Reply
Last Guardian
Registered: 03/30/2005
Offline
12141 posts
 

Re: Article Explains Plasma over LCD

Aug 27, 2007


BigSlam1234 wrote:
 
Saturday, 25 August 2007
Page 2 of 2

Common reasons cited for picking LCD over Plasma

LCD flat panel proponents typically cite four reasons for choosing an LCD flat panel over a plasma display panel. We examine each argument individually and find there is little if any truth to them.

LCDs don’t suffer from burn-in – “burn in” or permanent image retention is the number one reason why LCD is often touted as being superior to plasma. While "burn-in" can occur in modern plasmas, the effect is temporary. In a 48-hour torture test, research group IDC, in partnership with Imaging Science Foundation (ISF), tested three plasma TVs and burned in clearly visible images from a game menu. Once they created burn-in, regular video material (a DVD movie set to continuously loop) was played through the sets for 24 hours and the image completely disappeared from all three plasmas, leaving no trace.

The researchers concluded that unlike early generation plasmas, where those type of images would not go away and could actually "burn" onto the screen, modern plasma TVs enjoy a combination of more robust screen materials and subtle image-shifting technologies that have rendered this issue moot.

Bottom Line: Plasma still has burn-in.  Permanent or not, why bother?

Lower power consumption - the statement that LCD panels, of the same size, use less electricity than plasma is a fallacy. Since an LCD is backlit with a light that is on all the time, the power consumption of an LCD panel is constant. With plasma, the amount of electricity is variable because each glass bubble is turned off and on depending on what is happening onscreen. If every bubble is turned on (a rare situation) then a plasma display does use more electricity. Since most bubbles are not turned on at all times, the average power consumption of a plasma and LCD panel (of the same size) is almost equal.

Bottom Line: ALMOST EQUAL.  In best case scenarios, then it's still not good enough!  That proves nothing!

LCDs last longer –the half-life of most plasma display panels is 60,000 hours. The half-life is the estimated amount of time you would need to spend watching television until the panel brightness was reduced in half. A 60,000 half-life equates to 6 hours of television viewing per day for 10,000 days or 27.4 years. Research has shown that LCD panels may last slightly longer than plasma; however, we doubt you’ll bother keeping any television for 28 years! In case you’re wondering, the average half life of a traditional tube television purchased in the last twenty years is about 30,000 hours.

Bottom Line: That does not make a plasma superior.  Throughout those many hours you use it, it'll still be getting worse.. It's not like at a half-life, the quality suddenly diminishes.  It's a gradual thing, so that proves nothing either. 

LCD superior in brighter rooms – simply speaking plasma is glass with white phosphors behind it. The result is that a mirror effect can take place when extremely bright light shines on plasma. This mirror effect can make it more difficult to see the images on the screen under extremely bright situations. This situation often occurs inside a big box retailer’s showroom which can be as much as five times brighter than a typical living room! In your average living room where the ambient light level is much lower there is little need for a “brighter” panel.

Bottom Line: This proves nothing, once again.  So a show-room is brighter, that doesn't say anything about a home TV.  Maybe ya shoulda done studies on that!?



This review sounds like it was written by a 12 year old
Message 11 of 17 (2 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Wastelander
Registered: 10/29/2005
Offline
916 posts
 

Re: Article Explains Plasma over LCD

Aug 27, 2007


Grateful Dead wrote:


BigSlam1234 wrote:
 
Saturday, 25 August 2007
Page 2 of 2

Common reasons cited for picking LCD over Plasma

LCD flat panel proponents typically cite four reasons for choosing an LCD flat panel over a plasma display panel. We examine each argument individually and find there is little if any truth to them.

LCDs don’t suffer from burn-in – “burn in” or permanent image retention is the number one reason why LCD is often touted as being superior to plasma. While "burn-in" can occur in modern plasmas, the effect is temporary. In a 48-hour torture test, research group IDC, in partnership with Imaging Science Foundation (ISF), tested three plasma TVs and burned in clearly visible images from a game menu. Once they created burn-in, regular video material (a DVD movie set to continuously loop) was played through the sets for 24 hours and the image completely disappeared from all three plasmas, leaving no trace.

The researchers concluded that unlike early generation plasmas, where those type of images would not go away and could actually "burn" onto the screen, modern plasma TVs enjoy a combination of more robust screen materials and subtle image-shifting technologies that have rendered this issue moot.

Bottom Line: Plasma still has burn-in.  Permanent or not, why bother?

Lower power consumption - the statement that LCD panels, of the same size, use less electricity than plasma is a fallacy. Since an LCD is backlit with a light that is on all the time, the power consumption of an LCD panel is constant. With plasma, the amount of electricity is variable because each glass bubble is turned off and on depending on what is happening onscreen. If every bubble is turned on (a rare situation) then a plasma display does use more electricity. Since most bubbles are not turned on at all times, the average power consumption of a plasma and LCD panel (of the same size) is almost equal.

Bottom Line: ALMOST EQUAL.  In best case scenarios, then it's still not good enough!  That proves nothing!

LCDs last longer –the half-life of most plasma display panels is 60,000 hours. The half-life is the estimated amount of time you would need to spend watching television until the panel brightness was reduced in half. A 60,000 half-life equates to 6 hours of television viewing per day for 10,000 days or 27.4 years. Research has shown that LCD panels may last slightly longer than plasma; however, we doubt you’ll bother keeping any television for 28 years! In case you’re wondering, the average half life of a traditional tube television purchased in the last twenty years is about 30,000 hours.

Bottom Line: That does not make a plasma superior.  Throughout those many hours you use it, it'll still be getting worse.. It's not like at a half-life, the quality suddenly diminishes.  It's a gradual thing, so that proves nothing either. 

LCD superior in brighter rooms – simply speaking plasma is glass with white phosphors behind it. The result is that a mirror effect can take place when extremely bright light shines on plasma. This mirror effect can make it more difficult to see the images on the screen under extremely bright situations. This situation often occurs inside a big box retailer’s showroom which can be as much as five times brighter than a typical living room! In your average living room where the ambient light level is much lower there is little need for a “brighter” panel.

Bottom Line: This proves nothing, once again.  So a show-room is brighter, that doesn't say anything about a home TV.  Maybe ya shoulda done studies on that!?



This review sounds like it was written by a 12 year old


Learn how to read.
Message 12 of 17 (2 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Last Guardian
Registered: 03/30/2005
Offline
12141 posts
 

Re: Article Explains Plasma over LCD

Aug 27, 2007


V4real wrote:


Grateful Dead wrote:


BigSlam1234 wrote:
 
Saturday, 25 August 2007
Page 2 of 2

Common reasons cited for picking LCD over Plasma

LCD flat panel proponents typically cite four reasons for choosing an LCD flat panel over a plasma display panel. We examine each argument individually and find there is little if any truth to them.

LCDs don’t suffer from burn-in – “burn in” or permanent image retention is the number one reason why LCD is often touted as being superior to plasma. While "burn-in" can occur in modern plasmas, the effect is temporary. In a 48-hour torture test, research group IDC, in partnership with Imaging Science Foundation (ISF), tested three plasma TVs and burned in clearly visible images from a game menu. Once they created burn-in, regular video material (a DVD movie set to continuously loop) was played through the sets for 24 hours and the image completely disappeared from all three plasmas, leaving no trace.

The researchers concluded that unlike early generation plasmas, where those type of images would not go away and could actually "burn" onto the screen, modern plasma TVs enjoy a combination of more robust screen materials and subtle image-shifting technologies that have rendered this issue moot.

Bottom Line: Plasma still has burn-in.  Permanent or not, why bother?

Lower power consumption - the statement that LCD panels, of the same size, use less electricity than plasma is a fallacy. Since an LCD is backlit with a light that is on all the time, the power consumption of an LCD panel is constant. With plasma, the amount of electricity is variable because each glass bubble is turned off and on depending on what is happening onscreen. If every bubble is turned on (a rare situation) then a plasma display does use more electricity. Since most bubbles are not turned on at all times, the average power consumption of a plasma and LCD panel (of the same size) is almost equal.

Bottom Line: ALMOST EQUAL.  In best case scenarios, then it's still not good enough!  That proves nothing!

LCDs last longer –the half-life of most plasma display panels is 60,000 hours. The half-life is the estimated amount of time you would need to spend watching television until the panel brightness was reduced in half. A 60,000 half-life equates to 6 hours of television viewing per day for 10,000 days or 27.4 years. Research has shown that LCD panels may last slightly longer than plasma; however, we doubt you’ll bother keeping any television for 28 years! In case you’re wondering, the average half life of a traditional tube television purchased in the last twenty years is about 30,000 hours.

Bottom Line: That does not make a plasma superior.  Throughout those many hours you use it, it'll still be getting worse.. It's not like at a half-life, the quality suddenly diminishes.  It's a gradual thing, so that proves nothing either. 

LCD superior in brighter rooms – simply speaking plasma is glass with white phosphors behind it. The result is that a mirror effect can take place when extremely bright light shines on plasma. This mirror effect can make it more difficult to see the images on the screen under extremely bright situations. This situation often occurs inside a big box retailer’s showroom which can be as much as five times brighter than a typical living room! In your average living room where the ambient light level is much lower there is little need for a “brighter” panel.

Bottom Line: This proves nothing, once again.  So a show-room is brighter, that doesn't say anything about a home TV.  Maybe ya shoulda done studies on that!?



This review sounds like it was written by a 12 year old


Learn how to read.


i know perfectly well how to read.  this article does not solve anything.  it only says that most of these things COULD be not as bad as you think.  which really is not convincing at all to me
Message 13 of 17 (2 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 08/25/2005
Offline
8728 posts
 

Re: Article Explains Plasma over LCD

Aug 27, 2007


holla812 wrote:


Monkay wrote:


holla812 wrote:
I'd still rather pay less for a LCD.  So LCD FTW!


errr... actually Plasma's are cheaper. do your homework and get off the drugs.


You let me know when you see a plamsa 32" or less...so ultimately...LCDs are cheaper since they offer more sizes.  Do your homework


Read the article

It said that it is rare to find a plasma under 42 inches because there is so many pixels to cram into a tiny space. More pixels equals a better picture quality. It said that there are 2 million pixels on a 1080p plasma television.

LCD's are great but when it comes to big screens, plasmas are better. Most companies have fixed burn in problems.
Signatures and Avatars
Message 14 of 17 (2 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Ghost of Sparta
Registered: 06/27/2003
Offline
17397 posts
 

Re: Article Explains Plasma over LCD

Aug 27, 2007
my life changed after I got my sharp aquos 1080p lcd.... welcome to the new age of television!
GTA V FTW !

PSN : Stackcluster
Born young, not dead yet !
Message 15 of 17 (2 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 03/25/2005
Offline
8557 posts
 

Re: Article Explains Plasma over LCD

Aug 27, 2007


hkkevinc wrote:


holla812 wrote:


Monkay wrote:


holla812 wrote:
I'd still rather pay less for a LCD.  So LCD FTW!


errr... actually Plasma's are cheaper. do your homework and get off the drugs.


You let me know when you see a plamsa 32" or less...so ultimately...LCDs are cheaper since they offer more sizes.  Do your homework


Read the article

It said that it is rare to find a plasma under 42 inches because there is so many pixels to cram into a tiny space. More pixels equals a better picture quality. It said that there are 2 million pixels on a 1080p plasma television.

LCD's are great but when it comes to big screens, plasmas are better. Most companies have fixed burn in problems.


I read it and it's arguing basically on how Plasma is better.  I wouldn't want a 42 inch 16:9 TV anyways...32" is good enough for ME.  LCD has a better selection for the consumers which is why I think it's better.
|My Gaming Set-up| |GO CARDS, CAVS, & COWBOYS!|Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Message 16 of 17 (2 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 09/26/2004
Offline
2038 posts
 

Re: Article Explains Plasma over LCD

Aug 27, 2007
Thanks,  nice read.


Message 17 of 17 (2 Views)
Reply
0 Likes