Plasma versus LCD
 

Having no experience with plasma or LCD TVs, I need to choose with two
most important constraints in mind: 1) Although the room is sub-grade,
there will be light coming from windows behind viewers, about 45
degrees either side and quite a bit farther away than the seating
area; 2) My wife is highly sensitive to jittery on-screen motion (as
in cinema-verite) so I'm worried that any of this "triple-ball-effect"
I hear about will be especially upsetting to her.

So my questions: Do plasmas suffer much less from TBE than LCDs
(comparing otherwise similar models)? Do plasmas lose brightness over
time, or suffer burn-in, to any serious extent, or are those more
problems in older technology? How bad is the reflection problem with
plasmas? (Admittedly most of our watching will be at night.)

TIA....

Plasma versus LCD
 

Plasma gives more vivid colors, no motion blur, and a lifetime that is
longer than most would keep a tv for anyway!!!!! Reflection varies
by maker. YOU have to judge that.



On Apr 20, 12:03*am, wrote:
Larry wrote:
Having no experience with plasma or LCD TVs, I need to choose with two
most important constraints in mind: 1) Although the room is sub-grade,
there will be light coming from windows behind viewers, about 45
degrees either side and quite a bit farther away than the seating
area; 2) My wife is highly sensitive to jittery on-screen motion (as
in cinema-verite) so I'm worried that any of this "triple-ball-effect"
I hear about will be especially upsetting to her.

I can't speak to anything above but see below for what I can comment on.

So my questions: Do plasmas suffer much less from TBE than LCDs
(comparing otherwise similar models)? Do plasmas lose brightness over
time, or suffer burn-in, to any serious extent, or *are those more
problems in older technology? How bad is the reflection problem with
plasmas? (Admittedly most of our watching will be at night.)

Plasmas do lose brightness over time. The gas has a half-life so over a
period of time (let's say 2 years) they lose half their brightness and
in another 2 years their brightness drops in half again. I don't recall
what the half-life of the gas is though. With that said, many companies
are advertising 60,000 and 80,000+ hour lifetimes for their plasma
displays and that is based on an 8 hour day which equates to over 20
years if I recall correctly from the last time I did the calculations.
Basically, based on manufacturer ratings, they are just as good as CRTs.

Yes plasmas suffer burn-in but based on advice given in this group
multiple times, it is easy to overcome this issue and it isn't as bad as
it used to be anyway.

As far as reflection, this should be readily viewable by going to the
store to see just how much reflects off them and of course that should
be near worst-case given that a store is much brighter than your house
would be when watching it.

Plasma versus LCD
 

wrote in message

Plasma gives more vivid colors, no motion blur, and a
lifetime that is longer than most would keep a tv for
anyway!!!!! Reflection varies by maker. YOU have to
judge that.

It's not like LCDs last forever. The actual liquid crystal and the colored
filters are complex organic chemicals that degrade due to light, heat, and
time. It's arguable that DLP might be the most stable, but again they
include colored filters that can degrade.

Plasma versus LCD
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote in message


Plasma gives more vivid colors, no motion blur, and a
lifetime that is longer than most would keep a tv for
anyway!!!!! Reflection varies by maker. YOU have to
judge that.


It's not like LCDs last forever. The actual liquid crystal and the colored
filters are complex organic chemicals that degrade due to light, heat, and
time. It's arguable that DLP might be the most stable, but again they
include colored filters that can degrade.

OT but I was just wondering if you are related to Freddie.

Plasma versus LCD
 

On Apr 20, 7:58 am, wrote:
Plasma gives more vivid colors, no motion blur, and a lifetime that is
longer than most would keep a tv for anyway!!!!! Reflection varies
by maker. YOU have to judge that.


No motion blur? Because of the much better refresh rate (.1ms)? Okay,
that's a really important consideration. And honestly this is not a
super-bright room, though we'll probably have a floor lamp as well as
the two windows at the far walls. We were close to settling on one of
a few LCD models, but we'll think some more. Do plasmas ever come
equipped with not-so-reflective screens, or does that just not work
for them?

Thank you all for your replies ---

Plasma versus LCD
 

About to hit the market for a 46" unit. Considering, seriousy, a DLP (rear
space not a problem); also to void the problem of fliter life, I am consider
an LED-driven unit. Glare off of plasmas is very objectionable (our
viewing is both at day and night); LCDs ?, do not have a strong opinion
here.

Where, please, is my thinking wrong? i.e. drive for an LED-driven DLP. Or
does my thinking need a bit of adjustment?

Wayne



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message

Plasma gives more vivid colors, no motion blur, and a
lifetime that is longer than most would keep a tv for
anyway!!!!! Reflection varies by maker. YOU have to
judge that.

It's not like LCDs last forever. The actual liquid crystal and the
colored filters are complex organic chemicals that degrade due to light,
heat, and time. It's arguable that DLP might be the most stable, but again
they include colored filters that can degrade.

Plasma versus LCD
 

Larry wrote:
Having no experience with plasma or LCD TVs, I need to choose with two
most important constraints in mind: 1) Although the room is sub-grade,
there will be light coming from windows behind viewers, about 45
degrees either side and quite a bit farther away than the seating
area; 2) My wife is highly sensitive to jittery on-screen motion (as
in cinema-verite) so I'm worried that any of this "triple-ball-effect"
I hear about will be especially upsetting to her.

So my questions: Do plasmas suffer much less from TBE than LCDs
(comparing otherwise similar models)? Do plasmas lose brightness over
time, or suffer burn-in, to any serious extent, or are those more
problems in older technology? How bad is the reflection problem with
plasmas? (Admittedly most of our watching will be at night.)

If the room you are watching in has no light sources that will be
mirrored at you, then plasma is wonderful. Even a small light source
that is reflected when the screen is dark is usually 'lost' and
imperceptible when the image is non dark. For daytime viewing with lots
of windows behind and behind to the sides, the reflection would be
noticeable in the dark areas too.

The burn in issue is a bit of a lame duck argument as the "half-life" is
many thousands of hours for the later models, so unless you watch 10
hours a day every day, the effect won't begin to be noticeable for many
long years. My set is on about 10 hours a week ... if that, so I don't
believe I'll ever see it fade. (If you saw a new set and a set at 1/2
life the next day you likely would not know the difference).

There is an "after image" with plasma, for example if a bright area is
constant for 10 or 20 seconds, and then that area of the screen goes
dark, the "black" will have the afterimage of whatever was there. But
this gets washed away by whatever happens next. This is the only
irritant I've seen on a Panasonic 42" Viera. (Magnificent!).

When you get the new set, be sure to set the brightness properly. My
set was delivered in "Vivid" mode (which some call "torch"). I set it
to the preset of "Cinema" which is very good (the greens don't seem
"just right" however). But at this setting the after image effect is
less, the half life extended. (The image is a bit warmer looking).

If your room has a lot of windows, lights at tv level, etc, then LCD is
perhaps the better way to go. In action shots, even the latest sets,
have a discernible lag that shows in fine detail.

LCD sets consume about 1/2 to 2/3 the power of plasma sets, so if you're
into conserving electricity, it is another concern.

Plasma versus LCD
 

My hitachi plasma has been glare free from a ceiling light and windows
behind viewing area


On Apr 20, 10:52*am, Larry wrote:
On Apr 20, 7:58 am, wrote:

Plasma gives more vivid colors, no motion blur, and a lifetime that is
longer than most would keep a tv for anyway!!!!! * Reflection varies
by maker. *YOU have to judge that.

No motion blur? Because of the much better refresh rate (.1ms)? Okay,
that's a really important consideration. And honestly this is not a
super-bright room, though we'll probably have a floor lamp as well as
the two windows at the far walls. We were close to settling on one of
a few LCD models, but we'll think some more. Do plasmas ever come
equipped with not-so-reflective screens, or does that just not work
for them?

Thank you all for your replies ---

Plasma versus LCD
 

Intelligent...comprehensive

--
All the Best,
Richard Harison


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
: Larry wrote:
: Having no experience with plasma or LCD TVs, I need to choose with two
: most important constraints in mind: 1) Although the room is sub-grade,
: there will be light coming from windows behind viewers, about 45
: degrees either side and quite a bit farther away than the seating
: area; 2) My wife is highly sensitive to jittery on-screen motion (as
: in cinema-verite) so I'm worried that any of this "triple-ball-effect"
: I hear about will be especially upsetting to her.
:
: So my questions: Do plasmas suffer much less from TBE than LCDs
: (comparing otherwise similar models)? Do plasmas lose brightness over
: time, or suffer burn-in, to any serious extent, or are those more
: problems in older technology? How bad is the reflection problem with
: plasmas? (Admittedly most of our watching will be at night.)
:
: If the room you are watching in has no light sources that will be
: mirrored at you, then plasma is wonderful. Even a small light source
: that is reflected when the screen is dark is usually 'lost' and
: imperceptible when the image is non dark. For daytime viewing with lots
: of windows behind and behind to the sides, the reflection would be
: noticeable in the dark areas too.
:
: The burn in issue is a bit of a lame duck argument as the "half-life" is
: many thousands of hours for the later models, so unless you watch 10
: hours a day every day, the effect won't begin to be noticeable for many
: long years. My set is on about 10 hours a week ... if that, so I don't
: believe I'll ever see it fade. (If you saw a new set and a set at 1/2
: life the next day you likely would not know the difference).
:
: There is an "after image" with plasma, for example if a bright area is
: constant for 10 or 20 seconds, and then that area of the screen goes
: dark, the "black" will have the afterimage of whatever was there. But
: this gets washed away by whatever happens next. This is the only
: irritant I've seen on a Panasonic 42" Viera. (Magnificent!).
:
: When you get the new set, be sure to set the brightness properly. My
: set was delivered in "Vivid" mode (which some call "torch"). I set it
: to the preset of "Cinema" which is very good (the greens don't seem
: "just right" however). But at this setting the after image effect is
: less, the half life extended. (The image is a bit warmer looking).
:
: If your room has a lot of windows, lights at tv level, etc, then LCD is
: perhaps the better way to go. In action shots, even the latest sets,
: have a discernible lag that shows in fine detail.
:
: LCD sets consume about 1/2 to 2/3 the power of plasma sets, so if you're
: into conserving electricity, it is another concern.




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Plasma versus LCD
 

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:12:36 -0700, Cbeyond wrote:

I have both LCD and Plasma. Plasma wins hands down in picture
quality. My wife can easily tell the difference, too. I have the 42"
1080p Panasonic. Consumer reports magazine also favor plasma over
LCD. Not that an LCD is bad, but I think it has to do with plasmas
much greater contrast ratio, even if this rating is inflated. The
blacks are really black and there is much more shadow detail in my
plasma.

If I could be sure that reflectioms would not make it unwatchable
during the day, with it facing a large eastern exposure window, I
would buy a new Panasonic 46" plasma. Maybe I should test it in the
store by shining a flashlight at it.

Plasma versus LCD
 

If you can tolerate a larger screen size (58" is
the smallest), consider an ultra-thin LCoS from
JVC. Compared to DLP, no rotating filter, lower
wattage lamp, brighter image.
--
pj

Cbeyond wrote:
I have both LCD and Plasma. Plasma wins hands down in picture
quality. My wife can easily tell the difference, too. I have the 42"
1080p Panasonic. Consumer reports magazine also favor plasma over
LCD. Not that an LCD is bad, but I think it has to do with plasmas
much greater contrast ratio, even if this rating is inflated. The
blacks are really black and there is much more shadow detail in my
plasma.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:58:37 GMT, "WGD"
wrote:

About to hit the market for a 46" unit. Considering, seriousy, a DLP (rear
space not a problem); also to void the problem of fliter life, I am consider
an LED-driven unit. Glare off of plasmas is very objectionable (our
viewing is both at day and night); LCDs ?, do not have a strong opinion
here.

Where, please, is my thinking wrong? i.e. drive for an LED-driven DLP. Or
does my thinking need a bit of adjustment?

Wayne



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message

Plasma gives more vivid colors, no motion blur, and a
lifetime that is longer than most would keep a tv for
anyway!!!!! Reflection varies by maker. YOU have to
judge that.
It's not like LCDs last forever. The actual liquid crystal and the
colored filters are complex organic chemicals that degrade due to light,
heat, and time. It's arguable that DLP might be the most stable, but again
they include colored filters that can degrade.

Plasma versus LCD
 

In article writes:

Plasmas do lose brightness over time. The gas has a half-life so over a
period of time (let's say 2 years) they lose half their brightness and
in another 2 years their brightness drops in half again.

The brightness reduction is in the phosphor, not the gas.

I don't recall
what the half-life of the gas is though. With that said, many companies
are advertising 60,000 and 80,000+ hour lifetimes for their plasma
displays and that is based on an 8 hour day which equates to over 20
years if I recall correctly from the last time I did the calculations.
Basically, based on manufacturer ratings, they are just as good as CRTs.

Actually, they are several times better in lifetime than CRTs.

Alan

Plasma versus LCD
 

"WGD" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
About to hit the market for a 46" unit. Considering, seriousy, a DLP
(rear space not a problem); also to void the problem of fliter life, I am
consider an LED-driven unit. Glare off of plasmas is very objectionable
(our viewing is both at day and night); LCDs ?, do not have a strong
opinion here.

Where, please, is my thinking wrong? i.e. drive for an LED-driven DLP.
Or does my thinking need a bit of adjustment?

Wayne

Good choice. I'm happy with my surprisingly svelte Samsung 61" that uses the
LEDs. Size really does matter! After two months with this size screen, I
could not imagine anything less than 55"-60" size for living room viewing.
For what I paid for the DLP, I would have had to make do with far smaller
LCD or plasma TVs. The rear projection picture is as good overall as the
other types. Unless you plan to hang the thing on the wall, go with a rear
projection and buy the biggest you can. YMMV

Plasma versus LCD
 

I have both LCD and Plasma. Plasma wins hands down in picture
quality. My wife can easily tell the difference, too. I have the 42"
1080p Panasonic. Consumer reports magazine also favor plasma over
LCD. Not that an LCD is bad, but I think it has to do with plasmas
much greater contrast ratio, even if this rating is inflated. The
blacks are really black and there is much more shadow detail in my
plasma.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:58:37 GMT, "WGD"
wrote:

About to hit the market for a 46" unit. Considering, seriousy, a DLP (rear
space not a problem); also to void the problem of fliter life, I am consider
an LED-driven unit. Glare off of plasmas is very objectionable (our
viewing is both at day and night); LCDs ?, do not have a strong opinion
here.

Where, please, is my thinking wrong? i.e. drive for an LED-driven DLP. Or
does my thinking need a bit of adjustment?

Wayne



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message

Plasma gives more vivid colors, no motion blur, and a
lifetime that is longer than most would keep a tv for
anyway!!!!! Reflection varies by maker. YOU have to
judge that.

It's not like LCDs last forever. The actual liquid crystal and the
colored filters are complex organic chemicals that degrade due to light,
heat, and time. It's arguable that DLP might be the most stable, but again
they include colored filters that can degrade.