LCD vs Plasma - Fact vs Myth

[vramak]

I am sorry very few people watch a movie in dark conditions,what about people who watch them at daytime.

I am sorry quite a large number of people care about PQ and black levels.

Well... Not a single person would watch TV in an environment as bright as a camera flash. An equally bright environment would be something like watching TV in an open terrace at 4PM. That's how bright a camera flash is. (but only for a short distance.)

The photog who clicked these pics is either an idiot or someone who is deliberately trying to mislead people with exaggerated claims.

 

[KonfuSed]

I was just about to say the same thing, i.e. switch off the flash and take some pictures in Shutter priority or Manual mode. That probably will show a different picture. A shot with direct flash is one of the worst way to take any photos.

 

[sanjay0864]

One silly question: "Can Electronics Giants not develop CRTs with aspect ratio of 16:9 and in larger sizes?":licklips:
@To all HFV greats: Please excuse me if I sound noob, I cannot help it.

Who will buy them??
Earlier there weere 36 and 40 inch premium crt's with 16:9 ratio...

once they were winner ,later plasmas and lcds killed them?

Actually, I used to own a Panasonic 32" 16:9 CRT TV as long back as 1994. Later I also owned a Philips 26" 16:9 CRT TV. My first experience with a 16:9 TV was way back in 1990. It was a 'ProScan' (Premium brand of RCA) TV.

The most important reason why CRT lost out to Plasma and LCD, is due to the fact that a CRT cannot be made slim. Thus, due to it's limit of being as deep as it's height a CRT cannot practically be made larger than 40". Even at that size, the TV is too huge and heavy. The other reason is that it is very difficult for CRT technology to maintain an evenly bright and focused picture on the edges as the size gets larger. Thus, although a CRT is superior in many ways to Plasma and LCD, it is a dinasour that had to die.

As an interseting side to your inquiry about why not CRT TVs in larger sizes. There is a technology developed by Canon in association with Toshiba, called 'SED'. 'Surface-conduction electron-emitter display' or 'SED' in short, is a technology that incorporates the best of CRT, Plasma & LCD technology, without the CRT drawbacks such as size, weight, geometry problems due to magnetic interference, or the poor response time of LCDs or image retention problems of Plasmas etc. Basically, imagine a TV with a much brighter and evenly distributed brightness, higher contrast ratio CRT and also deeper blacks than a CRT/Kuro. Add to that, FULL HD resolution with a response time as fast or faster than CRTs, in a slim as a Plasma/LCD frame and without any geometric abberations. That is SED for you. A technology that was demoed for several years and had every single expert gasping and panting with lust, and which was ready for commercial launch in 2007, but one, that was not allowed to make it out of the gates due to politics amongst the "Electronic's Giants".
SED TV Technology from Toshiba and Canon: The BEST is Yet to Come

PS: Please excuse the double posting of the SED comments in this thread. But I just thought that they are quite relevant in answering this post.

 

[vramak]

One more reason why CRTs are not made in big size is because of the nature of CRTs there will be warping at the edges. The warping will become worser with bigger size. If you remember, we as kids would've once got amazed by how flat the image looked on LCD monitors as compared to CRT monitors.

You should also be wondering why no one talked about black levels in the days of CRTs. That's because CRTs have excellent black levels, barring some minor blooming. To get a taste of what Kuro black levels are, you should probably have a look at your CRT.

 

[vramak]

Now, if someone could make a 16:9 HD display with a 3x2 array of 14" CRTs, it would be one helluva display!

It'll be huge and heavy but it'll have better brightness, better contrast and better color accuracy than most of the top end LEDs and plasmas.

 

[shaiju_o_thomas]

It's getting hot in here!

The deal here is to get a display that is both comfortable and suitable to individual tastes. I have a 1.5 year old LCD but dumping it in favor of a Plasma. Reason? A 50" Plasma offers me much better PQ at an inviting price. Dont' get me wrong. LCDs have good PQ and I have strongly recommended Samsung B650 and Sony EX500 on multiple posts here. Then again with Plasma, I am hesitant in purchasing PK550 because of the distracting screen reflections witnessed in stores (although things at home will be different).

So, both the technologies have their strengths and flipside. I think it's just us; a bunch of guys on this and other forums who will keep debate Plasma vs. LCD facts (or myths) because we want THE perfect display. The average (Indian?) consumer is not even bothered about black level, contrast and sharpness while making a buy decision. At home my folks wouldn't care what gamma or custom color settings I use. As long as there is "pop" in picture they are happy. Whereas I get irritated at the slightest unintended judder. In fact, for this reason alone I boxed my 8 month old Sony DVD and replaced it with a Pioneer DV-420K.

I guess digicam pictures with TV off or showing some weird screen (what is that?) really does not help.

Btw, I have really enjoyed reading this thread but nothing that proves a point.

Request: Can someone lay out the pros and cons of the each display type nice and crisp?

 

[sanjay0864]

Request: Can someone lay out the pros and cons of the each display type nice and crisp?

Read the very first post of this thread.
Or if you prefer: HDTV and Multimedia Display Technology Shoot-Out: Comparing CRT, LCD, Plasma, DLP, and LCoS Display Technologies

 

[shaiju_o_thomas]

Thanks Sanjay!

Was looking for something like this...

Flat-panel TVs - Four styles of HDTV - HDTV World - CNET.com

Forgot it was on the CNET site.

Edit: Maybe ignore the price part.

 

[adder]

First of all, you need to understand what 24p judder is. It is not a problem of Plasmas or LCDs, rather it is an inherent problem with all film sourced material shot in 24 frames per second. Thus to make a blanket statement that either Plasmas, or LCDs for that matter, have judder problems, is totally wrong. So basically the judder caused by the slow 24p frame rate is a problem that both Plasmas and LCDs have to deal with.
Yes, and their approach is superior to that of LCD. Like I said, 'judder' is a problem that both Plasma & LCD have to deal with. In fact Plasmas or more specifically Pioneer was the first one to deal with this issue by using 72hz (24 x 3) in their Plasmas. Ever since then, LCDs have simply been trying to play catch up with plasmas in this aspect. Even today with all the new 120hz & 240hz LCDs, the Panasonic plasmas with 600Hz (24 x 25) are able to handle 'judder' the best. In fact Samasung too now employs the same 600hz sub drive technology in their plasmas. Bottom line, penny for penny, a plasma will deal with judder, far better than any LCD in the same price range.

Where did i say judder is a problem only in plasmas its a problem in lcds as well.Pioneer may have been the first or so.but just take that pioneer it still doesn't remove the judder as good as the lcd like the samsung ,sure their is a side effect of them removing them completely which is the video like feel.But as i have said before it can be a good thing or a bad think depending upon the individual.The upcoming plasmas that have 120hz are said to have improved.
Neverthless it can be a good think in some situations,just like filmakers induse blur deliberatly so that it can be easy on the eyes.

Wow! That is the weakest argument, I have ever heard on either side of the debate. So let me understand this, you are sugesting that because LCDs sell more than Plasmas, they are better. I suppose Maruti makes the best cars in India, since they have the maximum market share. Oh and why not look at TV sales in India, Videocon has the highest market share in TV sales, I suppose that means that Videocon makes the best TVs. In fact, due to the way the real world works, sales generally have very little to do with actual quality and time and time again, inferior technologies have won over much superior technologies due to the politics in the economic world. A perfect example is Betamax losing out to the vastly inferior VHS format. As a matter of fact, a far superior technology to both Plasma & LCD, SED TV developed by Canon & Toshiba in partnership never even made it to the stores, simply because of corporate politics. By the way, SED is a technology that incorporates the best of the CRT technolgy, without it's drawbacks such as size, weight, geometry problems due to magnetic interfierence. Basically, imagine a TV with a much brighter, deeper blacks than a Kuro, and higher contrast ratio than CRT add to that FULL HD resolution in a slim as a Plasma/LCD frame and without any geometric abberations. That is SED for you. A technology that was demoed for several years and had every single expert gasping and panting with lust, and which was ready for commercial launch in 2007-08, but one, that was not allowed to make it out of the gates due to corporate politics.
Wow! This one even beats, the 'higher sales' argument in being not just feeble at best, but actually in being downright ridiculous. Sorry, but it is impossible for me to debate against such inane arguments.

PS: I too have two LCD TVs other than PC monitors in my house. But how or what that proves, is beyond me.

I never said just because they sell more i said "ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS" why they sell more is because "people prefered them".Very often i see people getting maruti into these kind of debate,maruti is no lcd.Besides lcd were always priced on the higher side.Initially they did have issues with contrast ratio,response time ,viewing angle preventing them from making it to tvs and what not but they have improved quite a lot and slowly started taking the market share from plasma and now they have surpassed it.In 2005 a 32" lcd was more expensive then then 42" branded plasmas.
so ultimately it comes down to individual preference,but saying the plasma is superior is debatable.

Are we now seriously going to consider comparing direct view televisions with front projection? Well, the day you can buy a TV, be it a LCD or Plasma or any other kind, in a 120" 16:9 diagonal size and that costs approximately Rs. 100,000/-, we can have this debate, but until then lets all spend our time and energy on other more pressing matters.

I don't think this was posted to make a comment about contrast ratios, but rather it was posted to show the silliness of comparing contrast ratios of TVs with a still picture of the TVs with blank screens.

Well i wasn't comparing but felt it was completely pointless.

 

[adder]

It is only general knowledge that if the TV were like this, Not a single person would buy it.
The flash contibutes a momentary flood of light which is equavalent to putting the TV in the open sunlight on a summer afternoon (or more).
These kind of pictures may help prove a point that LCDs hold black level in brightly lit rooms.
But the picture showing normally lit room and a poor black plasma is HEAVILY misleading.
Suffice to say, if there exists a room with ambient light equal to the flash light of the camera, No one can live there. You will become blind in a matter of minutes.
BTW, You really thought we plasma TV owners are viewing our TVs with PQ shown in the picture? You should know more.

Well... Not a single person would watch TV in an environment as bright as a camera flash. An equally bright environment would be something like watching TV in an open terrace at 4PM. That's how bright a camera flash is. (but only for a short distance.)

The photog who clicked these pics is either an idiot or someone who is deliberately trying to mislead people with exaggerated claims.

Again now one would sit in such a brightly lit room unless they are unfortunate.
the point was with respect to blacks in a room that has a light source towards the front of the tv or to the sides of the viewer,the tvs will take a hit in contrast,more so in plasmas.
@vramak
The owner of the tvs himself prefers the samsung lcd in day time,its not just any samsung lcd its a 8500 which is one of the best lcds in world.
Again there are many owners who have jumped from kuro to lcds.

 

[adder]

There is a technology developed by Canon in association with Toshiba, called 'SED'. 'Surface-conduction electron-emitter display' or 'SED' in short, is a technology that incorporates the best of CRT, Plasma & LCD technology, without the CRT drawbacks such as size, weight, geometry problems due to magnetic interference, or the poor response time of LCDs or image retention problems of Plasmas etc. Basically, imagine a TV with a much brighter and evenly distributed brightness, higher contrast ratio CRT and also deeper blacks than a CRT/Kuro. Add to that, FULL HD resolution with a response time as fast or faster than CRTs, in a slim as a Plasma/LCD frame and without any geometric abberations. That is SED for you. A technology that was demoed for several years and had every single expert gasping and panting with lust, and which was ready for commercial launch in 2007, but one, that was not allowed to make it out of the gates due to politics amongst the "Electronic's Giants".
SED TV Technology from Toshiba and Canon: The BEST is Yet to Come

PS: Please excuse the double posting of the SED comments in this thread. But I just thought that they are quite relevant in answering this post.

there was also another potential better tech called FED pursued by sony which was killed off and sold to AUO.
SED is pretty much dead Canon to freeze development of home-use SED TVs | Reuters

 

[shaiju_o_thomas]

Again there are many owners who have jumped from kuro to lcds.

Interesting!

Put a number to it (even if approx) and where did you come across?

 

[vramak]

I'll tell my personal experience then. Two of my neighbours (one owing a Samsung LCD and another owing a Sony Edge Lit LED brought from the US) came home to look at my setup and the first thing they said was, "Wow! Your TV looks great. Is it an LED?" One even guessed my TV's cost as 1.2L! Both were shocked when I said my TV was the basic Samsung B450 plasma costing 42K.

And everyone gets amazed when I play Avatar or Sivaji blu ray. They usually say stuff like, "This is even better than theatres." Even my cousin who does visual effects for movies and spends his day looking at professional LCD monitors asked me, "The picture quality is excellent. Is this LED?"

So much praise for a basic plasma.

People generally have no idea about plasmas and they get surprised by their picture quality when they see one in home ambience.

 

[thevortex]

the thread title should answer your question.

But I dont see you adding facts and myths. Just comparative statements with LCDs. My simple point is that there is not going to be agreement.

How about we keep it down to simple facts which are proven and accepted worldwide. How many of those do we have anyway?

 

[bansal98]

One more reason why CRTs are not made in big size is because of the nature of CRTs there will be warping at the edges. The warping will become worser with bigger size. If you remember, we as kids would've once got amazed by how flat the image looked on LCD monitors as compared to CRT monitors.

You should also be wondering why no one talked about black levels in the days of CRTs. That's because CRTs have excellent black levels, barring some minor blooming. To get a taste of what Kuro black levels are, you should probably have a look at your CRT.

I guess I'll stick on to my CRT a little longer. Or at least until this debate brings out something conclusive :sad:

 

[BLASTO]

I guess I'll stick on to my CRT a little longer. Or at least until this debate brings out something conclusive :sad:

FYI. CRT is the best when it comes to Black levels and PQ. LCD and Plasmas are only trying to match.

If you are planning to upgrade for PQ, Hold on.

If your requrement is size or colour accuracy or HD viewing, Welcome to a new world.

 

[adder]

But I dont see you adding facts and myths. Just comparative statements with LCDs. My simple point is that there is not going to be agreement.

How about we keep it down to simple facts which are proven and accepted worldwide. How many of those do we have anyway?

Well LCD vs plasma will never die,until either one of the technology dies or a new tech becomes competitive in terms of price and performance.

Every tech forum as similar debates and their is no conclusion,the plasma camp will stick with their word and the lcd camp with their own word.In end no one is getting any where,except perhaps a good entertainment for the silent spectator.

Which reminds me there was one thread in another foreign forum where the thread starter asked a typical this vs that question ranging from different size to different tech to different brand.
And first reply he got was " Jesus what do you want to start an all out riot" :lol:

 

[gadgetcrazy]

Reminds me of diesel v petrol debates

 

[thevortex]

More reason to just shake hands, acknowledge disagreement and move on, dont you think, adder?

 

[adder]

More reason to just shake hands, acknowledge disagreement and move on, dont you think, adder?

See this kind of debates where done before too, we did move on atleast from my side and a few others i know here.