LCD vs Plasma rages on
The LCD vs Plasma battle is nothing new, but in the past two years it has just started to get
interesting. A few years ago when someone would ask me which one I thought was better my response was "It depends,
do you want a TV bigger or smaller than 40 inches?" It amazed me that so many people didn't realize that for some
time the smallest plasma and the largest
LCD were both 37 inches. Sharp changed all that last year with the release of their 45 inch LCD and now many manufacturers are or soon will be selling LCDs up to 65 inches. The last major hurdle to overcome in order to level the playing field is price.The first large Sharp LCDs were considerably more than plasmas, but that has recently changed. The cost difference is usually less than $1,000 now compared to over $3,000 just one year ago.
As a result the battle is officially on!
Now that size and price are finally comparable which is better? Plasmas have stellar black levels and smooth motion, but LCDs don't suffer from burn in and are believed to last longer. Sony seems to be on the LCD train while LG, Pioneer and Panasonic continue to lead the way in plasmas.
Which will be around in 5 years or will both be replaced by something else like OLED or SED?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Joey @ Mar 3rd 2006 7:10PM
I was at the local bestbuy for lunch. Its close buy hence why I go. And side by side between the sharp lcd and a panny plasma the plasma just looks more TVish.. meaning this is the way TV is suppose to look. The Sharp was flat looking and did not produce enough detail.
This could be because of the signal, I wont rule that out. I do like the PQ of plasma but I do like a 1080P screen for my HTPC.
Of course things change and SED could be the new thing. Right now for TV viewing I like plasmas.
Les @ Mar 3rd 2006 9:48PM
I never see it mentioned but, in my opinion, the shiny screens of plasmas deserve some consideration in shopping. Every plasma that I've seen has a shiney, glass-like screen and glare is bad. Real bad. If you plan to watch your TV in a room with windows or other sources of extraneous (day)light you should consider this. Even the best picture will look bad with glare all over it.
phez @ Mar 4th 2006 12:07AM
most of the time, i couldnt care less about the finer details of each technology.
give me hd resolution, give me size, give me good prices, and i'll buy it. 26" Aquos for $1150 (USD) equals *much* love.
John @ Mar 6th 2006 10:05AM
I know LCDs have a speed issue, but they keep getting faster, now down to 6 ms. I never see a response time for plasmas since it's not an issue. How fast does the LCD need to be to catch up to the plasmas?
Thomas Crymes @ Mar 6th 2006 11:36AM
Whatever you choose to buy will be good, very good. Most people want to feel good about their investment, so they will revel in their purchase and gloss over any problems that may exist. And that's OK.
I've seen Plasmas and LCDs in the store, and they both look amazing. I'm not saying there isn't a difference (because there is). All I'm saying is that it really isn't worth all of the shoe pounding that goes on.
I just really want to know when SEDs will be coming and how much they will be. Until then I will put up with my old rear projected, burned in Panny that still looks pretty damn good :)
VDH @ Mar 6th 2006 4:40PM
LCDs used to be much worse than plasma, primarily due to very high black levels, response time, and innacurate color reproduction, especially at the white end of the spectrum (LED back lights should cure this). Today, they are much much better in all aspects and I would not dissuade anyone from buying an LCD even though I have in the past and I own a current gen 50" panny plasma.
There can be glare issues with plasma - we live on the west side of Manhattan by the river so we get a lot of light but this does not make anything unwatchable and it is really only bright sunlight directly reflecting off a back wall that you notice.
With respect to burn in, our nanny leaves the plasma on TWC music channels for a few hours daily which means that I have a static image on screen for many hours a day every day. Absolutley no signs of burn in. I guess I could get here to turn off the plasma and just leave the receiver on but with no burn in and the 60,0000 hours to half brightness, why bother?
With LCD blacks being grey, that is mitigated in a well lit room so for the most part this is not an issue. Unless you like watching in a darkened room which I know a lot of ppl do.
The biggest issue is still response time because the specs that manufacturers give out are still grey to grey so you are not getting real world response times.
I'm going to stick with plasma until SED comes out in >50" size and then prolly jump to that.
Dan Rocha @ Mar 15th 2006 1:13PM
>> How fast does the LCD need to be to catch up to the plasmas?
At 60 frames per second (i.e., 1000 milliseconds), a new frame is displayed every 16 2/3 milliseconds. No need to go any faster than that.