Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCD or Plasma

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 9:09:08 AM

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

I have a need to purchase a 32" flat screen in the near future and thought I
would toss this question out for ideas.
LCD or Plasma? Any 32" models you guys really like?

Thanks

More about : lcd plasma

Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:40:15 PM

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

Sluggy wrote:
> I have a need to purchase a 32" flat screen in the near future and thought I
> would toss this question out for ideas.
> LCD or Plasma? Any 32" models you guys really like?
>
> Thanks

There are few plasmas in the 32" size. Hitachi, IIRC, is about the
only brand name that still offers one. Sony used to have a 32" plasma,
but dropped it. Plasmas mainly come in 37", 42", 43" (Pioneer), 50"
sizes and up. The 42" & 43" plasma comprise some 75% of all plasmas
sold, so 42" is the dominant size in plasmas.

If you want a 32" flat screen, your only real option is a LCD direct
view. However, a 32" 16:9 wide screen has about the same screen height
as a 27" 4:3 screen. To get the same height for a 32" 4:3 CRT, you
should consider a 37" 16:9 TV. (Multiply the 4:3 diagonal by 1.2 to get
approx the same screen height for a 16:9 set).

Personally I prefer the picture quality of plasmas over LCDs. Your
should take a look at 37" plasmas, but the new Panasonic TH-37PX50U 37"
HD model won't be out until May. Panasonic is dropping their 37" ED
consumer plasma.

Alan F
March 24, 2005 3:55:52 PM

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

So, what's the deal with the plasma displays anyway? Rumors are that they
have a short life expectancy. Are they shorter than CRTs? Are LCD's longer
than CRTs? Can you expect to get 10 years out of a plasma display like
CRTs?

Skip

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l4qdnc8bTo47TN_fRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> Sluggy wrote:
> > I have a need to purchase a 32" flat screen in the near future and
thought I
> > would toss this question out for ideas.
> > LCD or Plasma? Any 32" models you guys really like?
> >
> > Thanks
>
> There are few plasmas in the 32" size. Hitachi, IIRC, is about the
> only brand name that still offers one. Sony used to have a 32" plasma,
> but dropped it. Plasmas mainly come in 37", 42", 43" (Pioneer), 50"
> sizes and up. The 42" & 43" plasma comprise some 75% of all plasmas
> sold, so 42" is the dominant size in plasmas.
>
> If you want a 32" flat screen, your only real option is a LCD direct
> view. However, a 32" 16:9 wide screen has about the same screen height
> as a 27" 4:3 screen. To get the same height for a 32" 4:3 CRT, you
> should consider a 37" 16:9 TV. (Multiply the 4:3 diagonal by 1.2 to get
> approx the same screen height for a 16:9 set).
>
> Personally I prefer the picture quality of plasmas over LCDs. Your
> should take a look at 37" plasmas, but the new Panasonic TH-37PX50U 37"
> HD model won't be out until May. Panasonic is dropping their 37" ED
> consumer plasma.
>
> Alan F
Related resources
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 11:15:06 PM

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

Skip wrote:
> So, what's the deal with the plasma displays anyway? Rumors are that they
> have a short life expectancy. Are they shorter than CRTs? Are LCD's longer
> than CRTs? Can you expect to get 10 years out of a plasma display like
> CRTs?
>
> Skip

The life span of the current generation plasmas should be the same or
longer than direct view CRTs. Certainly a lot longer than the rear
projection CRT TVs which run the 7" (or 9") CRT guns at high intensity
and have lifespans of 10 to 20,000 hours (maybe).

Panasonic currently specifies their plasmas as at least 60,000 hours
to half brightness. Samsung, I think, is 50,000 hours. The very early
plasmas did have problems with long lifespans. But this is no longer an
issue and has not been for some years. People who have plasmas for 3 to
4 years with heavy use have reported they see no degradation or dimming
or burn-in for that matter.

Burn-in is a concern for plasmas if you are going to use them purely
as computer displays. But if you take care during the first 100 hour
break-in period by mixing up the TV material with mostly 16:9 with some
4:3 or zoomed letterboxed movies, you should be fine. The longer
lifespan of the phosphors also means greater resistance to burn-in. I
have had my Panasonic TH-42PHD7UY for 3 months and have zero problems
with it. It also can present stunning pictures for HD material.

Alan F
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 9:59:28 AM

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

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:15:06 -0500, Alan Figgatt
<afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:

<snip>
> Burn-in is a concern for plasmas if you are going to use them purely
>as computer displays. But if you take care during the first 100 hour
>break-in period by mixing up the TV material with mostly 16:9 with some
>4:3 or zoomed letterboxed movies, you should be fine.

As I understand it, burn-in is due to (uneven) wear of the fosfor.
Does the brightness change significantly the first 100 hours?
Otherwice I don't understand why it should be more sensitive to uneven
wear only the first 100 hours.

> The longer
>lifespan of the phosphors also means greater resistance to burn-in. I
>have had my Panasonic TH-42PHD7UY for 3 months and have zero problems
>with it. It also can present stunning pictures for HD material.

I haven't had the possibility to watch HD signals, but I like the more
stable picture from LCD compared to the slightly blinking/flickering
picture from plasma. (But the LCD response time is visible on some
material.)
/Jan
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:48:21 AM

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

Alan Figgatt wrote:
> Skip wrote:
>
>> So, what's the deal with the plasma displays anyway? Rumors are that
>> they
>> have a short life expectancy. Are they shorter than CRTs? Are LCD's
>> longer
>> than CRTs? Can you expect to get 10 years out of a plasma display like
>> CRTs?
>>
>> Skip
>
>
> The life span of the current generation plasmas should be the same or
> longer than direct view CRTs. Certainly a lot longer than the rear
> projection CRT TVs which run the 7" (or 9") CRT guns at high intensity
> and have lifespans of 10 to 20,000 hours (maybe).

That's a really pessimistic assessment. My 7" CRTs have been in use for
an average of 8 or so hours per day for 8 years, or over 23,000 hours
and they are far from being at the end of life.

Very optimistic assessment of PDP lifetime snipped.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:53:19 AM

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

Jan B wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:15:06 -0500, Alan Figgatt
> <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Burn-in is a concern for plasmas if you are going to use them purely
>>as computer displays. But if you take care during the first 100 hour
>>break-in period by mixing up the TV material with mostly 16:9 with some
>>4:3 or zoomed letterboxed movies, you should be fine.
>
>
> As I understand it, burn-in is due to (uneven) wear of the fosfor.
> Does the brightness change significantly the first 100 hours?
> Otherwice I don't understand why it should be more sensitive to uneven
> wear only the first 100 hours.

No, the brightness does not change in the first 100 hours. The
phosphors are supposedly most sensitive to image retention when new. See
the Panasonic press release for their official take on plasma lifespans:
http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/pressroom....
However, the general opinion on their piece on the extended break-in
past 100 hours is that it is way too conservative. Few people have
limited their viewing of 4:3 shows to only 15% of the viewing time in
the next 900 hours and no one has reported any hint of burn-in so long
as they mix 4:3 with 16:9 material. There is likely a fair amount of
just in case legal CYA in that part. The consensus is to follow break-in
rules in the first 100 hours and then not worry so much past that.

Alan F
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 9:00:36 PM

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

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:53:19 -0500, Alan Figgatt
<afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:

>Jan B wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:15:06 -0500, Alan Figgatt
>> <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Burn-in is a concern for plasmas if you are going to use them purely
>>>as computer displays. But if you take care during the first 100 hour
>>>break-in period by mixing up the TV material with mostly 16:9 with some
>>>4:3 or zoomed letterboxed movies, you should be fine.
>>
>>
>> As I understand it, burn-in is due to (uneven) wear of the fosfor.
>> Does the brightness change significantly the first 100 hours?
>> Otherwice I don't understand why it should be more sensitive to uneven
>> wear only the first 100 hours.
>
> No, the brightness does not change in the first 100 hours. The
>phosphors are supposedly most sensitive to image retention when new. See
>the Panasonic press release for their official take on plasma lifespans:
>http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/pressroom....
>However, the general opinion on their piece on the extended break-in
>past 100 hours is that it is way too conservative. Few people have
>limited their viewing of 4:3 shows to only 15% of the viewing time in
>the next 900 hours and no one has reported any hint of burn-in so long
>as they mix 4:3 with 16:9 material. There is likely a fair amount of
>just in case legal CYA in that part. The consensus is to follow break-in
>rules in the first 100 hours and then not worry so much past that.

Thank's for the link.
I still have a problem understanding the "sensitivity to image
retention" during the first period of use to be something else then
reduced brightness (which becomes a burn-in if it is uneven).
It is explained in the article about burn-in:

"The phosphors are never burnt, rather they are unevenly aged. "

Then in the "break-in" section:
"Plasma phosphors are most susceptible to image retention in the first
hundred hours of use. The panel becomes considerably less sensitive to
burn-in after this period."

If it is the same phenomena in both cases, that a static image will
leave an inverted image, my understanding is that this is caused by a
reduced light level from the used pixels. Non-used pixels (of this
colour) will not have aged, so therefore my conclusion is that this
higher sensitivity must be due to more ageing per hour in the
beginning.

So maybe resetting of contrast and brightess should be performed more
often in the beginning then later on?
/Jan
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 11:13:54 AM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Alan Figgatt wrote:
>
>> Skip wrote:
>>
>>> So, what's the deal with the plasma displays anyway? Rumors are that
>>> they
>>> have a short life expectancy. Are they shorter than CRTs? Are LCD's
>>> longer
>>> than CRTs? Can you expect to get 10 years out of a plasma display like
>>> CRTs?
>>>
>>> Skip
>>
>>
>>
>> The life span of the current generation plasmas should be the same or
>> longer than direct view CRTs. Certainly a lot longer than the rear
>> projection CRT TVs which run the 7" (or 9") CRT guns at high intensity
>> and have lifespans of 10 to 20,000 hours (maybe).
>
>
> That's a really pessimistic assessment. My 7" CRTs have been in use for
> an average of 8 or so hours per day for 8 years, or over 23,000 hours
> and they are far from being at the end of life.
>
> Very optimistic assessment of PDP lifetime snipped.
>
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 12:06:21 PM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11485l6pmllaqbf@corp.supernews.com...
> Alan Figgatt wrote:
>> Skip wrote:
>>
>>> So, what's the deal with the plasma displays anyway? Rumors are that
>>> they
>>> have a short life expectancy. Are they shorter than CRTs? Are LCD's
>>> longer
>>> than CRTs? Can you expect to get 10 years out of a plasma display like
>>> CRTs?
>>>
>>> Skip
>>
>>
>> The life span of the current generation plasmas should be the same or
>> longer than direct view CRTs. Certainly a lot longer than the rear
>> projection CRT TVs which run the 7" (or 9") CRT guns at high intensity
>> and have lifespans of 10 to 20,000 hours (maybe).
>
> That's a really pessimistic assessment. My 7" CRTs have been in use for an
> average of 8 or so hours per day for 8 years, or over 23,000 hours and
> they are far from being at the end of life.
>

You can also replace the CRTs and restore the image to new condition.
That's not possible with a plasma. Then there is the question regarding
60,000 hour
usable life, thats almost 7 years of 24 x 7 use. There hasn't been enough
time to determine
whether that number is actually reliable.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:58:09 PM

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

Ed T wrote:
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11485l6pmllaqbf@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Alan Figgatt wrote:
>>
>>>Skip wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So, what's the deal with the plasma displays anyway? Rumors are that
>>>>they
>>>>have a short life expectancy. Are they shorter than CRTs? Are LCD's
>>>>longer
>>>>than CRTs? Can you expect to get 10 years out of a plasma display like
>>>>CRTs?
>>>>
>>>>Skip
>>>
>>>
>>> The life span of the current generation plasmas should be the same or
>>>longer than direct view CRTs. Certainly a lot longer than the rear
>>>projection CRT TVs which run the 7" (or 9") CRT guns at high intensity
>>>and have lifespans of 10 to 20,000 hours (maybe).
>>
>>That's a really pessimistic assessment. My 7" CRTs have been in use for an
>>average of 8 or so hours per day for 8 years, or over 23,000 hours and
>>they are far from being at the end of life.
>>
>
>
> You can also replace the CRTs and restore the image to new condition.

In my case, that isn't likely. I'll be upgrading to an HDTV on my next
purchase.

> That's not possible with a plasma. Then there is the question regarding
> 60,000 hour
> usable life, thats almost 7 years of 24 x 7 use. There hasn't been enough
> time to determine
> whether that number is actually reliable.

I would say that 1/2 brightness on a fixed pixel display may be past its
useful life. Any attempt to brighten the picture is going to make dark
detail worse, not better.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 6:34:31 PM

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

"Sluggy" <mummy@gummy.com> wrote in message
news:1145ig4j0f25d41@news.supernews.com...
> I have a need to purchase a 32" flat screen in the near
future and thought I
> would toss this question out for ideas.
> LCD or Plasma? Any 32" models you guys really like?
>
> Thanks

As I said in a thread above I just bought the Panasonic 32
in. LCD and it is sitting in the box that fills the whole
foyer. Will let ya know how 'tis when I have time to get it
placed and set up and the HD box from Cablevision (service
call $40!) Maybe after taxes are done. The Panny had all the
features I wanted PLUS CC (and a headpwhich the Sonys didn't
have--looked good at Best Buy but we'll see. Looks the best
for me after the Sony LCDs and no plasma burn in. Check out
the specs and take a look at it somewhere. Later,
....tonyC

>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 6:20:12 PM

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

"Anthony Cerrato" <tcerrato@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ctC3e.15365$%72.13492@fe10.lga...
>
> "Sluggy" <mummy@gummy.com> wrote in message
> news:1145ig4j0f25d41@news.supernews.com...
>> I have a need to purchase a 32" flat screen in the near
> future and thought I
>> would toss this question out for ideas.
>> LCD or Plasma? Any 32" models you guys really like?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> As I said in a thread above I just bought the Panasonic 32
> in. LCD and it is sitting in the box that fills the whole
> foyer. Will let ya know how 'tis when I have time to get it
> placed and set up and the HD box from Cablevision (service
> call $40!)

You might get a few un-encrypted local HD channels now, without the HD box,
if your LCD TV has a tuner and input for digital TV try it. I got 3-4
channels for a few days before I could get an appointment with the cable
company.

Steve
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 7:10:56 PM

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

The Sony 32" LCD KLV32M1 does have a headphone jack. It's located on a
pop-dowm panel just below the middle of the set where you can also
enter additional 'S' and component video and audio inputs.
I use my Sony with standard SD Satelitte and OTA HD from a Samsung
SIR-T351 tuner. I'm 110% satisfied with the Sony and 90% satisfied
with the Sammy.

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:34:31 -0500, "Anthony Cerrato"
<tcerrato@optonline.net> wrote:

The Panny had all the
>features I wanted PLUS CC (and a headpwhich the Sonys didn't
>have--looked good at Best Buy but we'll see. Looks the best
>for me after the Sony LCDs and no plasma burn in. Check out
>the specs and take a look at it somewhere. Later,
>...tonyC

--
Frank M.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 4:40:01 AM

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

"Frank M." <mandarin@ixdotnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:6rl251tgvhamovibn32aiumo97hjetii9d@4ax.com...
> The Sony 32" LCD KLV32M1 does have a headphone jack. It's
located on a
> pop-dowm panel just below the middle of the set where you
can also
> enter additional 'S' and component video and audio inputs.
> I use my Sony with standard SD Satelitte and OTA HD from a
Samsung
> SIR-T351 tuner. I'm 110% satisfied with the Sony and 90%
satisfied
> with the Sammy.
>
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:34:31 -0500, "Anthony Cerrato"
> <tcerrato@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> The Panny had all the
> >features I wanted PLUS CC (and a headpwhich the Sonys
didn't
> >have--looked good at Best Buy but we'll see. Looks the
best
> >for me after the Sony LCDs and no plasma burn in. Check
out
> >the specs and take a look at it somewhere. Later,
> >...tonyC

Oops--sorry Frank, you are indeed right. I had looked at
this model very closely early on since I prefer to get a
Sony--I ruled it out only because CC isn't listed in the
specs and the cost (~$3000.) Just a little more than I
wanted to pay--and I really need the CC. The Panny was my
2nd choice, and even that was really more than I wanted to
spend--ya gotta draw the priceline somewhere, particularly
since LCDs could possibly blow a pixel or three in a coupla
years with bad luck--my apt./neighborhood is very dusty
which could possibly get in the set and overheat 'em. I
agree that the picture on the Sony would probably be
slightly better than any other LCD (or for other types too
for that matter.) ...tonyC

> --
> Frank M.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 5:49:19 AM

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

"Steven de Mena" <demenas@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l_-dnRYbifN6as3fRVn-oA@comcast.com...
>
> "Anthony Cerrato" <tcerrato@optonline.net> wrote in
message
> news:ctC3e.15365$%72.13492@fe10.lga...
> >
> > "Sluggy" <mummy@gummy.com> wrote in message
> > news:1145ig4j0f25d41@news.supernews.com...
> >> I have a need to purchase a 32" flat screen in the near
> > future and thought I
> >> would toss this question out for ideas.
> >> LCD or Plasma? Any 32" models you guys really like?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >
> > As I said in a thread above I just bought the Panasonic
32
> > in. LCD and it is sitting in the box that fills the
whole
> > foyer. Will let ya know how 'tis when I have time to get
it
> > placed and set up and the HD box from Cablevision
(service
> > call $40!)
>
> You might get a few un-encrypted local HD channels now,
without the HD box,
> if your LCD TV has a tuner and input for digital TV try
it. I got 3-4
> channels for a few days before I could get an appointment
with the cable
> company.

Yes, it's HD ready and has HDMI interface. I should pick up
a room HD antenna at Radio Shack to back up the cable anyway
and probably will, but I live in an apt. building and the
reception is probably poor (the standard building master
antenna hasn't worked well in over 20 years [since cable]
and I doubt they will replace it with an HD one very soon.)
....tonyC

> Steve
>
>
!