| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Plasma vs. LCD
Hi,
I was looking to invest in a new TV and was am looking for a flat panel (am operating in volume conservation mode due to ungodly San Francisco rents). According to my research, compared to LCDs, plasma seems to be the more inefficient technology - the TVs are not rated for as many viewing hours, they are susceptible to screen burn-in and don't compete on image quality. However, they are much cheaper. Can anyone give me some suggestions as far as make/model/technology? Preferably, I'd like something that's between 25" and 32" and I would prefer to keep it sub-$2000. Thanks, Schiz |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message I think you have that backwards. LCDs are cheaper, but plasma has a better picture overall. (This is a subjective call, though, since they both have pluses and minuses.) Also, LCDs can lose pixels permanently. Moreover, unless you're going to use a plasma set in a commercial setting, such as 10 hours of use per day, its expected lifetime is sufficient. Burn-in is a problem only if you have the same channel on a lot, and that channel always shows a banner or ticker or something in the same place. You're right. Burn-in isn't so much of an issue, but wherever I have looked plasmas seem to be slightly cheaper than LCDs (the price of a panasonic 37" plasma is about the same as a samsung 26" LCD). Can anyone give me some suggestions as far as make/model/technology? Preferably, I'd like something that's between 25" and 32" and I would prefer to keep it sub-$2000. You can get a 42" plasma with ED (not HD) for under $2000. The 42"-43" segment is the most popular so it has the best values. Have you considered an LCD or DLP rear projection set? They also have small footprints. What is a DLP rear projection set? I have looked at LCDs, but they are just not price competitive. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lucas Tam" wrote in message "Schizoid Man" wrote in What is a DLP rear projection set? I have looked at LCDs, but they are just not price competitive. LCD Rear Projection - Sony Grand Wega Rear Projection TV DLP Rear Projection - Samsung HLM617W Rear Projection TV How come you found these TVs not to be price competitive? You can get a 60" TV for ~3500.00 - 4000.000USD. A 60" Plasma or LCD costs in the range of 8000 - 12000.00+! Lucas, I'm looking for something that is preferably 32" or less due to a space constraint. Thanks, Anuj |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Schizoid Man" wrote in news:clmfli$ogm$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu: How come you found these TVs not to be price competitive? You can get a 60" TV for ~3500.00 - 4000.000USD. A 60" Plasma or LCD costs in the range of 8000 - 12000.00+! Lucas, I'm looking for something that is preferably 32" or less due to a space constraint. In that case you're pretty much limited to Plasma or LCD - the smallest LCD/DLP RPTV you can buy is 42". -- Lucas Tam ) Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying. http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/ |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lucas Tam" wrote in message .. . "Schizoid Man" wrote in news:clmfli$ogm$1 @geraldo.cc.utexas.edu: How come you found these TVs not to be price competitive? You can get a 60" TV for ~3500.00 - 4000.000USD. A 60" Plasma or LCD costs in the range of 8000 - 12000.00+! Lucas, I'm looking for something that is preferably 32" or less due to a space constraint. In that case you're pretty much limited to Plasma or LCD - the smallest LCD/DLP RPTV you can buy is 42". You might want to wait just a bit. I've been reading about LCD manufacturing capacity and technology. LCD yields are climbing rapidly and lots of additional capacity has either recently come on line or will be over the next 6 months. Forecasts are that LCD will completely eclipse plasma (as plasma cost to manufacture isn't coming down and LCD has actually already eclipsed it in performance on all but one front (color accuracy). Also LCD power consumption is far less and reliability is far greater. Expect LCD to continue a fairly rapid price decline and become the dominant TV technology even into the 55" range. It already is at the size your looking. http://www.sharpusa.com/products/lcd...,2340,,00.html http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messa...579/94117.html http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/lcd-vs-plasma.asp But even with all these wonders of advancing technology, 6 months ago when I was looking at the 65" screen size, the Mitsu Diamond with good old CRTs still blew alway all the new technologies, DLP, LCD and Plasma. No contest under ordinary room lighting. Its only about 30" deep, much less than the 36" tube model it replaced. ScottW |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Schizoid Man said: I was looking to invest in a new TV and was am looking for a flat panel (am operating in volume conservation mode due to ungodly San Francisco rents). According to my research, compared to LCDs, plasma seems to be the more inefficient technology - the TVs are not rated for as many viewing hours, they are susceptible to screen burn-in and don't compete on image quality. However, they are much cheaper. I think you have that backwards. LCDs are cheaper, but plasma has a better picture overall. (This is a subjective call, though, since they both have pluses and minuses.) Also, LCDs can lose pixels permanently. I agree with the above. Plasma has better blacks, essentially complete extinction, which cannot be matched by LCD. However, the lifetime of an LCD panel, excluding the backlight, is way out there, 100,000+ hours (without contradicting your statement about pixel loss.) And an LCD panel is completely immune to burn-in. Do you have any figures on actual POH lifetime of plasma panels? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:50:55 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote: I agree with the above. Plasma has better blacks, essentially complete extinction, which cannot be matched by LCD. However, the lifetime of an LCD panel, excluding the backlight, is way out there, 100,000+ hours (without contradicting your statement about pixel loss.) And an LCD panel is completely immune to burn-in. Do you have any figures on actual POH lifetime of plasma panels? Nope but all the estimates indicate that, with the current pace of technology, it will outlast my interest in it. Kal |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lucas Tam wrote: "Schizoid Man" wrote in news:clmfli$ogm$1 @geraldo.cc.utexas.edu: How come you found these TVs not to be price competitive? You can get a 60" TV for ~3500.00 - 4000.000USD. A 60" Plasma or LCD costs in the range of 8000 - 12000.00+! Lucas, I'm looking for something that is preferably 32" or less due to a space constraint. In that case you're pretty much limited to Plasma or LCD - the smallest LCD/DLP RPTV you can buy is 42". Egads. Just get a projector and a screen. $4000 buys you one hell of a good projector these days. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article z,
The Devil wrote: On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:34:09 -0400, George M. Middius wrote: I agree. A few months ago we went shopping for a plasma or LCD TV for the bedroom at home. The picture quality just isn't good at all on these technologies. And the rear-projection sets--flame-suit on--are absolutely crap, IMO. I have a Sony Wega CRT set at my office and the picture is more like a moving painting than a TV image. We decided to buy another one for the bedroom. Much cheaper than the alternatives, and far superior picture. Those characterizations are true, but somewhat beside the point. How so? Did the OP have space restrictions? I didn't read the original post, and my client has now scrubbed it--along with everything else a couple of days old--from the list. I just read, and responded to, Scott's comments, with which I fully agreed. He's in a San Francisco studio apartment, IIRC. Stephen |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Devil" wrote in message news:lsvun016oqph092e9uol6tbah1cdeia1n1@rdmzrnewst xt.nz... On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:07:38 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: But even with all these wonders of advancing technology, 6 months ago when I was looking at the 65" screen size, the Mitsu Diamond with good old CRTs still blew alway all the new technologies, DLP, LCD and Plasma. No contest under ordinary room lighting. Its only about 30" deep, much less than the 36" tube model it replaced. I agree. A few months ago we went shopping for a plasma or LCD TV for the bedroom at home. The picture quality just isn't good at all on these technologies. And the rear-projection sets--flame-suit on--are absolutely crap, IMO. Im glad you agree, too bad you completely misunderstood what I wrote. At 65" screen size, IMO, good quality rear projection CRTs have the best overall picture in normal room lighting. And they have less depth than a 36" tube tv with plenty of cabinet space for halfway decent speakers (if thats important). I have a Sony Wega CRT set at my office and the picture is more like a moving painting than a TV image. Wimpy little TVs. But British actors are so ugly, putting their mugs up on a big screen is utterly unbearable so I guess I understand. We decided to buy another one for the bedroom. Much cheaper than the alternatives, and far superior picture. I think a sack over the wifes head would have been even cheaper. ScottW |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Devil" wrote in message news:vbhvn0l3q9ehd39rold1umjeg4hnvdjk50@rdmzrnewst xt.nz... On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:41:48 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: Im glad you agree, too bad you completely misunderstood what I wrote. It's been a long day. It was already a long day by noon. At 65" screen size, IMO, good quality rear projection CRTs have the best overall picture in normal room lighting. Well, I don't agree with that. I don't believe there *is* such a thing as 'good quality rear-projection'. If there is, I certainly haven't seen it--and we looked at a lot of different sets over the week or so we were on the hunt for something other than S&M gear for the bedroom. Its hard to compare picture quality at grossly different screen sizes. Obviously, with comparable resolution the smaller screen will always look sharper. However, at the larger screen sizes where contrast and brightness in "normal" room lighting is an issue.. the rear projection CRT still wins IMO. Front projection has made quantum improvements however the little Epsons we just added at work for conference room projectors that are bright enough to work with the lights on have also demonstrated that the 4000 hour bulbs have a significant percentage that are more like 40 hours. The Mitsu diamond CRT is very bright, in fact capable of blinding brightness, its great on DVD and Native hi-def is outstanding. MNF is actually enjoyable again. And they have less depth than a 36" tube tv with plenty of cabinet space for halfway decent speakers (if thats important). **** all this ********. Talk about earwigs instead. I have a Sony Wega CRT set at my office and the picture is more like a moving painting than a TV image. Wimpy little TVs. My daughter blagged the 36" Wega I bought first for my office. I helped her boyfriend carry it out. I was dead for the rest of the week. The thing must have weighed well in excess of three hundred pounds. I replaced it with the same model type but a smaller version. The 36" was just too huge for the space I had available. My earwigs are much happier with the smaller set. But British actors are so ugly, putting their mugs up on a big screen is utterly unbearable so I guess I understand. Jude Law and Ewan McGregor are ugly? Hell, even I fancy them. You've never been particularly particular. We decided to buy another one for the bedroom. Much cheaper than the alternatives, and far superior picture. I think a sack over the wifes head would have been even cheaper. She has killed men for lesser remarks than that one. Be warned. So she likes it rough, is that why you married her? She does read this group from time to time, She's read your posts and hasn't left you? Amazing! and she's in the US frequently. Heading off to America for a little extracurriculars eh? Perhaps she's looking for a bigger set in the bedroom. ScottW |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Devil" wrote in message news:bbkvn0h7fah7ickle4bocloopmc9h19lv3@rdmzrnewst xt.nz... On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:45:27 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: Its hard to compare picture quality at grossly different screen sizes. I don't find that difficult, but then I am unsurpassed in terms I will grant you this. Obviously, with comparable resolution the smaller screen will always look sharper. My eyes see X-rays, so don't ****ing argue. Look you sodden english rascal, I'm a yank, we do what wha we want. It's rained 3" overnight and I can't get to work because global warming has turned sunny socal into soggy old england. It is my civic duty now to stay home and off the flooded freeways. So send your wife around and I'll show her what vivid realism a manly rear projection can provide. ScottW |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Devil" wrote in message news:mvnvn095775to31p5uivjrb3o7pkvmd5qu@rdmzrnewst xt.nz... On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:45:36 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: Look you sodden english rascal, I'm a yank, we do what wha we want. Only a fool would argue. It's rained 3" overnight and I can't get to work because global warming has turned sunny socal into soggy old england. Windy here at the moment. As well as rainy. Perfect weather for bringing out the fish & chips people to my shop, of which I stink pretty deliciously. It is my civic duty now to stay home and off the flooded freeways. So send your wife around and I'll show her what vivid realism a manly rear projection can provide. You into swinging? You kidding? My wife is hispanic. They believe in honor castrations. ScottW |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Devil" wrote in message news:6kovn0hoi331rhcvdefvm2cdluefkqss63@rdmzrnewst xt.nz... On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:57:19 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: You into swinging? You kidding? My wife is hispanic. Keep her well shaved and the offer's still open. She says she's not interested in swapping but the greedy bitch would like to live in a castle and be driven about in a Rolls. Have you been talking to her? ScottW |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Devil wrote in news:lsvun016oqph092e9uol6tbah1cdeia1n1
@rdmzrnewstxt.nz: I have a Sony Wega CRT set at my office and the picture is more like a moving painting than a TV image. Ya I have a Wega XBR CRT and a Grand Wega LCD RPTV... Gotta admit, the CRT looks better. BUT the Grand Wega does have a MUCH larger picture, and for the most part it's still very very nice. -- Lucas Tam ) Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying. http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/ |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Devil wrote in news:bbkvn0h7fah7ickle4bocloopmc9h19lv3
@rdmzrnewstxt.nz: Its hard to compare picture quality at grossly different screen sizes. I don't find that difficult, but then I am unsurpassed in terms of overall magnificence. Were you watching DVD or HD content? -- Lucas Tam ) Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying. http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/ |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joseph Oberlander wrote in news:NGIfd.8515
: In that case you're pretty much limited to Plasma or LCD - the smallest LCD/DLP RPTV you can buy is 42". Egads. Just get a projector and a screen. $4000 buys you one hell of a good projector these days. Yes, but you'll need a screen + mounting + throw distance... something that a lot of people don't have in their house (or don't want to bother to set up). Not to mention, a projector's bulb lifespan is ~5000 hours. A LCD RPTV last much longer than that and is designed for every day TV viewing. -- Lucas Tam ) Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying. http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/ |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roger McDodger wrote:
"The Devil" emitted : But British actors are so ugly, putting their mugs up on a big screen is utterly unbearable so I guess I understand. Jude Law and Ewan McGregor are ugly? Hell, even I fancy them. Yeah, but you'd **** a dead dog... -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t The actresses are OK though. I've had a thing for Jane Seymour for years. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:10:37 GMT, MINe 109
wrote: I have a Sony Wega CRT set at my office and the picture is more like a moving painting than a TV image. You mean like a Picasso? |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:41:48 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote: British actors are so ugly, putting their mugs up on a big screen is utterly unbearable Agree. I was just waiting for someone else to say it first. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lucas Tam wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote in news:NGIfd.8515 : In that case you're pretty much limited to Plasma or LCD - the smallest LCD/DLP RPTV you can buy is 42". Egads. Just get a projector and a screen. $4000 buys you one hell of a good projector these days. Yes, but you'll need a screen + mounting + throw distance... something that a lot of people don't have in their house (or don't want to bother to set up). Not to mention, a projector's bulb lifespan is ~5000 hours. A LCD RPTV last much longer than that and is designed for every day TV viewing. Feh. I was talking about a CRT projector. Good for a decade or more if you don't turn it up to stupidly bright levels. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joseph Oberlander wrote in news:Sd2gd.4646
: Feh. I was talking about a CRT projector. Good for a decade or more if you don't turn it up to stupidly bright levels. Except that thing weighs a TON! -- Lucas Tam ) Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying. http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/ |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lucas Tam wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote in news:Sd2gd.4646 : Feh. I was talking about a CRT projector. Good for a decade or more if you don't turn it up to stupidly bright levels. Except that thing weighs a TON! Most people don't move their large screen TVs around either, so think of it as a simmilar permanently installed object. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:48:04 -0400, Alex Rodriguez
wrote: However, the lifetime of an LCD panel, excluding the backlight, is way out there, 100,000+ hours (without contradicting your statement about pixel loss.) And an LCD panel is completely immune to burn-in. This is one reason why I chose LCD over Plasma. I can expect to get a longer life for my substantial investment. That's certainly a consideration but I figure that, at my current viewing times, I will get about 15years before my plasma goes to 1/2 brightness. First, since I use it at reduced brightness settings, that is conservative and I have some compensatory ability. Second, it will be obsolete by then. Kal |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Devil wrote:
I think a sack over the wifes head would have been even cheaper. She has killed men for lesser remarks than that one. Be warned. She does read this group from time to time, and she's in the US frequently. So why is Arny still alive? GeoSynch |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
GeoSynch wrote: The Devil wrote: I think a sack over the wifes head would have been even cheaper. She has killed men for lesser remarks than that one. Be warned. She does read this group from time to time, and she's in the US frequently. So why is Arny still alive? (drummroll) He's slippery. Oh - come on - like that didn't just fall in our laps.  |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obie wrote:
I think a sack over the wifes head would have been even cheaper. She has killed men for lesser remarks than that one. Be warned. She does read this group from time to time, and she's in the US frequently. So why is Arny still alive? He's slippery. Nah, that's not it. With his life on the line, the old goat charmed Mrs. Devil's knickers off. He's been gargling with mouthwash and brushing his teeth nonstop ever since. And now, when his "trophy wife" returns from prowling the back alleys, Arny's tongue is experienced enough to give her a good and thorough cleaning, down to every nook and cranny. GeoSynch |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
GeoStinck wrote:
Obie wrote: I think a sack over the wifes head would have been even cheaper. She has killed men for lesser remarks than that one. Be warned. She does read this group from time to time, and she's in the US frequently. So why is Arny still alive? He's slippery. Nah, that's not it. With his life on the line, the old goat charmed Mrs. Devil's knickers off. He's been gargling with mouthwash and brushing his teeth nonstop ever since. And now, when his "trophy wife" returns from prowling the back alleys, Arny's tongue is experienced enough to give her a good and thorough cleaning, down to every nook and cranny. Still lurking around here, eh fat libidinous ******* ? Don't excite yourself like that or you will soil your pants. GeoSynch |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
How accurate is this comparison? It seems to overwhelmingly favor LCDs.
http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/lcd-vs-plasma.asp |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pepe LePew swelled:
Still lurking around here, eh fat libidinous ******* ? Don't excite yourself like that or you will soil your pants. Why don't you go chase your tail, sewer rat skunk boy? Careful you don't spray yourself - your reek bad enough as it is. GeoSynch |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:48:04 -0400, Alex Rodriguez wrote: However, the lifetime of an LCD panel, excluding the backlight, is way out there, 100,000+ hours (without contradicting your statement about pixel loss.) And an LCD panel is completely immune to burn-in. This is one reason why I chose LCD over Plasma. I can expect to get a longer life for my substantial investment. That's certainly a consideration but I figure that, at my current viewing times, I will get about 15years before my plasma goes to 1/2 brightness. First, since I use it at reduced brightness settings, that is conservative and I have some compensatory ability. Second, it will be obsolete by then. Kal OTOH, some of the same cautions may apply as with CRT projectors. View material that does not match the native 16:9 border, and there will inevitably be burn marks at the border with black. |
Linear Mode
