LCD or Plasma Preference

Someone was recently asking about LCD or Plasma preference; Sorry, i
have searched and cannot find the original discussion now.
But the original poster knew that plasma was better but did not know
why. After disscussion by the group the origainal poster came back and
asked for references and not just hearsay.


O.k. so you are looking for external sources to verify
that the plasma is better than the lcd.

Well, try this one.

http://www.intersys.gr/downloads/pdf...r1_summary.pdf

research company synovate carried out research on
the preferences of normal people on LCD vs Plasma screens.

O.k. so it is not this years model, but it does seem
to ask the man on the clapham omnibus which screen
does he think is better.
And he seems to reply that he thinks the plasma gives
a better picture.

is that what you were looking for ?

Also;
The Gadget Show on five, repeated on sunday morning, had an
illustration of the difference between real life, a plasma screen by
pioneer, and a plasma screen by phillips, both screens fed from a sony
camera. One was gbp2700 and the other was gbp [much less expensive].
The testers thoght that the expensive screen gave the most 'correct'
picture.

regards
Fsol

wrote in message
...


O.k. so you are looking for external sources to verify
that the plasma is better than the lcd.

Well, try this one.

http://www.intersys.gr/downloads/pdf...r1_summary.pdf

research company synovate carried out research on
the preferences of normal people on LCD vs Plasma screens.

O.k. so it is not this years model, but it does seem
to ask the man on the clapham omnibus which screen
does he think is better.
And he seems to reply that he thinks the plasma gives
a better picture.

is that what you were looking for ?

Also;
The Gadget Show on five, repeated on sunday morning, had an
illustration of the difference between real life, a plasma screen by
pioneer, and a plasma screen by phillips, both screens fed from a sony
camera. One was gbp2700 and the other was gbp [much less expensive].
The testers thoght that the expensive screen gave the most 'correct'
picture.

regards
Fsol

The two brands and the type of test:

Pioneer ceased in-house plasma production:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/07/p...-kuro-lcds-co/
Currently Pioneer plasma screens are sourced from LG.

Philips, originally a mighty OEM, have never made there own but
bought into LG, all Philips screens are off the LG production line.

Both Sony and Toshiba bought into Samsung, all their models are
off the Samsung production line, in fact most products with the
Toshiba brand are off a Samsung production line, ever bought a
Tosh burner, in the firmware you'll find the brand TSST.corp -
"Toshiba Samsung storage technology"

Basically all flatscreens regardless of the brand on the box are now
either out of China, or the mainstream brands all come off two
production lines - LG and Samsung.
You can find all details under a google news tab search "who
makes what".

When we buy a fridge the primary costs are shipping/distribution
and storage, production costs are minimal. All European fridges are made
on one of two production lines in Italy. In North America all fridges roll
off
one Mexican production line, one of the factors costed in, is that once a
fridge is sold a customer is lost for 13 years. With hi-tech gadgets and
luxury
goods etc, the OEM's rely on customers/users continuously upgrading, a
cynical current example being the over-priced iPhone (But same with Nokia,
Erricson etc) The new 3g iPhone was planned alongside the original iPhone,
a clever marketing ploy that has worked and punters fell for it - The
upgrade path.
All of that applies to flatscreens also. We will always need a
fridge-freezer,
we don't "need" luxury electronics, so the OEM's need to capture a userbase.
We all know that to view Hi-Def we need the appropriate equipment, and
we all know such hardware is "continuously evolving" (The upgrade path).
We all know we need a new flatscreen to view Hi-Def, we all know we need
"HD-Ready" to view encrypted Hi-Def content (The "handshake").
We all know the failings of *all* flatscreens, true black, pixel drop, pan
smudge etc.

The test you cite, use of a Sony camera(?) is totally unrepresentative of
how we view and what we want.
The majority of us view SD content, whether broadscast, DVD, VHS, PVR etc
and it will continue to be so for a long time, SD is the main viewing.
And it is with SD content that *all* flatscreens still have problems, some
can deal quite well with SD, but most are far from acceptable.
Hi-Def is magical, and most current mainstream brands do justice to HD,
but as yet the "evolution process" is still missing out on delivering good
SD on Plasma/LCD. It will get there but thats the "upgrade path".
And remember, some OEM's are also multimedia/entertainment giants,
Sony Fox for example, the people who make the hardware also have a
vested interest in the content, in the 2 main markets Japan and North
America, the cable networks are part owned by the same groups who produce
both the hardware and the content, thats all part of upgrade manipulation.
So anyone in the market for a new screen, ignore the hype and pointless
tests with Hi-Def Sony cameras. Go for a budget model thats HD-Ready and
don't expect good results with SD, and be prepared to be locked in the
upgrade
path, it will get better with SD content but we have to wait.....

wrote in message
...

Someone was recently asking about LCD or Plasma preference; Sorry, i
have searched and cannot find the original discussion now.
But the original poster knew that plasma was better but did not know
why. After disscussion by the group the origainal poster came back and
asked for references and not just hearsay.


O.k. so you are looking for external sources to verify
that the plasma is better than the lcd.

Well, try this one.

http://www.intersys.gr/downloads/pdf...r1_summary.pdf

research company synovate carried out research on
the preferences of normal people on LCD vs Plasma screens.

O.k. so it is not this years model, but it does seem
to ask the man on the clapham omnibus which screen
does he think is better.
And he seems to reply that he thinks the plasma gives
a better picture.

is that what you were looking for ?

Also;
The Gadget Show on five, repeated on sunday morning, had an
illustration of the difference between real life, a plasma screen by
pioneer, and a plasma screen by phillips, both screens fed from a sony
camera. One was gbp2700 and the other was gbp [much less expensive].
The testers thoght that the expensive screen gave the most 'correct'
picture.



Not sure the Gadget Show are any good with comparisons as regards being
accurate.

One thing I missed in reading comments on LCD/Plasma is the weight
difference for moving around/collection and hanging on wall.

--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

Surely though, the plasma uses more electricity. kicks out a lot more rf
interference, has sometimes got pulsating lowlights and wears out in a
haphazard way.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


wrote in message
...

Someone was recently asking about LCD or Plasma preference; Sorry, i
have searched and cannot find the original discussion now.
But the original poster knew that plasma was better but did not know
why. After disscussion by the group the origainal poster came back and
asked for references and not just hearsay.


O.k. so you are looking for external sources to verify
that the plasma is better than the lcd.

Well, try this one.

http://www.intersys.gr/downloads/pdf...r1_summary.pdf

research company synovate carried out research on
the preferences of normal people on LCD vs Plasma screens.

O.k. so it is not this years model, but it does seem
to ask the man on the clapham omnibus which screen
does he think is better.
And he seems to reply that he thinks the plasma gives
a better picture.

is that what you were looking for ?

Also;
The Gadget Show on five, repeated on sunday morning, had an
illustration of the difference between real life, a plasma screen by
pioneer, and a plasma screen by phillips, both screens fed from a sony
camera. One was gbp2700 and the other was gbp [much less expensive].
The testers thoght that the expensive screen gave the most 'correct'
picture.

regards
Fsol

In article , Convicted
writes
The test you cite, use of a Sony camera(?) is totally unrepresentative
of how we view and what we want. The majority of us view SD content,
whether broadscast, DVD, VHS, PVR etc and it will continue to be so for
a long time, SD is the main viewing. And it is with SD content that
*all* flatscreens still have problems, some can deal quite well with
SD, but most are far from acceptable.

That's very true.

In October last year I annoyed John Lewis slightly by demanding off-air
demos and not hi-def when looking for a TV. We bought a 40" LCD
(Toshiba), but I have since discovered in use that its own DVB-T tuner
is very inferior in sensitivity compared to the Sony DVB-T box alongside
it, both off the same RF DA. In the right signal conditions (and these
change with weather), it can be good, otherwise it's poor. I haven't yet
found out what the limiting factor is: the Sony works when the Tosh
doesn't (even with 20dB of RF gain to the Tosh, not the Sony).

Hi-Def is magical, and most current mainstream brands do justice to HD,
but as yet the "evolution process" is still missing out on delivering
good SD on Plasma/LCD. It will get there but thats the "upgrade path".

Some mainstream brands' DVB-T tuners were very poor indeed. Compression
artefacts and movement smearing being the main problems, also colour
balance. The 'external' (inside the box, but not actual panel) circuitry
does matter too, as do 'trivial' things such as ensuring incoming lines
and even PCA tracks are terminated in the right places!

I snipped your comments about manufacture for space only, but the
driving circuitry does make an enormous difference really. It's
understandable for there to be a very small number of lines making the
actual displays, as consistency and QC are hugely important, and these
only come with high volumes and well controlled processes.

Incidentally, I prefer LCD to plasma, based on nothing more
sophisticated than looking at lots of them in shops! None of the picture
presets on our LCD are very nice, most being too contrasty and garish.
We have our own stored, which gives a more "CRT" look to studio
pictures. As a little data point, if I switch it to one of Tosh's own
and leave it, the children will put it back, as they don't like the
'factory' settings either!

--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

wrote:
Someone was recently asking about LCD or Plasma preference; Sorry, i
have searched and cannot find the original discussion now.
But the original poster knew that plasma was better but did not know
why. After disscussion by the group the origainal poster came back and
asked for references and not just hearsay.

Ok, some hearsay - dunno where I heard it.

If you are the kind of person that watches creepy dark horror films with
the lights out - Plasma / CRT. Everything else LCD.

--
Adrian C

wrote:
Someone was recently asking about LCD or Plasma preference; Sorry, i
have searched and cannot find the original discussion now.
But the original poster knew that plasma was better but did not know
why. After disscussion by the group the origainal poster came back and
asked for references and not just hearsay.


O.k. so you are looking for external sources to verify
that the plasma is better than the lcd.

Well, try this one.

http://www.intersys.gr/downloads/pdf...r1_summary.pdf



Did you look at that report and the images of the various plasma and LCD
TV's side by side. One incredibly bright looking and one pretty dark.

They may have been set up with manufacturers defaults but they both looked
pretty poorly set up and hardly a good comparison of true quality.

cheers

David

Signal wrote:
CRT

You took the word out of my mouth.

I have a perfectly good 32 inch Sony CRT, coming up to 8 or so years usage.

Until it dies I have absolutely no reason to get a Plasma or LCD.

Given the build quality of the CRT, I'll probably get another 10 years out
of it

On the rare occasion where I look at the TVs in the stores, the Plasma's do
seem to look nicer.

--
Peter X-Files fan