what is the difference between Plasma and LCD???

[Dkn]

Is it just the difference in Liquidity or the whole technology behind it??

Cheers

Dkn

[Trevor Wilson]

"Dkn" <dkn28@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SmJAd.94033$K7.76215@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Is it just the difference in Liquidity or the whole technology behind it??

**The differences are enormous. LCDs were developed in the 1970s. They rely
upon the transmissive effects of nemantic crystals, which turn opaque or
transparent in response to electrical signals. The power consumption is very
low (for the display itself), though back lighting will increase the figure
substantially. Plasma screens are a technology which is based on neon
lighting, which has been around for at least 80 years. Although power
consumption for each pixel is quite low, the numbers add up quickly. Plasma
screens EMIT light, which is very different to the operation of LCDs.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Falco]

In layman's terms; LCD is more expensive than Plasma.
LCD is usually less than 81cm (Although Sharp have a fantastic 94cm LCD)
Plasma is usually more than 81cm

The whole debate about which is better, has raged for a few years now.
Sony has STOPPED making Plasma and is now concentrating on LCD only.
To confuse things even more; a new technology called SED is about to hit the
market.
Really it boils down to what size do you want or need.
<81cm = LCD
>81cm = Plasma

This sight here is definitely worth looking at.

http://www.widescreentv.info/






"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:33hku0F3ub89mU1@individual.net...
>
> "Dkn" <dkn28@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:SmJAd.94033$K7.76215@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Is it just the difference in Liquidity or the whole technology behind
>> it??
>
> **The differences are enormous. LCDs were developed in the 1970s. They
> rely upon the transmissive effects of nemantic crystals, which turn opaque
> or transparent in response to electrical signals. The power consumption is
> very low (for the display itself), though back lighting will increase the
> figure substantially. Plasma screens are a technology which is based on
> neon lighting, which has been around for at least 80 years. Although power
> consumption for each pixel is quite low, the numbers add up quickly.
> Plasma screens EMIT light, which is very different to the operation of
> LCDs.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>

[Samual]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:32:03 GMT, "Falco" <johnyfalco@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>In layman's terms; LCD is more expensive than Plasma.
>LCD is usually less than 81cm (Although Sharp have a fantastic 94cm LCD)
>Plasma is usually more than 81cm

>The whole debate about which is better, has raged for a few years now.
>Sony has STOPPED making Plasma and is now concentrating on LCD only.

Not true, do a Google news search.

But on the other hand they never made Plasma panels to start with,
they just assembled.

>To confuse things even more; a new technology called SED is about to hit the
>market.

I wont hold my breath but it sounds promising.

>Really it boils down to what size do you want or need.
><81cm = LCD
>>81cm = Plasma
>
>This sight here is definitely worth looking at.
>
>http://www.widescreentv.info/

[Trevor S]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:33hku0F3ub89mU1@individual.net:

<snip>

> **The differences are enormous.

As an aside my wife's KOKAK digital camera has an OLED display at the back,
I was very impressed with it compared to LCD screens at the back of other
digital cameras I have used.

I am not sure if they are working to use it in larger screens ?



--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Falco]

Toshiba have just announced they are no longer making plasma displays. They
are going to concentrate on SED.


"Trevor S" <bill@gates.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D1BB1D3AF4Dbillgatescom@130.133.1.4...
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
> news:33hku0F3ub89mU1@individual.net:
>
> <snip>
>
>> **The differences are enormous.
>
> As an aside my wife's KOKAK digital camera has an OLED display at the
> back,
> I was very impressed with it compared to LCD screens at the back of other
> digital cameras I have used.
>
> I am not sure if they are working to use it in larger screens ?
>
>
>
> --
> Trevor S
>
>
> "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
> -Albert Einstein

[Price LCD]

Yes, all new screen facilities are geared towards LCD. Check out
http://www.semiconductor-technology.com/projects/sharp/

As a note, the Sharp 45 inches (114 cm) has just become available in
Australia, and its resolution is unmatched by any other LCD or Plasma.
While in japan, I also saw the prototype 63 inches Sharp LCD TV. It is
breathtaking. I don't know when it will be available to the public though.

Your choice of technology will also depend on what kind of program you
watch; If you're watching TV channels with the station logos always
displayed, you should veer to LCD as it induces burn-in in plasmas.
If you're watching action movies, then any is just fine.
If you're also using it as a computer screen, stay away from plasma.

About durability and maintenance: LCD screens not only last longer than
plasma: when the backlight finally dims, you can replace it and you
screen is new again.
This is impossible with plasma, as you would have to replace individual
plasma cells (that emit light) in the hundred of thousands...
___
Serge
http://priceLCD.com.au



Falco wrote:
> In layman's terms; LCD is more expensive than Plasma.
> LCD is usually less than 81cm (Although Sharp have a fantastic 94cm LCD)
> Plasma is usually more than 81cm
>
> The whole debate about which is better, has raged for a few years now.
> Sony has STOPPED making Plasma and is now concentrating on LCD only.
> To confuse things even more; a new technology called SED is about to hit the
> market.
> Really it boils down to what size do you want or need.
> <81cm = LCD
>
>>81cm = Plasma
>
>
> This sight here is definitely worth looking at.
>
> http://www.widescreentv.info/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:33hku0F3ub89mU1@individual.net...
>
>>"Dkn" <dkn28@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:SmJAd.94033$K7.76215@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Is it just the difference in Liquidity or the whole technology behind
>>>it??
>>
>>**The differences are enormous. LCDs were developed in the 1970s. They
>>rely upon the transmissive effects of nemantic crystals, which turn opaque
>>or transparent in response to electrical signals. The power consumption is
>>very low (for the display itself), though back lighting will increase the
>>figure substantially. Plasma screens are a technology which is based on
>>neon lighting, which has been around for at least 80 years. Although power
>>consumption for each pixel is quite low, the numbers add up quickly.
>>Plasma screens EMIT light, which is very different to the operation of
>>LCDs.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Trevor Wilson
>>www.rageaudio.com.au
>>
>
>
>