. Obviously I was wrong.

But I still believe Fox looks awful on alot of big TVs. I installed a 55" Sony 200hz Z series tonight. Foxtel looked bad compared to an SD picture on the same TV. But then some of the HD channels looked bad as well, prime and one for example and Blu ray looked exquisite.

I have seen SD TVs (plasmas and CRTs) that Fox really pops on. I am starting to think its the up conversion I'm seeing as artifacts. Can anyone help my dilemma.

Not sure on your set up , but I may be abe to help as I have spent quite some time ( in the last week any way ) looking at ways to improve the PQ from my mystar box on my new sony z series lcd , the only thing i can really do to fix the picture is to set the amp to bypass hdmi , which shows austar in it native format ( 576 ) i was converting it to 1080 p and tied everything down from there 1080i 720 p and pypassing the conversion is the only thng that works ( there is a litle less detail but the contrast and colours are spot on ) hopefully this might help

PS I am looking inot a DVDO processor if I can get it at the right price and this may help display the converted austar signal

[Al Leece]

different religions and different sized televisions....

Is there a distinction between these two....?

[Al Leece]

The biggest draw back the sharp and any lcd, including the very latest gazzillion hz refresh or led side lit LCDs, I have seen is the massive washout if viewing even slightly off axis and the issues they have with pans and fast movement. neither of which an issue at all for plasma.

Is this really so, Al? I upgraded from a 66cm flat screen CRT (now a boat anchor!) to a 97cm LCD (Panasonic) and I find I am able to watch the LCD from an angle of about 5 degrees from the plane of the TV if necessary (and it used to be in the apartment we were in.) Moving slightly or majorly off-axis gives no wash-out to my eyes.

Mind you, I have set it up way different to the sales centre, of course: used a Pirates of the Caribbean DVD to set the picture to good lighting, contrast and balance levels, way down on the salesroom levels, and the picture is about the same from any viewing angle.

Anyway, the main reasons I went LCD were the high light levels of the room I am now in - big French windows to my left - the fact that LCD TVs are much lighter than plasmas and that they use less power (run cooler rather than the small money savings.)

More generally on this thread, I think Plasmas look good but I prefer the look of LCDs - personal preference; I never liked the rear projection TVs, either - they were very washed out to my eyes. The LCD is ok on sports, not as good as plasma but certainly livable with once the "enhancement" tweaks are switched off. For me that is the biggest drawback. Even on action films, the LCD is not that different to plasma to my eyes - it is action controlled by camera work, I guess, compared with sports which is camera work driven by the action.

Not that you are guilty of the comment but the idea that one cannot be a home theatre enthusiast with an LCD TV merely displays the entrenchment of ideas in the originator. Just my 2c worth... :-)

Al. (A different one)

[betty boop]

Is this really so, Al? I upgraded from a 66cm flat screen CRT (now a boat anchor!) to a 97cm LCD (Panasonic) and I find I am able to watch the LCD from an angle of about 5 degrees from the plane of the TV if necessary (and it used to be in the apartment we were in.) Moving slightly or majorly off-axis gives no wash-out to my eyes.

Mind you, I have set it up way different to the sales centre, of course: used a Pirates of the Caribbean DVD to set the picture to good lighting, contrast and balance levels, way down on the salesroom levels, and the picture is about the same from any viewing angle.

Anyway, the main reasons I went LCD were the high light levels of the room I am now in - big French windows to my left - the fact that LCD TVs are much lighter than plasmas and that they use less power (run cooler rather than the small money savings.)

More generally on this thread, I think Plasmas look good but I prefer the look of LCDs - personal preference; I never liked the rear projection TVs, either - they were very washed out to my eyes. The LCD is ok on sports, not as good as plasma but certainly livable with once the "enhancement" tweaks are switched off. For me that is the biggest drawback. Even on action films, the LCD is not that different to plasma to my eyes - it is action controlled by camera work, I guess, compared with sports which is camera work driven by the action.

Not that you are guilty of the comment but the idea that one cannot be a home theatre enthusiast with an LCD TV merely displays the entrenchment of ideas in the originator. Just my 2c worth... :-)

Al. (A different one)

hi AL,

yes we have our own reasons for buying was jsut as much asking as wasnt sure myself. And yep if havent looked further in the thread you'll find I bought an LCD as well for the bedroom setup but there only because am limited to 32" in size and lcd is about all you get for that these days.

5 eg I wouldnt see as much of an off axis. In our bedroom if you sit in the left hand side its straight on, and right hand side is a long way off angle (where I sit) even sitting in the middle of the bed is more than 5 deg off axis. its in the right hand spot I notice the washout. And keeping in mind the sharp I bought was probably the best in this regard. looking in store at the LED backed lcds I dont really see them that different in this regard, but perhaps something very set dependant. I understand that LCD as a technology has this limitation whereas my plasma in my main setup you can go pretty much completely off axis and it doesnt washout.

there is a slight explanation here as to why...

http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com.au/lcd_vs_plasma.php

Plasma TV have typically a free viewing angle. This is primarily because light is emanated directly from the sub pixels whereby in an LCD TV light is eminated from the backlight. The backlight is then polarized by the sub pixels to produce colour, in effect causing degradation at angles more than 25 degrees off axis. However with new substrate materials and improving technology LCD TV s can only get better

no sure on the tecnical validity and perhaps that page has a bit of lcd bias. there is this from panasonic who sell both but obviously want to push plasma

http://www.lcdorplasma.com.au/Panasonic_Viera.pdf

I am not sure about the bright room buisness, my main system plasma is setup in a room surrounded by windown one large one and 5 others plus opening out to a light filled staircase and kitchen dining wiht large windows as well. not in the last couple of years plus of owning the plasma ever noticed any side effects of room brightness and we do use for daytime viewing. however with the lcd something noticed straight away if you use the THX optimiser to setup this is easily seen in bright or low light situations in the brightness calibration. I made sure I calibrated to a low light scenario as that is how we would view the lcd in bed anyways. and that not something really bothers me to be honest because of bulk of our viewing in low light for the lcd.

was never a fan of rear projectors either due to their severe off axis performance woulnt work at all in my lounge setup where we have seating head on and left and right. big bulky thngs rp tvs they were too so no place in my setup for them. a good thing panels are slim and light things these days give a lot more options for setup

I would never make a claim that one could never be a home theatre enthusiast with a lcd, hey there'll be quite a few who would say I cant be serious with a plasma in my setup and not a full on 100+" projector and screen

[Al Leece]

Hi, Al,

I am not sure about the bright room buisness, my main system plasma is setup in a room surrounded by windown one large one and 5 others plus opening out to a light filled staircase and kitchen dining wiht large windows as well. not in the last couple of years plus of owning the plasma ever noticed any side effects of room brightness and we do use for daytime viewing. however with the lcd something noticed straight away if you use the THX optimiser to setup this is easily seen in bright or low light situations in the brightness calibration. I made sure I calibrated to a low light scenario as that is how we would view the lcd in bed anyways. and that not something really bothers me to be honest because of bulk of our viewing in low light for the lcd.

Yeah, we mostly watch in dim light, too, but I am home during the day at the moment, so I was pleased to have a nice matt screen to watch without glare. Some blurred reflection at times, but no glare. Nice! And for afternoon footy matches.... Well, a very handy feature (thouugh not as handy as ad-skip, without which 3 of 5 (9 of 15?) channels would be unwatchable IMNSHO

I would never make a claim that one could never be a home theatre enthusiast with a lcd, hey there'll be quite a few who would say I cant be serious with a plasma in my setup and not a full on 100+" projector and screen

I know what you mean - I both despise (the stupidity of) and adore (the information gleaned from) the entrenched warfare one finds in these threads at times I am sure that being a 2-channel officianado, with no surround sound whatsoever, plenty would look down on my HT aspirations, but getting decent sound from TV / video viewing added a lot of value to the sound systems I have bought over the years. The amp and speakers get daily work-outs, of course, and surround sound to my thinking is like setting up a system for an entirely artificial sound field that is far from consistent. Simple = better, I think and stereo does a pretty good job with surround effects.

*dons flak jacket, checks fire hose, hunkers down*

Al.

[betty boop]

Hi, Al,

Yeah, we mostly watch in dim light, too, but I am home during the day at the moment, so I was pleased to have a nice matt screen to watch without glare. Some blurred reflection at times, but no glare. Nice! And for afternoon footy matches.... Well, a very handy feature (thouugh not as handy as ad-skip, without which 3 of 5 (9 of 15?) channels would be unwatchable IMNSHO

~

good point on the matt screen that would help indeed with reflections vs the pane of glass most plasmas use. I know pio did try a dimpled plastic front panel at one stage with only limited sucess, looked pretty poxy in my opinion something they dropped mighty quick. yeah my sharp does have a matt screen aswell.

I know what you mean - I both despise (the stupidity of) and adore (the information gleaned from) the entrenched warfare one finds in these threads at times I am sure that being a 2-channel officianado, with no surround sound whatsoever, plenty would look down on my HT aspirations, but getting decent sound from TV / video viewing added a lot of value to the sound systems I have bought over the years. The amp and speakers get daily work-outs, of course, and surround sound to my thinking is like setting up a system for an entirely artificial sound field that is far from consistent. Simple = better, I think and stereo does a pretty good job with surround effects.

*dons flak jacket, checks fire hose, hunkers down*

Al.

I do love surrounds as well, especially with blu-ray and DVD and the odd movies on TV

but yeah I have a pure 2.0 system for my bedroom too, no surround speakers there, in my opinion often better to go for a stereo system of quality than a much poxier setup becasue your budget has to be spread thinner over 5 more speakers and avr etc. and your right a 2ch system setup well can be pretty effective. there have been a few people come over and listened to my main syste,s over the years who have asked if I have the centre speaker or surrounds turned on due to the really good imaging the main speakers provide

no need for the flak jacket, am sure there will be many that will agree with you.

[IanD1503559705]

I was checking out the local JB HiFi today and they had a wall filled with a mix of LCD and Plasma in increasing size: one of the units was a Pioneer C509. Half of the wall was showing Journey To The Centre Of The Earth and the other half was showing Planet Earth.

I particularly noticed that in the Planet Earth section, most (all?) the plasmas had a noticeable juddering on slow pans, but at least some of the LCDs were perfectly smooth (the 100Hz Sharp Aquos was one of them).

The Pioneer looked very low-contrast in comparison to even the other plasmas, but all the plasmas were outshone by the LCDs for contrast. In one Planet Earth scene, they showed sunrise over the Earth viewed from space: the LCDs showed an incredible gradation of detail, whereas in the Pioneer it was blurred into the blacks and only the brightest parts were visible.

Is this effect only because of the bright lighting in the showroom and perhaps a setup that does not show plasma at its best? Whilst the ambient lighting didn't seem bright to me, it was difficult to compare it against daylight for example.

Just looking at the wall of TVs, I would have rejected the Pioneer as dull and lifeless with bad judder and would have been motivated to buy an LCD instead. Fortunately I'm not yet in the market for one.

[betty boop]

hi ian, very hard to say either way. have to trust your eyes in the end. I've been in the same shoes buying displays 3 times now and it is not easy.

The hardest thing is that most if any shops take little to no effort in setting their screens up., most jsut use out of box settings. also source wise many are well below par with most using internal loops rather than from direct sources.

one JB I visited for instance JB in chadstone I have no idea how anyone could any screen between what they have with the huge amount of flouros everywhere no matter what screen you look at be it plasma or lcd you cant but help staring at a reflection of a bunch of flouros.

best can do is keep checking screens out an buy the one that looks best to your eyes with the knowledge that your likely to improve on how it looks when get it home with even the most minimum of setup.

[vespa]

Hang on I am confused.

I have a small room and need a small TV. I watch heaps of FTA footy. People here are saying not LCD for sport.

So in 32 inch size, what other choice is there ?

I can only afford a 32 inch LCD @ about $1000 and I want a brand name. Do they make 32 inch plasma ??

[djOS]

I was checking out the local JB HiFi today and they had a wall filled with a mix of LCD and Plasma in increasing size: one of the units was a Pioneer C509. Half of the wall was showing Journey To The Centre Of The Earth and the other half was showing Planet Earth.

I particularly noticed that in the Planet Earth section, most (all?) the plasmas had a noticeable juddering on slow pans, but at least some of the LCDs were perfectly smooth (the 100Hz Sharp Aquos was one of them).

That's the LCD "motion flow" style technologies at play - looks great until you want to watch sports like footy or motor racing!

The Pioneer looked very low-contrast in comparison to even the other plasmas, but all the plasmas were outshone by the LCDs for contrast. In one Planet Earth scene, they showed sunrise over the Earth viewed from space: the LCDs showed an incredible gradation of detail, whereas in the Pioneer it was blurred into the blacks and only the brightest parts were visible.

Dont forget, in stores they have very bright harsh fluro lighting which will wash the Plasma's pic out a little and LCD's in torch mode will look better, however if you have nice soft downlights at home you wont be using torch mode and the plasma properly setup will generally look better ... especially if calibrated professionally!

Edited June 25, 2009 by dJOS

[vespa]

So the LCD screens looking poor for sports, has this got to do with them only being 50Hz ?

[Owen]

I particularly noticed that in the Planet Earth section, most (all?) the plasmas had a noticeable juddering on slow pans, but at least some of the LCDs were perfectly smooth (the 100Hz Sharp Aquos was one of them).

What you are seeing is 24 frame per second jitter, its normal. If you don’t see this jittery motion on low to medium panning shots there is motion interpolation going on, and thats generally not a good thing.

Judder is the result of displaying 24 frame per second source at 60Hz, it is not the same as jitter but could be easily mistaken for it buy the untrained eye.

The Pioneer looked very low-contrast in comparison to even the other plasmas, but all the plasmas were outshone by the LCDs for contrast. In one Planet Earth scene, they showed sunrise over the Earth viewed from space: the LCDs showed an incredible gradation of detail, whereas in the Pioneer it was blurred into the blacks and only the brightest parts were visible.

Is this effect only because of the bright lighting in the showroom and perhaps a setup that does not show plasma at its best? Whilst the ambient lighting didn't seem bright to me, it was difficult to compare it against daylight for example.

You are mistaking brightness for contrast. LCD’s have high brightness which makes them stand out in a brightly lit showroom; however they almost all have a poor contrast ratio as their black levels are relatively high.

For a normal home environment even the Plasmas are excessively bright and need to be turned down, the LCD’s are just silly bright and need to be turned WAY down to get a natural and non fatiguing image.

Just looking at the wall of TVs, I would have rejected the Pioneer as dull and lifeless with bad judder and would have been motivated to buy an LCD instead. Fortunately I'm not yet in the market for one.

View a move with dark scenes in a dim or dark environment and you will soon see why the Kuro is famous, just about all LCD’s look like crap in comparison.

For viewing movies under subdued lighting or darkness a bright display is the last thing you want.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Owen

[Wags69]

You are mistaking brightness for contrast. LCD’s have high brightness which makes them stand out in a brightly lit showroom; however they almost all have a poor contrast ratio as their black levels are relatively high.

For a normal home environment even the Plasmas are excessively bright and need to be turned down, the LCD’s are just silly bright and need to be turned WAY down to get a natural and non fatiguing image.

In your opinion Owen, can the Samsung LA55B650 be calibrated to give an acceptable picture? I know its not going to handle motion as well, but if its "dimmed down" or "softened", can the picture still be watchable?

I have a bit over $3000 to spend on a tv and I finally saw the 58B550 plasma today which I quite liked, but the deal on the 55" lcd with the free lcd may be too good to pass up.

The wife wont go to $3800ish for the plasma I reckon, so I was wondering if you thought the 55" lcd was ok

[djOS]

So the LCD screens looking poor for sports, has this got to do with them only being 50Hz ?

Nope, it's the pixel response time that is LCD's problem, most are 5ms panels and just dont change on/off fast enuf resulting in motion-blur.

Edited June 25, 2009 by dJOS

[vespa]

Thanks for explaining that. Now I understand, finally.

[Yankees]

Hi All. Not been on these boards for a while. I am in the market for a new TV at the moment and thought I would ask for recommendations in here rather than starting a new thread.

Main duties will be watching Sports (both FTA and Foxtel), BR through my PS3, and playing games on the PS3.

I am looking for a screen around the 55"+ mark and was leaning towards a Plasma (currently have 3 yr old 37" LCD) given the sports viewing.

Any recommendations on TV's (by their owners ideally) would be greatly appreciated. Budget of around $5K in mind at the moment, but not sure if that is realistic.

Also trying to decide whether to go for a smaller TV and spend the money on a Projector, but I suppose that would be a question for a different thread.

Cheers.

[Owen]

In your opinion Owen, can the Samsung LA55B650 be calibrated to give an acceptable picture? I know its not going to handle motion as well, but if its "dimmed down" or "softened", can the picture still be watchable?

I have a bit over $3000 to spend on a tv and I finally saw the 58B550 plasma today which I quite liked, but the deal on the 55" lcd with the free lcd may be too good to pass up.

The wife wont go to $3800ish for the plasma I reckon, so I was wondering if you thought the 55" lcd was ok

Sammy LCD’s are good as LCD’s go and they are very adjustable so you can get a relatively good picture out of one with some tweaking, but how acceptable one would be is very dependant on the person viewing. Most people will be very happy with one, but if you are a videophile type I can’t see how you would be happy with any LCD.

If you like what you see in the showroom you should not have a problem as a properly set up example will look considerably better in your home.

If movie watching is your thing then the 58" Plasma is still a better option IMHO.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Owen

[Owen]

Hi All. Not been on these boards for a while. I am in the market for a new TV at the moment and thought I would ask for recommendations in here rather than starting a new thread.

Main duties will be watching Sports (both FTA and Foxtel), BR through my PS3, and playing games on the PS3.

I am looking for a screen around the 55"+ mark and was leaning towards a Plasma (currently have 3 yr old 37" LCD) given the sports viewing.

Any recommendations on TV's (by their owners ideally) would be greatly appreciated. Budget of around $5K in mind at the moment, but not sure if that is realistic.

Also trying to decide whether to go for a smaller TV and spend the money on a Projector, but I suppose that would be a question for a different thread.

Cheers.

$5k should get you a 63” Samsung Plasma, buy a good projector and screen will cost considerably more.