Don't think that's been true for a long time. The viewing angles are too poor.
New 120Hz/"240Hz" VA monitor for gamers (Eizo Foris FG2421)
- Thread starter aatu
- Start date
Don't think that's been true for a long time. The viewing angles are too poor.
Nonononono, TN panels are quite rare on HDTVs nowadays. Few years back it was quite common to find TN panels on smaller HDTVs, but nowadays they're mostly found on no-name brands only (and probably even then only on smaller ones).
VA and IPS are the driving forces, it seems. Some people predicted plasmas would be gone by 2012, but apparently they're only on a slow decline to their ever-imminent death. While plasma does indeed have some advantages over most of the LCD panel types, there are some undeniable drawbacks, too (power draw being the most obvious, I think).
And while the IPS and VA panels are essentially the same on HDTVs and computer monitors, nobody should compare them directly together. They're quite different in nature. The electronics inside make a world of difference (some for the worse, some for the better, depending on what you want from them).
Plasma vs. LCD:
Tenner? Well, that kind of depends on how much you're using it, don't you think? If you don't use it at all, then there's no difference in power consumption...
But fear not, as I have made some quick comparative calculations, and I've come up with the average watts/inch results (only the calibrated figures in here, more details inside the spoiler):
Plasma: 4.93
LCD: 1.25
(LCD, 4k: 2.26)
Difference: about 4x (or +300%)
So let's take a 55" for average (quite large, but plasmas are, so for comparison's sake):
Plasma -- 4.93x55 = 271.15 (W)
LCD -- 1.25x55 = 68.75 (W)
And let's take the average of 3hrs per day, with an average 0.20€/kWh:
Plasma -- 3x271.15x365/1000*0.2 = 59.38 (€)
LCD -- 3x68.75x365/1000*0.2 = 15.06 (€)
Naturally, if the usage is lower/higher, then it multiplies linearly. Also make a note of the size, 55" is just used here as an average. In any case, with the average example, that's already a 44€ annual difference.
Unfortunately, no 4k readings for plasma, and I doubt there ever will be any consumer-grade 4k plasmas. This, from what I've understood, is a fundamental design issue, as the cells would need to get very small, which is already a problem with 1920x1080 at rational sizes. Also, as plasma has to illuminate each pixel separately (as opposite to the LCD's backlight), the 4k power draw would be quite problematic, too. There just wouldn't be any sensible comparison with 4k, even if it scaled linearly.
Add to that the minimum size of 42" (and even very few of those! 50" and 60" seem to be the norm) and a minimum price around £400 (while most of them £800+), and you're getting to the point why plasma is justifiably on its way out. LCDs are simply much more versatile.
More thorough details inside the spoiler:
Tenner? Well, that kind of depends on how much you're using it, don't you think? If you don't use it at all, then there's no difference in power consumption...
But fear not, as I have made some quick comparative calculations, and I've come up with the average watts/inch results (only the calibrated figures in here, more details inside the spoiler):
Plasma: 4.93
LCD: 1.25
(LCD, 4k: 2.26)
Difference: about 4x (or +300%)
So let's take a 55" for average (quite large, but plasmas are, so for comparison's sake):
Plasma -- 4.93x55 = 271.15 (W)
LCD -- 1.25x55 = 68.75 (W)
And let's take the average of 3hrs per day, with an average 0.20€/kWh:
Plasma -- 3x271.15x365/1000*0.2 = 59.38 (€)
LCD -- 3x68.75x365/1000*0.2 = 15.06 (€)
Naturally, if the usage is lower/higher, then it multiplies linearly. Also make a note of the size, 55" is just used here as an average. In any case, with the average example, that's already a 44€ annual difference.
Unfortunately, no 4k readings for plasma, and I doubt there ever will be any consumer-grade 4k plasmas. This, from what I've understood, is a fundamental design issue, as the cells would need to get very small, which is already a problem with 1920x1080 at rational sizes. Also, as plasma has to illuminate each pixel separately (as opposite to the LCD's backlight), the 4k power draw would be quite problematic, too. There just wouldn't be any sensible comparison with 4k, even if it scaled linearly.
Add to that the minimum size of 42" (and even very few of those! 50" and 60" seem to be the norm) and a minimum price around £400 (while most of them £800+), and you're getting to the point why plasma is justifiably on its way out. LCDs are simply much more versatile.
More thorough details inside the spoiler:
== All figures are collected from hdtvtest.co.uk, to maintain comparison effectiveness ==
Form:
Watts/Watts3D (size)
(none of the LCD's have separate 3D readings, apparently they're so close together to 2D?)
Non-calibrated plasma power consumption:
335 (50)
187 (65)
169/270 (60)
565/649 (64)
238/424 (55)
184/304 (50)
111/162 (42)
304/236 (65)
382/408 (64)
156/186 (51)
W/inch, average:
5.0546475559
Calibrated plasma power consumption:
172 (50)
304 (65)
279/460 (60)
248/494 (64)
260/355 (55)
179/304 (50)
136/226 (42)
285/338 (65)
419/384 (64)
151/196 (51)
W/inch, average:
4.9266424133
Non-calibrated LCD power consumption:
31 (46)
23 (32)
54 (40)
57 (55)
47 (32)
77 (42)
36 (42)
42 (42)
76 (32)
36 (47)
50 (32)
69 (46)
75 (55)
35 (55)
76 (40)
49 (42)
79 (46)
W/inch, average:
1.2897510758
Calibrated LCD power consumption:
57 (46)
32 (32)
51 (40)
78 (55)
41 (32)
59 (42)
43 (42)
44 (42)
50 (32)
42 (47)
36 (32)
68 (46)
84 (55)
64 (55)
61 (40)
38 (42)
61 (46)
W/inch, average:
1.2468169748
Unfortunately, we can't compare 32" models directly, as there are none available in the plasma alternatives. Even 42" comparison is a little iffy, as there was only one even semi-recently reviewed model I found.
But if you want to make direct watts/inch comparisons:
42": plasma 4.31, LCD 1.10
55": plasma 5.59, LCD 1.37
And here's a comparison for LCD 4k:
Non-calibrated 4k:
133 (65)
71 (55)
206 (65)
W/inch, average:
2.1687645688
Calibrated 4k:
140 (65)
125 (55)
144/163 (65)
W/inch, average:
2.2627039627
Form:
Watts/Watts3D (size)
(none of the LCD's have separate 3D readings, apparently they're so close together to 2D?)
Non-calibrated plasma power consumption:
335 (50)
187 (65)
169/270 (60)
565/649 (64)
238/424 (55)
184/304 (50)
111/162 (42)
304/236 (65)
382/408 (64)
156/186 (51)
W/inch, average:
5.0546475559
Calibrated plasma power consumption:
172 (50)
304 (65)
279/460 (60)
248/494 (64)
260/355 (55)
179/304 (50)
136/226 (42)
285/338 (65)
419/384 (64)
151/196 (51)
W/inch, average:
4.9266424133
Non-calibrated LCD power consumption:
31 (46)
23 (32)
54 (40)
57 (55)
47 (32)
77 (42)
36 (42)
42 (42)
76 (32)
36 (47)
50 (32)
69 (46)
75 (55)
35 (55)
76 (40)
49 (42)
79 (46)
W/inch, average:
1.2897510758
Calibrated LCD power consumption:
57 (46)
32 (32)
51 (40)
78 (55)
41 (32)
59 (42)
43 (42)
44 (42)
50 (32)
42 (47)
36 (32)
68 (46)
84 (55)
64 (55)
61 (40)
38 (42)
61 (46)
W/inch, average:
1.2468169748
Unfortunately, we can't compare 32" models directly, as there are none available in the plasma alternatives. Even 42" comparison is a little iffy, as there was only one even semi-recently reviewed model I found.
But if you want to make direct watts/inch comparisons:
42": plasma 4.31, LCD 1.10
55": plasma 5.59, LCD 1.37
And here's a comparison for LCD 4k:
Non-calibrated 4k:
133 (65)
71 (55)
206 (65)
W/inch, average:
2.1687645688
Calibrated 4k:
140 (65)
125 (55)
144/163 (65)
W/inch, average:
2.2627039627
LCD panels are certainly more versatile. No doubt about that.
Especially when you consider they are available in sizes from the smallest to the largest. Plasma's start at 37".
My issue though, is that if I buy a TV, I want the best image quality. I don't need Smart facilities. I don't care was the TV looks like, when it is switched off. I don't care that the TV is 1cm thick. I don't need to read about 100000000hz refresh rate...or any other marketing line. My aim is simple. Buy the best possible image quality at a given price range. And using this brief, in Jan 2014, plasma wins every time, with LCD not even coming close.
@sunama:
Nah, not really bothered about power consumption, myself. It was just something I knew about plasmas, so had to bring it up.
But I can agree that on the higher end, yes, the plasmas give unrivaled image quality. But below £1000, they're apparently not faring that well. Granted, there are exceptions, especially Panasonic has a habit of occasionally setting more reasonable prices (the TX-P42ST60 seems like a potential winner*). But quite usually, particularly the low-end plasmas, are indeed lacking in some sense (like limiting the resolution to 1024x768), in addition to the unavoidable compromises that come with plasma by default.
*): assuming one doesn't intend to play games with it (bad input lag...)
@3t3P:
Well actually, like I said above, you'll have to pay significantly more for plasmas if you want the good stuff. It's more like I can save a few HUNDRED while purchasing the LCD, and after that it's the 44€ saving per year. So it amounts to a little more than a few quid...
Of course, for people who aren't strapped for cash, there's no problem. But most people can't afford to splurge 1k+ to a TV.
Nah, not really bothered about power consumption, myself. It was just something I knew about plasmas, so had to bring it up.
But I can agree that on the higher end, yes, the plasmas give unrivaled image quality. But below £1000, they're apparently not faring that well. Granted, there are exceptions, especially Panasonic has a habit of occasionally setting more reasonable prices (the TX-P42ST60 seems like a potential winner*). But quite usually, particularly the low-end plasmas, are indeed lacking in some sense (like limiting the resolution to 1024x768), in addition to the unavoidable compromises that come with plasma by default.
*): assuming one doesn't intend to play games with it (bad input lag...)
@3t3P:
Well actually, like I said above, you'll have to pay significantly more for plasmas if you want the good stuff. It's more like I can save a few HUNDRED while purchasing the LCD, and after that it's the 44€ saving per year. So it amounts to a little more than a few quid...
Of course, for people who aren't strapped for cash, there's no problem. But most people can't afford to splurge 1k+ to a TV.
Caporegime
Given that for most people, HD broadcasts are only 720p, the res of low end plasmas isn't really a problem. We got my gf's parents a Panny P42C3 in 2011 for Christmas. £300, great for the lounge as there are sofas on 3 of the 4 walls, "HD" broadcasts look fine, and they love how smooth sports is.
A £300 LCD would have been pretty poor in comparison.
The ST60 is a class leading TV.
These can be had for around £600 (42").
No LCD in this price range can compete against the ST60. If there is, please tell me the model number and brand (I shall look it up).
The only limitation of plasma is that not everybody wants a 37"+ screen.
My sister wanted a 32" telly, so a plasma was out of the question, even if the image quality would beat the LCD she bought.
Incidentally, she bought a Samsung 32" LCD TV and she says it is terrible. Its as if the frame rate is running at around 15fps, at times. I reminded her that if she wanted CRT-like image quality on SD images, plasma was the way to go...but anyway, she learnt her lesson.
Plasma to me, is like a 'window' or 'disappearing'-effect screen technology.
When people refer to very good speakers, they are said to 'disappear' in that you believe the illusion that the music is in the room and not being produced artificially.
When I watch my plasma (I had a Sammy LCD before btw), it is as though nothing is in the way anymore to see perfect skin tone, accurate colours and crazy contrast ratios.
For example just last night, I watched house of flying daggers, on more than one occasion when knives were flying or other objects coming toward the screen it looked 3D when it was a 2D broadcast (plus i wasn't wearing the glasses!)
It is this difference in orders of magnitudes in contrast ratios that give this effect.
I would have loved to drop the cash on a 65'' ZT60 as that TV would likely see me through to 2020 when 4k OLED and broadcasting may be common place enough.
I will say that gaming is very good on plasmas but you will worry about image retention, that's an advantage you have with LCD.
Also input lag of my ST60 set has been measured as fairly high. Luckily I don't care for console gaming.
Back on topic, is it because this monitor inserts black frames and does lightboost-hack-esque pulsing that it is not 3D compatible?
Do we expect other manufacturers to follow suit with similar screen tech?
When people refer to very good speakers, they are said to 'disappear' in that you believe the illusion that the music is in the room and not being produced artificially.
When I watch my plasma (I had a Sammy LCD before btw), it is as though nothing is in the way anymore to see perfect skin tone, accurate colours and crazy contrast ratios.
For example just last night, I watched house of flying daggers, on more than one occasion when knives were flying or other objects coming toward the screen it looked 3D when it was a 2D broadcast (plus i wasn't wearing the glasses!)
It is this difference in orders of magnitudes in contrast ratios that give this effect.
I would have loved to drop the cash on a 65'' ZT60 as that TV would likely see me through to 2020 when 4k OLED and broadcasting may be common place enough.
I will say that gaming is very good on plasmas but you will worry about image retention, that's an advantage you have with LCD.
Also input lag of my ST60 set has been measured as fairly high. Luckily I don't care for console gaming.
Back on topic, is it because this monitor inserts black frames and does lightboost-hack-esque pulsing that it is not 3D compatible?
Do we expect other manufacturers to follow suit with similar screen tech?
Associate
Not sure why people are talking about plasma really. It's a dying/dead tech for a reason. You can only make plasma cells so small. That's why there aren't computer monitors and no 4K plasma's (besides the million dollar prototype of something crazy like 140 inches). It's simple physics. No one wants a huge lowly 1080p display for computer use...
@krooton:
Hmm, you do understand that the P42C3 in question has a 4:3 (1024x768) resolution in a 16:9 frame...? This is quite common in low-end plasmas. In essence, it's basically distorting the source image (1024x768 16:9 plasmas have rectangular pixels). Furthermore, 1024x768 can't actually even display a full 720p image, which would be 1280x720. Though it is quite close to it. But it will still need some sampling, dithering, scaling, etc, so it can fit it into its limited resolution. Simply put, the 1024x768 plasmas are technically standard definition TVs that can remix HD signals.
As for LCDs, the HD-readiness hasn't been a problem for quite some time. One of LCD's problems, however, was the common practice of using 1366x768 for HD-ready TVs, which while enough for 720p, didn't give 1:1 pixel perfection. Fortunately it has become increasingly easier to find FullHD counterparts. Nowadays FullHD is found even on the very small LCD sets.
And £300 is quite enough even for FullHD LCDs. For £400, you could have gotten for example the Toshiba 40RV753 (VA panel), which got very nice review in its time, while the P42C3 got mediocre review. As for which one would have been better for your GF's parents, can't tell. Even SD material looks fine on a 42" from a few meters' distance. The fact that the P42C3 was a fitting choice for your GF's parents' arrangement is more of a proof to the fact that it was a good fit for a specific situation, not that it would have generally been a good option.
But considering they (the GF's parents) are of the older generation, then they more probably have worse eye-sight and thus no compelling need for higher definition. But going FullHD certainly wouldn't have deteriorated the image quality, either. But indeed, if the viewing angle is relatively wide, then yes, plasmas should be a better choice for that.
=====================
@sunama:
Yes, like I said, Panasonic has a history of using more reasonable pricing, especially the ST60.
But, as for LCD alternatives:
Sony KDL42W653
Panasonic TX-L42E6E/TX-L42E6B
Samsung UE42F5500
Samsung UE46F6400/UE46F6470
Samsung UE40ES6710 (possibly also Samsung UE40ES6740)
They're all about £100-£200 cheaper (except the last one, that one is about the same), but I wouldn't hold that against it.
Apparently you can't get better than the Sony KDL42W653 for gaming or computer usage, atm. Actually, I'm a little disappointed I bought my Philips 42PFL6907T before the Sony's review came out. I would have probably rather gone with that, even though I would have missed on some nice features. And even though I normally prefer Philips over Sony. The smaller brother, KDL32W653, while also getting a very good review, has somehow managed to lose some of its gaming edge.
Another good alternative for gamers would be the Samsung UE42F5500. The rest of the list are more to the general usage scenarios (although the gamers' choices are also good for general usage, but have less features).
Note: I don't like to use digitalversus as a review source, as they have a bad habit of generalizing all the sizes of a specific model to be the same, and this isn't always the case. But unfortunately hdtvtest.co.uk doesn't have reviews of all of them... So you should always apply the results only to the exact model they are reviewing, and keep the results in mind for the other sizes with a small precaution. Also, some of the hdtvtest's better reviewed models get quite mediocre marks over at DV, so a little caution is indeed in order.
And as for the size limitation:
I would personally disagree on the "only" part.
(and actually, I think the plasma's size limitation nowadays is 42")
With regards to your sister's LCD:
Bad motion interpolation implementation, perhaps?
=========================
@3t3P:
The "disappear" notion made me think of Philips' Ambilight feature. You should try to see it in action, you might like it. If you do, you can implement it to your current plasma, too. There should be some self-assembly kits with "easy"-to-follow how-to's around the net. Though indeed, it requires a little bit of own assembly skill.
With regards to the stuff coming "out" of the image: I don't think that the contrast ratio alone can have the 3D effect you're describing. It might just be a case of good source footage.
As for the FG2421 and 3D:
The advertized "240Hz" is the lightboost-like black-frame-insertion feature, and it should be possible to disable for a regular 120Hz input. But it might be that the used VA panel was still not fast enough for an adequate 3D effect, because with 3D the next frame really needs to be there on time. For 2D, the real-life error tolerance is leaner. Although, they could have gone for passive 3D in that case. That would have given us the first 120Hz passive 3D, as well.
It might also be that the 3D compatibility (or lack of) might have something to do with licensing bringing the costs too high. Or maybe the active glasses themselves would have brought the price too high. As £450 is already quite borderline for a 24". Well, more competitors should follow. Hopefully with lower prices. I haven't yet checked the CES news, I hoped that it would bring more news of alternatives. Eizo will probably still stay as a good alternative, though, as Eizo is indeed generally considered as a premium brand, and will give some ease of mind for those who want it.
@Vega:
Yeah, I think I read somewhere that Panasonic's main reason for stepping out of plasma market was that the costs for bringing plasma to the impending 4k era would be too high. (in other words, research&development of a way to make plasma cells significantly smaller within reasonable manufacturing costs)
Hmm, you do understand that the P42C3 in question has a 4:3 (1024x768) resolution in a 16:9 frame...? This is quite common in low-end plasmas. In essence, it's basically distorting the source image (1024x768 16:9 plasmas have rectangular pixels). Furthermore, 1024x768 can't actually even display a full 720p image, which would be 1280x720. Though it is quite close to it. But it will still need some sampling, dithering, scaling, etc, so it can fit it into its limited resolution. Simply put, the 1024x768 plasmas are technically standard definition TVs that can remix HD signals.
As for LCDs, the HD-readiness hasn't been a problem for quite some time. One of LCD's problems, however, was the common practice of using 1366x768 for HD-ready TVs, which while enough for 720p, didn't give 1:1 pixel perfection. Fortunately it has become increasingly easier to find FullHD counterparts. Nowadays FullHD is found even on the very small LCD sets.
And £300 is quite enough even for FullHD LCDs. For £400, you could have gotten for example the Toshiba 40RV753 (VA panel), which got very nice review in its time, while the P42C3 got mediocre review. As for which one would have been better for your GF's parents, can't tell. Even SD material looks fine on a 42" from a few meters' distance. The fact that the P42C3 was a fitting choice for your GF's parents' arrangement is more of a proof to the fact that it was a good fit for a specific situation, not that it would have generally been a good option.
But considering they (the GF's parents) are of the older generation, then they more probably have worse eye-sight and thus no compelling need for higher definition. But going FullHD certainly wouldn't have deteriorated the image quality, either. But indeed, if the viewing angle is relatively wide, then yes, plasmas should be a better choice for that.
=====================
@sunama:
Yes, like I said, Panasonic has a history of using more reasonable pricing, especially the ST60.
But, as for LCD alternatives:
Sony KDL42W653
Panasonic TX-L42E6E/TX-L42E6B
Samsung UE42F5500
Samsung UE46F6400/UE46F6470
Samsung UE40ES6710 (possibly also Samsung UE40ES6740)
They're all about £100-£200 cheaper (except the last one, that one is about the same), but I wouldn't hold that against it.
Apparently you can't get better than the Sony KDL42W653 for gaming or computer usage, atm. Actually, I'm a little disappointed I bought my Philips 42PFL6907T before the Sony's review came out. I would have probably rather gone with that, even though I would have missed on some nice features. And even though I normally prefer Philips over Sony. The smaller brother, KDL32W653, while also getting a very good review, has somehow managed to lose some of its gaming edge.
Another good alternative for gamers would be the Samsung UE42F5500. The rest of the list are more to the general usage scenarios (although the gamers' choices are also good for general usage, but have less features).
Note: I don't like to use digitalversus as a review source, as they have a bad habit of generalizing all the sizes of a specific model to be the same, and this isn't always the case. But unfortunately hdtvtest.co.uk doesn't have reviews of all of them... So you should always apply the results only to the exact model they are reviewing, and keep the results in mind for the other sizes with a small precaution. Also, some of the hdtvtest's better reviewed models get quite mediocre marks over at DV, so a little caution is indeed in order.
And as for the size limitation:
I would personally disagree on the "only" part.
(and actually, I think the plasma's size limitation nowadays is 42")
With regards to your sister's LCD:
Bad motion interpolation implementation, perhaps?
=========================
@3t3P:
The "disappear" notion made me think of Philips' Ambilight feature. You should try to see it in action, you might like it. If you do, you can implement it to your current plasma, too. There should be some self-assembly kits with "easy"-to-follow how-to's around the net. Though indeed, it requires a little bit of own assembly skill.
With regards to the stuff coming "out" of the image: I don't think that the contrast ratio alone can have the 3D effect you're describing. It might just be a case of good source footage.
As for the FG2421 and 3D:
The advertized "240Hz" is the lightboost-like black-frame-insertion feature, and it should be possible to disable for a regular 120Hz input. But it might be that the used VA panel was still not fast enough for an adequate 3D effect, because with 3D the next frame really needs to be there on time. For 2D, the real-life error tolerance is leaner. Although, they could have gone for passive 3D in that case. That would have given us the first 120Hz passive 3D, as well.
It might also be that the 3D compatibility (or lack of) might have something to do with licensing bringing the costs too high. Or maybe the active glasses themselves would have brought the price too high. As £450 is already quite borderline for a 24". Well, more competitors should follow. Hopefully with lower prices. I haven't yet checked the CES news, I hoped that it would bring more news of alternatives. Eizo will probably still stay as a good alternative, though, as Eizo is indeed generally considered as a premium brand, and will give some ease of mind for those who want it.
@Vega:
Yeah, I think I read somewhere that Panasonic's main reason for stepping out of plasma market was that the costs for bringing plasma to the impending 4k era would be too high. (in other words, research&development of a way to make plasma cells significantly smaller within reasonable manufacturing costs)
Last edited:
Soldato
Where are the ones you lot got manufactured? Germany or Japan?
I read somewhere that the Japan are better quality in terms of Quality Assurance?
I read somewhere that the Japan are better quality in terms of Quality Assurance?
Sorry but that is quite simply not true at all.
I worked it out when I had a plasma and at 10 hours a day usage a plasma costs approx £650 whereas an LCD costs about £150 over 5 years.... Not arguing which is best just saying that when buying a plasma the electricity usage is a big part of the overall cost over the 5 years you own the TV, for example plasma £700 + £700 electricity = £1400 total over 5 years, LCD = £700 + £200 electricity = £900 over 5 years. So basically over 5 years with a plasma you are spending the amount you paid for the TV again in electricity.
Last edited:
What the hell? £500 difference in electricity over 5 years? No way, unless you are talking about really old Plasma tech from 10 years ago or you like looking at your TV's with retina burning brightness!! I have Pioneer LX5090 in one room and the Panasonic 42UT30 in another. And based on my electricity bills, I would be amazed if the difference between running LCD and plasma amounted to £500 over 5 years because the fact is it's not even costing £100 per year to run both plasmas.
So, your sums are wrong.
Not if you are watching it / have it on 10+ hours a day.
Soldato
How exactly did you calculate this? You are aware that Plasma uses a lot more energy to display bright colours than dark ones? A lot of people look at the max rated wattage of the unit and go by that - except the rated wattage is indicative of the TV running a white screen and full brightness constantly. The discrepancy in cost here seems too large and I agree that the calculations should be re-checked.