lcd direct-view vs. plasma

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Ted Lee, Feb 28, 2005.

  1. Ted Lee

    Ted Lee Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,390
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'm not sure what the advantage of a direct-view lcd is over a plasma?

    from a cost perspective, you can get a 37" lcd for about 5k. for the same price, you can get a 42" plasma. so it seems to me you're getting a better tv, with a bigger screen, for the same price.

    i know lcd's have a high failure rate off the manufacturing line ... i wonder if that has anything to do with it.

    but, in general, i'm just not seeing the value in a lcd?
     
  2. Mort Corey

    Mort Corey Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    0
    Me neither Ted.....that's why I bought a plasma [​IMG] I guess LCD does run cooler and draw less power, but the refresh rates aren't quite there yet and the off angle viewing isn't quite as good as plasma. Longevity is starting to improve for plasma as well with Panasonic claiming 100,000 hrs to half brightness on their newest panels (claiming being the operative word)

    Mort
     
  3. Peter Overduin

    Peter Overduin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    0
    I work at a major university where plasma was widely used for awhile and it was felt that burn in and life times were major draw backs.

    Longevity may be improving, however, at least with LCD you can change the bulb - so to speak and you're up and running again. Certianly it seemed to me that my new 60 inch grand wega displays an analog cable signal MUCH better than DLP, and I would argue better than plasma as well.

    True, the hi-def and DVD are stunning, but not that much more so than LCD, and not enough for me to have taken it too seriously. Besides, I'll sell this puppy in a couple years and get what I really want - a projector and 9 ft screen!

    Good luck with your decision. I'm sure by the time you use 100000 hrs, you'll get the paper thin 28 billion color hyper gaseous display that will do 3d and a million hours and come in 100 inch displays[​IMG]
     
  4. Ted Lee

    Ted Lee Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,390
    Likes Received:
    0
    thx peter, but i was speaking specifically of the direct-view (not projection) lcd's. [​IMG]

    i'm with you mort. there must be some value in these direct view lcd's...otherwise the people wouldn't be making them. but i just don't see it...
     
  5. ScottHH

    ScottHH Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0

    Some potential value to producers:
    1. They must share components with flat panel computer displays. There is an average cost benefit to pushing more product out of your factories.
    2. The price of these will come down (look at any display, but you can get a 17" LCD for your computer for $200 now, they were $1000 a few years ago. If you don't make them now, you'll fall behind the competition and will be totally screwed if/when LCD direct view TVs are price competitive vs. plasma.
    3. People buy them. I have a friend who dropped a ton of coin on a 37" LCD widecreen flat panel. I was extremely unimpressed by the PQ. If I had to have a flat panel, I'd probably go plasma myself (but because of form factor vs. ambient light vs. screen size vs. PQ vs. price I went with an LCD-RPTV).

    As the old saying goes "That's what makes horse racing!" In the end, all this R&D, and the support given by early adoptors will make better cheaper displays for all of us. When a 24" widecreen LCD display is nice and cheap, I'd love to have one for my computer...
     
  6. Seth Paxton

    Seth Paxton Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1998
    Messages:
    7,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    Remember that plasma was very pricey not too long ago as well. Many people were pointing to the competition from LCD as a big factor in driving down the price. That's one big reason why LCD is in the market so much.

    Obviously the CPU monitor aspect Scott mentioned also helps keep it strong in the market. Lots of tech sharing. Just look at Dell selling LCD TVs for example.
     
  7. chung_sotheby

    chung_sotheby Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2002
    Messages:
    857
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am basically in the same boat as all of you in terms of the whole Flat Panel debate. From what I have researched, I have discerned the following general truths:

    1. LCD is still more expensive than Plasma for the same size and resolution, at about a 1:1.4 ration for plasma:lcd. Also, LCD's generally weigh less and are skinnier (depth) than plasma displays, and consume a little less power.

    2. LCD's are generally brighter than plasmas, but plasmas have better black levels, thus the higher contrast ratio figures for plasma. This is due to their respective technolgies, with one emitting light through different color phosphors in a cell(Plasma) while the other uses crystals to bend and/or block light to produce different colors (LCD).

    3. LCD's have slightly better half-life measurements than plasma, but this gap is narrowing. However, LCD's half life measurement is for the backlight bulb, which can be replaced, while Plasma's half-life is for the phosphors, which cannot be replaced.

    4. Due to Plasma's technology, there is a possiblity of burn in. However, as plasmas continue to increase their half-life span, the likeliness of burn-in decreases dramatically to the point where burn-in of a newer model plasma is almost impossible when subjected to normal use.

    5. Only 50" plasmas have the ability to display true 720p HDTV, while smaller LCD's can produce full 720p HDTV. As of right now, no 42" or 43" plasma can show 720p (I might be wrong about this)

    6. LCD's, due to the nature of their technology, tends to have more motion artifacts than plasma due to their resonse time. However, newer models have virtually eliminated this problem, with further refinements imminent. Also, LCD's have a narrower effective viewing angle when compared to plasma.

    7. On a purely percentage basis, LCD's price will fall quicker than plasma's since they have a higher production scale than plasma panels, and also because plasmas (in terms of usage as large TV's and diplays) are a more mature technology.

    8. Due to the nature of the technology, Plasmas tend to slighly hum/hiss while in operation. Also, plasmas sometimes perform poorly in high-altitude situations due to the decreased air pressure having an effect on the gaseous phosphors.


    What I would like to see from these two technologies:
    1. LCD's can work on their black levels, response times and viewing angles in some way. Response time has been addressed, with some of the newer panels getting as low as 16, or even 12ms, which is nearly undetectable to the eye. Black levels might never be solved, due to the nature of a constant backlight needed for the panel to work. I am not sure about viewing angles, but newer models have seemed to improve upon this as well. Since cost is already falling due to the economics of scale, their prices should continue to fall, which is one of the more vocal gripes against LCD's at this time.

    2. I think that while increased half life in encouraging, there should be a better way to guard against burn in on plasmas. For many the possibilty of burn in of a plasma is like a scarlet letter, scaring them away from even considering one. Some manufaturers have included ways to counteract burn in, such as a way to display a reversed (ie negative) image on the screen, but I feel like this is a counteractive instead of proactive measure to rid a problem. I was thinking of attaching some sort of on-board computer that calculates the exact # of hours each color phosphor has burned for in each cell, and when there is too much of a discrepency of aging between cells and phosphors (say ~.5%) the computer would prompt the user to perform a diplay burn-in reset, in which the unit would age each of the cells and phosphors to within an acceptable age range (say within ~.1%, or whatever is scientifically found to be the range in which the human eye cannot perceive a difference). Since the diplays are already digital, I feel like this type of computation would not be so hard, and while it may reduce the total lifespan of a display, the manufacturer can advertise that the diplay will never "Burn In" for it's entire life.

    In general, I have found a good plasma picture more satisfactory than an lcd picture, but the lcd has made great strides in a short amount of time to narrow the gap. The new Sharp Aquos units are the best picture I have ever seen from an LCD, but they still do not look as life-like as a great plasma. And while burn-in is almost a non-issue, I still am wary of buying a plasma as I would look to use my diplay as a TV and a computer monitor.
    I think it is always best to wait it out as long as possible before making a decision, especially considering how fast technology is maturing. However, if I had to make a decision today, I would go for plasma, as IMHO the benefits in picture quality outweight the negatives when applied to how I would use the diplay (most likely not as a monitor, at sea level, with a good stand).
     
  8. Ted Lee

    Ted Lee Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,390
    Likes Received:
    0
    nice post chung. couple of thoughts.

    >> 2. LCD's are generally brighter than plasmas, but plasmas have better black levels,

    i've read that as well, but i have yet to see that for myself. it seems to me that plasmas are *always* brighter, with much better off-axis viewing as well.

    >> Some manufaturers have included ways to counteract burn in, such as a way to display a reversed (ie negative) image on the screen,

    i've also seen something called "orbiting" (?) where the plasma shifts the image around the screen (at least i think that's how it works) thereby reducing wear and tear on that particular cell.

    >> As of right now, no 42" or 43" plasma can show 720p (I might be wrong about this)

    i'm not sure, but i could swear we sell some 42" hd plasmas that do 720p, but it may be only 1080i. i'll have to look into that.
     
  9. Rich H

    Rich H Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re plasma burn-in.

    This issue has constantly been in the air over at the AVS flat panel form, over the four years I've been there. There have been questions and nervousness over the possiblity of burn-in, but it has turned out to be incredibly rare for any consumer to report burn-in on the forum. Out of thousands of people. I mean, I can think of one or two people who felt they had burn in on their plasma - and at least one of those guys had "abused" his plasma just about as bad as possible. He'd watched nothing but 4:3 content with black bars on the side for about 8 months or so. That would do the trick on any phosphor-based display I'd think, plasma or CRT. (And he remarked that he could just barely see the burn in if he looked really hard, and that it was not a problem for him).

    I've had my plasma for about three years. Despite the fact that it is pretty abused - my wife watches a news-ticker station all the time, with is essentially an entire screen of still graphics (and she forgets she's left the TV on that channel for long periods of time). My kids watch cartoon stations with "hard" logos in the corner. I watch all movies OAR, which means lots of letter-boxed movies.

    And I have not even a hint of burn-in. (And I've looked). I stopped bothering to even use the "orbiter" function over a year ago. No more worries for me.

    And the plasma has been an incredibly satisfying purchase (even though it was an un-godly expense several years ago...I can now find the Panasonic 65" plasma on-line for close to what my 42" ED model was going for only three years ago).

    For what it's worth.
     

Share This Page