LCD vs Plasma vs DLP

[bangbang023 Veteran]

i thought plasma TVs offered better TV watching experience while LCDs are better for game playing because they have higher contrast

Plasmas have higher contrast. Most people recommend LCD's for gaming because games have static UI elements which could possibly lead to burn in.

As for a 32 inch. I agree the difference between 720p and 1080p (or 1080i for that matter) won't be noticable.

But I can honestly say, on my 40 inch 1080p Samsung lcd, the hd broadcasts of 1080i (same res as 1080p) look much better than the 720p stations. You are able to see a lot more detail.

There are few channels that actually broadcast 720p (I only know of ESPN and Fox Sports) and Fox is notorious for their **** poor HD signal, regardless of resolution.

[Hierophant]

Plasmas have higher contrast. Most people recommend LCD's for gaming because games have static UI elements which could possibly lead to burn in.

There are few channels that actually broadcast 720p (I only know of ESPN and Fox Sports) and Fox is notorious for their **** poor HD signal, regardless of resolution.

I thought most people would pick DLP for gaming since it has such a great contrast ratio and little to no motion blur...

Why do gamers pick LCD?

[bangbang023 Veteran]

I thought most people would pick DLP for gaming since it has such a great contrast ratio and little to no motion blur...

Why do gamers pick LCD?

DLP isn't a perfect technology, by far, and the fact that bulbs need to replaced (no including newer LED backlit displays) turns a lot of people off to the technology. Also, older sets had issues with upconverting in a timely manner which would cause input delays for last gen consoles.

Honestly, with flat panel prices falling and Sony pulling out of the rear projection market, I'm not sure how much longer rear projection sets will even be around.

[Joel]

a few changes .. see above.

I have a few large modern flat screen tv's.. and as nice as lcd is (excellent for a pc screen), the picture qaulity for movies/sports/tv/games, doesn't hold a candle to a good plasma .. plasma is vastly superior in black levels, color reproduction, skin tones, and responsive image for high motion scenes.. (I have the LCD in my den, with many windows where glare is an issue, and i can't easily control the environmental lighting)

to me the only downsides are possibly heat (big whoop, my sharp 52'' is nearly just as hot as my panny 42'' plasma) .. cost to purchase (okay a good plasma can cost a pretty penny), and electricity consumption (again big whoop).

If you are more concerned image quality .. instead of silly things like power,heat,cost .. then plasma is king.

My Pioneer 6010 kuro plasma is perfect, and you would be hard pressed to argue otherwise.

I'm going to take wild guess and say you only consider plasmas decent monitors. Most of your "additions" were purely of your own making, and they were badly done.

[tiggerjmp23]

Wow, are there ever still some misconceptions out there. I don't have time to do a 5 page write up but I'll offer what I can in short.

Plasmas: Burn in is not an issue anymore. Ghosting IS on lower end models but all the myths about gas leaks and all the other crap are just that - myths. Lifespan is equivalent to LCD now and anyone who says otherwise is flat out wrong. Most have a 60000 hour halflife which means after 60000 hours, they are half the brightness. At that point you can just crank up the brightness (black level) and contrast (picture) and still have a useable set. Color is unmatched, black levels are superior, glare is a problem because of the glass, and energy usage, although falling is not as good as LCDs

LCDs: While they are technically the "sharpest" out there, to the human eye, a correctly calibrated plasma is more detailed and colorful. Motion is still an issue as well as delay and pixelation during fast motion. LCDs are not the most expensive technology, in fact, they are the cheapest to produce and that's why they are going to replace CRTs as the most commonly bought TV until maybe OLEDs hit the market in 5 years or so. The only real reason they are so expensive right now is the same reason that all new tech stuff is so expensive when it first hits. 1080P. It's new. It's the rage. Nobody f**king needs it, yet we all want it. That's why. It's a buzz word and LCD has it cornered at the moment. There are very few 1080P plasmas out (that are any good anyway) and if you look at their price in comparison to 1080P LCDs, they are MUCH more expensive. Another factor MAY be that there is a short term shortage of panels out there because of the demand over the last year or so. Manufacturers are catching up and this will not be an issue for much longer.

DLP: DLP is going bye bye soon as far as flat panels are concerned. Projectors are a different story. It does a better job than LCDs with motion but it's not as good as plasmas. LED lit DLPs have saved the consumer from having to buy a new bulb and color wheel every 3-4 years but they're still going bye bye because of their girth. Who wants a screen thats 14-18 inches deep when you can have one that's 3-5? The answer: Almost no one. I actually like DLP but it's dated and on the way out.

OLED is next folks. In a few years, you won't be talking about the big 3 anymore, just the big 1. 70-80 inch OLED screens will weigh a measly 40-50 lbs and will exceed all previous specs of the current big 3. Resolution is going to double, triple, quadruple, etc. In 5-10 years we will look back at LCDs, plasmas, and DLP the same way we look at the good old tube ;)

I'm no expert but I do work at a very reputable distributor of all 3 technologies and we sell to custom A/V installers that know their business better than any consumer out there. I'm just relaying what I've learned from 6-700 of them over the last 3 years. If you THINK I'm wrong about any of this, please check your facts and get back to me :)

-J

P.S. - Don't EVER judge any of these by walking into a Fry's or Best Buy. They calibrate their sets to sell whichever one they see fit and they also use crap amplifiers to send a TV signal down 30 or 40 units and you just don't know if you're looking at the first in line or the 40th. This is one case where you really want to trust reviews by professionals and not rely on the philosophy of "test it out yourself" to see if you like it. Normally, especially with speakers and audio, I highly recommend trying before you buy.

[Hierophant]

Wow, are there ever still some misconceptions out there. I don't have time to do a 5 page write up but I'll offer what I can in short.

Plasmas: Burn in is not an issue anymore. Ghosting IS on lower end models but all the myths about gas leaks and all the other crap are just that - myths. Lifespan is equivalent to LCD now and anyone who says otherwise is flat out wrong. Most have a 60000 hour halflife which means after 60000 hours, they are half the brightness. At that point you can just crank up the brightness (black level) and contrast (picture) and still have a useable set. Color is unmatched, black levels are superior, glare is a problem because of the glass, and energy usage, although falling is not as good as LCDs

LCDs: While they are technically the "sharpest" out there, to the human eye, a correctly calibrated plasma is more detailed and colorful. Motion is still an issue as well as delay and pixelation during fast motion. LCDs are not the most expensive technology, in fact, they are the cheapest to produce and that's why they are going to replace CRTs as the most commonly bought TV until maybe OLEDs hit the market in 5 years or so. The only real reason they are so expensive right now is the same reason that all new tech stuff is so expensive when it first hits. 1080P. It's new. It's the rage. Nobody f**king needs it, yet we all want it. That's why. It's a buzz word and LCD has it cornered at the moment. There are very few 1080P plasmas out (that are any good anyway) and if you look at their price in comparison to 1080P LCDs, they are MUCH more expensive. Another factor MAY be that there is a short term shortage of panels out there because of the demand over the last year or so. Manufacturers are catching up and this will not be an issue for much longer.

DLP: DLP is going bye bye soon as far as flat panels are concerned. Projectors are a different story. It does a better job than LCDs with motion but it's not as good as plasmas. LED lit DLPs have saved the consumer from having to buy a new bulb and color wheel every 3-4 years but they're still going bye bye because of their girth. Who wants a screen thats 14-18 inches deep when you can have one that's 3-5? The answer: Almost no one. I actually like DLP but it's dated and on the way out.

OLED is next folks. In a few years, you won't be talking about the big 3 anymore, just the big 1. 70-80 inch OLED screens will weigh a measly 40-50 lbs and will exceed all previous specs of the current big 3. Resolution is going to double, triple, quadruple, etc. In 5-10 years we will look back at LCDs, plasmas, and DLP the same way we look at the good old tube ;)

I'm no expert but I do work at a very reputable distributor of all 3 technologies and we sell to custom A/V installers that know their business better than any consumer out there. I'm just relaying what I've learned from 6-700 of them over the last 3 years. If you THINK I'm wrong about any of this, please check your facts and get back to me :)

-J

P.S. - Don't EVER judge any of these by walking into a Fry's or Best Buy. They calibrate their sets to sell whichever one they see fit and they also use crap amplifiers to send a TV signal down 30 or 40 units and you just don't know if you're looking at the first in line or the 40th. This is one case where you really want to trust reviews by professionals and not rely on the philosophy of "test it out yourself" to see if you like it. Normally, especially with speakers and audio, I highly recommend trying before you buy.

I argue the opposite - only some people need the slim 3-5 inch sets and the ability to mount the screen. I prefer the clearest picture possible, so the depth of the TV is no issue. I'd much rather have a TV that takes up more space but is amazing quality.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

I argue the opposite - only some people need the slim 3-5 inch sets and the ability to mount the screen. I prefer the clearest picture possible, so the depth of the TV is no issue. I'd much rather have a TV that takes up more space but is amazing quality.

But projection TV's simply aren't the best image quality.

[Joel]

I thought most people would pick DLP for gaming since it has such a great contrast ratio and little to no motion blur...

Why do gamers pick LCD?

http://www.google.ca/search?q=dlp+lag+game...lient=firefox-a

I argue the opposite - only some people need the slim 3-5 inch sets and the ability to mount the screen. I prefer the clearest picture possible, so the depth of the TV is no issue. I'd much rather have a TV that takes up more space but is amazing quality.

Not DLPs then.

[Edge00]

The answer is plasma, period.

Every new feature that LCD's are touting is just targeted at making the picture quality match what a plasma can do.

Lifespan? LCD clocks in around 60,000 hours. Panasonics has had plasmas with 100,000 hour ratings and their new plasmas coming out this March/April will all have 100,000 hour lifespans.

Advantage: Plasma

Black Levels? Please this isn't even close. Even the best LCD's have lower Dynamic contrast ratios than the best Plasmas, and thats a dynamic contrast ratio. The true contrast ratio's are far lower.

Advantage: Plasma

Response time? Good LCD's have around a 4ms response rate and poor ones....well lots not even talk about that. Further more even a good LCD when you get really large has problems with ghosting/lag. The LCD has had to introduce 120Hz refresh rates to speed things up on larger LCD's. Basically they double the refresh rate so that things that are 60Hz (which is everything) will look good. And the verdict is still out on movies. Moves are typically filmed in 24fps to maintain a dramatic feel, applying 120Hz refresh rates to that makes a lot of movies look bad, especially if they incorporated a lot of CG effects. Most plasma manufactures don't even mention anything having to do with refresh rates, why? Plasmas pulse an image 60 times a second aka 60Hz, similar to the way a crt tv does. Those frames are refreshed very quickly, nigh instantaneous. There, for all practical purposes, is nothing to advertise......it refreshes.

Advantage: Plasma

Glare? Ok, this might be one area where LCD's have a slight advantage. However, many LCD's have a glossy coating on them now, in my opinion to mimic a plasma, which causes them to have glare like lower end plasmas. Most plasmas now have a

at least some kind of anti-glare or anit-reflective coating.

Slight Advantage: LCD

Power Consumption? If there is any area that an LCD shines its this, most plasmas use at least 30% more power. I tend to discount this because if you have the financial resources for a $2k-$3k TV, are you seriously worried about your power bill?

Advantage: LCD

Size? Most LCD's and Plasma's are about the same thickness, exception being the new Sharp LCD's. However Panasonic showed a larger Plasma that was thinner so....no big difference. As far as screen size goes yeah LCD's can be smaller, but really who is talking about a 26" tv as their main home theater. On the other end of the spectrum plasma tv's are available to consumers at a larger size, which is relevant to your Home Theater. It should be noted that Plasma's are typically heavier, but I contend that you aren't carrying your tv as much as you are watching so....who cares.

Advantage: Tie

Burn in? Um.....please, this is really a non-issue.

The advantages that LCD's tend to have over Plasmas aren't things that make the picture quality better. What is the point of a tv? To watch.

About DLP's, if you want a huge tv that looks good, doesn't need to be mounted, and want to save some money go with a DLP. They are really good options, and if you look at the new Samsung LED DLP's and the Panasonic LiFi DLP's then the lifespan isn't a big deal. The viewing angle is an issue but I don't think most people would have a problem in real life situations....who watches their tv from a 175 degree angle.

[Joel]

The answer is plasma, period.

Every new feature that LCD's are touting is just targeted at making the picture quality match what a plasma can do.

Lifespan? LCD clocks in around 60,000 hours. Panasonics has had plasmas with 100,000 hour ratings and their new plasmas coming out this March/April will all have 100,000 hour lifespans.

Advantage: Plasma

Black Levels? Please this isn't even close. Even the best LCD's have lower Dynamic contrast ratios than the best Plasmas, and thats a dynamic contrast ratio. The true contrast ratio's are far lower.

Advantage: Plasma

Response time? Good LCD's have around a 4ms response rate and poor ones....well lots not even talk about that. Further more even a good LCD when you get really large has problems with ghosting/lag. The LCD has had to introduce 120Hz refresh rates to speed things up on larger LCD's. Basically they double the refresh rate so that things that are 60Hz (which is everything) will look good. And the verdict is still out on movies. Moves are typically filmed in 24fps to maintain a dramatic feel, applying 120Hz refresh rates to that makes a lot of movies look bad, especially if they incorporated a lot of CG effects. Most plasma manufactures don't even mention anything having to do with refresh rates, why? Plasmas pulse an image 60 times a second aka 60Hz, similar to the way a crt tv does. Those frames are refreshed very quickly, nigh instantaneous. There, for all practical purposes, is nothing to advertise......it refreshes.

Advantage: Plasma

Glare? Ok, this might be one area where LCD's have a slight advantage. However, many LCD's have a glossy coating on them now, in my opinion to mimic a plasma, which causes them to have glare like lower end plasmas. Most plasmas now have a

at least some kind of anti-glare or anit-reflective coating.

Slight Advantage: LCD

Power Consumption? If there is any area that an LCD shines its this, most plasmas use at least 30% more power. I tend to discount this because if you have the financial resources for a $2k-$3k TV, are you seriously worried about your power bill?

Advantage: LCD

Size? Most LCD's and Plasma's are about the same thickness, exception being the new Sharp LCD's. However Panasonic showed a larger Plasma that was thinner so....no big difference. As far as screen size goes yeah LCD's can be smaller, but really who is talking about a 26" tv as their main home theater. On the other end of the spectrum plasma tv's are available to consumers at a larger size, which is relevant to your Home Theater. It should be noted that Plasma's are typically heavier, but I contend that you aren't carrying your tv as much as you are watching so....who cares.

Advantage: Tie

Burn in? Um.....please, this is really a non-issue.

The advantages that LCD's tend to have over Plasmas aren't things that make the picture quality better. What is the point of a tv? To watch.

About DLP's, if you want a huge tv that looks good, doesn't need to be mounted, and want to save some money go with a DLP. They are really good options, and if you look at the new Samsung LED DLP's and the Panasonic LiFi DLP's then the lifespan isn't a big deal. The viewing angle is an issue but I don't think most people would have a problem in real life situations....who watches their tv from a 175 degree angle.

You discounted WEIGHT, which is a mounting consideration, and therefore is a con for the plasmas. Don't leave it out just because you feel it doesn't matter. ;)

[notuptome2004]

i know this is a small off topic but as for DLP they are great in theaters they are more advanced i went and saw Rambo yesterday ata new theator witch uses DLP digital projectors the new ones they offer for cinema . so i will pots what i posted in a thread i made witch got no reponses wondering if anyone has seens a movie in a DLP digital theator

today i went to the Cinimark theater here http://www.cinemark.com/century_showtimes....ndango_id=AAUNH

at Clackamas town center at sunnyside Oregon to watch Rambo and WOW i never seen a movie look as good as a DLP presentation the people there that worked there told me cause i asked about the DLP vs Standard screens and they said there DLP projectors use the latest DLP chips but they are outputting at 4067x6700 Rez well i dont know the real number but they said it is 2x or more of 1080P projection screens in your home and or TV and older DLP based theaters . the Colors was so perfect skin tones you name it lighting and everything and the detail was great

[.exo.]

I'll go with LCD next. I've read that they use the least amount of electricity and also seeing how the price of LCD displays have been dropping, this will definitely be the next route for me.

[MrKuro]

The answer is plasma, period.

Every new feature that LCD's are touting is just targeted at making the picture quality match what a plasma can do.

Lifespan? LCD clocks in around 60,000 hours. Panasonics has had plasmas with 100,000 hour ratings and their new plasmas coming out this March/April will all have 100,000 hour lifespans.

Advantage: Plasma

Black Levels? Please this isn't even close. Even the best LCD's have lower Dynamic contrast ratios than the best Plasmas, and thats a dynamic contrast ratio. The true contrast ratio's are far lower.

Advantage: Plasma

Response time? Good LCD's have around a 4ms response rate and poor ones....well lots not even talk about that. Further more even a good LCD when you get really large has problems with ghosting/lag. The LCD has had to introduce 120Hz refresh rates to speed things up on larger LCD's. Basically they double the refresh rate so that things that are 60Hz (which is everything) will look good. And the verdict is still out on movies. Moves are typically filmed in 24fps to maintain a dramatic feel, applying 120Hz refresh rates to that makes a lot of movies look bad, especially if they incorporated a lot of CG effects. Most plasma manufactures don't even mention anything having to do with refresh rates, why? Plasmas pulse an image 60 times a second aka 60Hz, similar to the way a crt tv does. Those frames are refreshed very quickly, nigh instantaneous. There, for all practical purposes, is nothing to advertise......it refreshes.

Advantage: Plasma

Glare? Ok, this might be one area where LCD's have a slight advantage. However, many LCD's have a glossy coating on them now, in my opinion to mimic a plasma, which causes them to have glare like lower end plasmas. Most plasmas now have a

at least some kind of anti-glare or anit-reflective coating.

Slight Advantage: LCD

Power Consumption? If there is any area that an LCD shines its this, most plasmas use at least 30% more power. I tend to discount this because if you have the financial resources for a $2k-$3k TV, are you seriously worried about your power bill?

Advantage: LCD

Size? Most LCD's and Plasma's are about the same thickness, exception being the new Sharp LCD's. However Panasonic showed a larger Plasma that was thinner so....no big difference. As far as screen size goes yeah LCD's can be smaller, but really who is talking about a 26" tv as their main home theater. On the other end of the spectrum plasma tv's are available to consumers at a larger size, which is relevant to your Home Theater. It should be noted that Plasma's are typically heavier, but I contend that you aren't carrying your tv as much as you are watching so....who cares.

Advantage: Tie

Burn in? Um.....please, this is really a non-issue.

The advantages that LCD's tend to have over Plasmas aren't things that make the picture quality better. What is the point of a tv? To watch.

About DLP's, if you want a huge tv that looks good, doesn't need to be mounted, and want to save some money go with a DLP. They are really good options, and if you look at the new Samsung LED DLP's and the Panasonic LiFi DLP's then the lifespan isn't a big deal. The viewing angle is an issue but I don't think most people would have a problem in real life situations....who watches their tv from a 175 degree angle.

I very much agree .. i love how people tout lcd's good features .. lighter, better on power, thinner maybe? ... while the thing that really matters, picture quality they cannot match a good plasma, and in most cases they try to replicate that look (120hz.. no thanks)... read up on the pioneer kuros for a better idea of a great tv

... if you care about the picture .. aka what matters (natural colors, dark blacks, great shadow detail, no motion lag, etc)... then plasma is the way to go ...

[Edge00]

You discounted WEIGHT, which is a mounting consideration, and therefore is a con for the plasmas. Don't leave it out just because you feel it doesn't matter. ;)

Since they aren't significantly different in weight, I don't feel its a big concern.

Samsung 50" Plasma weighs 97lbs

Samsung 52" LCD weighs 74.7lbs

Plasma/LCD Mount - holds up to 200lbs

Panasonic TH-65PZ750U - this is the largest plasma I could find, and it still only weighs 181lbs. Besides that tv is nearly $9k, if you can afford that tv, mounting isn't really that large of an obstacle.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

In your posted example, there's over a 20% difference in the weight between the two. That's a significant number. Not only do people have to worry about their walls being able to support such weight (depending on the construction materials), but it also makes it much more difficult to hang. I love plasmas, but I hate having to hang them up at work because of how much heavier they are.

[Quickstrike]

I would go Plasma. Pioneer Kuro.

I bought one of the highest end LCD's a few months back (Samsung LNT-4671F) and have been regretting my decision.

These things look impressive on the showroom floor when bright lights are hitting it, but at home in a dim, light controlled room, a plasma is superior.

The viewing angle is terrible compared to Plasma... the motion blur gets to you after awhile... the blacks are dark grey... because of the motion blur, plasma's are much sharper when there is motion. LCD's can have a sharper picture with still images, but TV's are meant for motion -- not slide shows.

It is amazing how insanely bright they are out of the box!! Ended up turning the back light down to 4, brightness down to 45, and picture settings to standard.

Dynamic settings @ the default 10 back light is blinding!

The picture does look very good when no comparisons are made... but next to a high quality Pioneer TV you will notice how much the contrast is lacking, the motion is blurred and how poor the viewing angles are.

Hopefully I can sell this thing used without much money lost. If not, I will have to stay away from electronic stores and just live with it.