aerosam
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 04:32 PM |
|
|
Plasma vs LCD
What's better? I already have a 42" plasma TV but it's on the way out. (bought it 4 years ago when the technology was still fairly
new) Looking for a replacement I see that LCD now has much bigger share of what's available. So has LCD now got better than plasma?
|
|
|
|
|
jlparsons
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 04:51 PM |
|
|
LCD has got to the point that it's very very close I think, probably to the point that it's not worth shelling out unless you're a
real enthusiast. Only area where plasma is still noticeably better is viewing angle. Contrast ratios, colour depth, dot pitch and refresh times have
got to the point where you'd only tell the difference with them side by side, and then not enough to warrant much extra outlay. At least that
was the conclusion I reached!
I believe plasma uses a lot more power than LCD, and there are even moves afoot to ban sale of plasma tvs in the EU.
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during
shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Subject to
approval, terms and conditions apply. Apply only to affected area. For recreational use only. All models over 18 years of age. No user-serviceable
parts inside. Subject to change. As seen on TV. One size fits all. May contain nuts. Slippery when wet. For office use only. Edited for television.
Keep cool; process promptly.
|
|
|
C10CoryM
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 04:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by aerosam So has LCD now got better than plasma?
Nope, just more affordable  .
The LCD picture quality is much better now than it used to be, but it still doesn't compare to plasma. Maybe a new LCD competes with your old
plasma, but not to a new plasma if you get me.
Having said that, I actually bought a 42" LCD recently. Only because I gave my old TV to my grandad and didn't feel like spending the
money on a plasma when I watch very little TV.
Cheers.
"Our watchword evermore shall be: The Maple Leaf Forever!"
|
|
|
westf27
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 05:08 PM |
|
|
Plasma for me,fast moving pictures better
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 05:19 PM |
|
|
Plasma for me, I've had an LCD monitor for a bit now and it went off, just like that, on one minute black screen the next. It needed a new bulb
so in the bin and off to Tesco for anew Samsung
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
triumphdave
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 05:30 PM |
|
|
Plasma for me,especially if you like fast moving stuff,sports etc.watched footy rugby and motorsports on both,plasma every time.Black comes out better
on a good plasma too.
If you always do what you have always done you will always get what you have always got
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 05:54 PM |
|
|
The main disadvantages to plasma are they get hot (therefore require quite a hefty amp supply) and need re-gassing at intervals. Then again, at least
it is possible to "repair" them, if you get a dead LCD pixel you don't have the luxury of that option...
|
|
|
iceman26
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 06:01 PM |
|
|
i have plasma for main tv and is the best thing picture spot on and sund good
have 32"lcd in bedroom just because have window at each end of room and
get alot of light on to the screen and you get no reflection on lcd
so i think it also depend on you room
but my 2 tvs in the room work jus right
|
|
|
gregs
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 06:43 PM |
|
|
re-gassing plasma screens is salemans gas for selling warranties - afaik not actually possible to do! I am a plasma fan, yet to see a LCD picture
that I'm 'happy' with....
|
|
|
paulf
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 06:56 PM |
|
|
I recently bought a Panasonic plasma, after comparing them in the show room the plasmas are definitely better in the larger sizes.Cheaper plasmas
seemed to compare with decent LCDs.
I think plasmas use more power , i found mine gets quite hot and the electrical rating is 250 watt for a 42 inch, so costs more to run.
Paul
|
|
|
joneh
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 07:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
The main disadvantages to plasma are they get hot (therefore require quite a hefty amp supply) and need re-gassing at intervals. Then again, at least
it is possible to "repair" them, if you get a dead LCD pixel you don't have the luxury of that option...
Not true I'm afraid. They can not be regassed, and modern ones have enough gas to last an average user 20 years. They don't get all that
now now either.
Plasma is best for sport and films. LCD for still pretty High Def.
hth
|
|
|
RazMan
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 07:57 PM |
|
|
When I went shopping for my TV recently I was advised that 40" plus screens really need to be plasma as lcd technology struggles with the larger
sizes.
Comparing the two you will often notice 'blacker' blacks with plasma as they are not lit from behind.
I went for a 50" Panasonic plasma and I am very pleased with it - much better than my old 40" rear projection (which was the size of a
small car)
Cheers,
Raz
When thinking outside the box doesn't work any more, it's time to build a new box
|
|
|
TOO BADD
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 08:28 PM |
|
|
I got a Plasma Panasonic Vierra 37" and it beats the pants off my sons 37 " Samsung 37" LCD
|
|
|
phoenix70
|
| posted on 24/3/08 at 08:35 PM |
|
|
Plasma for me too. The real thing I noticed, is LCD are VERY bright, in fact painfully bright in a normal house (looks great in the shop)
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 25/3/08 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
And the best 42" plasma by far is the £1500 Pioneer, it's really superb, hoping to get one by the end of the year.....
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
aerosam
|
| posted on 25/3/08 at 08:21 PM |
|
|
Hmm plasma seems to win hands down then.
So maybe it's worth trying to get this one fixed then. If not there are some very nice plasma's about at the moment, prices are far lower
than 4 years ago as well.
|
|
|
.jpg)
