LCD or Plasma?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"The Weary Wizard" <mark_holliday12@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:1099099569.606822.212980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Whilst looking at the array of new LCD and plasma televisions out
> there, I became unsure of the differences between the two. Friends and
> workmates all seem to have conflicting ideas on the subject too.
>
> What *are* the chief differences between the two platforms, and which
> is better?
>
> Advice appreciated.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> http://www.e2save.com/?money4me443396
>
>

LCD. Why would you want to pay thousands of dollars for a plasma whose
brightness will start fading from the day you buy it and eventually go out.
However, LCD's are expensive. The Sharp 37 inch is nice. If you can't
afford it go with LCD projection or a 34" Sony CRT. LCD prices will come
down every year if you want to wait.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> LCD. Why would you want to pay thousands of dollars for a plasma whose
> brightness will start fading from the day you buy it and eventually go out.
> However, LCD's are expensive. The Sharp 37 inch is nice. If you can't
> afford it go with LCD projection or a 34" Sony CRT. LCD prices will come
> down every year if you want to wait.

Wrong. The lifespan of a plasma screen is in the same ballpark as an
LCD - 60,000 hours or more.

I have been researching/weighing plasma vs direct view LCD vs DLP RPTV
vs LCD RPTV for some months now. The microdisplay RPTVs have drawbacks
in viewing angles, size/bulk, expensive bulb to replace every few years,
rainbows for DLP, poorer black levels for LCDs. So I decided against RPTVs.

Between Plasma and direct view LCD, there are tradeoffs. The key is
how will the TV be used? Watching DVDs, TV, or playing a lot of video
games? Plasmas offer better black levels (especially the Panasonics), no
issues with motion smear or viewing angles, more of a looking through
the window effect. Direct view LCDs offer higher pixel resolutions, no
burn-in concerns which make them a better choice if one is playing a lot
of video games. But even the best LCD TVs - Sharp Aquos G series, the
new Sonys - which have gone a long way in addressing the motion smear
problem still suffer from poorer black levels. Meanwhile, the better
plasma makers have been reducing power consumption while improving
resistance to burn-in and lifespan. Neither display technology is
standing still.

After a lot of research (www.avsforum.com is invaluable) and spending
way too much time stopping off at BBs, CCs, Tweeters, etc, I am planing
to buy a plasma TV. There have been significant price cuts in plasma TVs
in just the past few months which is a plus. I'm waiting for some
concrete news on whether Panasonic will release new PXS30 consumer
models soon or not. The commercial 7UYs were released a month ago.
Pioneer also has new models coming out soon.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"The Weary Wizard" <mark_holliday12@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:1099099569.606822.212980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Whilst looking at the array of new LCD and plasma televisions out
> there, I became unsure of the differences between the two. Friends and
> workmates all seem to have conflicting ideas on the subject too.
>
> What *are* the chief differences between the two platforms, and which
> is better?
>
> Advice appreciated.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> http://www.e2save.com/?money4me443396
>

If you can afford it, this is is the newest and the best LCD, upgrades
pictures to 1080p.


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1429898,00.asp

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Alan Figgatt <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in
news:4vmdnbvegpAgvx7cRVn-vA@comcast.com:

>> LCD. Why would you want to pay thousands of dollars for a plasma
>> whose brightness will start fading from the day you buy it and
>> eventually go out. However, LCD's are expensive. The Sharp 37 inch is
>> nice. If you can't afford it go with LCD projection or a 34" Sony
>> CRT. LCD prices will come down every year if you want to wait.
>
> Wrong. The lifespan of a plasma screen is in the same ballpark as an
> LCD - 60,000 hours or more.
>
>

I don't know where you are getting your information, probably from a plasma
salesman.

http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/lcd-vs-plasma.asp

Product Life-span

Typical plasma TVs have a life span of 20,000 to 30,000 hours, which
equates to at least two years, three months of 24/7 usage before the TV
fades to half the original brightness.

LCD TVs life span is typically 50,000-60,000 hours, which equates to at
least 5 years of 24/7 use.

LCD TVs run nearly twice as long as plasma.


www.smarthouse.com.au/articlesbytopic/homecinema/lcdand...

Plasmas typically begin to lose their brightness and picture intensity
after 30,000 hours of use.


http://www.cheap-plasma-tv.com/lcd-vs-plasma-tv.htm


Television Life Span

Again, LCD vs. Plasma, and LCD comes out ahead in regards to life span.
Plasma TVs generally have a life span of 20,000 - 30,000 hours according to
manufactures. This compares to around 50,000 - 80,000 hours for the LCD
backlight. Also, since Liquid Crystal Televisions use a backlight, this
backlight can be replaced on some models if needed. Assuming 4 hours of
viewing per day, a Plasma TV will last approximately 13 years, compared to
an LCD TV that would last around 25-40 years.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

manager <manager@aol.com> wrote in message news:<Xns959213CB6512ELiving@24.93.44.119>...
> Alan Figgatt <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:4vmdnbvegpAgvx7cRVn-vA@comcast.com:
>
> >> LCD. Why would you want to pay thousands of dollars for a plasma
> >> whose brightness will start fading from the day you buy it and
> >> eventually go out. However, LCD's are expensive. The Sharp 37 inch is
> >> nice. If you can't afford it go with LCD projection or a 34" Sony
> >> CRT. LCD prices will come down every year if you want to wait.
> >
> > Wrong. The lifespan of a plasma screen is in the same ballpark as an
> > LCD - 60,000 hours or more.
> >
> >
>
> I don't know where you are getting your information, probably from a plasma
> salesman.


Sounds like it's more likely you're getting your data from a LCD
salesman. First, it's not consistent, one source saying that at
20-30,000 hours they lose half their intensity, the other that they
begin to lose intensity at 30,000 hours. For arguments sake, let's
say they have a noticeable decline at 30,000 hours. If you watch the
TV for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, which is a hell of a lot, that's
10 years. Watch it for 5 hours a day which seems more reasonable,
it's 16 years. How long do you expect a product like this to last?
To me, this is just a spec game, that in the real world, is almost
meaningless, as the device will be obsolete or fail for other reasons
long before this becomes an issue.


>
> http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/lcd-vs-plasma.asp
>
> Product Life-span
>
> Typical plasma TVs have a life span of 20,000 to 30,000 hours, which
> equates to at least two years, three months of 24/7 usage before the TV
> fades to half the original brightness.
>
> LCD TVs life span is typically 50,000-60,000 hours, which equates to at
> least 5 years of 24/7 use.
>
> LCD TVs run nearly twice as long as plasma.
>
>
> www.smarthouse.com.au/articlesbytopic/homecinema/lcdand...
>
> Plasmas typically begin to lose their brightness and picture intensity
> after 30,000 hours of use.
>
>
> http://www.cheap-plasma-tv.com/lcd-vs-plasma-tv.htm
>
>
> Television Life Span
>
> Again, LCD vs. Plasma, and LCD comes out ahead in regards to life span.
> Plasma TVs generally have a life span of 20,000 - 30,000 hours according to
> manufactures. This compares to around 50,000 - 80,000 hours for the LCD
> backlight. Also, since Liquid Crystal Televisions use a backlight, this
> backlight can be replaced on some models if needed. Assuming 4 hours of
> viewing per day, a Plasma TV will last approximately 13 years, compared to
> an LCD TV that would last around 25-40 years.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Here we go again. You have only inspired a new argument. Go to
www.avsforum.com where you can look at the FAQs and see more seasoned
discussion.

BTW, do you watch TV 24/7?

Kal

On 29 Oct 2004 18:26:09 -0700, "The Weary Wizard"
<mark_holliday12@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Whilst looking at the array of new LCD and plasma televisions out
>there, I became unsure of the differences between the two. Friends and
>workmates all seem to have conflicting ideas on the subject too.
>
>What *are* the chief differences between the two platforms, and which
>is better?
>
>Advice appreciated.
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>http://www.e2save.com/?money4me443396

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

manager wrote:
> I don't know where you are getting your information, probably from a plasma
> salesman.
>
> http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/lcd-vs-plasma.asp
>
> Product Life-span
>
> Typical plasma TVs have a life span of 20,000 to 30,000 hours, which
> equates to at least two years, three months of 24/7 usage before the TV
> fades to half the original brightness.
>
> LCD TVs life span is typically 50,000-60,000 hours, which equates to at
> least 5 years of 24/7 use.
>
> LCD TVs run nearly twice as long as plasma.

The web site is based on out of date information or more likely got
their numbers from Sharp who have a vested interest in bashing plasmas.
People who have had plasmas 3 or 4 years with heavy use have reported
and even measured no dimming of the screen at all. The official specs
for the current Panasonics is 60,000 hours to half-brightness. Pioneer
is claiming 100,000 hours to half-brightness for their new models. Given
that we have been using CRTS with screen lifespans in the 20 to 30,000
hour range for many years and no one complained about that, I think that
the lifespan of the LCD vs plasma screen display should not be a concern
when deciding what to get. The pace of display technology development
will likely obsolete them before you have to replace the TV.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote

> I have been researching/weighing plasma vs direct view LCD vs DLP RPTV
> vs LCD RPTV for some months now. The microdisplay RPTVs have drawbacks
> in viewing angles, size/bulk, expensive bulb to replace every few years,
> rainbows for DLP, poorer black levels for LCDs. So I decided against
RPTVs.

Lamp replacement -- for Sony LCD RPTV's at least -- is about $200 and,
assuming Sony took care of the lamp problem they had with the old models, is
not something you should have to do more than once every year or two. Big
deal. If you buy an extended warranty, it may cover lamp replacement.
(Sears' does.) Personally, I experience no problems whatsoever with viewing
angles, size/bulk or black levels. (Sony KDF-60XS955)

For me, the biggest downside to LCD flat screen or plasma would be burn-in,
since much of the TV we are all going to be watching for the next few years
until HDTV takes over is going to have those black bars on either side of
the picture. I would fear and fret that those bars, along with news-crawl
boxes at the bottom of the screen, would get burned in. Second downside
would be expense in terms of dollars per inch of screen size. To replicate
my 60" HDTV in LCD or plasma would require a second mortgage!

mack
austin

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mack McKinnon wrote:

> Lamp replacement -- for Sony LCD RPTV's at least -- is about $200 and,
> assuming Sony took care of the lamp problem they had with the old models, is
> not something you should have to do more than once every year or two. Big
> deal. If you buy an extended warranty, it may cover lamp replacement.
> (Sears' does.) Personally, I experience no problems whatsoever with viewing
> angles, size/bulk or black levels. (Sony KDF-60XS955)
>
> For me, the biggest downside to LCD flat screen or plasma would be burn-in,
> since much of the TV we are all going to be watching for the next few years
> until HDTV takes over is going to have those black bars on either side of
> the picture. I would fear and fret that those bars, along with news-crawl
> boxes at the bottom of the screen, would get burned in. Second downside
> would be expense in terms of dollars per inch of screen size. To replicate
> my 60" HDTV in LCD or plasma would require a second mortgage!
>
> mack
> austin

Burn-in is not an issue with the direct view LCD TVs, it is a concern
with plasmas. But it an issue that the plasma makers are addressing;
Panasonic is claiming the burn-in susceptibility of their new 7UYs has
been reduced to the same as that of a CRT. But people with the current
plasma models who have taken precautions against burn-in (turning the
brightness and contrast down to proper viewing levels and mixing up what
they watch) have reported few problems with burn-in. But still, if I
were planning to go a lot of computer gaming or use the TV for surfing
the net, I would go with an LCD flat screen over the plasma.

For a 60" TV, yes, the projection TVs are by far the better choice if
cost is an issue. The 60+" plasmas are extremely expensive. The prices
have not been posted for the 55" LCD flat screen that is supposed to be
released early next year, but it is likely to be hideously expensive. In
the 37" to 50" range, the prices between the RPTVs and plasmas are more
competitive. The list prices for the brand name 50" HD plasmas have
fallen $1500 to $2000 in just this year alone. As I am looking for a
quality TV in the 37" to 45" range which does not take up a lot of room,
I have decided on plasma, but as I have posted, I am waiting for news on
the release dates of the next gen mainstream consumer models from
Panasonic and Pioneer.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4vmdnbvegpAgvx7cRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> > LCD. Why would you want to pay thousands of dollars for a plasma whose
> > brightness will start fading from the day you buy it and eventually go
out.
> > However, LCD's are expensive. The Sharp 37 inch is nice. If you can't
> > afford it go with LCD projection or a 34" Sony CRT. LCD prices will come
> > down every year if you want to wait.
>
> Wrong. The lifespan of a plasma screen is in the same ballpark as an
> LCD - 60,000 hours or more.
>
> I have been researching/weighing plasma vs direct view LCD vs DLP RPTV
> vs LCD RPTV for some months now. The microdisplay RPTVs have drawbacks
> in viewing angles, size/bulk, expensive bulb to replace every few years,
> rainbows for DLP, poorer black levels for LCDs. So I decided against
RPTVs.
>
> Between Plasma and direct view LCD, there are tradeoffs. The key is
> how will the TV be used? Watching DVDs, TV, or playing a lot of video
> games? Plasmas offer better black levels (especially the Panasonics), no
> issues with motion smear or viewing angles, more of a looking through
> the window effect. Direct view LCDs offer higher pixel resolutions, no
> burn-in concerns which make them a better choice if one is playing a lot
> of video games. But even the best LCD TVs - Sharp Aquos G series, the
> new Sonys - which have gone a long way in addressing the motion smear
> problem still suffer from poorer black levels. Meanwhile, the better
> plasma makers have been reducing power consumption while improving
> resistance to burn-in and lifespan. Neither display technology is
> standing still.
>
> After a lot of research (www.avsforum.com is invaluable) and spending
> way too much time stopping off at BBs, CCs, Tweeters, etc, I am planing
> to buy a plasma TV. There have been significant price cuts in plasma TVs
> in just the past few months which is a plus. I'm waiting for some
> concrete news on whether Panasonic will release new PXS30 consumer
> models soon or not. The commercial 7UYs were released a month ago.
> Pioneer also has new models coming out soon.

Remember when deciding that the commercial Panasonics have 90 day warranty
while the consumer line is 1 year. The service network is much smaller,
though with some cajoling they will spot authorize a consumer ASC to do the
commercial products.

Leonard

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>> Typical plasma TVs have a life span of 20,000 to 30,000 hours, which
>> equates to at least two years, three months of 24/7 usage before the
>> TV fades to half the original brightness.
>> LCD TVs life span is typically 50,000-60,000 hours, which equates to
>> at least 5 years of 24/7 use.
>> LCD TVs run nearly twice as long as plasma.
> The web site is based on out of date information or more likely got
> their numbers from Sharp who have a vested interest in bashing plasmas.
> People who have had plasmas 3 or 4 years with heavy use have reported
> and even measured no dimming of the screen at all. The official specs
> for the current Panasonics is 60,000 hours to half-brightness. Pioneer
> is claiming 100,000 hours to half-brightness for their new models. Given
> that we have been using CRTS with screen lifespans in the 20 to 30,000
> hour range for many years and no one complained about that, I think that
> the lifespan of the LCD vs plasma screen display should not be a concern
> when deciding what to get. The pace of display technology development
> will likely obsolete them before you have to replace the TV.


I think Alan is right on as far as Plasma's go.

I have read somewhere as well that the LCD panels basically run full
tilt constantly, where as the Plasma's are per cell. In other words,
when the cell is black there is less burn off of the gas (that uneven
burn off is the potential for burn in) .... but perhaps that is factored
into the life estimates.

I narrowed my choices to the DLP projection or plasma. Went with a
Pioneer plasma 43" .... the brightness, color's and viewing angle just
can't be beat in HD. The Panasonic's seem more popular though. I might
have chosen a LCD panel if they were available and the same price.
The burn off IS noticable .... the display when showing full white after
7 months is slightly less white. Not noticable in normal viewing, still
much brighter than a CRT.

Someone mentioned they thought LCD or Plasma at less than 45" and DLP
projection above 50" were the most cost effective ..... I agree.

With Plasma's you need to run FULL screen ~70% of the time to avoid 4:3
burn in ..... some people hate watching TV in the stretched mode ....
doesn't bother me. I personally can't stand the gray or black side bars.

Is Plasma totally justifiable considering the cost vs the limited HD
content available .... NO. Why do people drive BMW's, Jag's, and Lexus
cars when a Cavalier will do!!!!! I've had several Cavalier's, both
quite good but only an idiot would suggest a BMW 5 series is an equal
ride. TV's don't seem as easy to rate though do they.

Go to every store in your area and look at them all.

Kurt

--
** Remove '5555' from address when replying!!!!

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Hmmm. Maybe you should step back and think about where you will be when you
watch television. How much light will there be in the room and how far from
the screen will you be? How about sound with your television and what inputs
will you have? Will you have a DVD player, separate audio, cable, digital
cable, digital satellite, HDTV converter in you satellite, or will you be
using OTA digital HDTV? What kind of programs do you like to watch? 16:9 or
4:3? What is your budget? When you are good answers for some of those
questions then deciding on technology is easier. I answered all those
questions myself and I found out that neither LCD or Plasma was my best
solution. It turned out to be 16:9 direct view and an HDTV satellite system
because of my viewing room size and the big hole left by my prior big screen
TV. I also put in a good sound system and a DVD jukebox.

JB



"The Weary Wizard" <mark_holliday12@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1099099569.606822.212980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Whilst looking at the array of new LCD and plasma televisions out
> there, I became unsure of the differences between the two. Friends and
> workmates all seem to have conflicting ideas on the subject too.
>
> What *are* the chief differences between the two platforms, and which
> is better?
>
> Advice appreciated.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> http://www.e2save.com/?money4me443396
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:40:56 -0800, "John Bowen"
<jhbowen1nospam@charter.net> wrote:

>Hmmm. Maybe you should step back and think about where you will be when you
>watch television. How much light will there be in the room and how far from
>the screen will you be? How about sound with your television and what inputs
>will you have? Will you have a DVD player, separate audio, cable, digital
>cable, digital satellite, HDTV converter in you satellite, or will you be
>using OTA digital HDTV? What kind of programs do you like to watch? 16:9 or
>4:3? What is your budget? When you are good answers for some of those
>questions then deciding on technology is easier.

Excellent suggestions. There is no 'best' but there is 'best for me.'

> I answered all those
>questions myself and I found out that neither LCD or Plasma was my best
>solution. It turned out to be 16:9 direct view and an HDTV satellite system
>because of my viewing room size and the big hole left by my prior big screen
>TV. I also put in a good sound system and a DVD jukebox.

I, too, answered all these questions and decided that a plasma and HD
cable service was best for me. The big hole left behind by the old
hulk of a TV left me room for a really good sound system.

Kal