A little off the cuff question buddy - hows your EX520 performing, when did you buy it and what price. I have seen the 46" model and liked it - though have been told to go for EX720 or EX750 instead because of better specs.
R
TV Buying Guide - LED (LCD) or Plasma
- Thread starter mylgcookie
- Start date
A little off the cuff question buddy - hows your EX520 performing, when did you buy it and what price. I have seen the 46" model and liked it - though have been told to go for EX720 or EX750 instead because of better specs.
R
Don't want to brag but it's awesome..bluray/1080p/720p looking superb..rich color..some documentary on discovery hd and NGC hd where there are a lot of wild life,small reptiles etc are jaw dropping..color of the chameleon skin is just too natural..
just4kix
Well-Known Member
EX-720 is not bad at all. If you have budget, you could go for the NX model or even HX series. Have a look at Samsung 6 and 7 series also.
Sweet - what are your views on 720/750 models? They have motionflow as well.
yep newer models 650/550 incorporate motion flow but you won't notice the difference..believe me I've played tranformer 3/fast and furious on 520 enabling cinema drive to auto..didn't experience any judder/blur/lag.
longshanks
Well-Known Member
I have two 46" EX520 at home and i consider the pic quality to be below average at best, let me see if i can play gladiator using my media player on both EX52 and my plasma and post it here.
IMO both the 55"EX720 and 46"520 i have show colors which always have a dark tone no matter how much you calibrate,the EX720 induces the soap opera effect if you turn on the judder control mechanism(they call this the motion flow i think) both the TV's show very average SD pic and my plasma wins hands down by a huge margin.
While displaying HD the colors on both these LCD's are bit too much, specially the red,never gets saturated properly. plasma's have the right amount of light and hence it does not hurt my eyes and the colors look very pleasing and very natural.
Plasma can never look good in a showroom, its like how projectors can not even show proper viewable pic in open light conditions.While used in a home or in a dim light room plasma's any day will show better picture than any LCD.
Plasma research is not saturated,if anyone fails to believe that is hilly mistaken due to their lack of knowledge and failing to keep up with the latest technologies.Both Samsung and Panasonic has changed the way the drive the sub-fields in tier 2012 plasma's, this will only keep improving.It is quite simple logic actually, since every pixel can be controlled individually in plasma there is always room for impoverishment and the performance can be fine tuned to get every bit of the best pic quality.
Took these pics few months ago, my plasma is not even calibrated properly, the colors don't look washed out at all.
IMO both the 55"EX720 and 46"520 i have show colors which always have a dark tone no matter how much you calibrate,the EX720 induces the soap opera effect if you turn on the judder control mechanism(they call this the motion flow i think) both the TV's show very average SD pic and my plasma wins hands down by a huge margin.
While displaying HD the colors on both these LCD's are bit too much, specially the red,never gets saturated properly. plasma's have the right amount of light and hence it does not hurt my eyes and the colors look very pleasing and very natural.
Plasma can never look good in a showroom, its like how projectors can not even show proper viewable pic in open light conditions.While used in a home or in a dim light room plasma's any day will show better picture than any LCD.
Plasma research is not saturated,if anyone fails to believe that is hilly mistaken due to their lack of knowledge and failing to keep up with the latest technologies.Both Samsung and Panasonic has changed the way the drive the sub-fields in tier 2012 plasma's, this will only keep improving.It is quite simple logic actually, since every pixel can be controlled individually in plasma there is always room for impoverishment and the performance can be fine tuned to get every bit of the best pic quality.
Took these pics few months ago, my plasma is not even calibrated properly, the colors don't look washed out at all.
Last edited:
longshanks
Well-Known Member
We should care about this why? any proper source or proven article to back this up?
btw what light source? the light emitted by each pixels?
As for now..www.iitk.ac.in/asid06/proceedings/papers/TC2_1-I.pdf
By light source I meant LED, CCFL and small tube filled with gas in case of plasma.
BTW plasma pics are looking very good..are they taken in low light condition?
By light source I meant LED, CCFL and small tube filled with gas in case of plasma.
BTW plasma pics are looking very good..are they taken in low light condition?
longshanks
Well-Known Member
That document speaks about LCD back lighting, i guess all of us already know that LCD uses back lighting. LED, CFL is not the only light source of LCD, tube filled with gas does not prove plasma technology is dead end.
yes,that plasma is in my listening room and it is mostly dim lit, that pic does not do justice to what i really see,i see an image which is two times better than what is shown in that pic. i also have two more 50" plasma(one in my living room and one in my native place) both are in normal home lighting conditions, they look the same and some times better while watching certain type of movies.
The problem is, in LCD individual pixels cannot be completely turned off like in plasma, so unless another technology which follows the same principle like OLED comes in plasma will remain the benchmark of pic quality along with LCOS.
yes,that plasma is in my listening room and it is mostly dim lit, that pic does not do justice to what i really see,i see an image which is two times better than what is shown in that pic. i also have two more 50" plasma(one in my living room and one in my native place) both are in normal home lighting conditions, they look the same and some times better while watching certain type of movies.
The problem is, in LCD individual pixels cannot be completely turned off like in plasma, so unless another technology which follows the same principle like OLED comes in plasma will remain the benchmark of pic quality along with LCOS.
It is not like researchers didn't think about that problem of not turning off leds to the full..it's not done due to charge retention property of led diode.
As soon as the voltage is zero there are still some charges retained in two sides(anode and cathode)...and it will take some time for the charges to reach their original positions..so instead of turning them full off it is designed to hold some charges(bias is very low positive). So it will turn on in full brightness from that low light stage in very small time..so response will be much faster.
But by using smart combination of metals it is possible to switch off diode more faster...which will be the next generation development of OLEDs.
And another advantage of not switching off LEDs to full is more energy efficiency..cause it require less energy to turn on to its fullest from a very low lit condition than to switch on from off state.
As soon as the voltage is zero there are still some charges retained in two sides(anode and cathode)...and it will take some time for the charges to reach their original positions..so instead of turning them full off it is designed to hold some charges(bias is very low positive). So it will turn on in full brightness from that low light stage in very small time..so response will be much faster.
But by using smart combination of metals it is possible to switch off diode more faster...which will be the next generation development of OLEDs.
And another advantage of not switching off LEDs to full is more energy efficiency..cause it require less energy to turn on to its fullest from a very low lit condition than to switch on from off state.
longshanks
Well-Known Member
Not sure why your posting the general concept of how LCD's work, what said about LCD's still remains true and everyone knows how LCD works.Nothing can be done about this issue and LCD's will always need the help of back light and will never be able to work alone.
OLED works more like plasma and CRT,individual pixels turning on and off at record time. IF energy efficiency is the advantage that LCD offers then that should be its selling point,people should then stop comparing the the picture quality of LCD's to plasma.
OLED works more like plasma and CRT,individual pixels turning on and off at record time. IF energy efficiency is the advantage that LCD offers then that should be its selling point,people should then stop comparing the the picture quality of LCD's to plasma.
mylgcookie
New Member
Re: TV Buying Guide - LED (LCD) or Plasma (Update-1)
Light output (brightness)
Winner: LED TVs
Loser: Plasma TVs
Runner-Up: LCD TVs
Without question, LED TVs are the brightest panels you can buy. Some models are capable of well over 100 footlamberts. To put that in perspective, in a movie theater you're lucky if you get 5. LCD TVs are a close second.
Plasma TVs just aren't that bright. It's all relative, though, as plasmas are still likely way brighter than old-school CRT tube TVs. So plasmas aren't "dim", but they aren't nearly as bright as their LCD and LED counterparts.
The question is, do you need that light output? In a dark room, 100 footlamberts will be searingly bright. In a bright room (daytime/sunlight) a plasma might be hard to see.
Another aspect to consider is any antireflective or antiglare material on each screen. A plasma with a really good antireflective coating may be better to watch with room lighting than a glossy-screen LCD with no such coating (and vice versa).
Black level
Winner: Plasma TVs
Loser: LCD TVs
Runner-up: LED TVs
This is getting a lot closer, but plasmas still offer the best black levels. Yes, LED TVs can sometimes have an absolute black (by turning off their LEDs), but when you're watching a movie, plasmas are going to seem darker. This relates to contrast ratio.
led vs lcd vs plasmas
Panasonic Viera TH-P50VT30S plasma TV.
(Click image for review)
Contrast ratio
Winner: Plasma TVs
Loser: LCD TVs
Runner-up: LED TVs
Contrast ratio, or the ratio between the darkest part of the image and the brightest, is one of the most important factors in overall picture quality. A display with a high contrast ratio is going to seem more realistic, and have more virtual "depth".
There is one exception. The new Elite LED TVs (made by Sharp) has an advanced local dimming backlight, which gives it a plasma-like contrast ratio for a steep price. One good LED TV doesn't make them all good, nor does it herald a whole new generation. The Sharp/Elite doesn't do anything new. It's an LED-backlit TV with local dimming. We've actually seen fewer and fewer of these types of displays for the reason this TV makes quite obvious: Price. These models are more expensive than LED-edgelit versions (and typically more expensive than plasmas, at the same size), and these days, expensive TVs aren't big sellers.
Do a few other local dimming models come close to the better plasmas (or exceed the lesser ones)? Yes, but again these are the exceptions, not the rule.
There are some technologies coming down the pike in a few years that may offer even better contrast ratios for LCDs. We'll probably hear more about them at CES, and if so, look forward to hearing all about it here on CNET. So, on average, plasmas have a better contrast ratio (with notable exception noted).
Viewing angle
Winner: Plasma TVs
Losers: LCD and LED TVs
Runners-up: IPS-based LCD and LED TVs (see text)
How big is your room? Do you or loved ones sit off to the side, viewing the TV at an angle? If so, it's important to note that LCDs of both flavors lose picture quality when viewed "off axis", as in not directly in front of the screen.
Small room, small couch, mother-in-law Barcalounger off to the side? Don't worry about it.
Somewhere in the middle are In-Plane Switching (IPS) LCD panels, which offer a better viewing angle at the expense of overall contrast ratio and black level.
Energy consumption
Winner: LED TVs
Loser: Plasma TVs
Runner-up: LCD TVs
No question, LED TVs have the lowest energy consumption, especially when you turn down the backlight. Toyota Prius drivers, this is the TV for you. LCD TVs are a close second, with the same addendum.
Plasmas, especially when you turn up the contrast control (which you need to for them to look their best), just aren't as energy efficient. They are, however, far better than they were a few years ago.
If you want to go green, get an LED TV. That said, it won't save you money. Because LED TVs are more expensive than other panels, it will take you years to make up that difference in energy savings (if ever). We're talking a few dollars difference in a year here.
Price
Winner: CCFL TVs
Loser: LED TVs
Runner-up: Plasma TVs
Because they tend to be at the lower-end of a company's TV offerings, LCD TVs are the cheapest panels you can buy.
As mentioned earlier, LED TVs are the technology behind many companys' high-end offerings.
The cheapest TVs will almost always be LCDs. Plasmas tend to have the best size/price ratio.
Lifespan
Tie
Multiple studies by a variety of sources have found flat-panel TVs to be extremely reliable. Internet forums are always populated by the angry, so invariably you're going to read more "well mine broke!" posts than "I've had mine for 5 years and it's great".
Burn-in
Tie
Gotcha! All TVs can burn in. It's unlikely you'll abuse them enough for this to happen (think airport arrival/departure displays). Plasmas can have image persistence, which has the outward appearance of burn-in, but isn't permanent. For more on this, check out my article Is plasma burn-in a problem?
The short version? You're going to notice image persistence long before it will become a problem.
Uniformity
Winner: Plasma TVs
Losers: LCD and LED TVs
Uniformity, or a consistent brightness to the image, doesn't bother me a lot. It bugs other reviewers, though. Check out my article Is TV brightness uniformity a problem?
Plasma can have issues in this regard as well, though they're far less frequent or noticeable. LED-edgelit TVs are the worst offenders, though cheap LCDs have their own issues. In many cases, the uniformity will vary per sample. So your TV might be fine, but your brother-in-law hates the one he bought of the same model.
So don't listen to those who say, "well, its brightest, it's best" or "LCD's black level is terrible, so they blow". Reading through this list I'm positive you mentally weighted certain factors above others, even if you didn't notice it at first. Go with your gut. If you watch a lot of TV during the day, or have a room with lots of windows, an LED TV is probably best. If you watch at night, and want the TV to disappear into the background, plasma is probably best.
Want to know the best part, and the dirty little secret of the TV world? If you're buying a name-brand TV, its picture quality is going to be really, really good. You are seriously picking from good, gooder, and goodly goodest here. Compared with flat-panel TVs from just a few years ago, new HDTVs are thinner, brighter, better-performing, and cheaper than ever before. So have at it. Your new TV is going to be awesome for years to come.
Courtesy: ASIA.CNET.com
Light output (brightness)
Winner: LED TVs
Loser: Plasma TVs
Runner-Up: LCD TVs
Without question, LED TVs are the brightest panels you can buy. Some models are capable of well over 100 footlamberts. To put that in perspective, in a movie theater you're lucky if you get 5. LCD TVs are a close second.
Plasma TVs just aren't that bright. It's all relative, though, as plasmas are still likely way brighter than old-school CRT tube TVs. So plasmas aren't "dim", but they aren't nearly as bright as their LCD and LED counterparts.
The question is, do you need that light output? In a dark room, 100 footlamberts will be searingly bright. In a bright room (daytime/sunlight) a plasma might be hard to see.
Another aspect to consider is any antireflective or antiglare material on each screen. A plasma with a really good antireflective coating may be better to watch with room lighting than a glossy-screen LCD with no such coating (and vice versa).
Black level
Winner: Plasma TVs
Loser: LCD TVs
Runner-up: LED TVs
This is getting a lot closer, but plasmas still offer the best black levels. Yes, LED TVs can sometimes have an absolute black (by turning off their LEDs), but when you're watching a movie, plasmas are going to seem darker. This relates to contrast ratio.
led vs lcd vs plasmas
Panasonic Viera TH-P50VT30S plasma TV.
(Click image for review)
Contrast ratio
Winner: Plasma TVs
Loser: LCD TVs
Runner-up: LED TVs
Contrast ratio, or the ratio between the darkest part of the image and the brightest, is one of the most important factors in overall picture quality. A display with a high contrast ratio is going to seem more realistic, and have more virtual "depth".
There is one exception. The new Elite LED TVs (made by Sharp) has an advanced local dimming backlight, which gives it a plasma-like contrast ratio for a steep price. One good LED TV doesn't make them all good, nor does it herald a whole new generation. The Sharp/Elite doesn't do anything new. It's an LED-backlit TV with local dimming. We've actually seen fewer and fewer of these types of displays for the reason this TV makes quite obvious: Price. These models are more expensive than LED-edgelit versions (and typically more expensive than plasmas, at the same size), and these days, expensive TVs aren't big sellers.
Do a few other local dimming models come close to the better plasmas (or exceed the lesser ones)? Yes, but again these are the exceptions, not the rule.
There are some technologies coming down the pike in a few years that may offer even better contrast ratios for LCDs. We'll probably hear more about them at CES, and if so, look forward to hearing all about it here on CNET. So, on average, plasmas have a better contrast ratio (with notable exception noted).
Viewing angle
Winner: Plasma TVs
Losers: LCD and LED TVs
Runners-up: IPS-based LCD and LED TVs (see text)
How big is your room? Do you or loved ones sit off to the side, viewing the TV at an angle? If so, it's important to note that LCDs of both flavors lose picture quality when viewed "off axis", as in not directly in front of the screen.
Small room, small couch, mother-in-law Barcalounger off to the side? Don't worry about it.
Somewhere in the middle are In-Plane Switching (IPS) LCD panels, which offer a better viewing angle at the expense of overall contrast ratio and black level.
Energy consumption
Winner: LED TVs
Loser: Plasma TVs
Runner-up: LCD TVs
No question, LED TVs have the lowest energy consumption, especially when you turn down the backlight. Toyota Prius drivers, this is the TV for you. LCD TVs are a close second, with the same addendum.
Plasmas, especially when you turn up the contrast control (which you need to for them to look their best), just aren't as energy efficient. They are, however, far better than they were a few years ago.
If you want to go green, get an LED TV. That said, it won't save you money. Because LED TVs are more expensive than other panels, it will take you years to make up that difference in energy savings (if ever). We're talking a few dollars difference in a year here.
Price
Winner: CCFL TVs
Loser: LED TVs
Runner-up: Plasma TVs
Because they tend to be at the lower-end of a company's TV offerings, LCD TVs are the cheapest panels you can buy.
As mentioned earlier, LED TVs are the technology behind many companys' high-end offerings.
The cheapest TVs will almost always be LCDs. Plasmas tend to have the best size/price ratio.
Lifespan
Tie
Multiple studies by a variety of sources have found flat-panel TVs to be extremely reliable. Internet forums are always populated by the angry, so invariably you're going to read more "well mine broke!" posts than "I've had mine for 5 years and it's great".
Burn-in
Tie
Gotcha! All TVs can burn in. It's unlikely you'll abuse them enough for this to happen (think airport arrival/departure displays). Plasmas can have image persistence, which has the outward appearance of burn-in, but isn't permanent. For more on this, check out my article Is plasma burn-in a problem?
The short version? You're going to notice image persistence long before it will become a problem.
Uniformity
Winner: Plasma TVs
Losers: LCD and LED TVs
Uniformity, or a consistent brightness to the image, doesn't bother me a lot. It bugs other reviewers, though. Check out my article Is TV brightness uniformity a problem?
Plasma can have issues in this regard as well, though they're far less frequent or noticeable. LED-edgelit TVs are the worst offenders, though cheap LCDs have their own issues. In many cases, the uniformity will vary per sample. So your TV might be fine, but your brother-in-law hates the one he bought of the same model.
And the winner is...
If you want to count wins and losses from the list above, have at it. The thing is, these items don't have equal weight. That's the point. For one person, absolute light output is absolute, for another, black level is above all else. These two performance aspects are, for now mutually exclusive.So don't listen to those who say, "well, its brightest, it's best" or "LCD's black level is terrible, so they blow". Reading through this list I'm positive you mentally weighted certain factors above others, even if you didn't notice it at first. Go with your gut. If you watch a lot of TV during the day, or have a room with lots of windows, an LED TV is probably best. If you watch at night, and want the TV to disappear into the background, plasma is probably best.
Want to know the best part, and the dirty little secret of the TV world? If you're buying a name-brand TV, its picture quality is going to be really, really good. You are seriously picking from good, gooder, and goodly goodest here. Compared with flat-panel TVs from just a few years ago, new HDTVs are thinner, brighter, better-performing, and cheaper than ever before. So have at it. Your new TV is going to be awesome for years to come.
Courtesy: ASIA.CNET.com
Global LCD TV Shipments Fall for the First Time Ever in Q112 - DisplaySearchPost as many as topic from cnet and avs forum but it's not gonna negate the fact that total plasma purchase will decrease...just see the plasma shipment number in the second URL..it's even below CRT shipment...lol.
2012 LCD TV Forecast Lowered to 216M Units; Solid Growth Still Expected in Key Market Segments - DisplaySearch
2012 LCD TV Forecast Lowered to 216M Units; Solid Growth Still Expected in Key Market Segments - DisplaySearch
just4kix
Well-Known Member
These links do not prove anything. The average Joe Bloke simply goes with the crowd. He sees that everyone is buying LCD/LED - so he follows suit. In India, as well as over the world, hardly 5% buy plasma. All believe that plasma is old technology.
However, the fact remains that plasma is better technology.
It is also true that plasma production and adaption will come down significantly over the next couple of years. In fact, in 3 years or so, we may not see plasma in the market. But that may apply to LED's also (maybe at a later date) once OLED becomes cheaper to manufacture.
digitally_distracted
New Member
I am new to the forum and looking for your opinions on choosing a HDTV for my living room. My budget is 80 to 90k (max). The size I am looking at is 40 to 42 inch (can't go beyond that with a viewing distance of 7 ft). My requirements are
1. Mostly watching 2D content like news / movies / sports on TV / DVD - with ocassional 3D viewing
2. Not into gaming
3. Smart TV features are nice to have (as future-proof features)
4. Not much sunlight in my Living room (hv curtains) & I watch TV mostly in dim light
I am unable to decide between the two models - Sony Bravia LED HX850 (40 in) and Panasonic Viera Plasma ST50 /GT50 (42 in). As you can see, the basic question boils down to - Plasma vs. LCD/LED. Sony HX850 is arguably the best LED TV of 2012 (as per various reviews I read), I am impresssed by the overall PQ- Brightness / Black level / Contrast etc, but it's expensive now (90k).
I am yet to have a look at Pana 2012 models ST50 or GT50 but given to understand that the pricing would be somewhat closer (possible a little less than Sony's). And what I heard from the reviews that the PQ is unmatched in either of these two models (I am not considering VT50 as it's available only in bigger sizes). While pictures on Plasma sets looks more "life-like" (realistic) in compared to LEDs (super-bright and crisp) , I hv two major concerns:
1. Power consumption of Plasma Sets - 300 W (rated) for Pana ST50 vs. 115W for Sony HX850. For a daily 4 hr (average). viewing, the annual consumptiion difference works out to be 270 KWH - needing additional 2K (approx. @7.50 per KWH) on energy cost per year. For a 10 year ownership, it could be 20k (rising energy price balanced against rupee depreciation) - which is something difficult to ignore
2. With the research / technology innovation efforts drfiting towards LED/ OLED arena, I am a bit skeptical of the future of Plasma. Though big names like Panasonic, Samsung & LG (to some extent) are holding the fort for Plasma, with the rising manufacturing cost for Plasma panels and poor consumer adoption can lead to extinction of Plasma in next few years. This is particularly true for India, where we don't hv a strong user base for Plasma HDTVs and manitenance can be a nightmare in long run.
Any thoughts / opinions will be hightly appreciated.
1. Mostly watching 2D content like news / movies / sports on TV / DVD - with ocassional 3D viewing
2. Not into gaming
3. Smart TV features are nice to have (as future-proof features)
4. Not much sunlight in my Living room (hv curtains) & I watch TV mostly in dim light
I am unable to decide between the two models - Sony Bravia LED HX850 (40 in) and Panasonic Viera Plasma ST50 /GT50 (42 in). As you can see, the basic question boils down to - Plasma vs. LCD/LED. Sony HX850 is arguably the best LED TV of 2012 (as per various reviews I read), I am impresssed by the overall PQ- Brightness / Black level / Contrast etc, but it's expensive now (90k).
I am yet to have a look at Pana 2012 models ST50 or GT50 but given to understand that the pricing would be somewhat closer (possible a little less than Sony's). And what I heard from the reviews that the PQ is unmatched in either of these two models (I am not considering VT50 as it's available only in bigger sizes). While pictures on Plasma sets looks more "life-like" (realistic) in compared to LEDs (super-bright and crisp) , I hv two major concerns:
1. Power consumption of Plasma Sets - 300 W (rated) for Pana ST50 vs. 115W for Sony HX850. For a daily 4 hr (average). viewing, the annual consumptiion difference works out to be 270 KWH - needing additional 2K (approx. @7.50 per KWH) on energy cost per year. For a 10 year ownership, it could be 20k (rising energy price balanced against rupee depreciation) - which is something difficult to ignore
2. With the research / technology innovation efforts drfiting towards LED/ OLED arena, I am a bit skeptical of the future of Plasma. Though big names like Panasonic, Samsung & LG (to some extent) are holding the fort for Plasma, with the rising manufacturing cost for Plasma panels and poor consumer adoption can lead to extinction of Plasma in next few years. This is particularly true for India, where we don't hv a strong user base for Plasma HDTVs and manitenance can be a nightmare in long run.
Any thoughts / opinions will be hightly appreciated.
just4kix
Well-Known Member
Yes. Very happy.
Get the Award Winning Diamond 12.3 Floorstanding Speakers on Special Offer
Similar threads
