LCD and Plasma Bargains

[PostmanPot]

How do Plasmas compare to LCD/LED for streaming content from the PC (movies SD and HD as well as games) and Xbox?

Plasma is superior for SD and gaming. Faster response time/"refresh rate" and lower input lag.

Plasma's only shortcoming is that it is not good for working on a PC or other sources where there is excessive static images - like Start bars, etc..

 

[Roman4604]

Superior PQ in terms of colours, contrast, blacks, etc.

Yes better colour accuracy does improve image quality, but in my 1st hand experience this is minor/subtle compared to (large) increases in resolution.

 

[Roman4604]

Faster response time/"refresh rate" and lower input lag.

Both PS3 and Xbox have a maximum refresh rate of 60Hz, which my Samsung LCD is capable of. A higher refresh rate (double buffering of the image) serves no purpose.

 

[PostmanPot]

Both PS3 and Xbox have a maximum refresh rate of 60Hz, which my Samsung LCD is capable of. A higher refresh rate (double buffering of the image) serves no purpose.

Except when it comes to motion i.e. sport and games. How's your LCD for sport?

The inverted commas were meant to show that refresh rate is a layman term for how fast new stuff displays on a screen. Perhaps I should have explained. Plasma is better at this task, as well as lower input lag - which makes it better for gaming.

LCD advertised response time is about 6ms. Plasma is about 0.0002ms.

 

[fusion01]

I should've gone through the effort of explaining.

A lot of people i talked to advised us to rather opt for a full HD LCD at the time. We went to Kloppers, our local "expert" store. At the time a superugby game was on and it sold the plasma immediately. None of the tv's, even most of the high end stuff, did'nt come close to the plasma and they did a very good job hiding the plasma's. Even after we bought the plasma most criticized our choice.

What I meant about the 720p content comment was, when I get new movies, if it's not in a decent 720rip, I don't want it.

Yeah this happens - when you go larger screen size, you really don't want to be watching poor quality media! The larger the screen, the more this becomes an issue. Bandwidth get's chowed on HD content

Funny that them hiding it - I think it's a bloody conspiracy as of late to bury plasma! Both the manufacturers and sellers! Anyway happy watching and don't doubt yourself - ever!

 

[fusion01]

Yes better colour accuracy does improve image quality, but in my 1st hand experience this is minor/subtle compared to (large) increases in resolution.

I'm not quite following, whether plasma or LCD FHD is the same irrespective, right? 1920 x 1080p - so both do support the same, there's no increase on one vs the other. I can state that LED just wasn't right for me due to the clouding, flash-lighting issues, but that's all - otherwise I can't fault it. Many won't be bothered by this stuff and tend to watch with lights on, or just not be so 'anal' about their tv experience. But honestly if you're spending R15k+ surely you expect close to perfection? Just wasn't the case with those units I returned. By the way, the LED @ 100hz (especially the Samsung) was extremely good at anti-judder processing. There is a scene in Minority Report - it might be my 720p MP4 rip (oops!) - but a kid on a bicycle cycles past... on the C6500 LED (with anti-judder set to '0' and anti-blur set to full) the frame interpolation (duplication) ensured a perfectly smooth movement. This isn't to be confused with input lag. On the D450 plasma it's jerky in this scene and frankly hasn't the generally the smoothest of panning compared to that unit. Maybe the D550 is better or maybe it's just a benefit of LCD. But nothings perfect and it's something I'm not bothered about.

 

[Roman4604]

Except when it comes to motion i.e. sport and games. How's your LCD for sport?

In my opinion very decent from a HDPVR via HDMI. After a bit of playing around I found the ideal setup;

- HDPVR output set at 1080i (again TV in native res doing no upscaling)

- TV set to zero sharpness. This setting accentuates any edge motion distortion, but at 1920x1080 res unneccessary (whats being transfered to the TV via HDMI)

- TV's MotionPlus/Hyperview settings at optimal/maxed (Picture Mode, Edge Enhancement, Black Tone, Colour Tone, MPEG & Digital Filters)

- Contrast at 80-90%

Initially I ran the HDPVR at 720p thinking the interlacing would add to motion distorion. But as it turns out, it doesnt and I can notice the extra picture sharpness at 1920x1080 (not because the content is at that res, but because the TV is displaying at native res not altering the picture).

LCD advertised response time is about 6ms. Plasma is about 0.0002ms.

At 1920x1080p@60Hz the source is updating the image 60 times a second progressively. This means each pixel is being updated from source every 16.6ms, so a display refershing faster is just updating the same unaltered pixel state.

I'm not quite following, whether plasma or LCD FHD is the same irrespective, right? 1920 x 1080p - so both do support the same, there's no increase on one vs the other.

Yes, but comparison is at the < R6000 price range for 40'+ set.

For this money you can get a FHD 1920x1080 LCD, while with Plasma the best you can get is 1024x768. Not enough to show a 1280x720 DSTV HD picture without alteration, and definately way too little to get the full experience of a FHD 1920x1080 source (Bluray, .mkv, FHD PC/console game).

 

[PostmanPot]

In my opinion very decent from a HDPVR via HDMI. After a bit of playing around I found the ideal setup;

- HDPVR output set at 1080i (again TV in native res doing no upscaling)

- TV set to zero sharpness. This setting accentuates any edge motion distortion, but at 1920x1080 res unneccessary (whats being transfered to the TV via HDMI)

- TV's MotionPlus/Hyperview settings at optimal/maxed (Picture Mode, Edge Enhancement, Black Tone, Colour Tone, MPEG & Digital Filters)

- Contrast at 80-90%

Initially I ran the HDPVR at 720p thinking the interlacing would add to motion distorion. But as it turns out, it doesnt and I can notice the extra picture sharpness at 1920x1080 (not because the content is at that res, but because the TV is displaying at native res not altering the picture).

Golf and tennis?

Agreed that it's much better over HD PVR. I was surprised when examining a Samsung Series 5 LCD playing sport from the HD PVR. Well it was soccer, which is a relatively slow sport which helps in the LCD's favour. Obviously 100Hz minimum is needed for decent overall sport viewing. That's dollars, hence why people go plasma, and they get an extra 2" for R1,000 less.

At 1920x1080p@60Hz the source is updating the image 60 times a second progressively. This means each pixel is being updated from source every 16.6ms, so a display refershing faster is just updating the same unaltered pixel state.

16.5998ms too slow. There's no way to defend 60Hz LCD's at handling fast motion.

Yes, but comparison is at the < R6000 price range for 40'+ set.

For this money you can get a FHD 1920x1080 LCD, while with Plasma the best you can get is 1024x768. Not enough to show a 1280x720 DSTV HD picture without alteration, and definately way too little to get the full experience of a FHD 1920x1080 source (Bluray, .mkv, FHD PC/console game).

Yet HD will look better on the plasma. Everyone has done the tests, everyone has chosen plasma. At least 10 - 15 people on these forums have been converted from LCD to plasma specifically for playing HD .mkv's, because they saw it was better. The experts too agree that plasma wins at the entry level of the market.

I'll say it again. FHD tends to be overrated.

 

[Zenbaas]

Golf and tennis?

Agreed that it's much better over HD PVR. I was surprised when examining a Samsung Series 5 LCD playing sport from the HD PVR. Well it was soccer, which is a relatively slow sport which helps in the LCD's favour. Obviously 100Hz minimum is needed for decent overall sport viewing. That's dollars, hence why people go plasma, and they get an extra 2" for R1,000 less.



16.5998ms too slow. There's no way to defend 60Hz LCD's at handling fast motion.



Yet HD will look better on the plasma. Everyone has done the tests, everyone has chosen plasma. At least 10 - 15 people on these forums have been converted from LCD to plasma specifically for playing HD .mkv's, because they saw it was better. The experts too agree that plasma wins at the entry level of the market.

I'll say it again. FHD tends to be overrated.

Especially on tiny screens.

 

[Roman4604]

16.5998ms too slow.

You're not understanding. That is the rate at which the source (PS3/XBox) is updating the pixels, not the TV.

I'll say it again. FHD tends to be overrated.

If you cant see the difference between SD-HD-FHD at 2-3m, then I'm afraid you're overdue for a checkup at the optometrist.

 

[Tim182]

You're not understanding. That is the rate at which the source (PS3/XBox) is updating the pixels, not the TV.

If you cant see the difference between SD-HD-FHD at 2-3m, then I'm afraid you're overdue for a checkup at the optometrist.

Haha, completely agree

 

[PostmanPot]

You're not understanding. That is the rate at which the source (PS3/XBox) is updating the pixels, not the TV.

I've never noticed motion lag in gaming on LCD. My quoting advertised response time was in general (nice numbers showing plasma is better ). My "too slow" comment was related to sport, where 60Hz LCD is too slow.

Input lag is higher on LCD than plasma, which is what I said regarding plasma being better for gaming.

Am I right, or am I wrong?

If you cant see the difference between SD-HD-FHD at 2-3m, then I'm afraid you're overdue for a checkup at the optometrist.

AFAIK it's a fact that at further-than recommended viewing distance per screen size (which I posted earlier), the full effect of FHD becomes less and less.

Perhaps the experts who made the chart are lying and need their eyes checked?

At this point, I think it's safe to say:

You are a pixel phreak
I am a PQ phreak.

 

[Tim182]

Input lag is higher on LCD than plasma, which is what I said regarding plasma being better for gaming.

Am I right, or am I wrong?

I am pretty sure that the input lag is similar for both plasma and lcd/led. Input lag is a function of image processing and is manufacturer depended.

You may be getting confused here because "response time" as advertised on the TV measures the amount of time a pixel takes to go from one value to another and back again. For modern LCDs this is around 4ms (plasma < 0.001). Response times under 16ms (most people argue) cannot be distinguished from one another by the human eye.

Point being, response time makes no difference. Input lag is manufacturer and TV model depended.

 

[PostmanPot]

I am pretty sure that the input lag is similar for both plasma and lcd/led. Input lag is a function of image processing and is manufacturer depended.

You may be getting confused here because "response time" as advertised on the TV measures the amount of time a pixel takes to go from one value to another and back again. For modern LCDs this is around 4ms (plasma < 0.001). Response times under 16ms (most people argue) cannot be distinguished from one another by the human eye.

Point being, response time makes no difference. Input lag is manufacturer and TV model depended.

Plasma definitely has lower input lag generally. I will agree that it's not too important, I mean I've never noticed lag on LCD's and consoles. I game myself on 32" LCD - Starcraft 2 and Black Ops and have no problems.

What is more important than lower input lag, which sells plasma to gamers who aren't pixel phreaks and know that 99% of games are only HD or less, is that for ±6,000 you're getting a 50" plasma compared to a 40" LCD. Gaming experience is going to be way more enthralling on a 50". Add to this deeper blacks and better colours compared to entry LCD's and plasma is a winner. Most people here who game on plasma say it's better than LCD, I haven't tried myself as I don't have a console.

The earlier comment that entry HD plasma is only good for SD, is complete nonsense.

In my experience it's quoted at less than 8ms, not 16ms. It's also said that some special people can tell a difference, below 8ms.

I think my mentioning response time is getting people confused - seems now sport/gaming are overlapping. I was referring to sport, where the faster response time means less motion lag.

 

[Roman4604]

Perhaps the experts who made the chart are lying and need their eyes checked?

What experts ... the opinion/eyesight of one arb dude called Carlton Bale. Again sorry, I'll trust my own eyes.

which sells plasma to gamers who aren't pixel phreaks and know that 99% of games are only HD or less, is that for ±6,000 you're getting a 50" plasma compared to a 40" LCD.

Please, what gamers arent pixel freaks? The push for higher resolutions is universal in the industry from all sides; gamers, developers, display makers, GPU makers etc.

You're being very disingenuous recommending people looking for a TV/monitor in the < R6000 price range that a 42' Plasma at 1024x768 is going to give them the best gaming experience for their money.

 

[PostmanPot]

What experts ... the opinion/eyesight of one arb dude called Carlton Bale. Again sorry, I'll trust my own eyes.

Many "expert" TV sites, review sites, etc.. I've seen the chart on plenty when going through Google search hits. Then we also have experts on this very forum who have owned tons of TV's and high end kit and are able to make direct comparisons. KURO's, top end LCD's, etc.. In fact our very own "AV Prez", TYR, also maintains that from his viewing distance he couldn't tell the difference between HD and FHD - only in still images. Other experts like Dolby (who coined the President title) agree with him.

And then we have a multitude of gamers who say gaming is better on HD plasma than FHD LCD, who own/have owned both techs?

Please, what gamers arent pixel freaks? The push for higher resolutions is universal in the industry from all sides; gamers, developers, display makers, GPU makers etc.

Gamers are pixel freaks, however they realise 99% of games are 720p or less and understand the benefit of bigger size for less price, better blacks and colours.

You're being very disingenuous recommending people looking for a TV/monitor in the < R6000 price range that a 42' Plasma at 1024x768 is going to give them the best gaming experience for their money.

When did I do this? And anyone with a budget of R6,000 would not hesitate to put in an extra R499 to get a 50" HD plasma. I bet you, using the same price points, that most people would take 42" HD plasma over 32" FHD LCD.

You're being very disingenuous by making such a big deal about 720p plasma vs 1080p LCD for gaming.

 

[ldmelsa]

You're being very disingenuous recommending people looking for a TV/monitor in the < R6000 price range that a 42' Plasma at 1024x768 is going to give them the best gaming experience for their money.

While res is an important aspect of a screen, it does not have much to do with the image quality. My old Philips CRT, running at 1024x768, stomps all over my Samsung T260 at 1920x1200 (things might be much better these days). Please try to understand what PostmanPot is getting at. He's not talking about resolution. He's talking about dynamic image quality VS static image quality.

Don't get me wrong. I do recognize the need for a high resolution display and many of your point are valid, Roman4604.

Cheers,
ldmelsa

 

[Roman4604]

And anyone with a budget of R6,000 would not hesitate to put in an extra R499 to get a 50" HD plasma. I bet you, using the same price points, that most people would take 42" HD plasma over 32" FHD LCD.

In comparison to a 40' LCD like mine (same brand), the price difference is more like R1400. Yes for that extra you get a 50' set, but that in itself wont give you a superior picture, you're stretching the same amount of pixels (1280x720) over a greater area. The fidelity will actual reduce unless you sit even further back.

Secondly what 42' Plasma (yes less expensive than 40' LCD) is capable of natively displaying 1280x720 HD signal without alteration?

You're being very disingenuous by making such a big deal about 720p plasma vs 1080p LCD for gaming.

And your blinkered to the fact that only console games are mostly limited to 1280x720. In the PC world all games and even a mid-range GPU can push FHD 1920x1080 with ease these days.

Please try to understand what PostmanPot is getting at. He's not talking about resolution. He's talking about dynamic image quality VS static image quality.

I do (also have an old 17' 1024x768 CRT), but from a pure wow factor, in my opinion there is no subsitute for more resolution.

 

[PostmanPot]

In comparison to a 40' LCD like mine (same brand), the price difference is more like R1400. Yes for that extra you get a 50' set, but that in itself wont give you a superior picture, you're stretching the same amount of pixels (1280x720) over a greater area. The fidelity will actual reduce unless you sit even further back.

Secondly what 42' Plasma (yes less expensive than 40' LCD) is capable of natively displaying 1280x720 HD signal without alteration?

" = inch
' = foot

Those who actually have 50" plasma's, who upgraded from ±40" LCD's, will disagree with you. People buying 50" have an average viewing distance of 3m, they probably go closer for gaming, but still it's far out of the required distance for a full full HD experience, as per the experts/expert chart. Also, 99% of the console games they are playing are not FHD.

To my knowledge there are no/very few true HD 42" plasma's. However, they are still chosen for HD (99% of console games) media as the image offered is superior to that of entry level LCD - something everyone agrees on.

And your blinkered to the fact that only console games are mostly limited to 1280x720. In the PC world all games and even a mid-range GPU can push FHD 1920x1080 with ease these days.

you're*

Irrelevant, we are and always have been talking console games (except when I mentioned SC2 and BLOPS). I agree that gaming PC's should be paired with FHD screens.

I do (also have an old 17' 1024x768 CRT), but from a pure wow factor, in my opinion there is no subsitute for more resolution.

More resolution (FHD) is not needed when 99% of games/95% of all content is HD or less. I take it you've gamed extensively on HD plasma?

I'm quite sure you will eat your humble pie soon when you learn that resolution is not everything. Especially after checking out the new Samsung D Series plasma's - black levels comparable to KURO.

 

[Roman4604]

Irrelevant, we are and always have been talking console games (except when I mentioned SC2 and BLOPS). I agree that gaming PC's should be paired with FHD screens.

Let me remind you this is the 'Bargins' thread (i.e. value for money). You're impling one must get a HD Plasma for the best TV/console gaming experience and a FHD (Plasma/LCD) for the best PC experience. Now what is that going to cost combined?

95% of all content is HD or less.

What about Bluray & .mkv files. All movie/series type content is avaliable in FHD if you want it.

This in a nutshell encapsulates my issues with Plasma at the budget price range. There is always some compromise. A FHD LCD gives me the flexibility to view all the content/games I choose at the resolutions the creators intended, for a budget of less than R6000 (R5101 to be exact).