Plasma vs LCD // Your view!

You need to get some demo's. No one can tell you what will look better to you as peoples vision and tastes differ.

From my experience of owning LCD's for a few years then recently getting a Pioneer Kuro.

LCD's did static images better and looked sharper for me. Also only had minimal issues with ghosting and blurring.

My Plasma gives me a softer image and the colour depth and level of detail you get from black and darker images are noticably better for me than LCD. What this means is that the movie experience is much more cinematic. For me again there is a significant difference in film watching from the two technologies. The Plasma wins hands down with the LCD looking more artificial in comparison, especially for flesh tones (although the new Sammy LCD's look to have made some stride).

Ultimately though get demo's. Your views may differ.
 
Thanks very much to all that replied, given me something to think about and I think that as a result of the mixed views, I will follow up on what B1gbeard has said and go and take a look in my local store.

Thanks :P
 
Corasik said:
Quite right, modern plasma's have a halflife (which is when the screen has faded to half brightness) for 60,000 hours or more. Thats almost 7 years nonstop use 24/7.
Click to expand...
But the PSU in many plasma's normally pack up way before the screen does........(New plasma PSU are normally around £400 :eek:)
 
You really need to tell us what you'd mainly be using it for.

Standard definition = plasma wins hands down
1080p is far more affordable with lcd's
media centre use = lcd to avoid any risk of burn in
motion = plasma wins hands down.

the list is endless :)
 
Budget also helps. I was looking for a new TV for my parents. 42" so I automatically started looking at Plasma screens. Within the budget were a few Plasma screens and a few LCD screens. I went into the store to compare them, build quality and picture quality (as best you can on a looped feed).

The LCD I liked was standing next to the Plasma, and the picture was so much better for me. (Philips 42" with Pixel Plus 2 I believe). The picture sharpness was leaps and bounds above the similarly priced Plasma. The Plasma looked all fuzzy around text.

My friend who works in the store said that if I didn't watch that much sport then the LCD would suit me fine. I'm glad I got the LCD in the end, it's got a great picture on it. But like I say, the budget range does make a big difference.
 
Why these shops don't employ someone who knows how to set-up the TV's to show their relative merits, I don't know.
Mind you, you have to blame the manufacturers as well as they set the defaults at ridiculous levels.
Since when are people, apart from David Dickinson, bright bloody orange. You need sunglasses if you walk into most of this retailers.
 
Jihad said:
Probably set up bad, damn shop displays.
Click to expand...

Your probably right mate, but I'm not knocking the LCD I purchased. It's great. :) Nice sharp picture. But watching football you can tell that a Plasma would be better. But it's by no means a rubbish screen. :)
 
I ran my old Hitachi 32" (720 LCD) against a 42" Panasonic Viera (720 Plasma) and my current 40" Samsung (1080 LCD) all with the same sources a few weeks back and while i'll say the Panasonic was good it wasn't that much better at anything than the Samsung (when properly set up, when I first plugged it in it was horrific).

At the end of the day I kept the Samsung as the main set because it was almost as good as the Panasonic at SD/720 HD, better in gaming and supported 1080p, for the small amount extra it was a more balanced option for my usage.

In an ideal world i'd have liked to run a 1080 plasma at the same time but the bank manager wouldn't see the funny side!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom