Five more good reasons to pick plasma over LCD
By Steven Kim 
posted Aug 27th 2007 8:13AM
posted Aug 27th 2007 8:13AM
posted Aug 27th 2007 8:13AM
The amount of electronics thrown away rather than recycled in 2007.
The EPA reports that 82% of electronics disposal in 2007 ended up in the garbage (mostly landfills) rather than a recycling center. (source: EPA, July 2008)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
As a employee and at a copy which uses LCD/Plasma in commercial settings
1) Plasma do have burn in issues... While they do get removed... the longer that the image stayed up there the long it will take to fade
2) LCD can burn in it just takes a lot! longer... we have menu boards and you can which have been running for a year... and you can see the menu after when you change the picture
3) Plasma fade over time... the filimit which lights up wears out over time
4) 1080p is expensive and you have limited choices...
That being said I did choose Plasma over LCD in two our of three sets for my personal use since plasma is a better picture and much faster response time for sports... you just have to be carefull...
IF WE CAN JUST GET THE STATIONS FROM DISPLAYING THERE LOGO...
Its good that Engadget HD is saying what everyone in the industry has known for years. Plasma still is the top display technology for consumers. Every study or experiment has proven that people find plasmas to look better than LCDs. LCD sales are higher primarily due to misinformation and advertising. Unfortunately, consumers buy based on what they hear and read, not what they see on a showroom floor. An article in a magazine or on a website will influence a sale far greater then any demonstration on a showroom floor.
Another good reason for Plasmas: they cost a butt-load more than comparable LCD's.
Oh wait... that's one in favor of LCD's... for most people, anyhoo.
Plasmas (good ones anyway) are way too expensive.
Which is better for connecting to an HTPC? I would think an LCD is better suited since it will be partially used as a computer. Any suggestions?
I work in an industry that uses plasmas. I wouldn't touch a plasma if it were half the price and twice the pixel strength. They're crap - even industrial designs are weak and short-lived.
DLP or LCD right now are the better alternatives.
And yet, no plasma maker has discovered the joys of the glare filter yet oddly enough.
The whole ambient light myth is *NOT* a myth, it's usually the deciding factor when people choose LCD over plasma. What good is a beautiful picture with fast response times if half the image is blocked by a reflection of everything in the room? Plasma's look great in the showroom, but when people get them home and put them in their livingrooms, they usually last a week at most before being returned and traded for a more expensive LCD. For this reason above all others, many high end retailers are carrying less and less plasma's every year. The sinking prices of LCD's are the nails in plasma's coffin.
Well said. Unless you are in a completely dark room, the glare on a plasma is unbearable in my opinion. This is also a reason to avoid the newest Samsung LCD panels; they have a glass front and no glare filter -- just like plasma.
samsungs 81 series LED lcd is out. It has better colour and blacks then plasma, with all the benifits of lcd. Plasma has officially been killed. This time next year, every manufacture will have an LED LCD and there will be no possible reason to want a plasma (Other then cheaper cost)
@Kieran
What are you talking about? Look at a manufacturer like Samsung, where they make both big LCDs and big plasmas, the LCD is more money, and has a worse picture quality...always. Compared Samsungs models of last year (because they're not making an lcd as big as of right now) their 63" plasma was going for 7000, their 57" lcd, inches smaller, and crappier picture quality, for $3k more. Look @ LG as well, or Sony when they used to make plasmas...same story
@YouFaceTheTick
If you think that plasmas are short lived, its a surprise to me that you ever bought a tube tv. Because just about every brand name manufacturer has a half life of 60,000 hours...new flash, this is actually longer than tube televisions. Meaning, they keep their same brightness for longer. This longevity questions are a joke, who would wanna keep longer than 14 years (if you're watching 12 hours a day every day) anyways?
@Cash
you bring up the only valid reason of why i would ever choose an LCD over a plasma in the 42" size range. Glare...but kinda sucky even the best LCDs from samsung (the 65" series") have that shiny finish to them, and thats the reason why they have such deep inky blacks.
@SimbaDogg and Carlton
Exactly. Samsung's (or any screen maker for that matter) decision to go with the glossy glass on their sets has left many people scratching their heads. While in controlled environments like showrooms or properly designed home theater rooms the glossy screens do look better then their matte screen counterparts, in the real world they just look awful. I know of maybe three people who have such rooms in their homes, and 2 of the 3 use digital projectors anyway. According to Consumer Reports, the most cited reason for plasma returns is the screen glare, and anyone who's worked for a tech dealer will confirm this. It's a fine line for salesmen to walk, as they have to inform the customer of the possiblilty that their inhome experience will probably differ from the showroom experience unless they set up the room and their screen with glare in mind without sounding like they are trashing on the technology or product, while making sure they emphasize the issue enough so customers don't come in screaming a few days later about being sold a piece of garbage. As I said in my earlier post, because of this, many dealers are carrying less Plasma's each year because the costs of handling/reselling returns and the risk to customer satisfaction becomes more of negative as prices drop and performance increases on the latest LCD's. All except Samsung's latest that is, which hopefully will see a short model life before they regain their senses and go back to a matte screen.
As always, these are my opinions and experiences... your mileage may vary.
LCDs have less glare but the blacks suffer. Instead of the light being reflected back as in plasmas, the light is spread throughout the screen hiding shadow detail. Its a pick your poison situation. Plasmas are really only problematic when the light source is directly behind the viewer. The new LCDs with enhanced blacks, now use shiny Plasma-esque screens.
3 reasons to pick LCD over Plasma
Picture sharpness and resolution
A 1080p LCD has 2.1 million pixels, vs. about 1 million for a 720p Plasma. Most plasmas are 720 (768)p. On a 50-52” panel, the 1 million pixel difference is dramatic and easy for the casual observer to see.
Price
A 52” 1080p LCD costs far less than a 50” 1080p plasma.
Comparable black levels and contrast
On newer LCDs, the black levels and contrast are close to those of a plasma. Although plasmas are marginally better, the average person, without a test lab, is going to have difficulty seeing a big difference between the two, even when side-by-side.
With good quality 52” 1080p LCDs selling for only a little more than 50” 720p plasmas, the value equation for most people will lead them to the LCD.
< "A 52” 1080p LCD costs far less than a 50” 1080p plasma." >
Actually, that's no longer true, with the recent price cuts by Panasonic and Samsung for their new entry level 50" 1080p plasmas. Before the price cuts this past month, they each had a suggested retail of about $3500, but are right now on sale for $2500 to $2800 at Best Buy, Circuit City, Sears, Fry's etc, and also online.
But the ONLY comparable quality 52" 1080p LCD is the Sharp 62 series panel, recently lowered from over $3000 to a current sale price of $2500 (and will probably go even lower by Black Friday in 3 months). It has excellent quality, and even though its not a "120hz" labeled LCD, it does the same thing to fight blurring images by inserting a black frame between each of the other image frames at 1080p/60hz (60 frames per second + 60 black frames = 120 frames, like the similar 120hz processing). The effect is the same, which is reduced blurring.
When I say comparable quality, I'm obviously omitting large-screen 1080p LCD models from both Vizio and Philips, which have reliability issues and aren't the same level of quality as Sharp (or the Samsung/Panasonic plasmas) Other than the Sharp model, Toshiba is close in price with a 52" 1080p LCD panel on sale right now for $3000 at many locations, and it's quality is also exellent. Their forthcoming 120hz series will be one to keep an eye on, along with the 898 series from JVC (September), with the Genessa 32-bit processing chip, providing a premium image quality for LCD flat panel.
Pioneer plasmas also have 3:3 pulldown@72Hz for judder free 24p. Do any of the 120Hz LCDs have true 5:5 pulldown yet?
This is one of those debates that will never end. Both types of displays have their pro's and cons. I do feel however, that the most important thing in going to pick out a new TV is to go to a store and look at them. Each person's standards are different, and when one model will look good to one person, it might not look that good to another. However, I will say this, that I think what makes the picture look so good on a plasma is the glossy display.
I have a Samsung plasma now, but am looking to replace it with a Samsung LN-t4665f LCD, so if any one has one, could you let me know how it looks when watching sports? Such as how it handles motion during football and baseball games?
I am looking to get one as i prefer the glossy display, but also, because I want to use it as a computer monitor as well as something to play my 360 on. Any opinions on that?
You all are wrong. Preference is what is the best TV. Everyone doesn't see things the same way. So what you like, one person may hate and vice versa. Each has their advantage and disadvantage. So don't knock one technology in this argument over the other. Simply because it's what make the BUYER happy that makes the best TV.