LCD or plasma?

[THRiLL KiLL]

Bright room or dark room? Plasma loves to glare with bright lights whereas LCD do better. Just another thing to consider.

i would say bright room. there would always be a light on, or sun in the room, but the light sources are to the right and left of the tv so there would be no glare

You can get a 120 DLP projection 1080p 60'' for 599 from dell just saying......

helped a friend go that route. the technology may have changed, but the 3 big issues i had were, 1. loud, the fans you could definlty tell they were on. 2. warm up time. 3. the bulbs have a lot less shorter of a lifespan

how about something like this:


<46", LED backlit LCD

>46", ho ho ho santas gunna break his back delivering it cause you got plasma.

and that is one of the things i am looking at as the tv must be wall mounted

Typically, a 42" Plasma consumes AT LEAST 150W more, a bit more than double that of LCD.

Lets keep it simple, 150W vs 300W. IDK how much you will use you TV, if you use it alot, and till its death, we can account for 60 000 hours of use
9 000 KW vs 18 000 KW... at ~11cents per KWh since Seattle energy is cheap I'm guessing?
990$ vs 1980$ = ~1000$ difference in the long run


Now lets look at 3 years time, at 4 hours, 6 hours and 8 hours per day (only the diff this time)
~1100 days so 4400 hrs, 6600 hrs and 8800 hrs
0.150 KW difference --> 660 KWH, 990KWH, 1320KWH at 11c again
72.60$, 108.90$ and 145.20$



Just to give an idea of energy costs, though I'm sure energy prices WILL climb

very very good point.

Just a little mid afternoon humor guys Im interested in this thread too as im looking to buy a new tv also and im undecided looking at them in the shops the plasma was cheaper and seemed to have a better quality picture to me. But i dont really know much about the technology or the problems. Im still happy with my old sony wega tbh but the misses wants a bigger screen. Only thing is i have a 3 year old thats mentally dissabled and he loves to bash the screen alot so i have no choice but to wall mount.

P.S. Dont do lsd lol or any drugs for that matter!

you are in the same boat as me, i have a blind kid who cant walk (due to a bleed in his head) . I am afraid of him in his walker mowing down the tv. up till now we have had nothing but huge console tvs.

 

[W1zzard]

power consumption differences between lcd and plasma are not that big.

the numbers the plasma haters use are for a fully white plasma display which consumes more power than a black screen. lcd uses about the same power all the time. at the end of the day the difference shouldnt affect your buying decision

 

[oily_17]

Typically, a 42" Plasma consumes AT LEAST 150W more, a bit more than double that of LCD.

Lets keep it simple, 150W vs 300W. IDK how much you will use you TV, if you use it alot, and till its death, we can account for 60 000 hours of use
9 000 KW vs 18 000 KW... at ~11cents per KWh since Seattle energy is cheap I'm guessing?
990$ vs 1980$ = ~1000$ difference in the long run


Now lets look at 3 years time, at 4 hours, 6 hours and 8 hours per day (only the diff this time)
~1100 days so 4400 hrs, 6600 hrs and 8800 hrs
0.150 KW difference --> 660 KWH, 990KWH, 1320KWH at 11c again
72.60$, 108.90$ and 145.20$




Just to give an idea of energy costs, though I'm sure energy prices WILL climb

So really, you are talking $50 a year difference in the two.A $1 a week would not make me pick one over the other.

For heavy use, LCD for sure, less heat, less energy, also easier to wall mount, no loss of brightness etc etc

How are they easier to wall mount, they all have VESA standard mounting.The energy is only $1 a week and heats the room for you.
It might be ~5 years by the time you notice any real loss of brightness and you could probably adjust it in the menu settings anyway.

EDIT: Just checked with a Kill-A-Watt and my 50" Plasma uses from ~200-280watts.Not a big lot really.

 

[dr emulator (madmax)]

personaly i'd like to hear from some led lcd tv/monitor owners

plus i would also like to see some specs on how long leds last ,

why?
well i have quite an expensive led torch, and one of the leds has already blown (gold lead gone inside) and it didn't get used much

i know from personal experience that ccfl lcd tv/monitors will last a fairly long time, as long as the inverters transistors are kept cool (which some manufacturers seem to forget :shadedshu)

 

[Nitro-Max]

Well i have a little 16" lcd in my kitchen on the breakfast bar But i feel i cant really go by that as it was only a cheap technika tv/dvd combo. mainly to watch whilst having breakfast etc cartoons for the kids.

It is HD although i havent got this setup, And the picture quality isnt too bad when it comes to ghosting, Although the contrast had to be adjusted due to viewing angles. Id recomend a surround sound system or somthing simular, As i find the onboard sound isnt that good in this case it would be poor for a family living room, the volume doesnt seem to increase that well.

 

[BumbleBee]

the Philips 42" PFL3704D/F7 LCD consumes more power than a Panasonic Viera 42" S2. I think power consumption will eventually be a non-issue like burn in.

just so people think I am not crazy

power consumption is calculated 5 hours a day x 7 days a week for 12 months at 10.7 cents a kilowatt.

also the RCA 42" L40FHD41 LCD consumes more power than a older Panasonic Viera 42" S1 Plasma. hopefully this proves not all LCD are created equal.

comparison chart.

here is a good article on common misconceptions. pay special attention to Misconception #8: Plasma TVs are plagued by problems with burn-in.

 

[Delta6326]

here is what i have to say go lcd why because i have 6 lcd tv's and a plasma. i love my lcd's much more they look great and are good price i just got a Vizio 47" 1080p was on sale and it looks great!(going in my garage) i think for you lcd is the way to go i have Vizio, Samsung, LG, Phillips, and Sony and thats the order i like them. they look great, very cheap, and all around better, can't wait for a new led

Pardon the bad lighting i used flash

 

[JC316]

I say plasma. I have two, a 50" Samsung and a 32" Vizio, both are better than most LCD's.

 

[MohawkAngel]

LG 47" 1080p 120Hz LCD HDTV 47LD500

 

[BumbleBee]

one more thing. don't trust your eyes! brick and mortar stores have televisions set to factory presets like vivid which are designed to be overly bright and colorful to get your attention on the showroom floor. it's a good idea to have a couple models in your head before you enter a brick and mortar store. I recommend buying a brand name television that has been reviewed by a professional because they calibrate them to D6500K with video equipment and software then post the settings so you can experience what the director intended.

 

[WarEagleAU]

someone has been reading the Display Mate inventors articles. That man is a genius with TVs. I love how he discredited Sharp's Quad Pixel technology. IT was in Max PC and he shows how it cant be in any color spectrum, lol.

 

[f22a4bandit]

I have a 42" Insignia plasma, my parents have a 50" Panasonic Viera. They both blow any LCD tv I've seen to date out of the water in quality. LCD's look flat to me now, but I'd say with LED they've caught up well. I find that LCDs tend to cost more now than a plasma, and the image retention issue isn't an issue at all. My plasma retained an image for maybe 10 minutes after I turned it off for the first week, and I haven't experienced it since. Don't worry about burn-in either, pixel shift technology does an excellent job of preventing that from happening.

 

[nailzer]

If you don't want glare use a lamp like this in the room the plasma TV is in.
It's great indirect lighting that doesn't cause glare on the TV screen.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000L8BLT0/?tag=tec06d-20

 

[qubit]

someone has been reading the Display Mate inventors articles. That man is a genius with TVs. I love how he discredited Sharp's Quad Pixel technology. IT was in Max PC and he shows how it cant be in any color spectrum, lol.

This sounds fascinating. Do you have a link?

 

[Wile E]

People keep saying that image retention is no longer an issue, BUT IT IS. My brother's 3 month old Samsung plasma has an image burnt in to the bottom corner of the screen from hours of playing GTA4.

He had the anti-burn-in features turned on (nam escapes me) and everything. He bought it hearing similar arguments at other places about Plasma's superior picture, and now regrets it.

If you ever plan to game on it for a couple hours at a time, I suggest NOT going Plasma.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I've noticed a lot of these owners of both have had an old plasma and went to a new lcd. Plasma is back on the table because it has improved notably, particularly lately I think there's been a push for improvement. The only really fair comparison would come from someone who owned a new top end model of both, who was truly impartial.

 

[Wile E]

Top end models don't always play into the budget. You can only compare models in your price range.

I'll never own a plasma until I either quit gaming altogether, or they the chance of image retention goes down to the same as LCD.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Well how do you know it hasn't already? Has there been a case on these new panasonics? The thing with your friend's burn could be anything, a problem with the model, old tech, defects, who knows.

 

[qubit]

It's a shame about the burn-in problem with plasmas when gaming, because they have a smear-free picture with movement, just like a CRT - and this is a very important parameter. LCDs on the hand are all terrible in this respect. Some are better than others, but they all smear badly.

Just try panning across a scene on a plasma and then do the same thing on an LCD. The difference will be blindingly obvious.

 

[Wile E]

Well how do you know it hasn't already? Has there been a case on these new panasonics? The thing with your friend's burn could be anything, a problem with the model, old tech, defects, who knows.

It's a Panasonic U series.

And it isn't a defect. Plasmas still have a chance to burn in, period. LCD is still the only one with near 0% chance.

 

[BumbleBee]

People keep saying that image retention is no longer an issue, BUT IT IS. My brother's 3 month old Samsung plasma has an image burnt in to the bottom corner of the screen from hours of playing GTA4.

He had the anti-burn-in features turned on (nam escapes me) and everything. He bought it hearing similar arguments at other places about Plasma's superior picture, and now regrets it.

If you ever plan to game on it for a couple hours at a time, I suggest NOT going Plasma.

the Samsung PN50C550 got a bad review recently.

Gamers beware: serious screen burn-in problems.

surprised to see this in 2010. Panasonic is without a doubt the leader in Plasma.

 

[Wile E]

the Samsung PN50C550 got a bad review recently.

Gamers beware: serious screen burn-in problems.

you get what you pay for. Panasonic is without a doubt the leader in Plasma.

It is a Panasonic U series. I was wrong. His old TV was a Samsung. I had to call him to ask him what it was.

He said he bought it because it was the only 1080p 42" Plasma he could find in stock.

 

[Triprift]

I seen a clients Samsung one at work and it has mega burn in on it.

Not sure how old it is though.

 

[BumbleBee]

It is a Panasonic U series. I was wrong. His old TV was a Samsung. I had to call him to ask him what it was.

He said he bought it because it was the only 1080p 42" Plasma he could find in stock.

if it's recent it's probably a Panasonic TC-P42U2 it's a mid level model but it shouldn't be displaying image retention this is something Panasonic has worked on the last several years. I have a Panasonic TC-P42S2 and play a lot of Call of Duty with no image retention but I did burn it in 100 hours lol

 

[Wile E]

Play 200hours of GT4 and get back to me.