LCD vs Plasma TV--Which Way to Go?

[W. Watson]

I understand that LCD TVs are starting to get the upperhand over plasma.
They are able to be produced with fewer defects, and will more readily work
with 3D images (gaming, I suppose), as two pluses. Comments?

Wayne T. Watson (Watson Adventures, Prop., Nevada City, CA)
(121.015 Deg. W, 39.262 Deg. N) GMT-8 hr std. time)
Obz Site: 39° 15' 7" N, 121° 2' 32" W, 2700 feet

"It is better to be “approximately right” rather than
“exactly wrong." -- John Tukey, Statistican

 

[Daniel Mandic]

LCDs still don't match CRT or plasma as far as motion is concerned.
Looking carefully at the various LCD TVs that were on display at the
local department store shows that while some display movement better
than others, they all absolutely sucked when compared to CRTs. They
were all pixilated and blurry to one degree or another. On the other
hand, I can't see laying out 2K for a plasma display that is not
guaranteed to last longer than 5 ~ 7 years. I guess it all boils down
to: You pick your poison and live with its consequences.

I like to note,

a fine balanced M.A.M.E. Emulator (PC), 100/120 or 50/60Hz....

Some games are not to play on a LCD kind monitor, TFT, I don't know.
(vertical scroller, or horizontal scroller games, for example)
No to mention the lack of multi-frequency...

All 60 HZ.... odd.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Charles Schuler]

I understand that LCD TVs are starting to get the upperhand over plasma.
They are able to be produced with fewer defects, and will more readily work
with 3D images (gaming, I suppose), as two pluses. Comments?

Go look at them, if at all possible. I no longer see the blurring/smearing
that used to be a problem with LCDs (on ordinary program material).

 

[Daniel Mandic]

LCD screens use polarized filters in part of the construction of the
screen. The light from the LCD is polarized, and thus there is less
effect from the room light that is not polarized. This is a large
part of the reason why LCD screens look better in lit rooms.

In front of it, 90 degrees... and that, possibly

CRT's are being phased out of production. Eventually, there will be
no CRT sets available.

The Car Engine is much older technique. I would suggest to update the
older uneffective things further.

Although, a CRT can be likened to a car. More Power, better
acceleration, deeper (longer) drives/trips and not so limited for
sideways (thinking to a railway-based train for example. Cost effective
yes, but no Angle ;-))))


It is much more to save when driving public rails/roads, than savin'
30-70W compared to a big CRT with ~150W.
It makes me almost smile which arguments are thrown to publicpress.
Poor, weak, apish arguments, just aligned to PROFITS.

I don't think you will get many advocates . The TFT is poor picture,
the anim is even more poor.
Every tech will have it's place in the future. Throwing áway, a good
developed tech like CRT and starting a new one, which is known that it
will never reach the speed of a light-tube, is crap for me.

You mean obviously, in the near future will everything be filmed via
pixel )) (CCD crap)
So the LCD is prepared for the new dual-thinker generatuion Picture.
Buhahahhhaaaa, I s... on CCD!



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Bob Myers]

The Car Engine is much older technique. I would suggest to update the
older uneffective things further.

The difference is that there is as yet no practical, economically-
competitive replacement for the internal combustion engine in
most current applications. There is for the CRT, hence the CRT
is going away.

It is much more to save when driving public rails/roads, than savin'
30-70W compared to a big CRT with ~150W.
It makes me almost smile which arguments are thrown to publicpress.
Poor, weak, apish arguments, just aligned to PROFITS.

What, in your opinion, is fundamentally wrong with profits as
a goal? Profits are driven by the market's willingness to buy a
given product at a price that exceeds the cost of manufacturing
and sales, and so are an absolutely ruthless judge of the most
effective technology for a given application. And on this score,
the CRT is losing, for a number of very good reasons.

I don't think you will get many advocates . The TFT is poor picture,
the anim is even more poor.
Every tech will have it's place in the future. Throwing áway, a good
developed tech like CRT and starting a new one, which is known that it
will never reach the speed of a light-tube, is crap for me.

I have no idea what you mean by "which is known that it will
never reach the speed of a light-tube"; if you're talking about
response time, the plasma display and various FED types already
equal the CRT, and the LCD is getting very, very close in the
quality of perceived motion response. The color saturation and
contrast of a state-of-the-art LCD already exceed that of the CRT
by a considerable margin.

You mean obviously, in the near future will everything be filmed via
pixel )) (CCD crap)

What does "filmed via pixel" mean?

Bob M.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

The difference is that there is as yet no practical, economically-
competitive replacement for the internal combustion engine in
most current applications. There is for the CRT, hence the CRT
is going away.

There is.... Air Cars drive ~0.7L diesel/100Km (~60miles). Compressed
Air, of course. ~200KM Trips, very good acceleration and no smog near
the car.

But as I said... no long trips
For shortdistance snack delivering purposes (Jaus'n führn) I would
drive it!

What, in your opinion, is fundamentally wrong with profits as
a goal? Profits are driven by the market's willingness to buy a
given product at a price that exceeds the cost of manufacturing
and sales, and so are an absolutely ruthless judge of the most
effective technology for a given application. And on this score,
the CRT is losing, for a number of very good reasons.

Are you mad ?

You try to dictatate that tech to me. If I say, as a customer, the CRT
is my favourite Display, then it is so. Not to mention the longevity
and repairability.

I have no idea what you mean by "which is known that it will
never reach the speed of a light-tube"; if you're talking about
response time, the plasma display and various FED types already
equal the CRT, and the LCD is getting very, very close in the
quality of perceived motion response. The color saturation and
contrast of a state-of-the-art LCD already exceed that of the CRT
by a considerable margin.

Achievable with a low-end CRT and an indoor-aerial.

What does "filmed via pixel" mean?

A crutch for low-end thinker

Well, LCD and brothers do have their operation field ))), but Video
isn't.
Surfing, prescribing medecines, waiting-room, still-pictures and so on.

When it comes to seemingly still-standing text, like that on final
credits for example, it looses. The motion is too subtile for
pixel-dresher. Anti-aliasing crap and such...

Plasma with an indoor-aerial, OK, but you know Plasmas disadvantages.
I look one station sometimes the whole day. That would be a problem
with a Plasma. Burn-In..., uneconomic (I watch maybe 20%),
cost-uneffective.
Well, I could take a LCD, which needs lesser power, but I would need a
follower-device like in 'Demolition Man' .)

In short, crap.

Bob M.

Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[jasen]

I don't think you will get many advocates . The TFT is poor picture,
the anim is even more poor.
Every tech will have it's place in the future. Throwing áway, a good
developed tech like CRT and starting a new one, which is known that it
will never reach the speed of a light-tube, is crap for me.

do you reckon rear projection DLP can compete with CRT?

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Bob Myers]

Are you mad ?

Not at all. If you disagree, then please give at least SOMETHING
resembling a reasoned argument that shows where I'm wrong.

You try to dictatate that tech to me. If I say, as a customer, the CRT
is my favourite Display, then it is so. Not to mention the longevity
and repairability.

Sure - if YOU, as an individual customer, think that the CRT is the
best display, no one is going to try to argue with you. It's your
opinion. The problem is that there are no longer enough people
in the market who share that opinion - at least to the extent of
being unwilling to buy any other technology - to prevent the CRT
from being in decline.

Achievable with a low-end CRT and an indoor-aerial.

I fail to see how an "indoor aerial" is a concern with respect to
the performance of the display technology in question. Perhaps
you could explain that.

A crutch for low-end thinker

Apparently, but that doesn't help the rest of us understand what
you mean by it.

When it comes to seemingly still-standing text, like that on final
credits for example, it looses. The motion is too subtile for
pixel-dresher. Anti-aliasing crap and such...

I'm sorry; I understand that English may not be your first language,
but I have no idea what you mean when you say "the motion is
to subtile for pixel-dresher." Again, would you care to explain?

Plasma with an indoor-aerial, OK, but you know Plasmas disadvantages.
I look one station sometimes the whole day. That would be a problem
with a Plasma. Burn-In...,

Not unless that one station is delivering only one static image, it
wouldn't be - and since plasma "burn-in" happens for essentially
the same reason as CRT burn-in (it just doesn't happen quite as
quickly), that would be an even bigger problem for the CRT.

Bob M.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Sure - if YOU, as an individual customer, think that the CRT is the
best display, no one is going to try to argue with you. It's your
opinion. The problem is that there are no longer enough people
in the market who share that opinion - at least to the extent of
being unwilling to buy any other technology - to prevent the CRT
from being in decline.

You should read yourself what you write!

Apparently, but that doesn't help the rest of us understand what
you mean by it.

Us? What are you? A God?

I'm sorry; I understand that English may not be your first language,
but I have no idea what you mean when you say "the motion is
to subtile for pixel-dresher." Again, would you care to explain?

Someone stole on O (too subtile)

There is nothing to explain. LCD arguments are just the top of moron
thinking art, business and outsourcing babble tactic.
Well, I cannot persuade you what you want to see, but you cannot
persuade me as well, you understand?
Economy is always a giving and a taking hand, not two handed...
(grabbing)

Not unless that one station is delivering only one static image, it
wouldn't be - and since plasma "burn-in" happens for essentially
the same reason as CRT burn-in (it just doesn't happen quite as
quickly), that would be an even bigger problem for the CRT.

Bob M.

My TV-Set is not burned in. Plasmas I saw burned in, after some months
of 12/24H operation. The Station-Logo was visible.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

reckon

Hi jasen!



I saw much of tech. Newer stuff is working better and is even cheaper
when LCD and so started.
But after some minutes, the first haggle, dazzle appear. Color cyclings
look more like 16bit (65536 colors)... and so on.

I know there are limitations with 50/60HZ Video, but that is more
likely arabic number playing. That what I see convinces me
Although, ~720*576 screen resolution is not less , but that is
already with a crutch in the x-coordinate.
If someone develops a tech, which does not even need lines, then I would
say it is a progression compared to PAL/NTSC.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: Rear Projection? hmmm, I have no money for such... (~400bucks a
bulb)

 

[Jon Elson]

do you reckon rear projection DLP can compete with CRT?

I haven't seen any high-resolution DLP projectors. They sure look good
at the resolution they have, but that is less than my normal LCD computer
monitor.

Jon

 

[Bob Myers]

I haven't seen any high-resolution DLP projectors. They sure look good
at the resolution they have, but that is less than my normal LCD computer
monitor.

DLP chips (what T.I. calls the "digital micromirror device," or "DMD)
are available up to 1920 x 1080 (standard HD format); see

http://search.dlp.com/dlp_technology/dlp_technology_products.asp

The technology is also a strong contender for digital cinema use, which
would probably be at formats of approx. 2k x 1k or 4k x 2k pixels. The
basic limitation here is the physical pixel size on the device, which so far
(as I recall) is down to about 12 microns on a side.

Bob M.

 

[Mat Nieuwenhoven]

I understand that LCD TVs are starting to get the upperhand over plasma.
They are able to be produced with fewer defects, and will more readily work
with 3D images (gaming, I suppose), as two pluses. Comments?

I've read that 120Hz LCDs look much better with moving edges than the
standard 60 Hz onces, I haven't seen them myself yet though.
Plasma's have a maximum total light output (like a CRT), which means that if
the picture is really bright in many places, it dims to avoid heating the
screen. So the advertised high contrast should probably be take as a bright
dot on a otherwise black screen, a black dot on a white screen would be very
much less. LCDs don't have this problem.
Plasma's have typically a higher power consumption than LCDs; that alone
might be sufficient reason (costs and environment) to avoid plasma's, it
would be for me.

Mat Nieuwenhoven

 

[B. Peg]

I've read that 120Hz LCDs look much better with moving edges than the
standard 60 Hz onces, I haven't seen them myself yet though.
Plasma's have a maximum total light output (like a CRT), which means that
if
the picture is really bright in many places, it dims to avoid heating the
screen. So the advertised high contrast should probably be take as a
bright
dot on a otherwise black screen, a black dot on a white screen would be
very
much less. LCDs don't have this problem.
Plasma's have typically a higher power consumption than LCDs; that alone
might be sufficient reason (costs and environment) to avoid plasma's, it
would be for me.

When I was shopping 6 months ago, the plasma's were only up to around 720
lines while some DLP's were up to 1080 lines. One could see the pixels of
the plasmas quite readily and the DLP was far sharper.

The drawback was the DLP had a lower contrast ratio which meant the blacks
looked blacker on the plasma. The salesman then, said the plasmas were
still prone to image burn in and they had one in their shop where ESPN's
logo did a number on it.

What disturbed me with the DLP was some problem I had with their lamp
circuitry. It blew a lamp in a couple of weeks. Although under warranty,
it sold for $320. Several weeks later the lamp out light came on and the
set wouldn't turn on. Another bulb but still no worky. Then it took a
ballast. Still nothing and they took it away for a few months. It's back
now and they say they changed out the "Light Engine" whatever that is.

They warned me the DLP's lamp may only last for 8-24 months and I might want
to keep a "spare" on hand as it's not a usually stocked item.

B~

 

[[email protected]]

LCD"S LAST LONGER!

do you reckon rear projection DLP can compete with CRT?

Bye.
Jasen