On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:19:52 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with
the recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought
that might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:
http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...-32468193.html

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

Power consumption, heat generation, picture brightness, operational
lifetime, reliability. Another big reason is that even if you go by
the rated spec for Plasma length of service, that doesn't include
burn-in. I use my LCD TV as a *big* computer monitor and also for
playing games with the PS3. LCD does not suffer from screen burn with
static areas of bright screen. Plasma does.

When I watch a 4:3 program on my widescreen, I don't want to
strrreeecchhhhh it to fill the screen and have it distorted. But you
have to do that to prevent plasma burn-in. I want to see it 4:3 with
black bars on the side. If you do that a lot with plasma, the area
where the bars are will eventually be brighter than the rest of the
screen when you watch a fullscreen program. Some stations put gray
bars up for you to prevent plasma burn-in. But they're far and few
between. If you watch a lot of movies with the 2.35 aspect ratio,
your plasma display will burn-in the area between the black bars on
the top and bottom of the display.

It doesn't matter anyway as this whole debate will become moot as soon
as LED panel technology becomes more mature.

Steve

"Steve" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:19:52 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?



Power consumption, heat generation, picture brightness, operational
lifetime, reliability. Another big reason is that even if you go by
the rated spec for Plasma length of service, that doesn't include
burn-in. I use my LCD TV as a *big* computer monitor and also for
playing games with the PS3. LCD does not suffer from screen burn with
static areas of bright screen. Plasma does.




Steve, please don't think I am arguing with you or against LCD, but your
information is dated.

Newer plasma displays are not permanently affected by screen burn. If used
as a
video game monitor for hours and hours, they may develop a temporary
residual image, but it goes away in a short period of time. The older
plasmas *did* have a permanent screen burn problem and the owner's manuals
warned against using them for extended periods of time with static images
like video games or watching in a non-wide screen mode. That is no longer
true, but the reputation remains.

BTW, my daughter with the two boys has a 3-4 year old plasma and the boys
use it for hours and hours (too much) playing their various video games.
There's no evidence of screen burn on their set.

Power consumption is an issue, although the difference between a large
screen LCD and a large screen plasma is not a huge issue. 100 watts or less
difference.

I still maintain that the plasma, when adjusted properly, produces a better
quality picture than a properly adjusted LCD, and I just spend an hour or so
re-confirming that. The new LCD is very nice. The older 50" plasma is
better. Both are Samsungs. The difference is really only important to
nit-pickers, like me.

Frankly, since I picked up, carried into the house and installed these TV's
myself, the biggest advantage of the 46" LCD over the 50" plasma is that the
LCD weighs about half that of the plasma. :-)

Eisboch

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:09:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Steve" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:19:52 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?



Power consumption, heat generation, picture brightness, operational
lifetime, reliability. Another big reason is that even if you go by
the rated spec for Plasma length of service, that doesn't include
burn-in. I use my LCD TV as a *big* computer monitor and also for
playing games with the PS3. LCD does not suffer from screen burn with
static areas of bright screen. Plasma does.




Steve, please don't think I am arguing with you or against LCD, but your
information is dated.

Newer plasma displays are not permanently affected by screen burn. If used
as a
video game monitor for hours and hours, they may develop a temporary
residual image, but it goes away in a short period of time. The older
plasmas *did* have a permanent screen burn problem and the owner's manuals
warned against using them for extended periods of time with static images
like video games or watching in a non-wide screen mode. That is no longer
true, but the reputation remains.

BTW, my daughter with the two boys has a 3-4 year old plasma and the boys
use it for hours and hours (too much) playing their various video games.
There's no evidence of screen burn on their set.

It depends on the video game and whether there are thicker white
static bars, ones where the automatic pixel shift that plasmas use to
help prevent burn-in can't compensate for. Yes, plasmas have gotten
better wrt burn-in than they used to be. It's still an issue though.
They're now about as resistant to burn-in as CRT's are. But you can
still burn a CRT or a plasma depending on how you use it. You still
should take some measures to prevent it. Not so with an LCD. For
some good and recent info, see he
http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/p...tv-burnin.html
Their conclusion is that burn-in should not be a major issue for the
average user if you take steps to prevent it. But it can still
happen.

Power consumption is an issue, although the difference between a large
screen LCD and a large screen plasma is not a huge issue. 100 watts or less
difference.

CNET did a comparison and the average plasma power consumption was 350
watts compared to 222 watts for LCD. That's 57% more power, which may
not mean much if you don't use your set a lot. But could be
significant if you do.

When you normalize for the size of the set, LCD uses an average of
0.29 watts/sq.in. while plasma uses an average 0.35 watts/sq.in. That
tells a better story for plasma since the sets are generally larger on
average. Of course, those are just averages and actual numbers for
real sets vary greatly.

I still maintain that the plasma, when adjusted properly, produces a better
quality picture than a properly adjusted LCD, and I just spend an hour or so
re-confirming that. The new LCD is very nice. The older 50" plasma is
better. Both are Samsungs. The difference is really only important to
nit-pickers, like me.

It really depends on what you watch. If you watch a movie with a lot
of dark scenes in a dark room, then I think a good plasma is
noticeably better. For types of programs where you don't have a lot
of dark scenes or if your viewing area is well lit, the overall
difference between plasma vs. lcd is less than the sample difference
between even two sets of the same model.

One thing though, don't get fooled by the huge "dynamic" contrast
ratios that some LCD sets are touting. Only if the entire scene is
dark can they reduce the bulb brightness to help with the poor black
level. When there's a bright and dark part on the same scene, they
can't do it. I notice that with my Samsung. When the whole scene is
dark, it can make the black level darker. But if there's a large
range of brightness on the same screen, it can't. But a plasma can.
As far as I can see, that's really the only main advantage of plasma
over LCD.

Frankly, since I picked up, carried into the house and installed these TV's
myself, the biggest advantage of the 46" LCD over the 50" plasma is that the
LCD weighs about half that of the plasma. :-)

Hopefully you don't have to move them very often.

Steve