Reply to: Plasma or LCD?

[PAH]

They do. Although it depends somewhat on your definition of cheap, and they aren't completely bezel free, although they do get quite thin.

Yeah, not my definition of cheap, even in smug 'just raised a massive invoice' contractor mode.

Maybe if they made the bezel transparent instead of black they'd be getting close FFS.

[doodab]

I've wondered for some time now why they can't give us cheap bezel-less panels we can clip together to make a screen as big as we want.

They do. Although it depends somewhat on your definition of cheap, and they aren't completely bezel free, although they do get quite thin.

46" LCD Display (60002632) - dabs.com

46" Video Wall Display (LH46MRTLBC/EN) - dabs.com

[PAH]

There is a big difference when you need/want to get 100'' screen and LCDs are simply not (normally at sane price) made for that sort of size.

It must be limitations in how they are manufactured but I've wondered for some time now why they can't give us cheap bezel-less panels we can clip together to make a screen as big as we want.

They do it for professional displays, though maybe the join is too obvious when within normal viewing distances in the home where a 100" display would be just the ticket.

Seems the need to have a bezel is an insurmountable problem at consumer price levels. Maybe they're expecting newer tech to displace LCD/Plasma soon so not worth solving the problem.

[Lockhouse]

The best video quality is provided by quality plasmas. Go check out AVforums if you don't want to take my word for it. Given that plasmas are generally cheaper than LCDs, for a given price you will definitely get better picture quality from a plasma than an LCD. Obviously you should do your research and get the best one. (Best plasma > best LCD is true, any plasma > any LCD is not what I'm saying.)

Having said that, if you're not an AV buff who wants to have the best, then modern LCDs are very good. If you actually need an LCD (for games, computing, etc.) then a reasonably good one will be 90% as good as a good plasma, for video.

Concur.

[AtW]

Wrong again. There is no big difference, different manufacturers push both.

There is a big difference when you need/want to get 100'' screen and LCDs are simply not (normally at sane price) made for that sort of size.

[d000hg]

Plasma is tulip - only good if you have no choice (ie very large screens: 60''+)

Wrong again. There is no big difference, different manufacturers push both.

[doodab]

I always imagine people who insist plasma is better are the same people that insist vinyl gives a "warmer" sound than CD.

It does, because the high frequencies generally roll off quite early, esp on a record that's been well worn, although IMO most of the audible difference is down to the material being more compressed to fit within the rather limited dynamic range of vinyl.

CDs are clearly much better IMO, unless you're a (club) DJ in which case the tactile aspect of vinyl wins. Although these days it's a bit of a moot point as I only use physical media to get music from the shop to my house, and I stopped aspiring to be a DJ after leaving uni.

[Sysman]

I always imagine people who insist plasma is better are the same people that insist vinyl gives a "warmer" sound than CD.

I've done that experiment on super-expensive kit (same album on CD and vinyl) and you can tell the difference.

The problem with LPs is that once you get used to the play time of CDs, stackers and MP3 players. with LPs you seem to be forever getting up to flip sides or change the bugger.

[doodab]

I also had the perception that this was an issue, but found that nowadays plasmas consume only slightly more power than LCDs. My 50" plasma has power consumption of 190W

Mine is over 4 years old. Perhaps it's time for a replacement...

I would also ask yourself if you need a 50" screen. Mine is 42" and if I'm totally honest it's almost a bit too large when you are sat 4m away. I certainly wouldn't want anything bigger.

The official recommendation for getting the full benefit of 1080p high definition is something like sitting two screen widths away from the screen. (Some advice says you should sit closer/ have a bigger screen.) At a 4 meter distance, a quick calc. in my head tells me you need something like an 80" screen. (I wonder if you're the same person who in another TV thread, said he couldn't really see the quality difference of HD. There's a reason for that, at your ratio of viewing distance to screen size, I doubt there is much difference.)

It's a personal judgement, it's not based on a calculation for obtaining the best possible resolution in the available space. Bear in mind that most of the time it's got kid's TV or the pap my missus watches on it and I just wouldn't want that taking up a whole wall however good movies & sport are going to look. If you are basing your choice purely on technical considerations, then although there is no "official" recommendation I think the THX standard says something like a 40 degree FOV is optimal. That works out as a 130" diagonal for a 16:9 screen at 4m, which no doubt makes for a marvelous home cinema experience but in the average lounge is clearly going to be overkill and quite possibly grounds for divorce if not after a few hours of chuggington.

It might well have been me that said the difference with HD wasn't worth worrying about in a normal domestic setting, because as you have pointed out even with a relatively large screen at normal domestic viewing distances your eyes cannot see the difference. One of the guys from panavision, who are one of the largest purveyors of equipment for digital cinema, gave an interview where he made a similar point regarding 4K digital cinema i.e. for most viewers in most cinemas the difference in quality is invisible to the human eye. Another thing to bear in mind is that most broadcast TV (including a lot of sport) is still broadcast in SD and often has quite a low bitrate in order that they can cram more channels of crap into the available spectrum. I *can* already see the difference quiet clearly between that and HD on what I have, but it's as much to do with bitrate as resolution. On a larger screen a lot of it would be practically unwatchable. Although to be fair most of it is unwatchable by design

Don't get me wrong, a Full HD TV is the sensible choice these days, but don't just assume you need a monster size screen because some bloke in a magazine said so. They have their downsides in terms of taking over the lounge, which you'll have to live with full time, and the benefits are only going to be apparent if you're watching a lot of blu-rays or have Sky HD.

[scooterscot]

No wonder people are confused. Sounds like plasma is coming out on top.

[gingerjedi]

From what I've read LCD's are difficult to manufacture above 42" and Plasma's are difficult to manufacture bellow 42".

LCD's weigh bugger all, draw little power, have brighter colours, don't suffer from screen burn and shouldn't lose picture quality over time as there's no gas to deplete.

IMO modern processing 'engines' tip the balance in favour of LCD though there's bound to be a few 'die hards' who spent 3k on a Pioneer Kuro who'll tell you different.

[AtW]

I've never seen a plasma that I thought was good

WHS

Maybe there is some very expensive plasma that is gr8, just like there is BetaMax equipment still, apparently, in use.

LED LCD is the thing to go for right now - decent price, good visuals and none of this "HD READY" crap - good power usage too.

[VectraMan]

I always imagine people who insist plasma is better are the same people that insist vinyl gives a "warmer" sound than CD.

I've never seen a plasma that I thought was good. The only thing they have going for them is that they're bigger. So if you're impressed by big, then go for plasma.

[PAH]

Plasma is tulip - only good if you have no choice (ie very large screens: 60''+)

Can you start putting a in your replies, like EO, so we know you're not being serious.

I think for most budget TVs (say under a grand) that plasma offers darker blacks, faster refreshes (less or no image blur), and a more natural picture. There may be LCDs that challenge that but not sure how many are classed as value for money.

Either way I'm hoping OLED or some other fancy technology comes along soon to blow them both out of the living room. Not keen on the distraction 3D TV is having on the major manufacturers, though not had the pleasure (ahem) of seeing the new Penthouse 3D channel yet, which may well be the game/mind changer!

[IR35 Avoider]

Plasma is tulip - only good if you have no choice (ie very large screens: 60''+)

The best video quality is provided by quality plasmas. Go check out AVforums if you don't want to take my word for it. Given that plasmas are generally cheaper than LCDs, for a given price you will definitely get better picture quality from a plasma than an LCD. Obviously you should do your research and get the best one. (Best plasma > best LCD is true, any plasma > any LCD is not what I'm saying.)

Having said that, if you're not an AV buff who wants to have the best, then modern LCDs are very good. If you actually need an LCD (for games, computing, etc.) then a reasonably good one will be 90% as good as a good plasma, for video.