Plasma or lcd?

[D]

A friend and a coleague of mine are about to go HD and they're al over lcd, because very few plasma's are sold in the Netherlands.
They're looking for 42". I tell to go for plasma.
There are lots of threads about this on other forums, but I'd like a shmuppers gamer opinion on the matter. I'd like to know about people that know and see the difference between the tv and purposely got one or the other. I have a 50" RP lcd, which is even worst than lcd But I'm not unhappy. Yet I do feel that Plasma is superior in every way possible.
The only negatives are possible screen burn and higher power consuption, big deal. The biggest problem with plasma's is that their resolutions are not always standard. lcd are 720p, 768p or 1080p. Plasma come in every resolution imaginable like 1024X1024 for instance. But resolution is important, but not that important. Plasma has a richer color scheme. better blacks and it's better for moving pictures. I have a tendency to believe that lcd will get a higher vote, because more people have lcd's right?

[Naiera]

Actually, plasma TV power consumption is on par with LCD TV's today. There's nothing to worry about in that regard.

Resolution isn't really a problem either. They have either 1024*768 for 42" (the only 37" 2006 model has 1024*720) and 1365 or 1366*768 for 50"+. Stay away from those 1024*1024 ALiS things; they're not very good. Resolution matters a lot less than some seem to think. 1024*768 is more than enough for great HD on a 42" set; what matters a lot more is better colour reproduction, black levels, the ability to keep up with fast-moving images, and so on.

This isn't much different from LCD either, where it's 1366*768. 1280*720 isn't used any longer.

I would HIGHLY recommend plasma over LCD. They're better in every way imaginable really. Buy a 2006 model and there's not much to worry about with regards to burn-in either, as long as one's just a bit sensible when using the display.

Some can't seem to get past the spec sheet when looking for a TV. That's a mistake. Bring a DVD and demand to have it shown on the TV sets in play on a DVD-player using an HDMI connection. Yes, an HDTV should also be able to show an analogue TV signal as well as the old TV at home; if a TV is crap at SD it's also crap at HD. Don't get fooled by salesmen saying that it's all going to be better when HD is here, or whatever crap they'll spew. If it doesn't show a DVD with the correct colours and a good black level, it won't show an HD-DVD any better.

[D]

Stay away from those 1024*1024 ALiS things; they're not very good.

Why? A friend of mine is about to purchase a Hitachi 42PD8600. which has 1024X1080 alis 1080 panel. It's cheap. Why is it that bad? The pixel are not squares offcourse. but for that price (1200 euro) a 42" plasma.

[Kron]

1080p is 1920x1080.

Plasmas are better at handling SD content but 1080p Plasma's are 3x the cost of a 1080p LCD. A 1024x whatever screen doesn't even have the correct horizontal spread to display a 720p signal natively/at the correct aspect.

[Michaelm]

From what I've read plasma is way more expensive and has shorter life so LCD is still the way to go at the time.

[Naiera]

A friend of mine is about to purchase a Hitachi 42PD8600. which has 1024X1080 alis 1080 panel. It's cheap. Why is it that bad? The pixel are not squares offcourse. but for that price (1200 euro) a 42" plasma.

A Panasonic TH42PX60EN is just as cheap and a lot better. There's just something about those ALiS panels that detracts heavily from the overall quality of the TV. It's not progressive for one. Getting a progressive display is one of the main advantages of flat panels. I saw a couple of Hitachis yesterday at a store, and they were definitely inferior to the Panasonic a few TVs away.

I'd look into the aforementioned Panasonic, or if the money is there, Pioneer's 2006 models (427XA/XD or 4270 if you could do with less inputs); they're even better.

[Naiera]

From what I've read plasma is way more expensive and has shorter life so LCD is still the way to go at the time.

Not true. A 42" plasma (such as the aforementioned Panasonic) can be had for a lot less than a 'good' 40" LCD TV, and the LCD TV will only be good compared to cheaper LCD TV's anyway.

Plasma TVs have lifespans that are just as long as those of LCD TVs today. The half-life time is at 60,000 hours now, which should be more than enough for anyone. And this is still just the amount of hours it'll take before the brightness is down to half of what it was when the TV was new.

[D]

A friend of mine is about to purchase a Hitachi 42PD8600. which has 1024X1080 alis 1080 panel. It's cheap. Why is it that bad? The pixel are not squares offcourse. but for that price (1200 euro) a 42" plasma.

A Panasonic TH42PX60EN is just as cheap and a lot better. There's just something about those ALiS panels that detracts heavily from the overall quality of the TV. It's not progressive for one. Getting a progressive display is one of the main advantages of flat panels. I saw a couple of Hitachis yesterday, and they were definitely inferior to the Panasonic a few TV's away.

I'd look into the aforementioned Panasonic, or of the money is there, Pioneer's 2006; they're even better.

Found it here: http://www.homecinemastore.nl/televisie ... _eur_model
resolution is less: 1024 x 720 But it's only 100 euro more expensive,
Thanks for that tip. You really know your stuff.

[ktownhero]

Well, I'd say got with CRT for the price/quality (still can't be beat), but if you MUST go Plasma or LCD...

You can go Plasma, most plasma TVs are good. This is because not a lot of companies make them, and the ones that do make them well.

If you go LCD - BUY A GOOD LCD - don't go buy some knock-off piece of garbage. There are so many crap LCDs produced, it is absurd. If you are going to go LCD, slap down the cash and get a highly rated name brand. I'm not familiar enough with what is available in Europe to really give you a recommendation on brand.

[Naiera]

Found it here: http://www.homecinemastore.nl/televisie ... _eur_model
resolution is less: 1024 x 720 But it's only 100 euro more expensive,
Thanks for that tip. You really know your stuff.

The resolution on the 42" one is 1024*768. It's the 37" one that has 1024*720, but that's not too important anyway; what matters most is that they both have excellent picture quality. These displays are, of course, also progressive, which any fixed pixel display is, except for maybe those ALiS things

CRT is good, and a lot better than LCD, but I think that, with the last couple of generations from Panasonic and Pioneer at least, plasma has overtaken CRT. And then they have HD, larger picture (but much easier to transport) and such as advantages over CRT. Plus having 2x HDMI, component, VGA and 2x RGB-Scart beats the 2x RGB-Scart a good CRT would have

[Naiera]

You can go Plasma, most plasma TVs are good. This is because not a lot of companies make them, and the ones that do make them well.

Yes, this is correct, at least with regards to most plasma TV manufacturers. A lot of the reason why LCD can seem so bad these days is that the biggest manufacturers, like Sony and Samsung, don't give a hoot about creating good, correct picture quality; they just want to create even more insane colours so they'll look good in display rooms and sell. Panasonic and Pioneer, on the other hand, actually make TVs that try to deliver as correct PQ as the technology can handle. No TV is PERFECT, but the good plasma sets make for some excellent PQ. The aforementioned Panasonic is one of the best selling TVs on the market now, because it's probably the second best 42" (or 37") set out there, and the price is excellent. Pioneer's better, but the price higher.

[Franz the Stampede]

One question: how similar is an LCD TV to a TFT monitor?

Because the really shit thing about TFT monitors is basically that they will have a proper image ONLY at their native resolution, right? Is that the same for LCD TVs? What about lag?


Moreover, I still don't understand why they came up with this bloody component/YPbPr standard, what's wrong with VGA? Why are all the new consoles component ready and not (also) VGA ready (except X360)?

[ktownhero]

Because the really shit thing about TFT monitors is basically that they will have a proper image ONLY at their native resolution, right? Is that the same for LCD TVs? What about lag?

LCDs generally do a very poor job of displaying a non-native resolution, that is why they are not recommended for multi-purpose gaming. But, like I said in my above post, if you are going to get an LCD at least go with a high quality one. Then at least they'll have some better scaling hardware, and won't look as crappy when you decide to play some non-hd games/videos.

[Naiera]

Because the really shit thing about TFT monitors is basically that they will have a proper image ONLY at their native resolution, right? Is that the same for LCD TVs? What about lag?

It's not the same. Fixed pixel displays meant for use as TV's (LCD and plasma TVs) have better scalers. If a source looks shit on an LCD TV, it's not because the source isn't of the same resolution as that of the TV.

Of course, there are flat panel TVs out there that'll show a shit image no matter if the source is 720*480 or 1366*768; those are just shit TVs (personally I'd say 99% of all LCD TVs fit into this category )

[Franz the Stampede]

Then at least they'll have some better scaling hardware, and won't look as crappy when you decide to play some non-hd games/videos.

That sounds like something that increases lag to me. Honestly guys, I'll pass, this technological wave seems pure marketing crap, it's all about selling crap technology to technology-ignorant masses.

I think I'll buy myself a nice CRT monitor and one of those X2VGA converters. I won't even need the adapter, probably, as the only next gen thing that interests me so far is VF5 on X360, which is VGA friendly.

When good plasmas will be cheap, I'll think of one...

[Naiera]

Good plasmas are cheap. The aforementioned Panasonic definitely isn't crap, and it's only a bit more than €1400, even here in Denmark

There are LG and Samsungs out there that aren't crap either, but the Panasonic is better, and they're pretty much all around the same price. Pioneer is the shizzle if what you want is the best TV on the market, but, as mentioned, they're a bit pricey.

[Specineff]

Are you a Panasonic salesman?

Sorry. Couldn't help it. My mom just bought a Panasonic Plasma and that's why I wanted to read this topic.

[Naiera]

I see how one could get that impression

[system11]

Plasma and LCD HDTVs are garbage for low resolution. All of them, without exception. Both can suffer motion blur unless you get a good one (don't believe the specs - TEST one). Plasma burns really, really fast.

I'd go for LCD, Plasma is a dying technology now.
(or better, wait for a good HD CRT, or SED to actually appear)

[Monk 0 Nuggets]

I don't know a ton about either as of right now, but I have been looking into buying one this summer. What is the deal with plasma burn ins? I don't understand what happens and how it happens.

[ktownhero]

Then at least they'll have some better scaling hardware, and won't look as crappy when you decide to play some non-hd games/videos.

That sounds like something that increases lag to me. Honestly guys, I'll pass, this technological wave seems pure marketing crap, it's all about selling crap technology to technology-ignorant masses.

I think I'll buy myself a nice CRT monitor and one of those X2VGA converters. I won't even need the adapter, probably, as the only next gen thing that interests me so far is VF5 on X360, which is VGA friendly.

When good plasmas will be cheap, I'll think of one...

I purchased a 30" Widescreen CRT Sony Wega HDTV only 6 months old for $575 a few months back. One of the best purchases I've ever made. Sure, it is big, but the image quality still blows away all of my friends' Plasmas and LCDs that cost them 4x as much. Not only that, but it runs all resolutions natively so I get great picture quality no matter what the source, and lag is a complete non-issue.

If you don't mind the size, you can't go wrong with a CRT. I found mine on Craigslist locally. I say go for it.

[Naiera]

Plasma and LCD HDTVs are garbage for low resolution. All of them, without exception. Both can suffer motion blur unless you get a good one (don't believe the specs - TEST one). Plasma burns really, really fast.

I'd go for LCD, Plasma is a dying technology now.
(or better, wait for a good HD CRT, or SED to actually appear)

Wrong! Pretty much this whole post is just wrong, at least where you rag on plasma. It's obvious you haven't experienced a newer set lately, or something. Plasma does not burn 'really, really fast'. At least not if you get a good one. I've played 2d fighters on mine, and they look and move just fine.

And what does it matter if plasma is a dying technology? It's still a lot better than LCD, so who cares if LCD might be better three or four years from now? (which there are no indications of, btw, going by the big manufacturer's willingness to create good PQ rather than sets that sell, as mentioned above)

SED is not going to be out on the consumer market anytime soon. Canon backed out so now Toshiba is left with trying to launch it for the professional market. There's really no use in waiting for a good HD CRT, seeing as they're just not made any longer, at least not 'seriously'. It's obvious that manufacturers think that CRT, not plasma, is the dying technology. And in europe they pretty much never came out anyway.

[Naiera]

What is the deal with plasma burn ins? I don't understand what happens and how it happens.

It's not really a big deal any longer. New sets either have techniques that move stationary pixels around so they don't get stuck, or just a really high resistance to burn-in. Or both

Burn-in is a risk when you leave a static image on the screen for longer periods of time. If you were to have something get stuck on a new plasma set, you'd have to leave it on with like a paused DVD for 5-10 hours on end. And even then, any possible 'burn-in' might just turn out to be bad retention and disappear again the next day. As long as you're sensible when using it and don't jack brightness and contrast all the way up during the first 200 hours of use, there shouldn't be much to worry about.

[KBZ]

GO GO CRT!

it's very frustrating to see crt take a back seat when it's capable of the best. Yet everyone is on this "thin" craze that makes no sense.

bloodflowers is right though, a REALLY good HD crt needs to come out. CRT can do HD just as well if not better than lcd or plasma, but no one is making crt tv's that support 720p or 1080p. If you send a 720p signal to these HD CRT's it will display as 1080i. AFAIK, CRT' on the market are only supporting 480p.

A lot of people seem to think that crt can't do HD. Well pc monitors have been doing this forever! Why not televisions too?

[Naiera]

I don't think CRT is capable of the best any longer. It's nice that you can get decently sized sets for good prices, that'll COMPLETELY knock any LCD set out of the water, but when you're buying a big TV, plasma has the advantage these days. Getting a TV bigger than 36" (where CRT stops, and of course they haven't made one that size for a long time anyway) is very, very nice. I wouldn't want to go back to the ol' 32" set now

[KBZ]

size is a two way street. Ever see any plasmas under 42"? Hardly. iirc, size is kept around there since plasma cannot display pixels properly at anything smaller.

anyone have experience using hi quality projectors?

and what IS the deal with component video when we have vga? I don't get it either.

[Naiera]

size is a two way street. Ever see any plasmas under 42"? Hardly. iirc, size is kept around there since plasma cannot display pixels properly at anything smaller.

Panasonic has a 37" 2006 model that is just as good as the 42" offerings.

But you're correct in that they aren't able to make them all too well at smaller sizes. That's unfortunate, but since I don't care for small TVs, I don't really care all that much I'd be fine with an LCD TV in the kitchen anyway.

[Monk 0 Nuggets]

What is the deal with plasma burn ins? I don't understand what happens and how it happens.

It's not really a big deal any longer. New sets either have techniques that move stationary pixels around so they don't get stuck, or just a really high resistance to burn-in. Or both

Burn-in is a risk when you leave a static image on the screen for longer periods of time. If you were to have something get stuck on a new plasma set, you'd have to leave it on with like a paused DVD for 5-10 hours on end. And even then, any possible 'burn-in' might just turn out to be bad retention and disappear again the next day. As long as you're sensible when using it and don't jack brightness and contrast all the way up during the first 200 hours of use, there shouldn't be much to worry about.

Thanks!

[Franz the Stampede]

I purchased a 30" Widescreen CRT Sony Wega HDTV only 6 months old for $575 a few months back. One of the best purchases I've ever made. Sure, it is big, but the image quality still blows away all of my friends' Plasmas and LCDs that cost them 4x as much. Not only that, but it runs all resolutions natively so I get great picture quality no matter what the source, and lag is a complete non-issue.

If you don't mind the size, you can't go wrong with a CRT. I found mine on Craigslist locally. I say go for it.

Farking hell, thanks for the suggestion! I just checkd a few of those out and they seem to be the best thing ever...

Do they work ok with lower resolutions, like old 32bit machines (320×240)?

[ktownhero]

I purchased a 30" Widescreen CRT Sony Wega HDTV only 6 months old for $575 a few months back. One of the best purchases I've ever made. Sure, it is big, but the image quality still blows away all of my friends' Plasmas and LCDs that cost them 4x as much. Not only that, but it runs all resolutions natively so I get great picture quality no matter what the source, and lag is a complete non-issue.

If you don't mind the size, you can't go wrong with a CRT. I found mine on Craigslist locally. I say go for it.

Farking hell, thanks for the suggestion! I just checkd a few of those out and they seem to be the best thing ever...

Do they work ok with lower resolutions, like old 32bit machines (320×240)?

Yeah they work ok with lower res sources. You may find that having seperate picture settings for low/normal/hi res sources will help. I think the biggest oversight with HDTVs is that tweaking is necessary to get the best picture quality out of varying sources. For instance, on a low res game upping sharpness and/or the sharpness filter will likely enhance the image, while on an HD source it will actually detract (cause flicker).

Not going to lie though, because of the higher dot-pitch, those old sources aren't going to really look any better on an HDTV than they do on a regular old tv, but at least with a CRT they won't look like shit. They WILL look like shit on a Plasma or LCD.

Also, when looking at CRTs you may want to ensure that the one you buy works with the various resolutions (480/720/1080) rather than just upconverting everything to 1080. I know, for instance, that Toshiba makes a very nice and affordable CRT, but it just upconverts everything to 1080i. Now, I've never tried it in person - so you may want to test yourself - but I would imagine that that would be hell for some of the regular image sources.

If you can find them around anywhere I would highly recommend a Sony CRT, I still think they are the best.