WHich is best? PLASMA vs. LCD vs. LED

Status
Not open for further replies.
PostmanPot said:
I own both plasma and LCD TV. I recommend both when the requirements are suitable. So I'd have to correct you, that'd be PlasmaLCDPot. ;)
Click to expand...

Nah, PlasmaPot rolls better off the tongue.

BTW I value your input. Great effort.
 
Mbuzi said:
http://www.cnet.com.au/plasma-vs-lcd-which-is-right-for-you-240036500.htm
Click to expand...

@ Postman

Is this true?
You might have also heard that plasmas suffer from screen burn-in, an affliction not commonly associated with LCDs. Screen burn-in occurs when an image is left too long on a screen, resulting in a ghost of that image "burned in". Newer plasmas are less susceptible to this, thanks to improved technology and features such as screensavers, but burn-in can still be a problem. However, after a few days most burnt-in images will fade — they are no longer permanent.
Click to expand...
 
Plasma FTW

I had a 42" FHD LCD and last weekend bought a 51" FHD 3D Plasma, had them side by side and tested with the same content on both tv's (one playing from the PC - Blu ray rip) and one from the PS3, the Plasma just won hands down, even when sources were swapped.

I imagine for long term - LED FTW
For quality - Plasma
 
I bought my Samsung 42" plasma a while back and lever looked back. Thanks PP

But then I watch sport and love the 600hz refresh!!! :love: And thats watching HD sport channels. DSTV is 720p anyway, and they have no plans for 1080i/p in the future.. Just ask that question on the dstv forums and see how quickly your thread gets deleted lol

add that most people cant even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, it makes sense to get a bigger 720p plasma than a smaller 1080p LCD with a pathetic refresh rate (which sucks for sport, and we all watch sport here!! ;) )

:D
 
Last edited:
wily me said:
@ Postman

Is this true?
Click to expand...

No. A burnt in image has physically damaged the panel, i.e. permanent.

Anything else is image retention, something which is temporary. Temporary can be a few seconds to a few days (severe).

So burnt-in images that fade were never burnt in, they were retained.
 
TriggerTRD said:
Plasma FTW

I had a 42" FHD LCD and last weekend bought a 51" FHD 3D Plasma, had them side by side and tested with the same content on both tv's (one playing from the PC - Blu ray rip) and one from the PS3, the Plasma just won hands down, even when sources were swapped.

I imagine for long term - LED FTW
For quality - Plasma
Click to expand...

Modern Samsung plasmas are rated 200,000 hours until half life. That's like half a life time of viewing.
 
techead said:
I bought my Samsung 42" plasma a while back and lever looked back. Thanks PP

But then I watch sport and love the 600hz refresh!!! :love: And thats watching HD sport channels. DSTV is 720p anyway, and they have no plans for 1080i/p in the future.. Just ask that question on the dstv forums and see how quickly your thread gets deleted lol

add that most people cant even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, it makes sense to get a bigger 720p plasma than a smaller 1080p LCD with a pathetic refresh rate (which sucks for sport, and we all watch sport here!! ;) )

:D
Click to expand...

Glad you're still happy. All DSTV HD PVR is now 1080i. While a FHD screen would resolve more detail (need closer viewing distances to fully capitalise), the interlacing introduces motion artefacting, which in my experience is handled much better by entry 720p plasma, than entry 1080p LCD.
 
PostmanPot said:
No. A burnt in image has physically damaged the panel, i.e. permanent.

Anything else is image retention, something which is temporary. Temporary can be a few seconds to a few days (severe).

So burnt-in images that fade were never burnt in, they were retained.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Thanks.

So for a PC monitor and PS3 gaming the LCD/LED are the best option then.
 
I was always under the impression that LCD/LED was better for live sporting cause it would cast less of a shadow. . .

If Plasma so much better, why is it cheaper then the = LCD/LED?
 
PostmanPot said:
Modern plasma will only burn in if it repetitively is left on while displaying static images, i.e. permanent images that don't move.

For DSTV and PS3 you want plasma. This is because plasma, specifically 42/43", handles standard definition feeds (99% of DSTV channels, DVDs, avi/divx rips) the best. It's also excellent for gaming and HD DSTV. You have virtually 0% chance of burn. I advise a lot of people in this position and they always end up taking plasma, due to their reliance on good TV picture quality. Plasma also handles sport well and there's less of a need for expensive "100Hz LCD technology", which helps them handle motion better.

The only down side is if you have a really bright room and/or with direct sunlight on the TV; if you watch in the day this will be a problem because entry level plasmas are reflective (like old box TVs). So LCD/LED backlit LCD is recommended for bright conditions.

Samsung:

R4,999 PS43D450 43" HD Ready plasma
R5,999 - R6,500 PS51D450 51" HD Ready plasma
R9,000 - R9,999 PS51D550 51" Full HD 3D plasma

R5,499 LA40D550 40" Full HD LCD
R7,999 LA46D550 46" Full HD LCD
R7,999 LA40D6000 40" Full HD LED-LCD 100Hz
R12,499 LA46D6000 46" Full HD LED-LCD 100Hz

I myself use 42" HD Ready plasma as I have a reliance on SD TV and sport, whatever's I'm lucky enough to get on the HD channels also looks excellent. 42" plasma = best of both words (SD and HD).

The worst thing you can do is go to a mass mart store and judge TVs under excruciatingly bright shop lights from 1m viewing distances in aisles. To compare accurately, you need to go to a proper AV store that has a test room, so you can better replicate your home conditions.
Click to expand...

100%. I also bought my 42" Samsung plasma last year and I absolutely love the quality. Everything plays amazingly well through it. I will never buy a LCD/LED. I would definitely buy another plasma.


skimread said:
Plasma will use at least 2-3 times more power than LED using price as the gauge is not always the best.

What size inch TV you looking at ?
Click to expand...

Rubbish. That might have been the case many years ago but this is no longer an issue. My plasma uses 200W, which is around the same power of a LCD.
 
wily me said:
That makes sense. Thanks.

So for a PC monitor and PS3 gaming the LCD/LED are the best option then.
Click to expand...

PC monitor - if using PC for work, i.e. in Windows where there are static images for hours, yes.
- for media and gaming, no problem on plasma.

PS3 gaming - plasma handles motion better with lower input lag, so many gamers swear by plasma. This isn't such an issue these days, I haven't seen an LCD that doesn't handle gaming well. More to the point is that plasma gives you a noticeable screen size increase for the same price if not cheaper, and that is the largest determiner in immersive gaming experience on modern HD TVs. Since most games have cut scenes (which act as "refreshers" against any static images/consoles/bars), gaming generally is 100% fine. You'd probably get some IR after long sessions, but that's perfectly normal operation.
 
Last edited:
scruff304 said:
I was always under the impression that LCD/LED was better for live sporting cause it would cast less of a shadow. . .

If Plasma so much better, why is it cheaper then the = LCD/LED?
Click to expand...

Because they are pushing us towards LCD/LED. That's why plasma is not manufactured anymore. Well, hardly anyway. Plasma is better for TV/series/movies, whether SD or HD. It just plays everything so smoothly and picture quality is amazing.
 
scruff304 said:
I was always under the impression that LCD/LED was better for live sporting cause it would cast less of a shadow. . .

If Plasma so much better, why is it cheaper then the = LCD/LED?
Click to expand...

I don't follow your argument? Cast less of a shadow? Please explain.

It's cheaper because marketing gimmick allows pricing of generally & factually inferior alternatives to be increased. More profits. Cost of production: Plasma > LCD > LED-LCD. Consumer price highest to lowest: LED-LCD > LCD > plasma.

High end plasmas are pricey, but still offer larger screen size and arguably better picture quality under the correct viewing conditions.
 
PostmanPot said:
I don't follow your argument? Cast less of a shadow? Please explain.

It's cheaper because marketing gimmick allows pricing of generally & factually inferior alternatives to be increased. More profits. Cost of production: Plasma > LCD > LED-LCD. Consumer price highest to lowest: LED-LCD > LCD > plasma.

High end plasmas are pricey, but still offer larger screen size and arguably better picture quality under the correct viewing conditions.
Click to expand...

Wasn't arguing, was more asking/stating what I thought was the truth.

Sorry, by shadowing, I meant what people here refer to as "smearing" Like when a player is running, it leaves a "shadow" behind himself.
 
I meant argument as in "train of thought". :) Ah right, motion blur, ghosting, general motion artefacting etc. Well both entry level LCD and plasma aren't perfect and will suffer from motion artefacting showing either tech's imperfections. But plasma is definitely the lesser of two somewhat evils.

Once an entry LCD (Samsung 5 Series) is running off an HD signal (HD PVR), entry plasma loses most of its advantage at motion handling. ;)

High end is another story. Plasma, as a technology, handles motion better. Once its potential is met, there is no argument. LCD is the one catching up with 100+Hz etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X