In general I'd say LCD. While plasma has a great picture the technology has not matured as fast as LCD technology. LCD right now has the edge with with cheaper displays and higher resolutions (right now anyway). They also play nicer with computers.
I have owned a Plasma TV for two years now and in my opinion the picture produced by a Plasma TV is far superior to an LCD TV...Black Levels are much deeper...contrast ratios are higher...And as far as price is concerned they have recently become cheaper...50" plasma runs for about $2200 where as a 52" LCD is $3500...
Depends on what size/resolution you want. If you want anything between 42 and 50 inches, get a plasma. The better colors, better picture, zero ghosting, and cheaper price will serve you MUCH better than 1080p. If you want bigger sizes, then it's a toss-up, but I'd still say plasma.
I have owned a Plasma TV for two years now and in my opinion the picture produced by a Plasma TV is far superior to an LCD TV...Black Levels are much deeper...contrast ratios are higher...And as far as price is concerned they have recently become cheaper...50" plasma runs for about $2200 where as a 52" LCD is $3500...
2" is not worth $1300...
jwat4
That 50" plasma is probably 720p, while that 52" LCD is probably 1080p. That's the difference in price.
I have owned a Plasma TV for two years now and in my opinion the picture produced by a Plasma TV is far superior to an LCD TV...Black Levels are much deeper...contrast ratios are higher...And as far as price is concerned they have recently become cheaper...50" plasma runs for about $2200 where as a 52" LCD is $3500...
2" is not worth $1300...
mjarantilla
That 50" plasma is probably 720p, while that 52" LCD is probably 1080p. That's the difference in price. I know that but what good is 1080p right now...? I mean nothing is broadcasted in 1080p...most games do not natively support it...Blu-Ray? HD-DVD?....Blu-Ray looks fine in 1080i... I guess I really should have stated is 1080p and 2" worth $1300.....
I have owned a Plasma TV for two years now and in my opinion the picture produced by a Plasma TV is far superior to an LCD TV...Black Levels are much deeper...contrast ratios are higher...And as far as price is concerned they have recently become cheaper...50" plasma runs for about $2200 where as a 52" LCD is $3500...
2" is not worth $1300...
jwat4
That 50" plasma is probably 720p, while that 52" LCD is probably 1080p. That's the difference in price. I know that but what good is 1080p right now...? I mean nothing is broadcasted in 1080p...most games do not natively support it...Blu-Ray? HD-DVD?....Blu-Ray looks fine in 1080i... I guess I really should have stated is 1080p and 2" worth $1300..... No worries, I agree with you about 1080p's relative uselessness right now. :D I'm just giving a reason for that price difference.
I have owned a Plasma TV for two years now and in my opinion the picture produced by a Plasma TV is far superior to an LCD TV...Black Levels are much deeper...contrast ratios are higher...And as far as price is concerned they have recently become cheaper...50" plasma runs for about $2200 where as a 52" LCD is $3500...
2" is not worth $1300...
mjarantilla
That 50" plasma is probably 720p, while that 52" LCD is probably 1080p. That's the difference in price. I know that but what good is 1080p right now...? I mean nothing is broadcasted in 1080p...most games do not natively support it...Blu-Ray? HD-DVD?....Blu-Ray looks fine in 1080i... I guess I really should have stated is 1080p and 2" worth $1300..... No worries, I agree with you about 1080p's relative uselessness right now. :D I'm just giving a reason for that price difference.
You guys make a valid point about 1080p. Whether or not the fanboys in the system forums want to admit it, the gaming sweet spot is 720p. Sure, that tech demo Sony runs on its BRAVIA XBR series TV's looks fantastic, but its just that, a tech demo.
You have to wonder if current 1080p TV's will be able to output the detail like the current 720p TV's do on their sets...that could be the difference between buying now and waiting for me.
to anyone claiming picture quality on one over the other is "far superior", all i say is blah blah blah. plasmas have better blacks, LCD has more vibrant colors. the overall quality of picture is practically the same. i recommend LCD right now because of cost and resolution, but especially because of the zero burn in factor. not that plasmas really have the problem now if you get a good set, but personally id rather not even think of it.
[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]to anyone claiming picture quality on one over the other is "far superior", all i say is blah blah blah. plasmas have better blacks, LCD has more vibrant colors. the overall quality of picture is practically the same. i recommend LCD right now because of cost and resolution, but especially because of the zero burn in factor. not that plasmas really have the problem now if you get a good set, but personally id rather not even think of it. LCDs have more vibrant colors? I think not. They're only more vibrant because manufacturers jack up the settings before they send them into the cruel world. Plasmas have better picture quality, obviously better blacks, and more accurate color reproduction. And those are all far more important than simple resolution. Additionally, burn-in is all but non-existent on new plasmas.
If this was just a year or two ago I would definitely say plasma over LCD, but times have changed and all things considered I think they are about even now. The newer LCDs have much better blacks than they used to and ghosting is vastly improved (assuming you're going high end)
The only issue I have with plasmas really is the lack of resolution on the smaller sizes, and the glare you get when watching in most anything but pitch black darkness. If you haven't seen it, go to a store and ask them to flip on the lights in the TV section...its disappointing.
The only issue I have with plasmas really is the lack of resolution on the smaller sizes, and the glare you get when watching in most anything but pitch black darkness. If you haven't seen it, go to a store and ask them to flip on the lights in the TV section...its disappointing.TheSystemLord1
It depends on how the lights are setup around the room...I have yet to see glare as a result from any light in a room other than natural sun light....and yes that is a down side....
Aren't plasmas more expensive and generally lower res *not to mention the ghosting troubles*. LCD is what I chose... they offer better all around value, especially later in this year.
Aren't plasmas more expensive and generally lower res *not to mention the ghosting troubles*. LCD is what I chose... they offer better all around value, especially later in this year.donalbane
Ghosting in a Plasma?...Never heard of it.... Never seen it.....in Plasmas...LCDs however seen it...the response time of an LCD TV is slower than a plasma TV if I am not mistaken... And as far as lower resolutions? Do you mean smaller sizes...normally HD is HD...720p or 1080p....sure a 32" LCD would be cheaper than a 32" Plasma.... But size was never a constraint...atleast I wasnt under the impression that it was....
[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]to anyone claiming picture quality on one over the other is "far superior", all i say is blah blah blah. plasmas have better blacks, LCD has more vibrant colors. the overall quality of picture is practically the same. i recommend LCD right now because of cost and resolution, but especially because of the zero burn in factor. not that plasmas really have the problem now if you get a good set, but personally id rather not even think of it. LCDs have more vibrant colors? I think not. They're only more vibrant because manufacturers jack up the settings before they send them into the cruel world. Plasmas have better picture quality, obviously better blacks, and more accurate color reproduction. And those are all far more important than simple resolution. Additionally, burn-in is all but non-existent on new plasmas. please back that up with some facts because all i hear is your opinion. In addition to side by side in store comparisons in which i changed settings, i have done an in home comparison between my dad's plasma and my LCD. for starters the image is pretty much the same. you make it sound as if there is some clear advantage which there is not. plasmas do have true black representation, but the colors on LCD really shine. when it comes down to it it is personal preference, but those who wont admit that leave the realm of preference, into the biased one. and yeah i said burn in is pretty much a non issue on plasmas, stop trying to twist things.
[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]to anyone claiming picture quality on one over the other is "far superior", all i say is blah blah blah. plasmas have better blacks, LCD has more vibrant colors. the overall quality of picture is practically the same. i recommend LCD right now because of cost and resolution, but especially because of the zero burn in factor. not that plasmas really have the problem now if you get a good set, but personally id rather not even think of it. LCDs have more vibrant colors? I think not. They're only more vibrant because manufacturers jack up the settings before they send them into the cruel world. Plasmas have better picture quality, obviously better blacks, and more accurate color reproduction. And those are all far more important than simple resolution. Additionally, burn-in is all but non-existent on new plasmas. please back that up with some facts because all i hear is your opinion. In addition to side by side in store comparisons in which i changed settings, i have done an in home comparison between my dad's plasma and my LCD. for starters the image is pretty much the same. you make it sound as if there is some clear advantage which there is not. plasmas do have true black representation, but the colors on LCD really shine. when it comes down to it it is personal preference, but those who wont admit that leave the realm of preference, into the biased one. and yeah i said burn in is pretty much a non issue on plasmas, stop trying to twist things. How can I back it up with facts without physically showing you? "Vibrancy" is not a measurable quantity. Most likely, it's a combination of the color and backlight settings on that LCD being set too high. There is no such thing as "vibrancy." Either the colors are true to the source video signal, or they are not, and the only way to determine that is by calibration with three-color filters and a calibration DVD outputting a color pattern. If you like overbright colors, that's fine, but I prefer to watch movies as their directors intended them. And you said burn-in was a factor in your choice of LCD over plasma. That automatically implies that you do NOT think it's "pretty much a non-issue."
um to the tc. ur the guy who was going to buy the sony xbr and if i was you id just get that.creamsauce17
Yeah I know, this is more of a general hardware discussion question that many like to ask. Personally, I'm all LCD but see the benefits of Plasma. Oh, and I've "ordered" quite a few TV's the last few months :P I always chicken out...
HDTV is just killing me. Can't find one that is just PERFECT you know?
The XBR has those clouding issues really bad...the LNS-95D and LNS-96D series aren't as sharp looking as the XBR...its just so retarded...
Log in to comment