HTPC/TV Question of the Day LCD or Plasma Television

[cfaslave]

Just curious what everyone thinks is best for the HTPC: LCD TV or Plasma TV.

Also, why is one better than the other? Thanks!

[Bigbird999]

cf
You are a bear for punishment. This has to rank right up there with:
Sage or BTV
Mac or PC
AMD or Intel
ATI or Nvidea
Republican or Democrat

BB

[cfaslave]

Originally Posted by Bigbird999

cf
You are a bear for punishment. This has to rank right up there with:
Sage or BTV
Mac or PC
AMD or Intel
ATI or Nvidea
Republican or Democrat

BB

Thats kind of what I thought . Still I'm just curious of the reasons folks choose LCD over Plasma or vice versa

Used to be LCD was recommended due to Plasma screen burn-in, but I've heard that isn't an issue with newer Plasma's. Correct or not?

[mbkatt]

The choice for me was easy: LCD.

The reason is that Plasma loses its visual acuity above 5000 - 6500 ft in elevation, depending on who made it.

I live at 7000 ft, and have had a couple of neighbors buy plasma just to find out that they look terrible up here. Luckily I know how to learn from others' mistakes.

That fact alone for me ruled out Plasma. Then I just had to find the right LCD, out of "millions" of options, that was the right fit for my needs.

[Bigbird999]

The reason is that Plasma loses its visual acuity above 5000 - 6500 ft in elevation, depending on who made it.

Wow! For me that would be one of those "who'd have thunk it" gochas, that screw up the perfect plan The engineer in me (that designed lots of equipment for high altitude operation) just had to google this. The link below does not mention PQ as the concern, but high fan noise and shortened life span of the display, caused by running hotter are mentioned. All this because of the pressure differential between the atmosphere and the gas inside of the zillion little tubes that make up a plasma display.
http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/p...-altitude.html

BB

[merrypig]

Cool, fascinating to learn.

One other problem that I deal with in my work is that at higher altitude the thinner air makes convection cooling less effective so you need more surface area/ or airflow to achieve the same level of cooling, meaning bigger heatsinks, larger fans etc.

[RenegadeELEN]

I chose plasma over LCD becuase of the contrast and black levels it could produce. Also I wanted 50" and at the time (over a year ago) it was cheaper to have a plasma at that size than an LCD.

Now I did sacrifice resolution at the time (mine is 720p) plus there was a possibility of burn-in. Now neither are as big of an issue because 1080p plasmas are cheaper and burn-in certainly is avoidable. If elevation is an issue then yeah I would get LCD but if it isn't then there are equal arguments to go both.

LCD is getting better with contrast and black levels. Plus some are getting better with their refresh rate issues with ghosting. I haven't seen ghosting in LCD TVs for a couple of years but I took my wife to look at LCD a year ago and see could see it bad. She still sees it today in LCDs so it depends on some people I guess.

Anyway that's my opinon so far. There is also the issues of processing, inputs and features when it comes to TVs but that is more specific than the LCD vs Plasma discussion.

[Zogg]

I totally agree with what RenegadeELEN said, but I went with a 46" Mitsubishi 1080p LCD last year. I have a lot of windows in my family room so escaping glare is impossible. Having fought reflections from the glass of my 35" CRT, I didn't want to risk dealing with that with a plasma due to the glass on the front. Also, I really wanted to get a 1080p set so it would be future proof.

Now, the motion blur on most of the big LCD's a year ago kept me looking for months, but finally I found the Mitsu and it is an amazing TV. Everyone who comes over loves the picture. I'd love to have had a 52", but I have never regretted buying this TV. Mitsu has a newer model now and to be honest I don't really know if it's as good as the LT-46131 I have now, but it should be worth a look. The other major brands are also a generation newer.

Generally plasmas are considered to be the best for the reasons already given, but the gap is narrowing. Let your own eyes be the judge though.

Z

[RenegadeELEN]

AH!! The glare, I forgot about that. That can be an issue because LCDs tend to be much brighter than plasmas so they are great in naturally lit rooms but because of the brightness they have trouble with getting really black.

The gap is closing now and if I were buying a screen today (which would be cool but alas I'm not) then it would be almost a toss up for me on the two technologies and I would have to go into the other features to make the descision.

[Nick Burns]

And poor ol' DLP always gets left out it the cold.

I'm quite happy with our 42" Samsung DLP.

[cfaslave]

Great information guys. I always value the opinion of most of the people contributing to this forum - especially over the sales guys on the floor of BB, CC and the others.

I own a smallish LCD that I got for a decent deal a while back and it is quite nice, but I was interested in everyones thoughts on how the two technologies stack up these days. Thanks to everyone for the input.

[Broncowolf]

Here's my take. I have had both. I ended up taking the LCD back and getting a Plasma and have not regretted it.

1. LCD is MUCH better for glare. If you watch a lot of TV during the day and the TV faces a window, then LCD might be better for you.

2. Plasma is much better for Black levels. I watched a couple of movies that were set in a dark room and could barely make out a thing using the LCD. The plasma looked great.