LCD Vs Plasma

[Ray]

I am soon to purchase a Digital TV, and a HD set top box.

My TV cabinet can not take the depth of wide screen TV sets.

My question is; what is the best way to go with the wall hanging type
monitors that can fit in my cabinet, Plasma or LCD? Pros and cons please.
Ray

[The Family]

LCD is better all round - the pixels won't die in a few years time. BUT...
LCD costs.

Plasma will probably not be on the market 5-10 years from now when the
high-cost "first generation" stuff starts dying and gives Plasma a
justly-deserved bad reputation.


"Ray" <ray.calleja@ap.EmersonProcess.com> wrote in message
news:e8IXb.57314$Wa.29899@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I am soon to purchase a Digital TV, and a HD set top box.
>
> My TV cabinet can not take the depth of wide screen TV sets.
>
> My question is; what is the best way to go with the wall hanging type
> monitors that can fit in my cabinet, Plasma or LCD? Pros and cons please.
> Ray
>
>

[Newsy]

"tcith" <tcith@notospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:402febab$0$28867$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "The Family" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:402f676d$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> > LCD is better all round - the pixels won't die in a few years time.
> BUT...
> > LCD costs.
> >
> > Plasma will probably not be on the market 5-10 years from now when the
> > high-cost "first generation" stuff starts dying and gives Plasma a
> > justly-deserved bad reputation.
> >
>
> What on earth did you get this gem of mis information from?
>
> LCD is very expensive and has a current size/panel limitation - dead
pixels
> are extremely common - ongoing damage is a big problem too - LCD has less
of
> a life span than plasma - it also is a "slower" screen and often cannot
> handle certain fast image requirements
>
> 1st generation plasma's have already been and gone, second generation are
> being sold now - it is cheaper than LCD for equiv size, it has a much
better
> image quality, faster refresh and less dead pixels

It also suffers from possible burn in, and starts deteriorating the first
time it is powered up. LCD have started getting bigger - 50" this year,
have no burn in problems, image latency is being reduced - currently 13-15
mS, which is fine for video, and the new generation displays will be full HD
resolution 1920 x 1080 pixels.

Rod

[Newsy]

"tcith" <tcith@notospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:402febab$0$28867$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "The Family" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:402f676d$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> > LCD is better all round - the pixels won't die in a few years time.
> BUT...
> > LCD costs.
> >
> > Plasma will probably not be on the market 5-10 years from now when the
> > high-cost "first generation" stuff starts dying and gives Plasma a
> > justly-deserved bad reputation.
> >
>
> What on earth did you get this gem of mis information from?
>
> LCD is very expensive and has a current size/panel limitation - dead
pixels
> are extremely common - ongoing damage is a big problem too - LCD has less
of
> a life span than plasma - it also is a "slower" screen and often cannot
> handle certain fast image requirements
>
> 1st generation plasma's have already been and gone, second generation are
> being sold now - it is cheaper than LCD for equiv size, it has a much
better
> image quality, faster refresh and less dead pixels

It also suffers from possible burn in, and starts deteriorating the first
time it is powered up. LCD have started getting bigger - 50" this year,
have no burn in problems, image latency is being reduced - currently 13-15
mS, which is fine for video, and the new generation displays will be full HD
resolution 1920 x 1080 pixels.

Rod

[Me]

So which do you consider better value for money ATM?


"Newsy" <rllg000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40307904$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
> "tcith" <tcith@notospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:402febab$0$28867$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> >
> > "The Family" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:402f676d$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> > > LCD is better all round - the pixels won't die in a few years time.
> > BUT...
> > > LCD costs.
> > >
> > > Plasma will probably not be on the market 5-10 years from now when the
> > > high-cost "first generation" stuff starts dying and gives Plasma a
> > > justly-deserved bad reputation.
> > >
> >
> > What on earth did you get this gem of mis information from?
> >
> > LCD is very expensive and has a current size/panel limitation - dead
> pixels
> > are extremely common - ongoing damage is a big problem too - LCD has
less
> of
> > a life span than plasma - it also is a "slower" screen and often cannot
> > handle certain fast image requirements
> >
> > 1st generation plasma's have already been and gone, second generation
are
> > being sold now - it is cheaper than LCD for equiv size, it has a much
> better
> > image quality, faster refresh and less dead pixels
>
> It also suffers from possible burn in, and starts deteriorating the first
> time it is powered up. LCD have started getting bigger - 50" this year,
> have no burn in problems, image latency is being reduced - currently 13-15
> mS, which is fine for video, and the new generation displays will be full
HD
> resolution 1920 x 1080 pixels.
>
> Rod
>
>

[Newsy]

"Me" <r@r.com> wrote in message
news:403081b6$0$1751$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> So which do you consider better value for money ATM?

Like everything - it depends.
The tests I have done would suggest that LCD is better if you can live with
the current 40" max size. I have seen the latest Sharps, but not had an
opportunity to test Samsung or NEC. I like the colour rendition, brightness
and contrast ratio of the Sharp, and it looked good with full motion video.

If you want something larger then you have to go with Plasma.

I am installing Plasma in some installations due to the size requirements,
and LCD in others where the image would burn in on a plasma, even tho' the
size limitation makes it difficult.

If the 45" HD Sharp was available right now I would use it in preference to
Plasma.
I would even consider putting one in my lounge room.

Rod

[Newsy]

"Me" <r@r.com> wrote in message
news:403081b6$0$1751$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> So which do you consider better value for money ATM?

Like everything - it depends.
The tests I have done would suggest that LCD is better if you can live with
the current 40" max size. I have seen the latest Sharps, but not had an
opportunity to test Samsung or NEC. I like the colour rendition, brightness
and contrast ratio of the Sharp, and it looked good with full motion video.

If you want something larger then you have to go with Plasma.

I am installing Plasma in some installations due to the size requirements,
and LCD in others where the image would burn in on a plasma, even tho' the
size limitation makes it difficult.

If the 45" HD Sharp was available right now I would use it in preference to
Plasma.
I would even consider putting one in my lounge room.

Rod

[Me]

Thanks for that.


"Newsy" <rllg000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40309edf$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
> "Me" <r@r.com> wrote in message
> news:403081b6$0$1751$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.a u...
> > So which do you consider better value for money ATM?
>
> Like everything - it depends.
> The tests I have done would suggest that LCD is better if you can live
with
> the current 40" max size. I have seen the latest Sharps, but not had an
> opportunity to test Samsung or NEC. I like the colour rendition,
brightness
> and contrast ratio of the Sharp, and it looked good with full motion
video.
>
> If you want something larger then you have to go with Plasma.
>
> I am installing Plasma in some installations due to the size requirements,
> and LCD in others where the image would burn in on a plasma, even tho' the
> size limitation makes it difficult.
>
> If the 45" HD Sharp was available right now I would use it in preference
to
> Plasma.
> I would even consider putting one in my lounge room.
>
> Rod
>
>
>

[Byron John Forbes]

You want one of these
http://zytech.com.au/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=ZYT505




"Ray" <ray.calleja@ap.EmersonProcess.com> wrote in message
news:e8IXb.57314$Wa.29899@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I am soon to purchase a Digital TV, and a HD set top box.
>
> My TV cabinet can not take the depth of wide screen TV sets.
>
> My question is; what is the best way to go with the wall hanging type
> monitors that can fit in my cabinet, Plasma or LCD? Pros and cons please.
> Ray
>
>

[The Family]

"tcith" <tcith@notospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:402febab$0$28867$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "The Family" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:402f676d$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> > LCD is better all round - the pixels won't die in a few years time.
> BUT...
> > LCD costs.
> >
> > Plasma will probably not be on the market 5-10 years from now when the
> > high-cost "first generation" stuff starts dying and gives Plasma a
> > justly-deserved bad reputation.
> >
>
> What on earth did you get this gem of mis information from?
>
Huh? I strongly dispute your sources too!

> LCD is very expensive

Simple economics:

Look at, say, a 30" screen.

Plasma price: $3K
LCD: $6K and falling fast.

Plasma lifetime: 5 years
LCD Lifetime: At least 10 years (unless you treat it badly), theoretically
many more years.

Plasma cost/year: $600
LCD cost/year: <$600

LCD is clearly not "Very Expensive" compared with Plasma.
OK, I haven't taken cost of capital into account but that won't change the
conclusion much.


> and has a current size/panel limitation

So it depends on what size panel the original poster is seeking - we don't
know. For the record, ~42" LCD is in the market place and larger stuff is
releasing within weeks.


> - dead pixels are extremely common (refers to LCD product)

Not in the many samples I've inspected.
Best feature: LCD is a very tried and trusted technology. Every laptop PC
has one, these days they are very reliable. The scale up in size has taken
time but with manufacturers like Sony not even entering the plasma business
and going straight to LCD, it's easy to see where the quality end of the
market is heading. (Sony-badged plasma screens are sourced from third
parties.)

> - ongoing damage is a big problem too
No. Unless you are going to throw footballs at it! Treat it like any
valuable household electronics installation and it will serve you well.

> - LCD has less of a life span than plasma
Plain wrong.
LCD is a benign principle whereas plasma (a "spark" between two electrodes)
is fundamentally destructive. The lights on plasma screens will slowly die
with time, as sure as night follows day.

>- it also is a "slower" screen and often cannot handle certain fast image
requirements
True a few years ago. Not true of the 2004 wave. Have a look at the new
Sharps and Samsungs at a quality retailer near you. Brightness has also
raced past plasma now. Pixel density with LCD is also much tighter, meaning
that sharpness is better and HD-capable units will look a whole lot better
than on plasma. Plasma substrates can't be made with anywhere near the same
pixel density.

> 1st generation plasma's have already been and gone, second generation are
> being sold now - it is cheaper than LCD for equiv size, it has a much
better
> image quality, faster refresh and less dead pixels

The plasma principle has not changed. The pixels still die. Annual cost of
ownership for either Plasma or LCD is lineball but expect LCD to show a
clear lead soon as manufacturers get down the learning/cost curve. (For
large format screens, cost falls by about 21% each time cumulative
production doubles).

Another notable point: New Plasma screen factories are not being built
while LCD factories are - three major Asian plant commitments in Jan 2004
alone were made for LCD. This implies major increases in LCD volumes,
driving that learning/cost curve hard - while Plasma volume growth stays
relatively static. Note that smaller-format plasma (<20") has more or less
disappeared from the market already. It's now all LCD in that category.

As for image quality, I reckon the large format LCDs on the market this
month look just great. More than the equal of plasma. Refresh is now a non
issue.

And I really wouldn't want to buy plasma equipment with the knowledge that
the fresh screen today will be riddled with dead pixels 5 years hence.

[Me]

No I don't. They are available for $4499, but I wouldn't touch an LG product
if it was half the price.


"Byron John Forbes" <hosho@spamdodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4030cc3f$1@news.comindico.com.au...
> You want one of these
>
http://zytech.com.au/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=ZYT505

[BenOne©]

The Family wrote:
> "tcith" <tcith@notospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:402febab$0$28867$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
>>"The Family" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:402f676d$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>
>>>LCD is better all round - the pixels won't die in a few years time.
>>
>>BUT...
>>
>>>LCD costs.
>>>
>>>Plasma will probably not be on the market 5-10 years from now when the
>>>high-cost "first generation" stuff starts dying and gives Plasma a
>>>justly-deserved bad reputation.
>>>
>>
>>What on earth did you get this gem of mis information from?
>>
>
> Huh? I strongly dispute your sources too!
>
>
>>LCD is very expensive
>
>
> Simple economics:
>
> Look at, say, a 30" screen.
>
> Plasma price: $3K
> LCD: $6K and falling fast.
>
> Plasma lifetime: 5 years
> LCD Lifetime: At least 10 years (unless you treat it badly), theoretically
> many more years.

FFS! If a plasma is "not treated badly" it will last much longer than 5 years.

> requirements
> True a few years ago. Not true of the 2004 wave. Have a look at the new
> Sharps and Samsungs at a quality retailer near you. Brightness has also
> raced past plasma now. Pixel density with LCD is also much tighter, meaning
> that sharpness is better and HD-capable units will look a whole lot better
> than on plasma. Plasma substrates can't be made with anywhere near the same
> pixel density.

People won't be able to tell the difference.

> The plasma principle has not changed. The pixels still die. Annual cost of
> ownership for either Plasma or LCD is lineball but expect LCD to show a
> clear lead soon as manufacturers get down the learning/cost curve. (For
> large format screens, cost falls by about 21% each time cumulative
> production doubles).
>
> Another notable point: New Plasma screen factories are not being built
> while LCD factories are - three major Asian plant commitments in Jan 2004
> alone were made for LCD. This implies major increases in LCD volumes,
> driving that learning/cost curve hard - while Plasma volume growth stays
> relatively static. Note that smaller-format plasma (<20") has more or less
> disappeared from the market already. It's now all LCD in that category.

Interesting point. I assume that is because sub 20inch screens really do need
better resolution than plasma can offer at that size. If my 37inch is 1024x1024
(ALIS panel I think it's called), does that mean a 20inch plasma has a lower
res? Anyway, people would watch a 20inch from much closer, meaning they NEED a
higher res... Just some thoughts.

> As for image quality, I reckon the large format LCDs on the market this
> month look just great. More than the equal of plasma. Refresh is now a non
> issue.

I've recently heard other people say they "reckon the large format LCDs on the
market don't look as good as plasma". Perhaps the shops don't know how to set
them up so you can't simply take two people's opinions as fact.

> And I really wouldn't want to buy plasma equipment with the knowledge that
> the fresh screen today will be riddled with dead pixels 5 years hence.

The 5 year old ones might be riddled with dead pixels now, but current ones
might not. See my use of the word "might"? You make statements about the
lifespan of plasma as if they are facts, but from what I've read about them,
there's nothing to suggest they can't last a lot longer with proper (not
babying) treatment.

Did your girlfriend dump you for a plasma? :) Joke OK!

--
--
Ben Thomas
Melbourne, Australia

[Gronk221]

<SNIP>
>
> Simple economics:
>
> Look at, say, a 30" screen.
>
> Plasma price: $3K
> LCD: $6K and falling fast.
>

<SNIP>

Have you got a link for a $3k 30" plasma ?

[Jim]

Gronk221 wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>>Simple economics:
>>
>>Look at, say, a 30" screen.
>>
>>Plasma price: $3K
>>LCD: $6K and falling fast.
>>
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Have you got a link for a $3k 30" plasma ?
>
>

I'm sure he might get close...in US$

Check out a projector - I've got a 180cm screen (that's 71") which comes
from an Infocus X1 projector that can be got for under AUS$1900 (around
AUS$1600 if you order from the US), bulbs last 4000 hours, cost AUS$350
and the picture is better quality than a plasma. DLP doesn't degrade
with time either (since it is little mirrors).

Negatives are: Some installation work if you want it permanently
mounted; minor woodwork if you want to build your own screen; if you
have a room with lots of bright sun coming in it can be harder to see -
although you'll never see a reflection of room lights in your screen again.

Jim

[Me]

Jim,

At what point does outside light become an issue? I have never thought of
projectors as an alternative to an everyday TV. Have only considered them
for an appropriately set up home theatre room.


"Jim" <jimnospamforme@tasmail.com> wrote in message
news:4031850a@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au...
> Check out a projector - I've got a 180cm screen (that's 71") which comes
> from an Infocus X1 projector that can be got for under AUS$1900 (around
> AUS$1600 if you order from the US), bulbs last 4000 hours, cost AUS$350
> and the picture is better quality than a plasma. DLP doesn't degrade
> with time either (since it is little mirrors).
>
> Negatives are: Some installation work if you want it permanently
> mounted; minor woodwork if you want to build your own screen; if you
> have a room with lots of bright sun coming in it can be harder to see -
> although you'll never see a reflection of room lights in your screen
again.
>
> Jim
>

[Newsy]

"Byron John Forbes" <hosho@spamdodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4030cc3f$1@news.comindico.com.au...
> You want one of these
>
http://zytech.com.au/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=ZYT505
>
>
I wouldn't touch an LG product with a barge pole!

Rod

[Jim]

Me wrote:
> Jim,
>
> At what point does outside light become an issue? I have never thought of
> projectors as an alternative to an everyday TV. Have only considered them
> for an appropriately set up home theatre room.

For television watching it is possible to watch at just about any time.
Although late in the afternoon with the curtains open and the sun
streaming in covering the floor it is a bloody pain - although I'd also
say the same applies to a normal television. I'll admit in those
situations a tv is probably better (although reflections in the glass
really annoy me). As an example if you watch the cricket it's still
quite watchable with a projector in a bright sun situation - but then
again cricket is something that you tend to watch in the background.

You can pre-program a light level setting that is nice and bright for
daytime television viewing and then have another more natural one for
night tv.

DVD's are different. They are mastered for a dark theatre. To get the
best results (and you will get fussy with a high quality display device
if you aren't already) you need to watch then in as dark a room as possible.

You don't have to - you can always brighten the picture up for daytime
viewing, but the quality is not as good as a dark room. However I choose
to watch dvd's at night.

Keep in mind that with a projector screen the blackest black you can see
is only as dark as the screen with nothing projected on it. So at night
it is fine but during the day (with the curtains open) it won't be as
good. My screen is homemade out of pass 3 blockout material and cost me
$40 total. My guess is that a high quality screen (which tend to be grey
in colour) would do a better job during the day.

I didn't want a television and a projector - that seemed silly - and so
with the X1 having a bulb life of 4000 hours - even four hours of tv/dvd
a day that's 1000 days or 2.7 years. And getting a bulb landed here from
the US for AUS$350 to me is a bargain.

Hope that answers your question!

Jim

[tcith]

> Plasma lifetime: 5 years
> LCD Lifetime: At least 10 years (unless you treat it badly),
theoretically
> many more years.

Where on earth did you get that "fact" from plasma screens have a much
longer lifespan than that in fact there is almost no decernible difference
between the two these days in life span estimates

Priced of LCD's are going down and so are plasmas so not sure if they will
keep pace

Message for Jim

Yes I looked at a projector for here - room to bright (I borrowed one to
test)
daytime viewing was more washed out than I like
other than that I think for a home theatre set up projectors are the best
choice for $$ to get excellent image quality
you just need a good room to set it up in - the darker the better

[Me]

Sure does. Thanks for that. I am a shift worker, so watch most of my DVD's
during the day. Also love the cricket, so I don't tend to "watch it in the
background". :)


"Jim" <jimnospamforme@tasmail.com> wrote in message
news:4031a0af@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au...
> Me wrote:
> > Jim,
> >
> > At what point does outside light become an issue? I have never thought
of
> > projectors as an alternative to an everyday TV. Have only considered
them
> > for an appropriately set up home theatre room.
>
> For television watching it is possible to watch at just about any time.
> Although late in the afternoon with the curtains open and the sun
> streaming in covering the floor it is a bloody pain - although I'd also
> say the same applies to a normal television. I'll admit in those
> situations a tv is probably better (although reflections in the glass
> really annoy me). As an example if you watch the cricket it's still
> quite watchable with a projector in a bright sun situation - but then
> again cricket is something that you tend to watch in the background.
>
> You can pre-program a light level setting that is nice and bright for
> daytime television viewing and then have another more natural one for
> night tv.
>
> DVD's are different. They are mastered for a dark theatre. To get the
> best results (and you will get fussy with a high quality display device
> if you aren't already) you need to watch then in as dark a room as
possible.
>
> You don't have to - you can always brighten the picture up for daytime
> viewing, but the quality is not as good as a dark room. However I choose
> to watch dvd's at night.
>
> Keep in mind that with a projector screen the blackest black you can see
> is only as dark as the screen with nothing projected on it. So at night
> it is fine but during the day (with the curtains open) it won't be as
> good. My screen is homemade out of pass 3 blockout material and cost me
> $40 total. My guess is that a high quality screen (which tend to be grey
> in colour) would do a better job during the day.
>
> I didn't want a television and a projector - that seemed silly - and so
> with the X1 having a bulb life of 4000 hours - even four hours of tv/dvd
> a day that's 1000 days or 2.7 years. And getting a bulb landed here from
> the US for AUS$350 to me is a bargain.
>
> Hope that answers your question!
>
> Jim
>

[The Family]

"tcith" <tcith@notospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4031b9b9$0$15135$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> > Plasma lifetime: 5 years
> > LCD Lifetime: At least 10 years (unless you treat it badly),
> theoretically
> > many more years.
>
> Where on earth did you get that "fact" from plasma screens have a much
> longer lifespan than that in fact there is almost no decernible difference
> between the two these days in life span estimates
>

My deep knowledge of physics.

Not sure I understand your grammar. My firm view, based on my knowledge of
the plasma principle, is that plasma pixels begin to degrade from day one,
as soon as you turn on the screen. What we have in essence is something
that loks like a spark between two electrodes. That spark decomposes the
electrodes. Sure, the process is slow. But after 5 years of consumer use
(less if used 24/7) those electrodes slowls erode. Initially, the
characteristic of the plasma (spark) varies (ie the colours go off-spec) and
eventually it fails (the light goes out).

That's the plasma problem and the reason that plasma screens had, still have
and always will have a limited performance lifetime.

The LCD principle is very different and not subject to the same
life-limiting principles. There are many (admittedly smaller format) LCDs
built more than 10 years ago that work just fine today - proof of the
pudding.

OTOH, did you know that the plasmas in the ASX foyer in Sydney (they operate
24/7) are replaced every 12 months? Guess why? Proof, also, of the
pudding.

> Priced of LCD's are going down and so are plasmas so not sure if they will
> keep pace
>

They won't. New Plasma production facilities are not being built. LCD is.
Learning curve (ie standard manufacturing) pricing theory says that on the
basis that production of LCD now rises rapidly while Plasma stays static,
LCD will show a disproportionate drop in manufacturing costs. Competition
theory says that when costs drop, prices will also drop.