Televisions Discussions

I am not too sure of this one, but I bet there are lots of members in the community that can come up with an answer!

LCD: Liquid Crystal Display

LCD televisions have a light source behind the screen (either a bulb or, in some newer models, LEDs), and that light passes through red/blue/green colored cells, and is then blocked to varying degrees by a layer of liquid crystal that blackens as electricity is run through it. It's the same technology as a digital watch, only on a larger and more sensitive scale. LCD screens are plastic, and most have a matte finish to prevent glare, though some models will have shiny plastic screens to enhance the darkness of blacks and brightness of whites. LCD televisions are available from 15" up to technically any size. Inch per dollar, LCDs cost more than plasmas, but they are all coming down in price as time goes by. LCDs also weigh less and use less energy, on average, than plasmas. Samsung, Sony, and Toshiba are the major players in quality LCD televisions.

Plasma: A honeycomb of cells colored red/blue/green inside is sandwiched behind a pane of glass (screen) and each cell is filled with a gas that lights up when electricity is applied (turning it into "plasma," hence the name). The more electricity, the brighter the light, and the more of that color is shown. Plasma televisions tend to be heavier than LCDs, cost less for the same size, tend to have better contrast ratios (how black and white the black and white get, which makes colors appear bolder or more realistic, though Samsung's new models beat out plasma for contrast ratio), use more energy, get hotter, and, until very recently, didn't last as long (generally only 5-9 years). Panasonic is the major player in plasma, and their new plasma technologies make the sets able to work longer than before, doubling the expected lifespan. Plasma can still experience "burn-in," or when a color no longer works properly on the screen. Panasonic has technologies to help prevent this, but LCD never gets burn-in.

Plasma tends to be a better choice for darker rooms, as it will have glare on its shiny screen. Most LCDs are good anywhere (within reason, e.g. not in a bathroom that gets humid).

that was very helpful thank you.

Plasmas are a better choice for faster action films and sports. There is virtually no pixelization (dgital noise) in plasma TV's. Unless you spend top dollar for a 120Mhz LCD TV. You will experiance pixelization on LCD TVs.

talk about high tech! LCD baby all the way!

LCD tvs don't get burn in technically but they do get image persistence. You get it a lot with gaming. Basically when a static picture changes the pixels will "remember" the color they were and cause the picture to be off, leaving an off color version of the previous image. LCD is still a good option for gaming though. IMO, get a Samsung LCD, get it PROFESSIONALLY callibrated. No DiYers ok? Manufacturers tint their LCDs blue to get them brighter. try and find a blue tint adjustment on your menu. also, you can't correct overscan yourself. Callibration is like $300 so its an investment but often times a callibrated TV can use 18-30% less electricity than a model on factory settings so it pays for itself!

This is all so helpful.  I know we will be needing a new TV soon, and this is where I will come when I need to figure out what we are buying!

FYI

wait and save your $$ for the newer technology LED HD TV's no backlighting like LCD have. As with any high end TV's especially LCD's get a Master Protection Agreement on the unit, if an LCD ( pixel) goes out,after mfg warranty, and no other protection, you will be paying alot $$ to repair. pixels fail & no other recourse but to replace the screen, basically the whole set.

I'd look into the new LED technology HD TV's also they will takover from LCD models very soon, most larger Seas Full Line will or have some now, then compare all three visual formats....

rbfuji is right about the LED models being better. They use less energy, give higher contrast ratios, and run cooler than standard LCDs. If you're not in a rush, and you can wait a year, the cost will come down on these models, as their technology is relatively inexpensive (but novel, hence its current higher costs). And, of course, it's nice to know that the LEDs won't burn out.

If you need a tv now, the Samsung LED models are available, and the current batch of Samsung regular LCDs are also great televisions.

I had a hd rear projection big screen and the tower speaker subwoofer magnets would pull on the image on the screen causing distortion. Will this happen with LCD or plasma? Also, I have heard plasma screens tend to burn out over a few years and have a much shorter life span than an LCD would. Is this True? Can any t.v. tech gurus out there please shed some light on my two questions...

Plasma rock!

LCD and plasma do not experience this "image pulling" that you mention. The images are not magnetic, and are not affected by magnetism. As for plasma lifespan, the screens do have a finite life, but Panasonic has developed better plasma technology that has doubled the useful lifespan of the screen. Keep in mind that the screen will, eventually, die. The gas simply does not work forever. It will work longer now, though. Plasma screens should normally have, on average, a lifespan of about 18 years to reach 75% brightness (Panasonic likes to quote the time to half-brightness, which is twice as long, but that's silly; 75% brightness is a much more realistic level at which to replace).

Hello:

With  alittle research on the internet, you will find a wealth of info such as quoted below:

Advantages Plasma over LCD ( Liquid Crystal "Diode" )

Larger screen size availability-Better contrast ratio & ability to render deeper blacks-Better color accuracy and saturation-Better motion tracking(little or no motion lag in fast moving images).

Disadvantages of Plasma v.s. LCD include:

Plasma TV's are more susceptible to "burn-in" of static images-Plasma generates more heat than LCD's, due to need to light phosphors to create images.-Does not perform well over altitudes 6,500>.Shorter display life but new models have improved to = 60,00 hrs-same as LCD.

LCD advantages over Plasma include:

No "burn-in" issues of static images-Cooler running temperatures-No high altitude use issues-Increased image brightness over Plasma-Lighter weight comparable screen sizes to Plasma-Longer display life,but both now on par @ 60K hours.

Disadvantages LCD v.s. Plasma include:

Lower contrast ratio, not as good rendering blacks-Tracking motion issues, however 120HZ models( screen refresh rates) claim to improve this issue-Limited screen sizes but recent CES2009 exhibition-larger sizes 55"> now available to public- Although no "burn-in" issue, LCD pixels however can burn out causing blk or wht dots on screen, they cannot be repaired, whole screen needs to be replaced. LCD due tend to be more expensive, although price margins are getting closer between similar screen sizes.

Note: Do not be fooled on the high contast ratios quoted by manufacturers, its mostly a marketing ploy and the procedures vary by each mfg onhow they calculate them.  The human eye cannot detect beyond 500:1 per the experts.

** Burn-In on Plasma screens- there have been many improvements in this area by the major top brands-Panasonic, Pioneer & others-users need to follow instructions/procedures when issues arise and refrain from leaving a static image on screen for more than >30 minutes whe suign PC or gaming devices.

 

Hoe this info helps.

 

Plasma is definitely better but it is slowly being phased out by the manufacturers. With all of the glass that is in plasma TVs there just isn't any way to make it cheaper than they are right now, especially with LCD getting cheaper and bigger by the day. Even if LCD never gets as good as Plasma it's likely that plasma will revert to high-end only or go away entirely.

I work at store 1268.

Unfortuneately, people have the misconception that LCD TV's are superior and come in with their "I don't want a plasma" phrase ready whenever they hear the word "plasma"

In terms of sheer picture quality, plasma is superior until you reach the 6 series Samsung LCD quality, or their 7 series. If you're looking for a large, inexpensive television, plasma is for you. The  50" 720p LG is going for $899 right now, not too shabby and has better speakers than most other brands

LCD Vs. Plasma.
LCD's, I believe provide a much clearer, defined picture than that of Plasma. Also - the operating costs (electricity) of plasma are much higher. If you are considering placing a plasma tv in a smaller room (ie; apartment) then you also may want to consider the heat generated from the equipment - which can be considerable. So if room cooling is a problem, then I'd definitely go with LCD.

I just bought a Sony, 46" Series 'S' 1080p HD LCD, and I swear by it. BluRay movies and HD broadcasts are quite spectacular, especially when connected to a full 1080p Theatre Sound System! Well worth the spend, if you enjoy your big production movies!

Wow - thanks for all the information - we will be in the market next year for a new tv and all this super information will make it easier to look, compare, and then purchase a new system!!

MySears has the coolest members! So helpful and pretty darn smart, too!

LCD vs Plasma & LEDs

I will start with Plasma since the misconception is that they suck and aren't worth getting.

 Plasma ~

I would say first off if you are going to buy a plasma only buy a Panasonic or Pioneer, everyone elses plasmas dont measure up.

Burn in = (The tv gets to hott and starts to burn the image into the pixels)

When it comes to burn in, most plasmas now have what is called pixel shifter or pixel orbiter, on the panasonics they allow for a force mode which actually works to keep burn ins from happening. I have done many of tests and this tech actually works, when its not on force (now called periodic) you can get the tv to burn in, when its on periodic the tv will not burn in. Most plasmas also have white wash modes under their anti retention menu as well, which allows for you to buffer out a burn in if the tv does happen to get it.

I've tested up to 10 hours straight on the same screen between Samsung, LG, and Panasonic, the Samsung takes about 45mins, the LG an hour and the panasonic never burned in. 

Energy 

Plasmas do run hotter than LCDs but not that hotter, go into a store and feel behind the tvs (efficient plasmas) wont get that hot. To normal human touch you will notice very little difference between most tvs, plasmas that get to hot will also have more issues with burning in. 

Also when it comes to the amount of enegry it will use up (electricity bill wise) this depends from brand to brand, some LCDs are highly efficient but there are plasmas that can beat out some standard LCDs, since plasmas dont work off backlights they can dim the brightness of any part of the screen and that allows for the tv to decrease less energy, LCDs comsume energy at a consistant rate unlike plasmas. Also 2009 has marked the year of Eco friendly and all the top brands have some sort of Eco mode and power consumption mode.

Picture Quality

Plasmas have better blacks, better native contrast ratios (not the BS dynamic contrast ratios most companies publish) and better ability to keep up with motion. Since plasmas do burn gases they can increase and decrease the rate they read information a lot quicker because it isnt delayed by the motherboard process. The published number they are putting out in 2009 is 600hz which is a lot faster than either LCD speeds of 240hz 120hz or 60hz. This is where plasmas dominate the market because with a plasma you can even get a 720p tv and it will rival many low end 1080p LCDs (which cost more). As I said before since the range of colors is greater on a plasma and they dont use a backlight, there is no washout limiting the picture quality. 

Glare

This is one of the big ones, plasmas screens are made out of glass so they do reflect light back at you, but the nice thing is most plasmas have anti glare coating. The panasonics anti glare coating is excellent, they actually break their screens up into diamonds which keeps the sunlight from bouncing directly back. Other plasmas anti glare coating is poor to say the least, the test of this is as easy as turning off the tvs while you are at the store and look for yourself, there is a vastly noticble difference between panasonic and the LG or Samsungs. Sun is a hiderance to any tv, but with plasmas the actual picture quality is not diminished by sunlight.

(Note: Tube tvs glare is worse than a plasmas.)

Reliability

Plasmas now quote the same lifespan as LCDs do of 100,000 hours. The big thing about this is, plasmas work on a half life system, which means the first 50,000 hours or so the tvs quality will be closer to when you first got it than the last 50,000 hours. Now plasmas do run out of gas so once the gas is empty its time for a new tv, but if you looking at the first 50,000 being 10yrs like its suppose to, I think it probably due time for a new one anyways. Its also possible to cause of a plasma to leak, but I haven't had anyone in the past 2 years have that issue, its mainly cause due to customer abuse, in which case its your fault.

Cost

Plasmas win the cost vs quality race, the technology has been around longer, its cheaper to make. So its less at retail.

LCDs

Dead Pixels = a pixel burns out or your backlight fails resulting in black spots or no picture.

While plasmas have the burn issue LCDs have the dead pixel issue, both are equally frustrating. Manufacturers admit that its likely for a tv to ship with a few dead pixels this is even stated in the limited manufactuer warranty. In most cases this is never an issue and its fairly uncommon for dead pixel to begin to cluster on an LCD screen.

Energy

LCDs do a good job on energy consumption, while its not a specific standard across brands most LCDs have a lot of new tech to help consume less energy. LIke I mentioned earlier since they use backlights they consumer a high rate of energy all the time, a lot of brands like Sharp and Sony have auto sensors which will increase and decrease the amount of lighting based on the room. Also like plasmas, LCDs have their Eco friendly modes as well, in which a lot of them allow you to turn off the backlight if you are planning on walking away from the tv to go upstairs or something. Its really handy. 

Picture Quality 

This is one of the big downfalls to LCDs, now overall picture quality compared to tubes or so its great, and compared to one another they are still really good but most LCDs dont measure up to plasmas, the nice thing is LCDs are brighter and an average joes naked eye will immediately attract to the tv that is the brightest, so if you are one of those people you will be captivated by that and since its your money, you should probably stick with it. Then there is the motion issue, standard LCD sets are 60hz, and then there is the now widely popular 120hz sets which do help out a lot in most cases. Sony and Samsung both have 240hz tvs coming out very soon with Sharp and Vizio following later in the year. Now like 90% of the population cannot see more than 30 frames per second or faster than 60hrz, which is why most people will never ever notice the difference, but at the same its always nice to have better tech but with LCDs its not a standard you have to pay for it.

Glare

The thing never said about LCDs and glare which everyone should know, is that LCDs absorb sunlight which makes the picture quality horrible. Just think back to anytime you were in school looking at an overhead project and the sunlight was beaming in, what did you have to do close the blinds because you simply couldn't see. While LCDs are a bit better than that because they are lit from behind, the screens still work very very similar and it runs the picture. Everyone says LCDs are made for rooms with a lot of light because they dont send the sunlight back at your face, but in cases of direct sunlight, they too have problems. Sunlight ruins a tv screen regardless of the type.

Reliabilty

The nice thing about LCDs is in most cases if something goes wrong it can be repaired, there arent any known issues that I know of that arent covered by the MPA. (except customer abuse of course), the problem with LCDs is that typically they do have more things that can go wrong. It is also expected to be 100,000 hrs as well. Now the negative things about LCDs is that they loose 90% of their brightness in the first 10,000 hours, which is a vast difference than the 75%/ 50,000hrs half life that plasmas work on.

Cost

range in all prices you pay for what you want.

LED

The first thing to note about LEDs is that they are infact LCDs, they do use liquid Crystal technology to get their picture. The difference is it uses LEDs as a light source rather a backlight. This allows for better blacks and for less power consumption.

Last year Samsungs A950 and Sonys XBR9 both had light dimming LEDs which is different than the currently promoted Samsung LEDs (Luxia 6000/7000 models)

Light dimming LEDs are not comprised up of a full panel of LEDs they are specifically placed in order to light the screen. As of right now Sonys LED tech is better than Samsungs. Samsung uses White LEDs while Sony uses Red, Blue, and Green. The difference is by using Red, Blue, and Green the consistancy of the black levels are better and so is the overall picture quality.

The Currently promoted Samsung Luxia 6000/7000 models are edge lit, which means the LEDs are only along the edges and the middle portion of the tv uses mirrors, this causes inconsistant black levels, and horrible 120hz quality leaving blur and judder on the screen, the tv does have a built in slider though which allows you to adjust it to your liking.

Cost

The current Samsungs that we are selling just aren't worth the money in my opinion, the bad bloom lighting, the inconsistant blacks, and 120hz issues just isnt worth $3600 for a 55" screen. As LEDs improve they will be the premier tvs on the market.

Ending Note

CNET voted the Pioneer Kuro Elite plasma the best overall HDTV of 2008

The Best overall LCD of 2008 was Sonys XBR9.

The really is no true winner between LCD or Plasma go with what you like, they are very closely matched. I say pick by brand rather than type.

 

Thanks, GenJones32!  If anyone has any questions, we should just send them to this thread.  SUPER informative.

Guys... Why spend extra money on a product when it's not needed?  It's plasma all the way guys, no brainer.  600 Hz vs. 60 Hz or even 120 Hz?  Life span of the product... 100,000 hours vs 60,000 hours.  Deeper blacks.  Plasma is top.

They are not being fased out as people are saying.  That rumor started when Pioneer dropped TV's and are focusing on car audio.  Panasonic, LG and Samsung are still making plasmas stronger than ever.  Image burn-in is a thing of the past.  Most likely to happen in the first 250 hours of use on the tv.  After that static images ill be erased by the pixel orbiter and guess what, on all these brands there is a anti image retention feature.  It erases any burn-in.

Energy costs:  Don't leave your plasma on "vivid."  They are as efficient as LCDs now (LED's are obviously more energy efficent than both technologies)

Glare:  Panasonic has anti-glare coating on both sides of both sheets of glass plus a black filter that absorbs 45% of light.  Compare a Panasonic to a Samsung 6, 7, 8 or LED Panels.  They are less reflective than their LCD counterparts.

Save your money and get the better technology!

I own both a Plasma set, 50" and a LCD set, 32".  To me, Plasma is the hands down winner in terms of overall picture quality and purchase cost.  I have owned a plasma set for two years with no real increase in my electric bill. Sport s viewing on plasma is especially where you will see a major difference over LCD.  for serious viewing, the way to go is plasma.

rowingking said…

that was very helpful thank you.

---

 

very helpful, expansion would be appreciated,

I have a 52" Pioneer Kuro Elite Plasma and a 46" Sony Bravia LCD (yes I have 10K worth of TVs in my house!).

They are quite different.  I bought the LCD first for the standard reasons and was amazed by the picture quality and wooed by the brightness.  I have since purchased the plasma and at first I couldn't get past the fact that it wasn't as bright as the LCD, but in reality the motion and picture is more believable and more fluid.  I ultimately think the plasma is a better picture, but my brain and eyes really respond favorably to the brightness of the LCD.

Bottom line is it really comes down to personal preference, but A LOT of people overlook plasmas simply because they aren't as bright and mistake brightness for picture quality.  If you like movies (both HD and BlueRay) and motion that looks real, get a plasma.  If you have a rediculously bright room and your eyes and brains can't get over how bright a LCD is, than get a LCD.  If your brain is fooled into thinking it's a better qulaity picture (which mine was at first) as long as you never buy a plasma, you'll never know the difference!

The 240Hz Samsungs have a 2ms response time. Should be a sight to behold.

The conversation here reminds me of the Mac/PC, Coke/Pepsi, Ford/Chevy rivalries.

BlueCrewGuyInMA said…

The 240Hz Samsungs have a 2ms response time. Should be a sight to behold.

The conversation here reminds me of the Mac/PC, Coke/Pepsi, Ford/Chevy rivalries.

---

To bad it will lack quality and sharpness like the rest of their sets do.

GenJones32 said…

BlueCrewGuyInMA said…

The 240Hz Samsungs have a 2ms response time. Should be a sight to behold.

The conversation here reminds me of the Mac/PC, Coke/Pepsi, Ford/Chevy rivalries.

---

To bad it will lack quality and sharpness like the rest of their sets do.

---

I've found the Samsungs to exceed Sony for picture quality (not just brightness, mind you), as well as having a more realistic-looking motion and almost three-dimensionality versus Panasonic or any other televisions on display. Their lower models do, certainly, lack the razor sharpness that the TOC models have, but the 240Hz versions will be in the TOC class, and that should give it increased contrast ratios and smoother motion.

I'm just not seeing the down side of the current batch of TOC Samsung televisions. I haven't been able to find any reviews that agree with the premise that the TOC tv has picture quality that isn't competitive with the best televisions. Maybe you've seen something I haven't?

check out CNET they havent gotten around to the 2009 products buy the LED, they give them an overall good score but they always mention artifacts, dejudder issues and lack of sharpness.

Its pretty miniscule but I would strongly disagree that Samsungs overall picture quality is better than Sony or Panasonic. The 2009 TOC are exactly the same as the 2008 nothing was really changed but bezel styles, also Samsung has very inconsistant blacks.