LCD VS Plasma VS DLP

Home Theatre

Would have you found has the best picture?
Price?

Looking for a new tv bewteen 40-52

univera

This has been bandied about many times recently and in the past. Sony LCD's seem to have the consensus on best pictures. I am very pleased with mine (KDL-40XBR) in terms of HD and aesthetics. The first link is the latest, up to date Top 10 of all HD sets, all sizes, and all types from Cnet.com

IMO, plasma still has too many drawbacks and LCD is damn near as good without having to worry about burn in, whether permanent or something that will reverse out over a few days/weeks.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4323-6531_7-6509125.html?tag=dir

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44606

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43590&highlight=sony+xbr2

MikeC78

LCD's usually have black and ghosting issues that plasma's do not.

Burn-in with plasma is a myth so to speak. They all have screen savers now, and new technology made this something of the past.

There are drawbacks for both, I find LCD's to have more. IMO, plasma has the best picture. Pioneer and Panasonic are known for the best plasma's on the market.

Mike

Ricardo

Call me crazy...but I've yet not seen anything that would make it worth to upgrade from my modest Hitachi CRT projection TV....Picture Quality? in HD, no difference (at least that I can see...); no expensive bulbs or anything like that, and all for close to a grand....yes, it takes more space, but that's not an issue for me

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Hitachi-57-CRT-Projection-HDTV-57F59A/sem/rpsm/oid/150394/catOid/-12870/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

fireshoes

CRT's can't focus as well in the corners and you have to deal with convergance, poor viewing angles, and a picture that isn't as bright.

- Current Hitachi CRT owner and hopefully flat panel owner in the next few months

univera

MikeC78 wrote:

LCD's usually have black and ghosting issues that plasma's do not.

Burn-in with plasma is a myth so to speak. They all have screen savers now, and new technology made this something of the past.

There are drawbacks for both, I find LCD's to have more. IMO, plasma has the best picture. Pioneer and Panasonic are known for the best plasma's on the market.

Mike

Mike, that just isn't entirely true. Read a recent thread about a guy who had a ghosting in the corner of his new plasma from a Fox logo or something. Some on this site talk about switching channels periodically to prevent burn in. Who wants to even have to think about that? LCD's have come so far that, IMO, its not worth any extra effort if one is looking for a flat panel display. I believe plasma's will become second fiddle to LCD's in the next few years or sooner since LCD is very close if not better in some instances and doesn't have the stigma of a shorter life span. Blacks are not an issue at all on my Sony. I keep thinking how nice and black they are, no gray in sight. That is becoming a thing of the past on current, good quality LCD's. Reviews of Sony put blacks nearly on par with plasma.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44757&highlight=burn+in

MikeC78

univera wrote:

Mike, that just isn't entirely true. Read a recent thread about a guy who had a ghosting in the corner of his new plasma from a Fox logo or something. Some on this site talk about switching channels periodically to prevent burn in. Who wants to even have to think about that? LCD's have come so far that, IMO, its not worth any extra effort if one is looking for a flat panel display. I believe plasma's will become second fiddle to LCD's in the next few years or sooner since LCD is very close if not better in some instances and doesn't have the stigma of a shorter life span. Blacks are not an issue at all on my Sony. I keep thinking how nice and black they are, no gray in sight. That is becoming a thing of the past on current, good quality LCD's. Reviews of Sony put blacks nearly on par with plasma.

How old is his plasma, what brand does he have? Plasma's and LCD's have gone a long way. I feel that plasma brings a better picture from what i seen.

I have both. I have a Sharp LCD in my bedroom and I have a Panny Plasma in the living room, I feel the plasma beats the LCD in everyway. Don't get me wrong the LCD does produce a nice image.

Enjoy your LCD, it's a wonderful display!:)

Mike

sickicw

I did lots of research recently and i ended up with a new sony 46" 1080p lcd. It was either that or the new sammy 1080p lcd. Both are pretty expensive compared to the dlp, but look much better. They also have more resolution than the plasmas.

Sherardp

I have the sony 60 inch xbr LCD and the panny 61 inch DLP. I enjoy both. The blacks on the dlp are better, not to much rainbow effect. Both show off an awesome pic.

MikeC78

Also... Was his plasma correctly calibrated? Was he running it in "torch" mode? There are a lot of factors that could of caused this?

Mike

univera

Mike, exactly my point. Who the heck wants to worry about that crap? I want to turn on my set and enjoy and not have to worry about silly stuff that could damage my set permanently or even short term. What a pain in the tail...IMO, the little bit of possible improvement of plasmas doesn't outweigh the pain in the **** factor of owning a plasma. If you read the reviews on Cnet, the Sony actually has a higher rating than the two plasmas ahead of it. Perhaps they are ahead due to being larger sets that can truly reproduce 1080p in noticeable fashion?

I don't even know what rainbow effect is, but I don't see anything like that on my set. If that refers to "drag" during fast motion scences, I'm not seeing it. Especially on football. Here's the link that I forgot to add:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44757&highlight=burn+in

Read the various hoops guys are jumping through to prevent ghosting and burn in. PAIN IN THE ****! My two cents. Yours respected as well!

MikeC78

There is a good read here...

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42062

MikeC78

univera wrote:

Mike, exactly my point. Who the heck wants to worry about that crap? I want to turn on my set and enjoy and not have to worry about silly stuff that could damage my set permanently or even short term. What a pain in the tail...IMO, the little bit of possible improvement of plasmas doesn't outweigh the pain in the **** factor of owning a plasma. If you read the reviews on Cnet, the Sony actually has a higher rating than the two plasmas ahead of it. Perhaps they are ahead due to being larger sets that can truly reproduce 1080p in noticeable fashion?

I don't even know what rainbow effect is, but I don't see anything like that on my set. If that refers to "drag" during fast motion scences, I'm not seeing it. Especially on football. Here's the link that I forgot to add:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44757&highlight=burn+in

Read the various hoops guys are jumping through to prevent ghosting and burn in. PAIN IN THE ****! My two cents. Yours respected as well!

I have no worries with mine, it's been running strong with no signs of burn in for over a year. Once calibrated and past it's break in stage, I have no problems.

Like I said, I believe these problems are occuring with improperly calibrated sets. These are things of the past. I enjoy both, even after ISF calibration the plamsa still bests my LCD.

I guess for the average Joe that would play video games and is not after the BEST PQ, an LCD is best suited for him. The OP asked for which has the best PQ, which IMO is the plasma.

Mike

cmy330go

Of the options you listed I prefer DLP.

Plasma would be my second choice, and then LCD.

scottvamp

fireshoes wrote:

CRT's can't focus as well in the corners and you have to deal with convergance, poor viewing angles, and a picture that isn't as bright.

- Current Hitachi CRT owner and hopefully flat panel owner in the next few months

Just have had issues with convergence with my CRT's. My newer 65" Tosh, beat every large screen on the market at the time. Even with the convergence a little off on it the PQ is awesome. Wasn't going to go with CRT a couple years ago but then i saw a buddies Hitachi and was blown away. I could not find a Plasma at the time that could beat it. Every large flat panel i have seen can't beat the viewing angle on my Tosh CRT. I'm supprised too.
I still say CRT is the best bang for the buck - hands down.

lomic

Give the Sony 50" LCoS Rear-projection a look. I hadn't been a fan of LCD or DLP rear-projection, but this baby has one of the most incredible pictures on the market. Native 50" 1080p for under $2000 is a heck of a deal, and would probably be my #1 pick if I was in a more stable living condition, since it's a bit more to lug around.

Only downside I can see is bulb replacement every few years.

jmwest1970

I think all 3 technologies have good and bad points. My personal preference is DLP. With that said I'm waiting to see if the laser DLP pans out.

The plasmas are nice, but every one I've seen has the shiny screen on the front. I live in a house with mucho ambient light so that just screams glare to me.

LCD is sweet, but I've seen too many LCD monitors start showing dead pixels within a couple of years. I'd be pretty PO'd for that to happen to a +$1000 tv.

Although I don't think they're into DLP I'd have to agree with most that the Sony's have the best picture, but not bang for the buck.

disneyjoe7

Plasma

Home Theatre

http://www.tweeter.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2422814&cp=1124286.1124354.1124426&sublevel=2&parentPage=family


This is the one I was thinking about getting. On the other hand I might just keep my 46 inch HDTV Mitsubishi and get my home theatre done.

krabby5

Sherardp wrote:

I have the sony 60 inch xbr LCD and the panny 61 inch DLP. I enjoy both. The blacks on the dlp are better, not to much rainbow effect. Both show off an awesome pic.

someone has too much money:D

Pepi28

Plasma has the best picture of all 3 technologies hands down. I play video-games on my 50" Sammy Plasma all the time and have never had burn-in issues, not once. To even get burn-in you need to leave a picture paused on the screen for hours if not days to really cause any damage. Anyway that is my opinion and it all depends on your taste. Go Plasma.

polkatese

I think one that hasn't been mention is RPTV. All else being equal, strictly from picture quality perspective, RPTV is hands down the most life-like of all of these technology, IMO. I can sit a feet in front of it, and it's a lot more bearable than sitting a feet in front of my LCD. I gave LCD leads as far as color saturation, but RPTV is a lot more forgiving on bad HDTV source.

tommyboy

univera wrote:

Blacks are not an issue at all on my Sony. I keep thinking how nice and black they are, no gray in sight. That is becoming a thing of the past on current, good quality LCD's. Reviews of Sony put blacks nearly on par with plasma.

I disagree, I prolly watched your tv for hours at Circuit city and the black levels on lcds still don't compare to plasmas IMO. I'm not a big fan of plasmas either because of problems mentioned above. But in terms of picture quality and contrast, I would have to pick plasma...

LuSh

Obviously its a matter of taste. Plasma's in comparison to LCD's remain the ultimate in regards to picture. I've seen both ISF calibrated LCD and Plasma's and it really isn't that close. The black levels on LCD's are still horrid, its a shader technology you either get BLACK or NO BLACK...In regards to having to worry about stuff...alot of people buy HTIB's because they don't want alot of boxes...I think a person who watches alot of movies is wasting his money by not getting his set (CRT, Plasma, DLP, LCD) ISF'd...once it's properly calibrated burn in shouldn't be an issue.

univera

Lush, I disagree. The blacks on my set are black. Period. No way "horrid" describes the blacks on my t.v. They aren't grey. I haven't effed with the settings one bit. I think this is an example of a jaded viewer getting snobby. Not meant to disparage. It's kind of like someone with tubes saying all solid state sounds like crap. Granted, I am opinionated about plasma, but only due to possible issues mentioned and unknown life span.

I will go back and look at comparisons again. Let's assume the blacks are NEARLY as deep as plasmas on TODAY'S top of the line models. It then becomes a tradeoff of what is more important i.e. best blacks vs. possible burn in, shiny screen vs. lighter weight, etc. There is no set that is the best in every possible thing that is important to you. Just like anything else...

For the record, my set has great viewing angles. One would have to really sit far off angle to have a problem.

I had to have a flat panel display to suit my room. I also have a bright room which ruled out plasma. Interestingly enough, my brother in law, who knows squat about hi-fi, told me he didn't like plamas because the screens were too reflective. He hadn't read one thing that put the idea in his head. He went with DLP because he didn't need a flat mount and the t.v. is going in a loft. Again, just depends on one's situation.

However; if I had all options on the table, I would go with a rear projection or DLP as one gets way more bang for the buck (bigger screen size for one) than going with the convenience and coolness factor of a flat panel. Those Mitsu's have a fantastic picture.

sickicw

I also disagree with Plasms'a being the ultimate in picture quality. The newer 1080p LCDs are more detailed than most plasmas and the new sony models have very good blacks.

univera

Does your Sony ever look "grey" to you? I swear mine doesn't. Hasn't even crossed my mind. Older LCD's or lesser models, absolutely. Not this one.

Something else as well. The new Sony's have excellent detail within the blacks, which in my experience, is very important. Other sets just looked like thick black blobs, so to speak. Really, it applies to all dark blacks and browns. The Samsungs just didn't have the detail in dark areas, and they were the second best LCD's I looked at.

MikeC78

LCD's are getting WAY better in time, just like any other technology. Blacks are not as much of an issue anymore as they use to be.

In a bright room setting like univerva uses, an LCD would best a plasma.

Another thing with 1080p, just because the display has more resolution does not nessecarily equate to a better picture. It all comes down to what you're inputing into the display, i.e. cable, crap in = crap out regardless the resolution.

Mike

disneyjoe7

I disagree that LCD is the best picture over Plasma, the blacks are so black I have to give it some contrast because black is too black. Burn in pictures are not a problem with newer Plasma TV IMHO.

LuSh

I think you need to revist my post Univera; LCD uses a shader technology, I don't doubt you see black. The problem is that cinema quality and film in general offers enough shades and colors to allow the viewer to depict different shades of black. The first thing a tech will do when ISF'ing a television is to calibrate a proper grey scale. Load up Batman returns on two properly calibrated sets one being plasma and one being LCD. The plasma will allow you to see everything going on in the dark scenes, the LCD will just be black. It might even be hard to distinguish between a black leather jacket and a shadow. LCD's in effect crush grey scales out.

Again, the general public knows nothing about televisions because the vast majority of people that sell them know nothing. I'm not knocking people, what ever you like and fits your lifestyle go nuts. But if you're really into picture quality CRT is the way to go, Plasma is a nice thin alternative that offers much of the same quality, LCD is a nice lifestyle choice.

It should also be noted that while 1080p can result in an upgrade in picture quality (Like the runco 3-chip I saw at 06' CES) many of today's latest offerings do nothing, the main culprit is the deinterlacer in the televisions. Ultimate picture resolution in numbers is only half the picture. It would be like somebody telling you to buy a stereo based on watt's, a videophile would laugh if you threw numbers around because unless you know the full equation one number means nothing.

Detail within dark scenes is what you're after not ultra detail when lighting temp is hot, this type of detail is usually found on televisions that are set to "torch mode" where the set has contrast and brightness at gross levels. DRC post processing and sharpness are often set to 50 as well, when in reality they should be set to 25 or less. The ultimate set when properly calibrated should be smooth like butter, film like in quality, with proper color rendition.

Two things will stick out after 20mintues of watching such calibrated televisions; Suddenly everything looks dull, you'll really notice it when a human face or grass is shown. When going back to other set's you'll truely realize how bad about 98% of the populations televisions are. Think of it like 98% of the population using graphic equalizers with "bass boost" on all the time in the world of stereo. As much as people on this forum bash HTIB users and ask "how can they do such a thing" ingnorance is often bliss and in the world of video there is as much of that going on now then ever.

cmy330go

Well said Lush!

He is dead on. There is not a single thing in that post that I disagree with.