Plasma or LCD?

Leftfoot said:
LED screen FTW!:D
Click to expand...

not all of us are as rich as you lefty :p

but it depends really, if we had more channels broadcasted in HD I would get an LCD, but with the number of SD channels and lack of HD programming to watch I went with a plasma and have no regrets.
 
Just to add to the plasma power usage question for prospective buyers. The latest, since 2007, Energy Star plasma's uses less than half the power of an old 72cm tube TV.

The study showed that current big screen Plasma models are even more energy efficient than some 27-inch picture tube sets sold just a few years ago.

The plasma display coalition claims that plasma TV manufacturers have reduced plasma display power by more than 20 percent, year over year since 2007.

“A 42-inch to 50-inch Plasma HDTV will consume less than half the energy of the most popular type of big-screen tube TV sets sold just a decade ago,” said Jim Palumbo, President of the Plasma Display Coalition.
Click to expand...

Source:
http://www.digitalhome.ca/2009/11/report-says-plasma-cost-just-23-cents-a-day-to-operate/

So the only pro's LCD's have going for it these days over plasma's are... um.. none.:p
 
kang said:
I just wonder if its the 100Hz thing or not.
So sorry to all the Plasma fans but I couldn't handle the reflective glass. Like most people say, let your eyes decide.
Click to expand...

You should have asked to see a 50hz and 100hz set side by side, showing the same thing. Then you'd know pretty much what it does and how you cannot live without ;)

Basically it's very fluid ... I've had people with mixed reactions though :/ It makes a movie seem like 'the making of' or a 'documentary'. My brother said it makes the fight scenes look less real - but once you've watched only one movie in it, you won't go back and you'll pick out the 50hz TV's whereever you are (friends, family, pubs) and *your eyes will burn

*perhaps not quite as dramatic though
 
Film is recorded in 35mm at 24 frames per second. So the fluidity Dolby describes is an artefact of the TV - they interpolate extra frames. When you go to the cinema and enjoy a movie, it's at 24fps (progressive). Video looks smoother when done at 720p60 or 1080i60 or occasionally 1080p60 (rare)- adding extra frames makes it look smoother, but gives your filmed film a video look. As is, most video producers are pushing a film look and shooting with progressive video cameras, using Cine Gamma settings and colour correcting for the film look. So 100Hz is cute but it won't make a real film look better, it will take away from the film feel/look and make an expensive production look like cheap video.
 
re: 100hz
"it will take away from the film feel/look"

- I can agree here, but it's still interesting, you can watch the same film twice, once in 50hz, once in 100hz, and have two different experiences, I'm definitely keen to get the 100hz (or 200hz), when the prices drop.
 
Silver82 said:
re: 100hz
"it will take away from the film feel/look"

- I can agree here, but it's still interesting, you can watch the same film twice, once in 50hz, once in 100hz, and have two different experiences, I'm definitely keen to get the 100hz (or 200hz), when the prices drop.
Click to expand...

If you watch TV shows - 24, CSI, Terminator, etc, sure it's cute - those are all done with progressive video cameras and often get colour corrected for a film look - but the fluidity of interpolated frames does end up making film and even video made to look like film more like video. Motion pictures were always - and still are done on film, even CGI effects are transferred to film and then shown. So it's at 24p or fps. You can add in extra frames by interpolation but you know that's now the way the motion picture was meant to be seen as. On the other hand if you're watching documentaries and sports and TV shows not made to look like shot on film, this 100Mhz thing is cool and all.
 
I get the feeling your plasma doesn't have 100hz and you're justifying.

Do you have 100hz, Peter?
 
This LCD vs Plasma discussions has been discussed to death, but i still enjoy the different view point of ppl.i personaly have a 42'' HD Ready Sammy and i love it. paid under 7K for it.for me it plays everything and does what it needs to do.personaly for me the plasma rapes and lcd for picture quality anyday.just my opinion.

paying so much money for a FHD screen is a waist of money as we won't have FHD tv in the next 5 years or so.DSTV is just a smoke screen.who wants to watch 1 or 2 hd channels where the screen gets shaped allover the place to fit the screen.

for tv purposes -plasma
anything else - maybe lcd :D:D:D lol

go for something thats in your budget w.r.t size,quality and extras

hope this makes sense
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes
 
Dolby said:
I get the feeling your plasma doesn't have 100hz and you're justifying.

Do you have 100hz, Peter?
Click to expand...

Peter is right. From what I've read and also other peoples comments etc etc, the 100Hz motion flow should be turned off when watching movies or playing games as it deteriorates the picture. It is only meant to be switched on when watching normal satellite TV.
 
Is it just me (Sony Bravia) or are the SABC channels on DSTV crap quality.

On Mnet and even Botswana TV the quality is much better. If I watch SABC news for example, the news presenter's face looks like it "smudges" when he moves his head slightly. Especially if it's a black newsreader (and I'm not being racist)
 
LCD, a no-brainer..

With plasma you can go bigger, obviously because they are cheaper..
But the quality of the LCD is fantastic :D
Was in the same situation as you a few months back.

Im glad your happy with your purchase :)
 
PokerKing said:
LCD, a no-brainer..

With plasma you can go bigger, obviously because they are cheaper..
But the quality of the LCD is fantastic :D
Was in the same situation as you a few months back.

Im glad your happy with your purchase :)
Click to expand...

Most professional reviewers seem to disagree with you regarding picture quality. Most people who actually view both LCD and Plasma in a light contrrolled environment, as opposed to just falling for LCD's advertising hype, end up buying plasma.
 
PokerKing said:
LCD, a no-brainer..

With plasma you can go bigger, obviously because they are cheaper..
But the quality of the LCD is fantastic :D
Was in the same situation as you a few months back.

Im glad your happy with your purchase :)
Click to expand...

Why would picking an inferior technology for displaying moving images be a no-brainer decision? :confused: Care to elaborate?

Ahh, I get it, if you are a no-brainer, you would pick LCD. :p
 
PeterCH said:
If you watch TV shows - 24, CSI, Terminator, etc, sure it's cute - those are all done with progressive video cameras and often get colour corrected for a film look
Click to expand...

All CSI series and 24 are shot on 35mm film then telecined to HD. They're not shot on HD cameras, so there's no need for producers to attempt to achieve the "film look". Some sitcoms such as Two and a Half Men are shot on 35mm film.
There's no indication that any major American series and sitcoms will be moving to digital bandwagon any time soon.

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motio..._Boyce_talks_about_formats_for_television.htm

Film is still far superior to current HD technology. Even Super16 produces a superior picture in terms of actual spacial resolution compared to Full HD.
Digital productions can try emulate the look and feel of film, but film has a specific look that is native to its technology and stock and it's that specific look that producers want.
 
Last edited:
TYR said:
Most professional reviewers seem to disagree with you regarding picture quality. Most people who actually view both LCD and Plasma in a light contrrolled environment, as opposed to just falling for LCD's advertising hype, end up buying plasma.
Click to expand...

I have owned 2 32 inch HDReady Lcd's for the last 5 years, both Samsungs. I've enjoyed every second of them. For the last 4 months, i have been doing intensive research on upgrading, and after all the hype, i'm getting a 42 HDReady Samsung Plasma. Viewing distance and a lot of other reference, makes it the solid choice. Both schools of thought could bust this out forever, just think of viewing material, viewing distance, lighting and budget.
 
Wasp_21 said:
I have owned 2 32 inch HDReady Lcd's for the last 5 years, both Samsungs. I've enjoyed every second of them. For the last 4 months, i have been doing intensive research on upgrading, and after all the hype, i'm getting a 42 HDReady Samsung Plasma. Viewing distance and a lot of other reference, makes it the solid choice. Both schools of thought could bust this out forever, just think of viewing material, viewing distance, lighting and budget.
Click to expand...

Brilliant choice!
 
genetic said:
All CSI series and 24 are shot on 35mm film then telecined to HD. They're not shot on HD cameras, so there's no need for producers to attempt to achieve the "film look". Some sitcoms such as Two and a Half Men are shot on 35mm film.
There's no indication that any major American series and sitcoms will be moving to digital bandwagon any time soon.

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motio..._Boyce_talks_about_formats_for_television.htm

Film is still far superior to current HD technology. Even Super16 produces a superior picture in terms of actual spacial resolution compared to Full HD.
Digital productions can try emulate the look and feel of film, but film has a specific look that is native to its technology and stock and it's that specific look that producers want.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that CSI and 24 used film. I do know that for many of the in car shots they use HD video cameras shooting progressive video, either the HVX200 from Pany or something else. They had the actors handle the cameras themselves.

Californication, for example, is shot with a Sony CineAlta f900 HD 24p video camera. The opening is shot on 16mm film but the majority of the show is video. They could have shot it in 60p even but to get the film look, they stayed at 24p.

However, most series use video. They can also shoot 4K video as well. I know some motion pictures are shot like that - many European productions - and you can't tell that they were recorded on video and not on film. It is possible to correct for that in a high end colour correction app like Color/DaVinci 2K.
You'd have to be a professional to be able to discern the differences.

BD showcase titles like Planet Earth use HD video cameras - they used Pansonic VariCam HD for that series.

The results are anyway that film is 24fps and if you watch it in a cinema the motion won't be smooth. The 100Mhz - 200MHz or 144p look will give you more of a video look than film. Hence it's great for 99% of the TV series out there, sport, docu's and some films but if you're a film buff you'll prefer higher contrast, wider viewing angle, better colour reproduction and SIZE to just MHz. But hey, if you can get everything, and switch the feature off, go for it.
 
Last edited:
genetic said:
Film is still far superior to current HD technology.
Click to expand...

+1 And will be for a long time to come.

The resolution they obtain from film with drum scanners kicks HD in the panty. Would also make sense for archival purposes to use film so in future the resolution is there if you need it. Resolution 6000 to 8000 lines vs 1080
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X