Plasma or LCD

There is a big difference between 37" and 42" in terms of availability. AFAIK, plasmas are only available down to 42" except for Panasonic who make one 37" plasma. In 42", plasma is made by loads of people. LCD is available freely from 20" or so upwards.

Generally speaking plasma has been the higher quality solution over LCD. Here are a couple of reasons why:

Contrast:

LCD is a backlit technology. A bright backlight is used to light up the crystals and give you colour. The backlight has to be bright and uniform across the whole screen. The problem here is that this means there is no true black.

Plasma is different in that each pixel is switched on or off using the equivalent of a tiny gun, so when the pixel is off it is really off and no light emits from it. The darkest black available is basically the colour of the screen when switched off. Plasmas generally achieve darker blacks than LCDs therefore, and LCD's darkest black tends to take on a blue hue, not sure why, but it is there.

However, not all plasmas are the same. Some have darker blacks than others, and this depends on the technology available. It's generally agreed that the best available is Pioneer's G8 TV. (For those 'in the know', Fujitsu only made panels and have recently pulled out of the plasma screen market completely.) The Pioneer contains a lot of technology in the form of an excellent built-in scaler (you need one to fill the screen) and comes with ISF software built in, meaning you can have it calibrated specifically for your room at extra cost, but with great effect. This is unique in the marketplace as far as I know. Unfortunately the Pioneer carries a premium price of about £1800...! After the Pioneer, the Panasonics appear to be very good indeed.

Why is black so important? Much of what you watch on TV nowadays is shot in low light situations or at night. The better contrast deeper black allows the screen to give you better resolution in the dark sections of the picture, so this gives better depth to the picture as well as a more believable feel to it. Of course in the very well lit emporia of the likes of Currys, John Lewis et al, this means that the plasma screen suffers in a direct comparison. There is so much light bouncing around (far more than at home in your lounge), that plasma's inherent advantage is reduced significantly. Bear this in mind when you make the rounds.

Motion:

LCD is a slower technology. You'll see some screens being sold with 8ms technology. LCD is a liquid crystal that solidifies when a current is passed through it. This solidification takes time, long enough that you can see motion trails when watching fast moving objects on the screen, particularly bad with sports of course.

Plasma is a much faster technology (although not perfect), so it suffers much less than LCD in this respect.

LCD is improving rapidly and fast gaining ground on plasma, and on High Definition material it is very impressive indeed, probably because the scaler in the display has to do less (or no) work. The acid test is with standard definition material (which is what you see most of the time). At the lower end, LCD can be positively horrible, whereas plasma remains watchable in my view, although both are worse than traditional CRT most of the time, partly because their upscaled pictures are made with poor scalers, partly because of their in-built technology, partly because CRT has no scaling to do and partly because CRT's overall resolution is so low that the artefacts are more difficult to see.

There is one place where LCD will beat plasma. Due to a latency on the green colour, plasma can affect certain few people with a colour flash - not as bad as a DLP rainbow colour effect, but occasionally certain people can see yellow or blue flashes from a screen when they move their head in relation to the screen. I have never been able to see this phenomenon, but I know one person who suffers with most plasmas. If you do not suffer the problem (just look at a switched on screen) then it won't matter, but this phenomenon simply cannot happen with LCD which can give the LCD screen a more stable picture.

quote:

... although both [Plasma and LCD] are worse than traditional CRT most of the time, ...

I have said this many times, and have been laughed at by TV salesmen!

Thanks for that breath of fresh air, Frank!

I actually think nothing beats a computer CRT monitor though they tend to be smaller than the smaller end of TV CRTs. But I like the crispness, good colour, and lack of smearing when things move fast. I am only interested in DVD, and at that only as a function of my PC, sound in two chamnnel through my normal Naim pieces.

Is there as CRT based Projector? I bet that would be fantastic!

Frank, you made me smile! Thanks. George

quote:

Is there as CRT based Projector? I bet that would be fantastic!

Barco used to make them a few years ago, at least, I think they were CRT - usually with 3 separate RGB lenses. They used to cost about £12k plus another £12k for a "line doubler"

Looked ok

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

For that money it would need to look "Magic!"

I'll stick to my old 15 inch "Targa" computer monitor in that case! Iwas given it on permanent loan, so I guess that it's unlikely to be bettered in VFM!

George

George,

Thanks for the kind words.

I believe CRT projectors are still available. CRT projectors suffer from problems which don't affect LCD/DLP/DILA projectors. CRT projectors have huge light engines with associated problems in cooling, quietness and size (the smalles I know of are the size of a large square coffee table). They also use massive lenses (20cm in diameter or more). In order to maintain quality, the lenses have to be perfect and matched. This is very difficult to do at that size and contributes greatly to the cost, especially as you need three lenses per projector, as opposed to the others' single lens, usually of something like 80mm - 100mm diameter. Add to this frequent servicing costs,a nd the whole thing becomes very difficult to justify in the home.

As for preferring the smaller computer monitor, bear in mind that every inch you go down in size increases the resolution density of the screen -i.e. 1024x768 in a screen of 32" size is a lot less dots per inch than 1024 x 768 in a screen 16" in size. In fact, in that case, it is 4 times higher in the latter case so the picture looks impressively crisp, bright and detailed. It's the same as having the same digital picture printed on a 6x4 and then a 12x8. The larger picture appears softer with less impact, but it's the same picture. The reason is the resolution density.

Dear Frank,

That resolution density was the reason why I suppose the 14 [?] inch Sony Trinitron TV from 30 odd years ago was always better looking than many of the much more expensive larger CRT TVs you could buy. Same thing still applies. Thanks for the explanation.

George

If image quality is paramount stick to CRT for a while yet.. In movies..When shadows and blacker than black appears even on blue ray/ HD all the flat screens let themselves down even after hours spent tweaking and calibrating with DVE.

Hi Frank
Thanks for the info, it sheds a bit of light on the picture

I have read Franks's IMO very useful insight a few times over a couple of days, and I think that he is as correct as anyone can be.

I prefer because of what I see etc CRT 4:3, but as well as managing to keep a few great versions still of these for PC and separately for TV etc viewing, the fact is that even I have tried/have succumbed to purchasing-using 16:9 flat displays for laptop/cinema-film DVD etc viewing.

In 5 days, the 'on special offer' cable V+ box arrives ...

It took me 21 years to accept that although inferior CD etc has its practical uses.

So far, I do not acept that digital radio is any good, but confess that probably there is a place for a 24:9 domestic quality low-current-consumption VDU.

So far, I have purchased only Fujitsu and 'Panasonic'.

My most useful advice is to check that the crap on the 16:9 display really should be on 16:9 setting, and in fact is not actually recorded at 4:3 ...

I also have been amazed to find that although I thought I needed/wanted 50" that 32" which sensible wife advised is enough even in big rooms FOR TV VIEWING ...

I also advise obtaining free 5-year warranty.

I suspect that for big-screen impact-viewing a suitable projector is the way ...

Second this.

In a large room I have a 42" plasma for TV and then a projector for films. Having the projector for general TV is way too distracting (Even if I could afford an 8' wide plasma i wouldn't do it unless it was in a dedicated room and gave a better picture than the best projectors).

I've got a 32 inch Panasonic LCD (100hz) - I'm very happy with the picture, which is better than the 5 year old crt Philips tv I used before. Good for general TV viewing and ps3 playing! Big enough across a 14 foot room

Frank is absolutely spot on with his summary of both technologies. LCD can provide impressive results, especially with a high def feed but lacks the depth and naturalness of a good plasma. I always liken the two technologies to the CD/ Vinyl debate - LCD gives you the brighter sharper image but is more artificial, Plasma seems more natural and warmer...and neither produce an image on standard broadcast that can match a Loewe Articos!! (IMHO of course )

This is interesting. I'm not diving in yet tho as technology is changing.

One thing that scared me is that I read running a plazma is like turning on your microwave oven, it's very power hungry. A CRT isn't.

I wish they'd advertise that cost per hour. It's probably in Consumer Reports review.

Is electricity cost really becoming that much of an issue?

Von Zipper

Loewe are no longer imported here so I haven't seen the latest. However, the latest Pioneer Kuros 60" Plasma 1080p is stunning and I understand there is more to come.

Just seen the Kuros in the flesh, think I may finally be converted by these flat screen thingys.. I would say its the first one I have seen that combines the clearness and natural film look of a well set up CRT with the advanced sharpness and detail of 1080

djftw,

In most cases it's not the cost, it's the power consumption. Many people feel that they would like a lower consumption from their devices wherever possible in a bid to save the planet from our own excesses. A microwave oven is usually only on for a few minutes at most, but a plasma would be on most evenings for a couple of hours. If you can reduce the consumption, this could be a considerable contribution to the cause.

Most people would say that LCD consumption is lower than that of an equivalent plasma. However, according to Panasonic's site:

"Results from an independent research conducted by the AVT.O.P. Messetechnik laboratory in Germany, showed that plasmas tend to use the same – and sometimes less – amounts of power than LCD screens."

This is because of the way the screen is lit, where LCD uses a constant backlight and plasma switches on or off the various parts of the screen.

Typically a 42" plasma will use around 300 watts of power. A typical 32" CRT is a lot smaller screen (necessarily due to the physical size of the entire box) but consumes only 115W or so. Of course, if you scaled it up to 42" it would use much more power but that's unrealistic since most people buy 42" plasmas but most will have had 32" CRTs.

The best result for the planet therefore would be for those 32" CRT owners to go for 32" LCD screens or to wait until OLED comes along. OLED should have lower consumption rates.

I have just got a Panasonic 32" LCD, TX-32LXD700, and it is very, very good on SD broadcasts. To the point where you can tell if the program has been originated in HD.

Now I will have to get me a Blu-ray player as soon as funds allow.

Jono

Is that the FullHD model or the 720p? I always get confused between the two.

720p, but it can take 1080p at 24fps which is nice. The FullHD model is the 37" model which is too big for the space we have. I will take picture and post it soon.

It also has a better speaker install and can read SD cards.

I got it last Saturday and it is running in well.

Jono

quote:

Originally posted by Jono 13:
720p, but it can take 1080p at 24fps which is nice. The FullHD model is the 37" model which is too big for the space we have. I will take picture and post it soon.

Jono

We are having that model delivered on Friday so I'll be able to post my thoughts if anyone's interested.

I've been looking for a while now and I think the TX37-LZD70 is the best 37" LCD available.

Jay

We've got the 26" version of this Panasonic LCD in the kitchen, and I'm very impressed by the picture quality. Be aware that although it's pretty good from the off, like Hi-FI it gets better & better with use.

My son recently bought over his PS3 & running a blu-ray into this TV convinced me to go for a Blu-Ray player for my projector. Stunningly good!