I have no complaints of any those above, in fact Im amazed why it took this long Flat tv has become a reality! Trinitron has taken it's way a decade while plasma was currently in the process of perfection. I don't understand why people creates some issue such as: it's lack of color purity to some models comparing each other, gray instead of black, it's not black enough!..............We're lucky manufacturer's didn't start manufacturing in black and white!....But a full screen High definition?. and you're still complaining?..........The purpose of video presentation is to represent the highest ratio and to be determine by you as user according to your application, Several manufacturer's has it's own technique and gladly they're not thesame!.But they're all ranked as to high definition monitors......Plasma rules! as far performance is concerned. Be sure enough it's from leading manufacturer's such as FUJITSU: the leader, PANASONIC: made this technology absolute best, SONY: Currently both aesthetic and technology, TOSHIBA, HITACHI, MARANTZ, PIONEER, REVOX, RUNCO, JVC.
Honestly! don't look no further from PHILLIPS, GATEWAY, ZENITH, BEN Q., SAMSUNG, or else you get what you deserve.
If you're application is graphics? or stilled images? computer purposes? LCD does best, I agree with denonjapan!. but PLASMA still the ultimate of both, movie or computer graphics, from color saturation to contrast ratio!. |
Personally, I have skepted myself with this questions many times until I have proven the difference in the long run, Plasma may have screen burn issue, but by far I noticed picture quality stands still, strikingly clear in any angle, definitely no color bleeding as LCD does. LCD on the other hand is quite more expensive, I have no idea why! truly to me, LCD panel is ideal to computer graphics period!, not so quite good in motion pictures or video. Watching movie on LCD is outstanding on CARTOONS but typical movie such as concert DVD most part suffers color bleeding between dark areas and reds and it's heartbreaking!
If you really into performance? I suggest plasma no matter what other's say!..but be very careful!.Plasma is not immune to extreme vibrations when hit! Once screen is defected, beleive me! ain't no such thing as will be fix unless warrantied to brand new one! Plasma glass screen is what's make it's sky high ranking price!.......LCD is immune to vibrations or even being drop that depends! I believed 97% of LCD being release are in good working condition rarely becomes defective, if so,mainly from manufacturers fault. LCD is safe considering around bad kids if something may occur but performancewise? I still prefer PLASMA on the wall. |
I own a 40" lcd rptv and a 42" plasma. IMHO the plasma kills the lcd in pq. Not even close. Like others have said though both have their own merits. |
I saw the Zenith 61" plasma last week and it was impressive. They were selling it for $16K. |
Mr. Johnston, you may want to check out this forum: avsforum.com. There are chat rooms for both Plasma, DLP, and LCD/rpt displays. Be sure to read the FAQ sections in each room. They are very helpful, and will answer a lot of questions that you may have. I am looking at 42/43" plasmas and the Sony GW XBR LCD/RPT 50" that is to be released this Ocotber. Onecall.com has the specs on the sony.
I have looked first hand at these displays and have to say that the Plasma's get the nod in picture quality over DLP and LCD/RPT sets, which are both nice. The plsama's when fed a quality progressive scan or HD sat image are breathtaking.
Hackmaster pointed out that one of the flaws with plasma is poor black levels. The older generation sets indeed suffered this. However the current genreation sets have outstanding blacklevels. The knock I have with LCD/RPT's is that the black level's are a real weakness. Currently Panasonic has a 40" and 45" LCD/RPT that suffers from weak black levels. The new Sony XBR's are said to have improved blacks due to inovative circuit designs. Only time will tell.
Pixelation in plasmas has been greatly reduce and in most of the sets from NEC, Pioneer, Panasonic, and Fujitsu, the onboard scalers do excellent jobs at presenting smooth images without image fragmentation.
Signal source is a key to good viewing on plasma's, as they really show the flaws inherent in poor signal quality provided by most cable companies. Beware the digital cable tag, as the signal is not a true digital feed comnpared to that of Direct TV, Dishnetowrk, or your local over the ari broadcasts (where available). This holds true for both LCD and DLP displays as well.
The consensus at the avsforum.com site is that the Panasonic's are the sets to beat, followed closely by the NEC's, Pioneer, Fujitsu, in no particular order. I am a couple of months out from pulling the triger on a plasma, and the time I have spent on avsforum.com has been invaluable consdiereing the capital investment.
Lastly, prices have fallen dramatically in the last 4-6 weeks on 42" plasma displays. The Pioneer 433CMX can be had for around $4,000 shipped from a number of very reputable on line retailers. I'll send you some links that you may find helpful.
Best of luck,
Rodney |
I have bought a new plasma - Pioneer 433CMX. I think plasmas, especially the last generation are much improved. They do not look 'pixelated' except with a really poor source, such as regular cable. I think progressive scan DVD's look nothing short of amazing. Better than a movie theatre. Yes, black can be a little washed out (see info. on calibration below) - often times the plasmas come adjusted too bright, etc from the factory.
As far as burn in is concerned, if you vary your sources, use different aspect ratios, etc - it's a non-issue.
Plasmas also need to be adjusted, using the Avia DVD and maybe even have a professional calibration done by an ISF tech, but all of these screens should have that done.
If plasma prices keep coming down, RPTV and LCD screens will be dead. Go with the plasma - you can even get a 42" plasma probably cheaper than an LCD. Look at Panasonic, Pioneer, and NEC. Although many nice things have been said about the new Sampo model.
Dave |
When I've been out looking I thought the Pioneer Elite plasma 50"was better than the Zenith. I also liked the Sony rear projection LCD but it was so expensive and the colors were not quite as saturated as the crt competitors (in the same price range, like Pioneer Elite). |
Both have Pros and Cons. Plasma has a better viewing angle (160 degrees), has a faster refresh rate when viewing video, durable screen, and is less expensive in this size range. On the negative side, possible phospher burn-in, reflective glare, altitude issues about 4,000 ft., fan or power supply noise.
LCD does not burn, better picture quality than plasma in this size range and has no refective glare problems. On the negative side, LCD cost more, does not have a protective screen, does not process video as well as plasma, and has a out board power supply.
Hope this helps. |
We work a lot with both plasma and LCD. I can summarize the differences as follows:
1) Typically plasma screens have very poor black levels, and poorer black level retention. This generally results in a poor sense of depth and detail, and also gives the picture a less film-like quality and a more washed out "digital" look.
2) Generally speaking plasma screens exaggerate noise and artifacting and look more "digital" and pixelated. This is particularly noticeable with inferior source material such as VHS, broadcast, etc. It is also noticeable on a budget DVD player which does not have high video bandwidth or particularly good video processing.
3) Plasma displays are not subject to the viewing angle problems that LCD displays are, particularly with respect to vertical viewing angle. If you stand up and then sit down while looking at an LCD display the picture will change radically. This is not so with a plasma display.
4) For reasons attributed to resolution discrepancies, watching cable and broadcast material on a plasma TV is not recommended. The quality is usually poor and of course these sets virtually never include tuners. LCD sets often include tuners and they usually look much better than plasma when watching broadcast or cable TV.
5) LCD's tend to have better brightness and contrast in the sense that they can light up a dark room better.
6) LCD's usually have totally messed up colors - which is to say that they bear no relation to NTSC or SMPTE standards. Generally the color temperature is way off and the colors are not correct as compared to a good CRT. Plasma sets are also guilty of this but less so.
7) Many plasma sets have fans which can be loud. Be sure to check and see if the model you are interested does or not.
8) Viewing distance from an LCD need not be anywhere near as great as from a plasma set, even of the same size.
Now to plug some of my own product lines... I believe the ReVox LCD and plasma TV's we sell are the finest I have ever seen. They both have very accurate colors, and by far the best black levels and black level retention on the market, period end. There is no competing set I have yet seen which comes anywhere close. ReVox has released a 32" widescreen plasma set which retails for $9000 and is superb and in every way superior to the LCD competitors. ReVox also makes a 15" LCD (4:3) panel which is better than any other LCD panel I have seen. They are coming out with a widescreen LCD panel of larger size soon which our customers are anticipating eagerly.
For less money I believe the best looking plasma set on the market is the Zenith. They do not yet make a 32" widescreen plasma display but we sell their 42" which retails for $6000 along with their 50" and 60". It is the best looking plasma for under $10k I have seen and I have checked all of them out. Nowhere near as good as the ReVox but in every way superior to the other plasma's I have seen in the under $10k for 42" category. The ReVox 42" is $12,500, and the 50" is $16,000. The 60" is forthcoming and will likely retail for approximately $30,000.
The Sharp LCD panels are good but vary in quality and as they get larger their black levels and color accuracy begin to degrade.
Freel free to email evan@symphonysound.com with questions or comments. |
Here is a link to a discussion forum with more links to the issue.
http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/electronics/msg071342192681.html
it may help, or confuse even more. BTW, I assue a difference between projection LCD and flat screen LCD. I assume the posted question refers to flat screen LCD. |
I own a Sharp 32 lcd and the Sharp 50 inch plasma. My problem is that I live up in the mountains at about 7500 ft.
Up here the Sharp plasma, (and other brands I tried) buzz like crazy. Its really a pain and its really quite lound. Where as the LCD is dead quiet. Plasma does seem to have to a little better blacks, but the buzzing is driving me crazy. If you are at sea level....never mind. |
Wow lots of questions, but still no answer. So since we are on this topic anyone have any opinions of the new Samsung DLP rear projections? I mean a 50 inch rear projection that weighs less than 100 lbs is only 16 inches deep, and doesn't suffer the same viewing angle requirements of a standard rear projections seems very promising. Am I missing something? |
Any good web sites to compare or get info in general regarding LCD/Plasma technology and brands? |
Sony makes a 60" projection LCD. On an in-store closed circuit demo, picture quality was, to my eyes, better than cheaper plasma's and as good as the better, newest plasma sets. Street price for the 60" seems to be around $5k, which is about what the 42" plasma's seem to be going for. Since even the street price on the 60" plasma is north of $15k, the lcd is a comparative bargain. I also would be interested in some technical analysis and comparisons of the two technologies. |
I have been curious about this issue as well. My (very) preliminary reserach thus far indicateds that plasma may better color but potentialy shorter life, and that lcd has longer life but weaker color quality. The 32" may be the max on the lcd, where we see 50" plasma. I would like to hear from some real experts on this. |
