Plasma or LCD - Big confusion

[adder]

knock it off both of you. I think that's enough personal sparring for one thread.

hope its the last

 

[mridulgoel]

Oh !!! God...!!!

Adder , Baby_ka_jaanu (Sorry dont really know you)....

You guyz please stop the matter...

Plasma has its own benefits and rules the Home Theatre Solution...
Even LCD has its own benefits, though a couple only, and rules the corporate/meetings rooms solutions...

I am in the industry for past 5+ yrs, and was posted as regional manager, south india for hitachi...
And a yr back Hitachi use to top the Flat Panel Market (Quality Wise), and no one can deny on that...

So read my threads stating the realistic technologies and market sucking myths of Flat Panels...
And there is seriously no use of arguing or discussing the same theory fight of Plasma & LCD...

And please dont be childish to fight out here for the same topic over ages...

I have not said all the above to state my experience or knowledge, but the basic concept behind all that is that, i am seeing these perceptions for a very long period, and seriously there is no use to waste our so called left over brains, which is mostly converted into smoke through fags in my case...

And one more thing if you guyz are really interested in knowing more about the technology, of LCD & Plasma then please visit en.wikipedia.org, and search for LCD first than for Plasma...you will come to know the technolgy...

And So please give up all these...

I know still many will laugh on that, and make comments on this of my post, but as adder says...
" I GIVE A DAMN"....

 

[Axl Rose]

I'm a big plasma fan but as LCD can offer higher resolution, one should go for LCD if he wants to use his TV as a PC monitor as well...
However, even HDTV is not required when you need TV just to watch Satellite Channels, regular DVD's and for casual gaming...
LCD can also be a good option if you wanna use the TV in your well-lit places...
and one important fact we have missed in this forum about LCD's...
i.e. their response time...
All LCD fans out there... just watch a cricket or football match in a regular LCD TV and you'll find out how important response time is...
Sony has tried to overcome this problem with motionflow but they have stopped incorporating motionflow in the new W series... so unless you got lots of extra money and you don't care about it, go for the sony top models or else you should settle with a plasma from any first tier manuacturer...

Does anybody know why sony doesn't make plasma?

 

[moserw]

Does anybody know why sony doesn't make plasma?

Purely business reasons I am sure. They have a JV with Samsung to manufacture LCD panels to cut down on costs and also supposedly as a company believe LCD is the future/better than Plasma so want to concentrate only on it. Now though everyone seems to be moving towards OLED and I am sure the argument about which is the best will start all over again...

BTW Panasonic has taken the opposite view and has decided to go with plasma as the better technology at least for the big screens from 42", 50" etc.

 

[Axl Rose]

Purely business reasons I am sure. They have a JV with Samsung to manufacture LCD panels to cut down on costs and also supposedly as a company believe LCD is the future/better than Plasma so want to concentrate only on it. Now though everyone seems to be moving towards OLED and I am sure the argument about which is the best will start all over again...

BTW Panasonic has taken the opposite view and has decided to go with plasma as the better technology at least for the big screens from 42", 50" etc.

I thought so...
Sony is losing its market to new players...
Btw, as far as I know one company (i don't remember the name) used to manufacture LCD panels for sony as well as for samsung and it was taken over by samsung so now we can say that samsung makes sony's LCD panels...
OLED sure is something we all wanna experience... but it's like HD DVD's or BD's... who would wanna change his collection of regular DVD's after spending a couple of 100K's on it...

 

[AbhY]

Sony is losing its market to new players

who would wanna change his collection of regular DVD's after spending a couple of 100K's on it...

Don't get it. Can you elaborate?

 

[adder]

Sony has tried to overcome this problem with motionflow but they have stopped incorporating motionflow in the new W series...

Does anybody know why sony doesn't make plasma?

well sony have launched the new W450A series which has motion flow as well as the new Z450A series which have motion flow 200hz a first for a lcd tv,it will soon be launched in india already the new W450A are available on order in grey market.
well sony doesnt make their own lcds or plasmas,but sony saw the future as in LCDs,at the time of exit sony 26lcds used to cost almost the same as a 42inch sony plasma.also the resolution of plasma was low,and sony promoting HD via blue ray concentrated on getting HD ready lcds.

Sony is losing its market to new players...

well sony was at no1 spot in USA in 2006 after taking over the lead from Sharp,but today samsung is the leader in terms of sales ,although most of the sony lcds have the performance edge,it comes at a premium,sony just cant match the samsung prices and with the deterioting global economic crisis,it isnt going to help sony who already laid off quite a lot of its workers.

sony has now partnered with sharp, we will see sharp lcds in sony tv in late 2009.
only sony OLED tvs will have for the first time a sony panel in a flat screen tv,just like the sony famous TRINITRON picture tube the best in CRT.

 

[marsilians]

Sony used to make plasma's until 05. Its market share was so crappy that not many people have heard about this. Even for LCD it was a late entrant and slowly has moved to #1 position. Sharp is currently #2. Its mid and hi end LCDs are some of the best options out there.

For plasmas, nothing comes closer to Pioneer (and Elite line). While its premium priced, there is a noticeable difference between this and Samsung, Panasonic etc.

Reason for manufacturers to mainly stick to one type of product suite is manufacturing and delivery costs. Samsung, Panasonic are unique for offering both.

Finally, Sony has hardly brought out a game changing produt except the Walkman and the PS3 player. It completely missed the MP3 boom. Many months ago I read somewhere that Sandisk was the #2 seller of MP3 players. I don't have a reference but it was the time when Sansa line was being introduced.

 

[psychotropic]

Sony is not No.1 for LCDs, Samsung is.....Sony may perhaps be No. 2.

Sony is not into "game-changing" anymore, which is why their marketshare and brand value have dropped dramatically in the recent past. They still make good LCD TVs.

As many people have said before, both LCD and Plasma have their advantages and disadvantages, prospective buyers should really just check them out side by side and decide for themselves which they prefer. I preferred Plasma and I thought it was much better value for money.

Sony used to make plasma's until 05. Its market share was so crappy that not many people have heard about this. Even for LCD it was a late entrant and slowly has moved to #1 position. Sharp is currently #2. Its mid and hi end LCDs are some of the best options out there.

For plasmas, nothing comes closer to Pioneer (and Elite line). While its premium priced, there is a noticeable difference between this and Samsung, Panasonic etc.

Reason for manufacturers to mainly stick to one type of product suite is manufacturing and delivery costs. Samsung, Panasonic are unique for offering both.

Finally, Sony has hardly brought out a game changing produt except the Walkman and the PS3 player. It completely missed the MP3 boom. Many months ago I read somewhere that Sandisk was the #2 seller of MP3 players. I don't have a reference but it was the time when Sansa line was being introduced.

 

[marsilians]

Sony is not No.1 for LCDs, Samsung is.....Sony may perhaps be No. 2.

Sony is not into "game-changing" anymore, which is why their marketshare and brand value have dropped dramatically in the recent past. They still make good LCD TVs.

As many people have said before, both LCD and Plasma have their advantages and disadvantages, prospective buyers should really just check them out side by side and decide for themselves which they prefer. I preferred Plasma and I thought it was much better value for money.

In terms of shipped units Samsung held #1 but in terms of sold units Sony was the leader. These different measures are used by the respective marketing departments to band up their respective sales pitch. The same reason that Vizio (a relative new comer) was #1 for a couple months this year for the no. of shipped panels. It sells no where near other brands though.

I agree with you that the aura of Sony has long been gone. Its good enough for PS3 and Blu Ray which are its only notable achievement since the walkman though it was a consortium that pulled it through at the end. Thats the reason I haven't bought Sony products since about 1996. Its been Samsung or Panasonic for TVs all the way.

 

[nirrej]

Actually what baby_ka_janu has tried to prove through his many posts istrue.. but whatever wisdom he has tried to share with members has got clouded in the personal comments directed at mandeep and others..

I too work in an industry where we have to see many images every day and select the most apt ones based on colour and clarity. Last year due to the eco friendly nature of LCD's ( they consume less power and also emit less heat) our IT admin guys decided to replace all the CRT's in our office with LCD,s. Initially the WOW factor had the whole office attracted. But later we realised that the images were less smooth as the pixel overlapping was just too much. The difference was demonstrated to the IT guys by opening the same image in my old 19" Silicon Graphics CRT and the new 19" Samsung LCD.
Then we had to shift back to CRT's for our department alone.

Whats is baffling is the resolution offered by LCD's. It very high when compared to what hi-end CRT's like mine offer. Yet the quality of an LCD is no match for a CRT. LCD's are like MP3. CRT's are like music CD's.

Somebody had suggested LCD's for data and CRT for motion pictures/ Tv transmission. My experience is LCD is not good enough even for data. May be in future LCD's will be comparable to CRT's in quality but as of today they are no match for the trained eye.

So my advice is if you are a purist go for a CRT. If you are concerned about the asethetic value of products go for an LCD.
Have you noticed the difference between the old ads for CRT based TV's and the new generation LCD and Plasmas? All the old CRT ads used to have attractive pictures in their TV screen. But you take today's paper and see for any LCD ad. The LCD/ Plasma is shown sans the picture. The marketeers have sucessfully projected the LCD/ Plasma as a piece of art, therby making the general public forget the whole concept of Television. It was intended to show pictures rather than being a picture itself...

 

[adder]

But later we realised that the images were less smooth as the pixel overlapping was just too much. The difference was demonstrated to the IT guys by opening the same image in my old 19" Silicon Graphics CRT and the new 19" Samsung LCD.
Then we had to shift back to CRT's for our department alone.

Whats is baffling is the resolution offered by LCD's. It very high when compared to what hi-end CRT's like mine offer. Yet the quality of an LCD is no match for a CRT. LCD's are like MP3. CRT's are like music CD's.

Somebody had suggested LCD's for data and CRT for motion pictures/ Tv transmission. My experience is LCD is not good enough even for data. May be in future LCD's will be comparable to CRT's in quality but as of today they are no match for the trained eye.

So my advice is if you are a purist go for a CRT. If you are concerned about the asethetic value of products go for an LCD.
Have you noticed the difference between the old ads for CRT based TV's and the new generation LCD and Plasmas? All the old CRT ads used to have attractive pictures in their TV screen. But you take today's paper and see for any LCD ad. The LCD/ Plasma is shown sans the picture. The marketeers have sucessfully projected the LCD/ Plasma as a piece of art, therby making the general public forget the whole concept of Television. It was intended to show pictures rather than being a picture itself...

well lcds look best at their native resolution, and lcd monitors which u find in ur offices are mostly TN panels,there colors viewing angles and contrast shift are high.
but i suggest u have a look at high end lcd monitors such as dell 2408,dell 2209wa model they have spva and ips respectively and u will be suprised how good they are,agreed that still wont look good when u run them in resolution lower then the native resolution,which even plasmas suffer,only crts are imune to this problem.but their colors and viewing angles are hell of lot better then those crappy TN panels.
u must also note the lcd tv is no lcd monitor,lcd tvs have suffisticated image processing tech and are improving by the day eg the upcoming toshiba models have one of the best upscalers,using the cell engine that u find in ps3.
but lately from my discussion with various people critics who swore about the crt picture quality,have slowly started to admit about the superiority of lcd and plasma,todays lcds(like sony X series and plasmas(like pioneer kuro) have so much contrast they even supass the very best crts u can find outhere such as the sony xbr series of crts.
dont forget the migthy sony,which had their trintron crts which were unmatched in picture quality have shut down each and every manufacturing plants outhere that were making sony crts.

 

[nirrej]

Hi adder,

Your point of using the native resolution holds true
only while watching movies or TV transmits as they
are at a much lower resolution. But it is not the case
with images. The images taken with a professional camera
with a digiback offer resolutions in excess of 4000 x 6000 pixels.
My comparision of CRT vs LCD was based on such high res images.

The so called image upscalers are the biggest scam, i've have read
so far. No processor or whatever can upcsale an image from its
native resolution. Theoretically it is possible, but while
implementing it is never impossible.

We use the best image processing softwares in the world.
All of them offer image upscaling but the result is always poor.
Every professional knows that image upscaling will never be possible.
Its like converting an MP3 track back to 24 bit/44khz
CD track. Any software will do that. but listen to the converted track.
it will be only as good as the MP3. The same applies for image upscaling
also. The so called upsaclers of AVR's, DVD and highend LCD/ Plasma do
only a " not true to life" upscaling process.

and Sony shutting down its CRT factory doesn't mean, it is becoz
LCD's are better than CRTs. In the marketplace you have to constantly innovate to survive. People pay more for an LCD, coz its a new technology. You can't charge Rs. 50,000 for a 32" CRT. People will not buy. It is purely a business decision.

Just becoz Vinyls are not made anymore doesn't mean they are inferior in quality to Cd's...the list is endless of superior products being withdrawn due to the profiablility factor..eg, Concorde jets, Yamaha rx 100, Nikon FM2, etc, etc

 

[adder]

Hi adder,

Your point of using the native resolution holds true
only while watching movies or TV transmits as they
are at a much lower resolution. The so called image upscalers are the biggest scam, i've have read
so far. No processor or whatever can upcsale an image from its
native resolution. Theoretically it is possible, but while
implementing it is never impossible.

yes a upscaled image be it in lcd or plasma can never be as good as true native signal,but u cannot again compare it to lcd monitor tech,companies like sony invested heavily on their image processing to make their tvs stand out since after all they use a samsung panel,sony has to have a reason why they charge more then samsung,its because they have a better image processing tech coupled with other improvements,yes the sony brand name itself commands a premium whether or not the performance is better.

But it is not the case with images.The images taken with a professional camera with a digiback offer resolutions in excess of 4000 x 6000 pixels.
My comparision of CRT vs LCD was based on such high res images.

i didnt undestand the drawback,in what way is a lcd lacking when viewing a images of 4000x6000 or excess.

The so called image upscalers are the biggest scam, i've have read
so far. No processor or whatever can upcsale an image from its
native resolution. Theoretically it is possible, but while
implementing it is never impossible.

well yes the image or video wont be as good as native resolution based source,but image upscalers does improve the quality in tvs that have high resolution.for eg when i play a dvd in a xbox 360,i like its upscaled video which is upscaled to the tvs resolution,while its no HD it is better then DVD video.if upscalers werent good why do u thing manufactures are investing millions into this technology.

We use the best image processing softwares in the world.
All of them offer image upscaling but the result is always poor.
Every professional knows that image upscaling will never be possible.
Its like converting an MP3 track back to 24 bit/44khz
CD track. Any software will do that. but listen to the converted track.
it will be only as good as the MP3. The same applies for image upscaling
also. The so called upsaclers of AVR's, DVD and highend LCD/ Plasma do
only a " not true to life" upscaling process.

well have a look urself,as to the benifit of upscaling here is toshibas
Toshiba Regza 42ZV555D: 'World's first' upscaling TV - Crave at CNET UK

here is quote from one of the review site that reviewed them

But the big question is: does Resolution+ live up to the hype? It certainly does. The extent of its picture boosting benefits isn't initially clear, but once you start turning it on and off in the setup menu you can really see how much difference it makes. With pictures from the built-in Freeview tuner or 576p DVD images, Resolution+ instantly throws everything into sharper focus, making edges look cleaner and more pronounced and improving the clarity of fine detail. It's most clearly demonstrated by the scrolling text and graphics on Sky News - the words are more focused and steady, plus the detail on the newsreader's face suddenly become a lot more prominent.


We also tested out the deck's upscaling with the Silicon Optix Benchmark disc (played via Scart from a non-upscaling DVD player) and the tricky test patterns highlights just how good its upscaling is - there are absolutely no jaggies on the rotating bar pattern, even when the diagonal lines reach the most acute angle, plus fine detail is crisply resolved and it handles the flapping flag clip with all the skill and smoothness of a good upscaling DVD deck.

Toshiba Regza 46ZV555D 46in LCD TV Review - TV Reviews - TrustedReviews

so while upscaling aint going to be as good as a native resolution based source its better then tvs streching them.

 

[nirrej]

i didnt undestand the drawback,in what way is a lcd lacking when viewing a images of 4000x6000 or excess.

to explain about the difference, i would suggest watching a movie in a multiplex with digital projection and the same in good old cinema theatre which uses film based projectors. if you can spot the difference, you will understand the difference in quality i'm referring to. 99% of the audience will not spot the difference.

Or i would suggest you to watch the Maniratnam movie " Ayutha Ezuthu/ YUVA ". In the scene after Surya/ Ajay devgan is shot at, he will be taken in a taxi to the hospital. If you notice that particular scene you can spot the difference between analog and digital. This partcular scene uses Computer Graphics to generate the illusion of the car moving fast. This is the subtle difference in quality / reality which is similar to the difference between CRT and LCD.

if upscalers werent good why do u thing manufactures are investing millions into this technology.

If True Upscaling is a possibility why is the world waiting for HD content from broadcasters? The likes of Sony, Toshiba, etc can just incorporate Upscaling technology in all thier TVs and save the precious bandwith and equipment costs required for generating HD content..

When you go to a Panasonic showroom they have a demo of LCD vs Plasma and people usually end buying their Plasmas. My suggestion would be watch the same DVD/ TV broadcast in a CRT also. Watch without any bias and you will understand which is more pleasing to the eye.

In audiophile standards, any equipment which reproduces sound, in its true form i.e as it sounds in reality in considered the best. shound't the same yardstick be used while determining videophile standards..and for that true to life quality as of today it is CRT..

 

[adder]

to explain about the difference, i would suggest watching a movie in a multiplex with digital projection and the same in good old cinema theatre which uses film based projectors. if you can spot the difference, you will understand the difference in quality i'm referring to. 99% of the audience will not spot the difference.

Or i would suggest you to watch the Maniratnam movie " Ayutha Ezuthu/ YUVA ". In the scene after Surya/ Ajay devgan is shot at, he will be taken in a taxi to the hospital. If you notice that particular scene you can spot the difference between analog and digital. This partcular scene uses Computer Graphics to generate the illusion of the car moving fast. This is the subtle difference in quality / reality which is similar to the difference between CRT and LCD.

are u talking about pixelation,(btw i dont watch any indian movies)which u can see it in CRTs as well,but if the souce is analog then u cannot see it in crts ,u can probably see it in lcds,but if the source is digital u can see it in crt and lcds.

If True Upscaling is a possibility why is the world waiting for HD content from broadcasters? The likes of Sony, Toshiba, etc can just incorporate Upscaling technology in all thier TVs and save the precious bandwith and equipment costs required for generating HD content..

well like i said before upscaling still wont be as good as a true HD signal,like for instance when i played Troy HD DVD via xbox 360 and latter flipped to the disc to get dvd side,the best visual was obviously playing from HD DVD side,followed by xbox360 upscaling the DVD side to tvs native resolution,and at the last place is the tv just streching the image.

When you go to a Panasonic showroom they have a demo of LCD vs Plasma and people usually end buying their Plasmas. My suggestion would be watch the same DVD/ TV broadcast in a CRT also. Watch without any bias and you will understand which is more pleasing to the eye.

well as far as people buying plasmas there are various reasons ,for instance VFM plasma are cheaper u get bigger size,and panasonic lcds are no match to the contrast of panasonic plasmas,it is only when u compare to lcds from sony and samsung do the tides shift in favour of the lcds,which is why i dont recommend lcds from panasonic,lg,philips,hitachi etc they all have poor ANSI contrast.
HD plasma having a lower resolution compared to HD lcds perform better due to the lower resolution of plasmas,even the might pioneer kuro which is FHD plasma sucks when fed with a SD signal.
with respect to panasonic lcds there dynamic contrast may be good,they may even reproduce some decent blacks by sacrificing shadow detail,this is were lcds from samsung and sony which have a spva panel have the advantage their real ANSI contrast and shadow details are much better then panasonic lcds and low end plasmas such as pv8/80 .


well about crts ,they dont have the disadvantage of plasmas & lcds in playing SD content ,but crts as its fare share of drawbacks if u look at todays crt even the sony DA series which was a HD crt,the contrast levels are still short compared to todays modern plasma and sony,samsung lcds.
while crts can show realy good blacks, in order for them to show some detail in shadow or darks areas in a image or video u will have to increase the brightness,so u no longer get true blacks.
also imo and various other people ,i find crts bad for my eyes,dont ever feel like watching them again.
i myself who was a fan of crts especialy sony trinitron crts,when i heard that sony was going to shut its crt factories,i bought myself a brand new sony crt tv even though i already have a lcd,and i tried every possible settings so that it will be easy on my eyes with out sacrificing shadow detail,but just cant get the right picture compared to lcds which are so easy on my eyes and agreed by my parents,relatives and friends,also the flickering is visible.in all i am dissapointed.but i do like one crt the sony XBR crt the best crt ever made.
anywayd its only a matter of time before HD transmission begins so whatever advantage crts had will be history.

In audiophile standards, any equipment which reproduces sound, in its true form i.e as it sounds in reality in considered the best. shound't the same yardstick be used while determining videophile standards..and for that true to life quality as of today it is CRT..

every audiophile tastes are different,what u may like, may not be liked by others,in the same way what advantages u may find in crts ,is overshadowed by the advantages of lcd or plasma .
it applies to me as well ,what criteria i may find important may be less important to others.

 

[Shuvc]

well like i said before upscaling still wont be as good as a true HD signal,like for instance when i played Troy HD DVD via xbox 360 and latter flipped to the disc to get dvd side,the best visual was obviously playing from HD DVD side,followed by xbox360 upscaling the DVD side to tvs native resolution,and at the last place is the tv just streching the image.

Wouldn't the panel (be it plasma/lcd) also be upscaling a SD DVD feed to it's native resolution?

Slightly OT : Which panel are you using? Do you find the XBOX upscaler to be better than the TV's upscaling engine?

 

[adder]

Wouldn't the panel (be it plasma/lcd) also be upscaling a SD DVD feed to it's native resolution?

Slightly OT : Which panel are you using? Do you find the XBOX upscaler to be better than the TV's upscaling engine?

well yes and no,from my understanding and looking at the tv from few inches away,there is a difference b/w tv streching and upscaled image via xbox 360,even if tvs do upscale many lcds and plasmas from mant companies are not as good as a xbox 360 or a ps3,u can also do 1:1 pixel ratio which looks realy good,but occupies only a fraction of the screen btw my tv is a sony 32inch based on bravia engine 1,xbox 360 connected via VGA.

offcouse newer sony tvs does it better,so does the previous genertation X series sony lcd.newer sony X series lcds do upscaling much better then ps3 and xbox 360.

i have attached 2 images taken from a upscaling sony dvd player from its component out and upscaled image via hdmi,do note this pictures wasnt taken by me but it is a comparision done from a guy is australia,dont remember the site, but i had saved the images,about 3~ years ago.

 

[Shuvc]

I've tried out some comparisons between my PS3 and PV8.

They are connected through HDMI. I've turned off and on the PS3 upscaler. For all 3 upscale options (720p, 1080i, 1080p). Used a PAL 576p Transformers DVD as the source.

I didn't find any difference worth speaking about from a 3-4 ft range. PS3 upscaled picture MIGHT have been a wee bit smoother however I couldn't tell for sure in all scenes. Maybe it's my deficiency.

To me the difference is negligible. That too on a paused scene. Not worth breaking my head over. I'd rather sit back and enjoy the movie than worry about such negligible differences

 

[nirrej]

i tried every possible settings so that it will be easy on my eyes with out sacrificing shadow detail,but just cant get the right picture compared to lcds which are so easy on my eyes and agreed by my parents,relatives and friends,also the flickering is visible.in all i am dissapointed

I would suggest a simple test. Play a video clip of a drop of water falling on a waterbody, in LCD/ Plasma/ CRT. preferably a closeup shot. there will be smooth ripples created. now watch this scene many times and compare it with the same scene etched in our mind during the rainy season or whenever it occured in nature.

This will give the answer as to which is the best in terms of naturalness..