http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/ Engadget HD Comments for http://hd.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://hd.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2010 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 11:15AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/]]>Jan 16th 2009 11:23AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 11:27AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 11:48AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 12:32PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
:)]]>Jan 16th 2009 1:07PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
those are two huge factors for most of us renters :)]]>Jan 16th 2009 2:19PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 3:09PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 4:17PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 4:28PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 6:46PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 7:27PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Burn in??? Really??? You would have to wear a fucking helmet everywhere you go to think that burn in is still an issue. LCD's suck! You suck! And btw, when you say "best value", "for the money" is redundant. You still suck!

@EricBrady
Can we be best friends?]]>Jan 16th 2009 9:40PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 11:58PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 17th 2009 5:57PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
Is there an article where they placed LED-Backlit (supposed 1,000,000:1 constrast on the 9000 Samsungs) next to a Plasma to compare the black levels?]]>Jan 16th 2009 11:35AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 12:03PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/07/pioneer-kuro-and-friends-hands-on/]]>Jan 16th 2009 12:07PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 12:36PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 1:07PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/


benhc911
well, the other reasons why the blacks are not all that impressive in the picture are the limited abilities of the camera, and of the monitor you are viewing the pictures on... it is hard to represent a 1 000 000:1 ratio on a computer lcd that may only be able to produce 800:1 or maybe 2000:1. That is why i never really understood the point of comparison pictures for tvs, you watch them with your eyes, not through a computer and camera... A comparison only really helps to show physical design, and resolution (if the picture is taken in a sufficiently high resolution, and zoomed in enough to be relevant on our screen.]]>Jan 16th 2009 5:23PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 5:25PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 12:27PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
Just kidding.]]>Jan 16th 2009 12:30PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 4:19PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 12:58PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 1:10PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
In my case, I opted for a Sony display, simply because they actually allow you to access the raw color balance settings without jumping through hoops, so I could correct any color imbalance at home (which was already pretty acceptable).

Not sure I could switch to a plasma display unless it also allowed me to do my own color correction.]]>Jan 16th 2009 4:18PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
Personally I like my bravia. Not only does it have decent black-values, but also the bravia-engine is one of the better "cable-TV/poor signal upscalers". Considering you use your tv mostly to watch basic cable TV (Belgium *sigh*) or basic DVD's in stead of HD movies, at that stage you don't give a rat's ass about blacks when you compare any Tv with a Sony, just check the stores showing the same non-HD signal on both and decide for yourself.

Remember kids, good blacks and contrasts are important, but they don't make a TV good.]]>Jan 16th 2009 6:08PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
If Pioneer comes out with a 10K or less 75" or larger plasma I would be happy to replace my bulky RP CRT TV. People with 7K plasmas come to my place and ask why their brand new TV doesn't look as good as my old boxy TV. I'm hoping soon we'll all be able to have a LARGE TV with incredible movement picture quality, deep blacks and no screen door look. Chances are they'll have to go to quad resolution like the larger panasonic plasmas and the prototype Samsung LCD. I'm not sure why Sony hasn't demod a large TV yet - too bad the economy isn't booming otherwise I think they'd be planned for this summer.]]>Jan 17th 2009 12:44AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 1:28PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 1:30PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
I bought an LCD a couple years ago because it was the only way to get a 42" 1080p flat panel for $1,500 at the time. Nowadays, you can get a 42" 1080p Panasonic plasma set for $800! In fact, I will probably be replacing my LCD with one of these soon, because the banding on my LCD is getting worse and I can't deal with it anymore. So the LCD goes to the bedroom, where about the most critical watching we do is Late Night with Conan O'brien.

But my point is plasma prices have come WAY down. Two years ago, a 1080p plasma was literally about $20,000 and there were maybe two models on the market. (Even non-1080p plasma sets *started* at around $2,500, though.) Now they're under $1,000! That's a crazy price drop, and it puts plasma on a much more competitive footing with LCD. If the pricing between the two techs is relatively equal, then people will have no choice but to really look for picture quality differences.
]]>Jan 16th 2009 1:41PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
the end]]>Jan 16th 2009 1:35PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/My mate has a Samsung 1080p LCD which is awesome, Tad too green but just slightly.
The difference between both tv's is enormous, his is always crisp where as my plasma can be a bit fuzzy on pure black screens.
Probably has more to do with the resolution lol

I'd pick LCD over Plasma anyday though. There is nothing scarier than the first time you play ps3 for hours and switch over to tv to still see game HUD's burned into the corner.

My plasma has a pc input too, Why the hell would anyone use a plasma as a monitor. Shut your pc down and still see your desktop burned into your tv. ]]>Jan 16th 2009 1:50PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
Plasmas do NOT suffer from permanent burn-in anymore. They do, however, suffer from temporary image retention. After playing a game on a plasma for hours on end, you WILL see the HUD on your screen for up to half an hour or so. It is BARELY noticeable with something on the screen, and WILL go away in less than an hour with a moving image on the screen to help "wash" away the image retention.

In summary, image retention is NOT permanent on new generation panels (those bought in the past 4 years).

It's truly hilarious the plasma myths that people, even with the excellent Plasmas available today, still believe. Oh well, those people can buy an LCD, their loss.

I've had a Panny VIERA for almost 3 years now. I am a hardcore gamer who plays for hours on end and I've NEVER had permanent burn-in. It just doesn't happen anymore.]]>Jan 16th 2009 4:50PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 1:43PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 1:54PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 1:51PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 1:55PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 3:51PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
plasma all the way for home theater.... lcd for regular living room (more brightly lit room)]]>Jan 29th 2009 6:59AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 2:00PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 2:46PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 2:51PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
And I find it hilarious that you're grouping KURO Elite Plasmas into the "thin, crappy TV" category. You may want to read up on the last Home Theater magazine HDTV faceoff that included DLPs. While I despise DLP (mostly due to the viewing angle issues), I will admit that Mitsubishis look very good, but even they can't keep up with a good VIERA or KURO, especially these days.]]>Jan 16th 2009 4:55PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 4:58PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/"Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sony doesn't and has never produced DLP TVs."

No, you're right it's LCoS, but it's still a RPTV and a competitor to DLP. ]]>Jan 19th 2009 11:30AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/
And I didn't group them into the "thin, crappy" category. You might want to read up on what I actually wrote. I said most people want those. If you compare the amount of good plasmas (KURO) to the amount of cheap LCD/plasma sold you might find that the scales are tipped towards the cheap ones...just a thought.

I'm sure if you compare my $1500 60" to the comparable-size KURO you'll find a better picture with the KURO, but what's the price difference? For my money (read: not $3,000+), I'd rather have a thicker tv with better PQ, than an LCD/plasma with a much worse picture.]]>Jan 19th 2009 11:40AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/http://hd.engadget.com/2009/01/16/lcd-vs-plasma-in-2009/Jan 16th 2009 2:24PM