# Plasma versus LCD



## dshu82 (Jul 6, 2007)

Relatively new to HD and did not have last football season. Watching some of the games this weekend (major networks and NFL Network replays on channel 94) I noticed quite a bit of "blurred" pictures during fast moving action. Is this a limitation with my plasma tv? Is LCD better for watching sports? Happens at times watching baseball too, when they flash from a graphics screen back to the action. During football, it is usually a benign scene, like a player running back to the huddle. When they switch camera views (usually of guys standing around) all seems back to normal.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

It is actually more of a limitation of encoding technology... and not the display device.

Some higher end display devices will help with those issues, but ultimately... with that regard... there is no difference between Plasma and LCD.


----------



## rjdude (Mar 9, 2005)

dshu82 said:


> Relatively new to HD and did not have last football season. Watching some of the games this weekend (major networks and NFL Network replays on channel 94) I noticed quite a bit of "blurred" pictures during fast moving action. Is this a limitation with my plasma tv? Is LCD better for watching sports? Happens at times watching baseball too, when they flash from a graphics screen back to the action. During football, it is usually a benign scene, like a player running back to the huddle. When they switch camera views (usually of guys standing around) all seems back to normal.


You'll get some of that on LCD's too (some plasma/LCD TV's handle it better than others). Some of it depends on whether the HD feed is 720p or 1080i as well (the major networks use different formats for HD content). And even then, you still might get some artifacts when, just like said, there are quick camera movements or other technical difficulties (weather).


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

But a poor display can highlight the problems also... It's not always the source... I can put the same OTA HD signal on a Plasma, LCD, and RPTV and get a totally different picture, even with them all being professional tuned.


----------



## christo76 (Sep 12, 2006)

LCD tends to blur fast moving action, due to a slower refresh rate. It can also vary depending on the resolution its broadcast in. 1080i will have more chance of blur because it only shows 1/2 the lines every 1/60th of a second, so with fast movement there can be a greater difference between the 2 images that your mind assembles into 1 (broad example: Image A appears showing half the lines of a player (or ball), then 1/60th of a second later, then image B has the player (or ball) shifted 3-4 pixels to the right. Your mind joins A with B and now you see a blur from player position A to B.) 720p shows the entire image every 1/30th of a second so there is less likely to be blur.

Downrezzing (if its done by D* or the station) could also affect it. If they take a 720p or 1080i image and downrez it to compress it to a more manageable size for transmission, your sat box, or tv, then has to "make up" all the missing portions in order to display it at the full resolution. Fast motion means there is more of a chance that the what it assumes the picture should be, is slightly wrong, causing blur.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I have also seen (apparent) low refresh rates on old plasmas, I don't think it's just an LCD issue.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

dshu82 said:


> Happens at times watching baseball too, when they flash from a graphics screen back to the action. During football, it is usually a benign scene, like a player running back to the huddle. When they switch camera views (usually of guys standing around) all seems back to normal.


I see this all the time on my CRT, so I doubt it's a fact of the technology. I think it's more how D* encodes things.

It used to be much worse on the MPG2 channels, and seems to vary on the MPG4 channels. They're definitely still tweaking and learning things as this weekend in particular watching NESN-HD I saw very little artifacts. I'm hoping that's a trend that will continue...


----------



## dshu82 (Jul 6, 2007)

NESN is one of the ones I noticed watching the Sox, when available in HD on MLB EI. When they have a full screen graphics scene, then quickly move back to the action is when I noticed it.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I think it's a factor of the MPEG2 compression and bandwidth as much as anything - I watch my local football team almost exclusively now via OTA, and I see the same problem on fast motion. Best I have ever seen is ESPN primetime football, when it is not bitstarved. Worst I have ever seen is Comcast analog tier - the picture looked like a badly adjusted antenna feed, snow and all. In fact, it was one day in 1995 trying to watch the Dolphins beat Buffalo and I could not tell the snow in the air from Comcrap's picture when I decided DirecTV was for me.

LCD and Plasma refresh rates have fallen to the point where that is no longer a concern on mid-range and up sets. On older sets, yeah, LCD lagged.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

There are two issues here: 

Low refresh rate is where the image seems blurry during fast motion. 

Pixelation is when the picture seems blocky or low in resolution during fast motion.


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> There are two issues here:
> 
> Low refresh rate is where the image seems blurry during fast motion.
> 
> Pixelation is when the picture seems blocky or low in resolution during fast motion.


Throw a little "edge enhancement" circuitry left on, or the sharpness level higher than it should and it adds to the problem... You wouldn't believe how many friends and strangers sets I've adjusted while they were out of the room.


----------



## shendley (Nov 28, 2005)

I've heard that broadcasting games in 720p helps with these issues. Don't know if it's true but right now the Colts-Bears game on ESPN (in 720p) looks much better than what I've been seeing in 1080i on 94 lately. No pixelated players walking back to the huddle anyway.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Lets not leave out the camera man on this discussion. I have watched very little sports on either venue. But according to some co-workers they find themselves screaming at the screen sometimes "FOCUS YOU IDIOT!!!!".


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

I have two LCD's and couldn't be happier watching Sports events.

Neighbors have Plasma's and honestly....no difference to me


----------



## RichH25 (Jun 17, 2007)

I have both LCD's and Plasmas. I definitely prefer not only sports, but the picture in general, on the plasmas. If there were 32" in plasmas, I would have chosen them on my LCD's.


----------



## Tugboat (Jul 11, 2007)

RichH25 said:


> I have both LCD's and Plasmas. I definitely prefer not only sports, but the picture in general, on the plasmas. If there were 32" in plasmas, I would have chosen them on my LCD's.


There are 32-inch plasmas, from Sony and others, but they are 4-5 years old. I know, cause I have a Sony 32-inch plasma on my bedroom wall. And it still looks fantastic (but 4-5 buyers on Amazon say theirs have crapped out in less time due to power problems. Ugh). Of course, I can't tell you what I paid for it in 2002. It would be too embarrassing by today's pricing. Anyway, you can probably get them used someplace for a fraction of what I paid. If the Sony fails, I'll be moving to the LCD world too. No doubt about it. Probably get a Vizio, at $599, since it's only for the bedroom.


----------



## aim2pls (Jun 18, 2007)

Tugboat said:


> There are 32-inch plasmas, from Sony and others, but they are 4-5 years old. I know, cause I have a Sony 32-inch plasma on my bedroom wall. And it still looks fantastic (but 4-5 buyers on Amazon say theirs have crapped out in less time due to power problems. Ugh). Of course, I can't tell you what I paid for it in 2002. It would be too embarrassing by today's pricing. Anyway, you can probably get them used someplace for a fraction of what I paid. If the Sony fails, I'll be moving to the LCD world too. No doubt about it. Probably get a Vizio, at $599, since it's only for the bedroom.


olevia 232 (32") is a great option also .. under 500 now 1600:1 contrast ratio (HP screen ATI video driver)


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

The LCD manufacturers have gotten so much better at limiting motion blur. I bought a Toshiba 37HL95 last year and there really wasn't a lot of motion problem (it had a 12ms refresh rate). This last week I had to purchase a replacement LCD screen (yes, I'm the guy going through a divorce) - and I got a Toshiba 37HL67 (with <8ms refresh rate). Motion blur is even less hard to detect.

However, refresh rate isn't the only issue. There are several:

1) The way the event is filmed and broadcast (720p or 1080i). ESPN, I believe, uses 720p because, as another person said above, every line is refreshed in every screen. ESPN reckoned this would be the best HD mode for sports.

2) The camera used to actually film the event. These vary in quality too.

3) The refresh rate of your TV (as I mentioned above).

And there are probably other factors - such as the electronics in your set top box and in your TV.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Generally speaking, Plasma is considered, or was considered better for fast moving action such as sports. LCD's have made great improvements to help narrow this gap. What you are describing is probably on the broadcast end and has little to do with the type of display. although there may be some things you can do to lessen it. I noticed someone mentioned the edge enhancment that some tv's have. this is your enemy when it come to HD! tuen it off if possible!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

DawgLink said:


> I have two LCD's and couldn't be happier watching Sports events.
> 
> Neighbors have Plasma's and honestly....no difference to me


you have two exceptional LCD displays. I dont doubt they are GREAT!
Some of the lesser models will have some motion blur though. Not as much as they used to, but I can see it still on some of the bargain ones


----------



## ddeen (Jul 16, 2007)

On average here are the deciding factors as to LCD and Plasma, but the deciding factors are narrowing every day, as LCDs get better and cheaper.

Plasma

Less expensive than LCD in bigger sizes
Excellent black levels
Excellent off angle viewing
Little to no motion blur
Possible image retention or image burn in, newer Plasmas are less susceptible and I've seen none on my new one.
Need to control lighting in the room because of reflections off the glass screen, just like a direct view CRT.

LCD

No reflections except on LCDs with glass screens
Less susceptible than Plasma for burn in.
Significant motion blur, expecially on cheaper TVs, less on newer 120Hz versions
More expensive than Plasma in bigger sizes
Off angle viewing poorer than Plasma
Black levels not as good as Plasma, although newer LCDs have variable backlighting making black levels better.

I chose Plasma at this moment in time for a 50" HDTV and wouldn't trade it for anything in its price range, but if I bought another HDTV later on I would have to re-evaluate each again as LCDs get better and cheaper.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> you have two exceptional LCD displays. I dont doubt they are GREAT!
> Some of the lesser models will have some motion blur though. Not as much as they used to, but I can see it still on some of the bargain ones


Right. Both are newer 1080p's so you darn tooting they are nice!

And expensive! :lol:


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

As a general rule, plasma screens usually have better contrast ratios.

LCDs have improved their ratios in the last two years, though.

But, try to look at an image with both as much black and pure white on screen at the same time, when shopping.

ESPNHD or ESPN2HD is great when they have 4:3 programming. They insert graphics for the pillar boxes, on both sides. There is a gradient black to dark gray transition.

Watch this area as the picture changes. You can see the shades become a single color, on lower contrast ratio HDTVs as "brighter" images are broadcast.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

DawgLink said:


> Right. Both are newer 1080p's so you darn tooting they are nice!
> 
> And expensive! :lol:


Yep i like em! i actually looked at em when I got my samsung plasma earlier this year. The plasma was just better for my set up. But yeah they were impressive!! Nice choice!

oh yeah and boooooo bulldogs!!! go bama go!!!!!!!!!


----------



## paja (Oct 23, 2006)

I bought a Mits(46231) earlier this year and am thrilled with it. I like the LCD so much that I have a 52 inch Sony XBR4 on order,


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Actually my Philips exhibits practically no motion blur, and it was a fairly low priced TV. I did a little research and apparently the same panels are used in much more expensive LG TVs.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I bought my first plasma way back in 2000-2001. It was a refurbished Sony 42" monitor for $5K that was new $8K. I still have it hanging in my bedroom. It has just now started getting a video issue in black screen situations where the top of the screen appears distorted. Much like an old bathroom mirror with the blackened edges creeping in.
I then bought a Zenith 50" plasma in 2005 off ubid auction site. It had a 1000 contrast ratio. I figured a plasma is a plasma. I could only stand it for 6 months before I became so disappointed with the picture that it now sits in a box. I will probably hang it in the bedroom after the Sony finally dies. 
Lastly I bought the Panasonic TH-50PX60U for about $2500. I love this tv.

I am holding out until I hear more about the new Lazer TV technology. From what I have read, this will drive the plasma into extinction once it is introduced.


----------



## dshu82 (Jul 6, 2007)

I am watching the game on local Fox tonight and it might be the best I have seen this season for PQ. And none of the original issues I cited appear to be happening on their broadcast.....


----------



## Jimbo2 (May 10, 2007)

Tugboat said:


> There are 32-inch plasmas, from Sony and others, but they are 4-5 years old. I know, cause I have a Sony 32-inch plasma on my bedroom wall. And it still looks fantastic (but 4-5 buyers on Amazon say theirs have crapped out in less time due to power problems. Ugh). Of course, I can't tell you what I paid for it in 2002. It would be too embarrassing by today's pricing. Anyway, you can probably get them used someplace for a fraction of what I paid. If the Sony fails, I'll be moving to the LCD world too. No doubt about it. Probably get a Vizio, at $599, since it's only for the bedroom.


I don't think Sony has ever made a Plasma TV, maybe in the beginning, but I know that they do not make them Now, they decided to go with the LCD side of things .. I am now looking at plasma's, I've never had one, was not sure of the durability back when I bought my Sony XBR 60" LCD.
I am now looking at the Pioneer Elite waiting for the 60 " 1080p panel to come out, should be sometime soon ... Possibly Sept.

Jimbo


----------



## scimeca (Aug 20, 2007)

LCD all the way....Sony


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

scimeca said:


> LCD all the way....Sony


+1

I am completely happy with the black/contrast levels of my LCD, I looked long and hard at all sets and the Sony Bravia's really impressed me.


----------



## rrrick8 (Mar 20, 2007)

scimeca said:


> LCD all the way....Sony


+100


----------



## Jimbo2 (May 10, 2007)

I have had Sony's since day one, but am considering my first Plasma.
60" Pioneer Elite 1080p panel ... when it come out, real soon.
I just hope I don't make a mistake by leaving the Sony camp after all these years. (17)

Jimbo


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I read comments like some of these and wish I had bought a Sony, until I go home and look at my Panasonics. Really nice. I had Sony CRTs for years but the differences between the leading brands are very slight in the flat panels, to my eye anyway.

We have an old Sony plasma at work but I don't think Sony actually made it, just put their name on it.


----------



## Tugboat (Jul 11, 2007)

Jimbo2 said:


> I don't think Sony has ever made a Plasma TV, maybe in the beginning, but I know that they do not make them Now, they decided to go with the LCD side of things .. I am now looking at plasma's, I've never had one, was not sure of the durability back when I bought my Sony XBR 60" LCD.
> I am now looking at the Pioneer Elite waiting for the 60 " 1080p panel to come out, should be sometime soon ... Possibly Sept.
> 
> Jimbo


Trust me, Sony used to make plasmas, plenty of them (especially "commercial" versions hanging in banks, for corporate video, etc.). As I said, my five-year-old 32-inch Sony plasma still looks pretty good in HD and works (keeping my fingers crossed). And they don't make plasma any more. Just wanted to clarify the first part of your statement. They used to sell plasma sets, and they cost and arm and a leg in 2001-2002 (try $4,500 for a 32-inch model). As for the Pioneer 60-inch plasma, that's gonna cost big-time\, but I am sure it will be great.


----------

