Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCD vs DLP vs Plasma

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 2:40:11 AM

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

I don't mean to stir up a bee's nest, but I am sincerely interested in
current opinions of current technology of LCD vs. DLP vs. Plasma.

This interest hits home because I am about to make my first purchase of an
HDTV set.

To add more fuel to the fire, I would be interested in opinions about
brands. I am a long time Sony TV and monitor fan and have been highly
impressed with their HDTV's as seen in local stores. Still, I am interested
in hearing what others have to say about various brands.

I will be looking for something in the 50 inch screen size. HD, not ED. I
will be on cable with an HD DVR. I'll probably have a low profile antenna
as well that will see a small number of local off-airs from a nearby
mountaintop. This will be for back up mostly since I will use the cable
feed 99% of the time.

My cable operator has all the local stations in HD plus the usual array of
satellite HD channels. My viewing habits have me on local stations mostly
with some limited satellite channel viewing (IE HGTV, which of course is not
available in HD yet). Never-the-less, I am interested in comments about SD
viewing on an HDTV type set. Some brands I know are not good at producing a
quality SD picture. Also, I'm not a huge DVD viewer but do watch a movie
from that source a few times a year.

Let the comments begin. Thanks in advance... (please, no flaming among
commenters.)

More about : lcd dlp plasma

April 8, 2005 4:46:14 AM

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

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:40:11 -0700, "Sixeye" <1@1.com> wrote:

>I don't mean to stir up a bee's nest, but I am sincerely interested in
>current opinions of current technology of LCD vs. DLP vs. Plasma.
>

....yawn....

www.avsforum.com


It's been done already.

PS that's a singular on the forum ;) 
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:33:28 PM

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

"Sixeye" <1@1.com> wrote

<...I am a long time Sony TV and monitor fan and have been highly
> impressed with their HDTV's as seen in local stores.

I doubt you'll stir up much controversy, since we've been over and over this
so often. I like Sonys too for the same reason plus the new gen4s (E655,
F655, and 955) get good reviews for owner tweakability. There's new models
(A10 and A20) coming out soon.

I think the other promising technology is D-ILA. Currently only JVC is
making them, but others are apparently looking at it. JVC is also releasing
a new generation this summer.

From what I can see, the reason why DLP has so many fans is they got in on
the ground floor and have had the longest time to debug their technology.
But I really think the future lies in solid state.

As Sidney said, the AVS Forum is the best place to get into the details. You
can get lost in there.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 9, 2005 5:37:48 PM

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

It all comes down to what you can live with. In my opinion, plasma had the
best picture than any of them, hands down. It's also cheaper than LCD in
terms of size comparison. But it has the burn in issues. This makes plasma a
bad choice if you like xbox, playstation, etc. Another thing, watch about
the white bars on plasma 4:3 mode, many burn in's there. It also has about
half the "life" of LCD, but that still puts it up to around 10-15 yrs or so
depending on how much you watch.

LCD's last about 60K hours, giving them about 20-25 years depending on how
much you watch. They aren't usually as crisp as plasma and they're more
expensive but they don't have any burn issues. In comparison to plasma,
you'll get a 37" LCD for the price of a 42" plasma, roughly.

DLP isn't a flat-panel as the majority of them are too big to hang (minus a
few RCAs). They don't have burn issues and are the cheapest because you can
get a 61" for less the price of a 42" plasma. To me, they lack the
brightness of LCD/Plasma and like any RPTV you have the viewing angle thing.
Some report rainbows and headaches....or so I've heard.

Again, it all comes down to what you're willing to live with.




"Sixeye" <1@1.com> wrote in message news:3Po5e.6845$Xs.2757@fed1read03...
>I don't mean to stir up a bee's nest, but I am sincerely interested in
>current opinions of current technology of LCD vs. DLP vs. Plasma.
>
> This interest hits home because I am about to make my first purchase of an
> HDTV set.
>
> To add more fuel to the fire, I would be interested in opinions about
> brands. I am a long time Sony TV and monitor fan and have been highly
> impressed with their HDTV's as seen in local stores. Still, I am
> interested in hearing what others have to say about various brands.
>
> I will be looking for something in the 50 inch screen size. HD, not ED.
> I will be on cable with an HD DVR. I'll probably have a low profile
> antenna as well that will see a small number of local off-airs from a
> nearby mountaintop. This will be for back up mostly since I will use the
> cable feed 99% of the time.
>
> My cable operator has all the local stations in HD plus the usual array of
> satellite HD channels. My viewing habits have me on local stations mostly
> with some limited satellite channel viewing (IE HGTV, which of course is
> not available in HD yet). Never-the-less, I am interested in comments
> about SD viewing on an HDTV type set. Some brands I know are not good at
> producing a quality SD picture. Also, I'm not a huge DVD viewer but do
> watch a movie from that source a few times a year.
>
> Let the comments begin. Thanks in advance... (please, no flaming among
> commenters.)
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 5:37:49 PM

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

"SlimJim" <someone@somewhere.org> wrote

> you'll get a 37" LCD for the price of a 42" plasma, roughly.

I'm pretty sure the original poster was referring to LCD rear projection,
not direct view. There are no RPTVs under 42 inches that I've heard of. The
cost of LCD RPTVs is roughly equivalent to DLPs of the same screen size. For
example, both the 56 inch Samsung and the 55 inch Sony sell for around $3k
in the U.S.
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 8:15:26 PM

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

"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:SqKdnf1Sw7tccMrfRVn-jQ@magma.ca...
>
> "SlimJim" <someone@somewhere.org> wrote
>
>> you'll get a 37" LCD for the price of a 42" plasma, roughly.
>
> I'm pretty sure the original poster was referring to LCD rear projection,
> not direct view. There are no RPTVs under 42 inches that I've heard of.
> The cost of LCD RPTVs is roughly equivalent to DLPs of the same screen
> size. For example, both the 56 inch Samsung and the 55 inch Sony sell for
> around $3k in the U.S.

Thanks SlimJim and Dave. As one just now getting a little serious about
buying into HDTV, I appreciate your replies. The other folks that jumped on
me weren't of much help. I had Googled earlier as one suggested and found
mostly 3-4 year old information. I was hoping for more current info on the
newsgroup. Again thanks for your responses. It's helpful.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 2:28:26 AM

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

"Sixeye" <1@1.com> wrote

>...I had Googled earlier as one suggested and found mostly 3-4 year old
>information.

CNET reviews are usually no more than a few months old. They are also quite
readable for those of us who don't have advanced degrees in electrical
engineering. Good luck.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:29:30 PM

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

>
> My cable operator has all the local stations in HD plus the usual array of
> satellite HD channels. My viewing habits have me on local stations mostly
> with some limited satellite channel viewing (IE HGTV, which of course is
not
> available in HD yet). Never-the-less, I am interested in comments about
SD
> viewing on an HDTV type set. Some brands I know are not good at producing
a
> quality SD picture. Also, I'm not a huge DVD viewer but do watch a movie
> from that source a few times a year.
>
> Let the comments begin. Thanks in advance... (please, no flaming among
> commenters.)

I went thru this debate myself. TV buying and viewing has become complex
lately, and you have to decide what you want to do. I feel sorry for the
technolocially impaired. Here's what worked for me:

DLP 50" (mine is Samsung)
Hope you don't see rainbows - some may see them but no one I know has. Take
the gamble.
Don't pay too much attention to poor SD content picture IMHO (these sets are
optimized for HD and this will give you major heartburn) Pray for more HD
content. When your wife is watching SD tv and says the picture looks worse
that your last tv that's 15 years old, just tell her it's sunspots or solar
radiation - it's not worth a longer explanation.

I like my tv. Light, good viewing angles, breathtaking HD picture. One
needs good protection plan that covers bulb IMHO

Watching TV on my home theater is a technological feat (many remotes,
options, dvd menus etc) I could buy one of those $1000 do it all remotes -
but I guess that would spoil the fun (plus the expense!). Good luck!
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:22:54 PM

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

>
> Watching TV on my home theater is a technological feat (many remotes,
> options, dvd menus etc) I could buy one of those $1000 do it all
> remotes -
> but I guess that would spoil the fun (plus the expense!). Good luck!
>
Check out Harmony remotes, for under $200 you will solve your problems.
Since I got the Harmony last summer, I have put all of the individual
remotes in a big Ziploc and they are in the back of the drawer and stay
there for 99% of the time.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:04:51 PM

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

Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>Watching TV on my home theater is a technological feat (many remotes,
>>options, dvd menus etc) I could buy one of those $1000 do it all
>>remotes -
>>but I guess that would spoil the fun (plus the expense!). Good luck!
>>
>
> Check out Harmony remotes, for under $200 you will solve your problems.
> Since I got the Harmony last summer, I have put all of the individual
> remotes in a big Ziploc and they are in the back of the drawer and stay
> there for 99% of the time.

The same is true of my One For All remote, and it only cost $35.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:14:51 PM

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

"Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:425abb08$0$28761$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>>Watching TV on my home theater is a technological feat (many remotes,
>>>options, dvd menus etc) I could buy one of those $1000 do it all
>>>remotes -
>>>but I guess that would spoil the fun (plus the expense!). Good luck!
>>>
>>
>> Check out Harmony remotes, for under $200 you will solve your problems.
>> Since I got the Harmony last summer, I have put all of the individual
>> remotes in a big Ziploc and they are in the back of the drawer and stay
>> there for 99% of the time.
>
> The same is true of my One For All remote, and it only cost $35.
This is sort of true, but the Harmony is a lot more than the One For All. It
is a bit like trying to explain why TiVo is better than VCR, buy one and
there is no going back!
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 1:49:01 AM

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

Fred Bloggs wrote:
> "Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> news:425abb08$0$28761$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
>>Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>
>>>Check out Harmony remotes, for under $200 you will solve your problems.
>>>Since I got the Harmony last summer, I have put all of the individual
>>>remotes in a big Ziploc and they are in the back of the drawer and stay
>>>there for 99% of the time.
>>
>>The same is true of my One For All remote, and it only cost $35.
>
> This is sort of true, but the Harmony is a lot more than the One For All. It
> is a bit like trying to explain why TiVo is better than VCR, buy one and
> there is no going back!

I'm sure that's true. If nothing else, the mechanisms for programming
the One For All are quite a bit more arcane than for the Harmony. Still,
it's amazing how flexible these devices are once start sending code sets
to them from your computer.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:47:31 AM

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

Jim Gilliland (usemylastname@cheerful.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > This is sort of true, but the Harmony is a lot more than the One For All. It
> > is a bit like trying to explain why TiVo is better than VCR, buy one and
> > there is no going back!
>
> I'm sure that's true. If nothing else, the mechanisms for programming
> the One For All are quite a bit more arcane than for the Harmony. Still,
> it's amazing how flexible these devices are once start sending code sets
> to them from your computer.

The Harmony has the concept of "press this button and you are ready to
watch a DVD", even if that has to switch the TV to a different input,
change your external video switcher to a different input, switch your
A/V receiver, and power up the DVD player.

It's tough to do this with remotes when they don't have the right buttons
available...you end up with either a mis-labeled button or no ability
to do it in one press.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/MailerDae...
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:17:28 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Jim Gilliland (usemylastname@cheerful.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>>This is sort of true, but the Harmony is a lot more than the One For All. It
>>>is a bit like trying to explain why TiVo is better than VCR, buy one and
>>>there is no going back!
>>
>>I'm sure that's true. If nothing else, the mechanisms for programming
>>the One For All are quite a bit more arcane than for the Harmony. Still,
>>it's amazing how flexible these devices are once start sending code sets
>>to them from your computer.
>
>
> The Harmony has the concept of "press this button and you are ready to
> watch a DVD", even if that has to switch the TV to a different input,
> change your external video switcher to a different input, switch your
> A/V receiver, and power up the DVD player.

I programmed my Sony RM-2000(?) to do three major functions:

1) go from all powered off to watching DirecTV via S-video input, with
the audio coming from my receiver. The same button reverses the
proceedure and shuts everything off.

B) switch from state 1 to power on the DVD, switch the TV to component
input and switch the audio ta a input on my receiver.

III) go from state B to state 1.

That covers far more than 95% of our viewing.

> It's tough to do this with remotes when they don't have the right buttons
> available...you end up with either a mis-labeled button or no ability
> to do it in one press.
>

I did the above by taking over one memory and programming codes for
various devices onto the available buttons. Then I used the available
macro keys to hold long sequences of button presses of this new "device".

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:59:40 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > The Harmony has the concept of "press this button and you are ready to
> > watch a DVD", even if that has to switch the TV to a different input,
> > change your external video switcher to a different input, switch your
> > A/V receiver, and power up the DVD player.
>
> I programmed my Sony RM-2000(?) to do three major functions:

Yeah, I use the Sony RM line (RM-3100 currently) as well, and I know it
does the same things as the Harmony...I just didn't want to confuse the
issue.

> 1) go from all powered off to watching DirecTV via S-video input, with
> the audio coming from my receiver. The same button reverses the
> proceedure and shuts everything off.
>
> B) switch from state 1 to power on the DVD, switch the TV to component
> input and switch the audio ta a input on my receiver.
>
> III) go from state B to state 1.

All my commands for the RM-3100 are stateless. They assume nothing, so
they are a bit longer, but they work 100% of the time. Touching a
component button merely makes that component the target of the command
while holding it down switches everything so that component is being
viewed/listened to.

The big advantage I have is that my components have discrete "power off"
and "power on" settings, so I can easily do the right thing...sending
"power on" to an already on device does nothing. Having discrete input
selects (instead of a "toggle input" command like some TVs) also helps.

> I did the above by taking over one memory and programming codes for
> various devices onto the available buttons. Then I used the available
> macro keys to hold long sequences of button presses of this new "device".

You don't need to do that with the RM-3100. It allows mini-macros (4
buttons each) on every LCD button if you want. I set up common "in device"
commands using these, then use the *real* macro buttons to chain the
mini-macros together. I've always been a subroutine kind of guy.

Even with the incredibly hairy setup I have, (4 component output devices
with one component input on the TV and two on my A/V receiver requires
an outboard switcher, plus I need component, S-Video, *and* composite
at different times from my DVL-919) the RM-3100 isn't even breaking a
sweat yet.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/ToDo.gif
!