Plasma Vs LCD

jewii

jewii

jewii

Associate
Joined
12 Jul 2010
Posts
334
my sisters buying a tv around 37-42". the uses are watching average TV & watching video's from a laptop.

shes convinced that plasma is better & cheaper, and me been a pestimistic about old technology thinks theres a snitch somewhere.

why are they cheaper?

the only thing i know is that plasma susposley have a smaller viewing angle? and half-life in the first 100,000 hours of use, with the kleenex culture, i would have thought people would be throwing away there LCD long before the plasma TV breaks.

any thoughts?
 
Plasma = Movies due to greater black/white contrast but higher power usage (If you go blu-ray then plasma is the way to go)
LCD = General viewing

That's all I know really but I am sure a TV/Audio buff will sort you out :p
 
Get a LCD tv with an LED backlight. They're as expensive as an LED, but they can deliver a contrast ratio of 5,000,000:1
 
Plasma has a much better veiwing angle than LCD.

And 100,000 hours HALF life - have you worked it out? Thats 11 YEARS if you put your TV on for 24 hours a day, until the tv is half as bright.... i.e. nothign to worry about. LCDs are about the same, after 11 years I'd expect most lcds to be dimmer and or the light to stop working.


Higher power usage is debateable - LCD use a constant power draw. Plasma draw will vary depending on the content of the picture apparently, so on average it's about the same.
 
iBSOD said:
Get a LCD tv with an LED backlight. They're as expensive as an LED, but they can deliver a contrast ratio of 5,000,000:1
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean.

LCD with LED is as expensive as LED and then can deliver 5,000,000:1 contrast ration?

First, true LED screens (ones you can use in a house, not a pop concert) are far more expensive than any modern LCD or plasma TV of comparable size - for example you can get an 11in OLED TV for around £2,500 right now.

As for contrast ratio, LED TVs with side-lit LED backlights often have "dynamic" contrast ratios of 1,000,000 or more. However, for real-world TV/film watching this means very little, also different manufacturers conduct the tests differently - so the numbers are not comparable, therefore these numbers are largely irrelevant and ignored. What you want to look for is the static contrast ration, which I would be very surprised to be much over 1,000:1. In general, contrast is much better on Plasmas, as is black level. Rear-lit LED backlights have been shown to do "local dimming", which can produce massive contrast ratios and visible increases in picture quality - however AFAIK there are none of these on the market yet.

You may want to have a look at this bank of TV reviews. They are rather good and in general show that Plasmas do better than LCDs at the moment (though there are some exceptional LCDs).

As for energy usage LCD (with LED backlight) do indeed tend to do better than plasma, but to be honest the cost saving is something on the order of £20 per year in power.
 
Last edited:
I thought LCD were overtaking plasma and they'd eventually be axed. But no they are still around and holding their own
Plasma 4tw IMO, great for console gaming
 
ok well, i've came to conclusion that plasma is better but why the heck are LCd more expensive, i number of theroies:

*marketing-convincing the public that LCD is better and as plasma is old tech
*verious myths like viewing angle or not lasting very long
*more energy efficent- i doubt that many people would care really, exspecially pc gamers :)


erm... i just don't understand? they're quite weak theries but i can't see why a better technology is cheaper.

p.s. my sister has just completely refurbished a house to live in so they only want a reasonabley cheap good TV, so forget LED atm.
 
Last edited:
This is a monitor forum and as you know there is no such thing as a plasma computer monitor! Plasma 'pixels' are gas filled chambers that need to be a certain size due to the physical properties of the gas they contain. For a given screen area, the maximum resolution you can obtain is lower. That is why plasma screens are generally above 32 inches. Add this to the flickering of the gas and they are completely unsuitable for close range viewing or use as a monitor. At a distance and compared to a large LCD screen the self illuminated nature of the pixels mean they can all have thieir luminance individually controlled, yielding far superior static contrast. The gases also respond very quickly, yielding faster response times. As for average power draw; plasma screens are somewhat less efficient than led backlit LCDs but it does indeed vary depending on how many dark areas are on screen.
 
i have a panasonic viera tx-p42g10 and its a great tv, it got excelent reviews and after a lot of reading up, plasmas definately are better.
it also has no lag when using for gamming, unlike lcds.which is another reason i went plasma.
 
PCM2 said:
This is a monitor forum and as you know there is no such thing as a plasma computer monitor!
Click to expand...

i'm sorry for the inaccuracy but i'm using the TVas output from a computer which also fits the description of the monitor so i would say its close enough.
 
yep for console gaming it's got to be plasma.also the viewing angle is i think better on plasma than lcd.plasma is cheaper probably because it's old tech and anything new that comes out commands a premium price and we do like to get the latest tech even if it's not as good.we tell ourselves it must be better.lol
 
Can people stop saying LCD or plasma is old tech or one is newer than the other....

these things have been around for 25-30 years.. the only new thing is the marketing guys and big numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom