# Why do people prefer inferior LCDs to superior Plasmas or even CRTs?



## Jack White

For people who don't like to read, just watch this video.
120hz Samsung LCD(on Left) vs Panasonic Plasma(on right).
This video basically sums up most of what I've said in a video.





I mean the best flat panel televisions out there currently are clearly all the Pioneer Kuro Elite Plasma Display Panels. The best LCDs with Local Dimming LED backlighting are still far behind the Kuro Elites. I know becuase I comapred all the televisions intensively before buying my Kuro Elite. The XBR8 is probably be best LCD ever made, yet it still falls far far short of even 8th generation Kuro Elites let alone the 9G Kuro Elites. The funny thing is that average customers and even some people who work at my store think that the Samsung LCDs with LED Edge Lighting are actually a COMPLETELY NEW FORM of TELEVISION like OLED or SED. Yes, most LCDs don't have a problem with reflections, they're far more immune from image retention and from burnin, but they still don't have the best picture quality which is by far the most important thing at least to me.
The MAIN reason I think that LCDs are so sucessful is because of a a campaign about LIES about Plasmas. Image Retention and Burnin is not really 1/100th the problem that it's made out to be, and plasma gas leaking is really an urban legend created by LCD manufacturers.
The other thing is that HORRIBLE HORRIBLE store lighting is probably the main culprit for people prefering LCDs over Plasmas. LCDs are brigher, but they're FAR FAR brighter than they need to be in a living room/family room/bedroom setting. LCDs are suited better for the GLARING LIGHTS of a consumer electronics store. If you go into the Magnolia Section though, the advantage of the Plasmas really shows. The Kuro Elites BLOW AWAY the XBR8s and the Top of the Line 950 series Samsung 950 in the Magnolia enviornment. Even the V Series Panasonic Plasmas outperform the best LCDs for far less money in the Magnolia Enviornment. The MAJOR design flaw with LCDs is HORRIBLE HORRIBLE motion blur. They ALL have more motion blur than even the worst Plasmas or CRTs. CRTs have NANOSECOND response times, Plasmas have MICROSECOND response times, and LCDS have laughable MILLISECOND response times. Sample and Hold is the other HUGE ISSUE with LCDs.
LCDS that use 120hz or 240hz to try and reduce the DESIGN FLAW of LCDs do as much bad as good. They reduce motion blur somewhat but at the cost of HORRIBLE HORRIBLE INTERPOLATION ARFTIFACTS as well as the crappy Soap Opera Effect. 
The other HUGE GIGANTIC ADVANTAGE to CRTs and Plasmas is that they have MILLIONs of INDIVIDUAL LIGHT SOURCES called phosphors(laid out in triads). A 1080P Plasma has almost 6.3 million light sources for its almost 2.1 million pixels. Even The XBR8 only has DOZENS of light sources which is not enough to have the pure black background with a very small area of bright light such as a firefly in the dark that the Pioneer Kuro Elites and CRTs can do.


----------



## LarryFlowers

Sorry Jack, you are missing the most obvious reason of all...

Price!

Also these days, power consumption is also a factor and, in spite of improvements made by the Plasma screen makers, same size plasma screens draw substantially more power than an LCD.

Admittedly the Kuro Elite has one of the finest pictures I have ever seen... but sadly, Pioneer is dropping this product.

Larry



Jack White said:


> I mean the best flat panel televisions out there currently are clearly all the Pioneer Kuro Elite Plasma Display Panels. The best LCDs with Local Dimming LED backlighting are still far behind the Kuro Elites. I know becuase I comapred all the televisions intensively before buying my Kuro Elite. The XBR8 is probably be best LCD ever made, yet it still falls far far short of even 8th generation Kuro Elites let alone the 9G Kuro Elites. The funny thing is that average customers and even some people who work at my store think that the Samsung LCDs with LED Edge Lighting are actually a COMPLETELY NEW FORM of TELEVISION like OLED or SED. Yes, most LCDs don't have a problem with reflections, they're far more immune from image retention and from burnin, but they still don't have the best picture quality which is by far the most important thing at least to me.
> The MAIN reason I think that LCDs are so sucessful is because of a a campaign about LIES about Plasmas. Image Retention and Burnin is not really 1/100th the problem that it's made out to be, and plasma gas leaking is really an urban legend created by LCD manufacturers.
> The other thing is that HORRIBLE HORRIBLE store lighting is probably the main culprit for people prefering LCDs over Plasmas. LCDs are brigher, but they're FAR FAR brighter than they need to be in a living room/family room/bedroom setting. LCDs are suited better for the GLARING LIGHTS of a consumer electronics store. If you go into the Magnolia Section though, the advantage of the Plasmas really shows. The Kuro Elites BLOW AWAY the XBR8s and the Top of the Line 950 series Samsung 950 in the Magnolia enviornment. Even the V Series Panasonic Plasmas outperform the best LCDs for far less money in the Magnolia Enviornment. The MAJOR design flaw with LCDs is HORRIBLE HORRIBLE motion blur. They ALL have more motion blur than even the worst Plasmas or CRTs. CRTs have NANOSECOND response times, Plasmas have MICROSECOND response times, and LCDS have laughable MILLISECOND response times. Sample and Hold is the other HUGE ISSUE with LCDs.
> LCDS that use 120hz or 240hz to try and reduce the DESIGN FLAW of LCDs do as much bad as good. They reduce motion blur somewhat but at the cost of HORRIBLE HORRIBLE INTERPOLATION ARFTIFACTS as well as the crappy Soap Opera Effect.
> The other HUGE GIGANTIC ADVANTAGE to CRTs and Plasmas is that they have MILLIONs of INDIVIDUAL LIGHT SOURCES called phosphors(laid out in triads). A 1080P Plasma has almost 6.3 million light sources for its almost 2.1 million pixels. Even The XBR8 only has DOZENS of light sources which is not enough to have the pure black background with a very small area of bright light such as a firefly in the dark that the Pioneer Kuro Elites and CRTs can do.


----------



## SayWhat?

Why write such a biased thread title?

Why quote the entire post ?

LCD over Plasma? Easy, cost, lifespan, servicability, weight (no glass screen on most LCDs), power consumption, etc. I've never seen any significant difference in picture quality between the two.


----------



## BAHitman

I guess it depends on your goal... if you are trying to set up a movie theater in your house and you have the dough to blow on it then get what makes you happy. Most people just want a TV and it's OK with them if it cost $600 and doesn't look quite as good as a $2000 power-sucking high-end plazma screen. Just the energy cost over the life of the TV is justification enough for most--especially with the newer LED backlit models

I think the LCD TV's are great for the price point.


----------



## sigma1914

I like how you use Kuro and Magnolias as examples since everyone can afford a $5000+ set.  I don't care what "experts" or others who throw "facts" about what's better...As long as I like MY tv, that's what matters.


----------



## Fontano

As other pointed out, IMHO 99% of it is because of $$$

The other 1% is the FUD that is out there aboout plasma's.

I personally own a Plasma and love it. However it is dated, it is several years old and only goes up to 720p (well slightly higher).

With some of the new 1080p / 120mhz systems that I have seen, my jaw drops at the quality of the picture. And I cry a tear everytime I see the price on them compared to what I paid for my system.

Don't get me wrong, I have loved having the system for many years vs getting one today. But sometime in the next couple years, I will be replacing it.

And most likely, it will NOT be with a plasma because at the end of the day, the quality of the LCD display in my opinion are very good and going to the plasma simply isn't worth the price difference.

And with more and more of the companies pulling out of the plasma development, that price point is going to continue to get wider and wider.

Also with kids, it is a much easier pill (while being a very big one), if cricial damage is done to that lcd screen at a smaller $$ amount then a plasma at that much higher $$$$$


----------



## hdtvfan0001

LarryFlowers said:


> Sorry Jack, you are missing the most obvious reason of all...
> 
> Price!


AMEN


SayWhat? said:


> Why write such a biased thread title?
> 
> LCD over Plasma? Easy, cost, lifespan, servicability, weight (no glass screen on most LCDs), power consumption, etc. I've never seen any significant difference in picture quality between the two.


Pretty much said it all....with the addition of one thing....based on the "abandon ship" of the plasma platform by manufacturers the past 2 years...that's a risk many will not take.

Sure Plasma looks OK...but...what happens when in 2 years you can't get support/parts?

I live in a very large metro area, and only 4 places will service a Plasma, and almost 100 places will service an LCD.

Just not worth the hassle.

*(Besides...I already own a space heater).*


----------



## Marlin Guy

Jack,
Love your music.

But I also love my LCD.

If we all liked the same things, we wouldn't be having this discussion because they'd only make one style of tv in one size.
To each his own.


----------



## bobukcat

Money is a good argument why not to get something like a Kuro but the lower end Panasonic and Samsung Plasmas are not that much more than a comparably sized LCD - they are ususally cheaper than a Sony LCD, and they easily outperform them in picture quality, particulary off-angle. Power consumption has been significantly lowered on these models as well, and while they don't match the LED edge-lit LCDs it's not like they are double or even 50% higher. Weight is another one people throw around to justify LCD, if you're hanging it on a wall what difference does it make if it weighs 45lbs or 60 lbs?

The only times I would recommend an LCD over a plasma are:

a) it's in a very bright room or a room with a lot of sources for glare
b) there will be a static image on the screen for very long periods of time
c) a small screen size is needed / desired.


----------



## Fontano

bobukcat said:


> ... they are ususally cheaper than a Sony LCD,


Not the greatest of comparison there, as you are paying (again IMHO) 25% more on the product simply because the word SONY is on it.


----------



## WestDC

my eyes are bad, That's why I prefer an LCD.


----------



## Chris Blount

I personally have never liked plasma. Too many things can go wrong and the good ones are very expensive.

I'm also not a big LCD fan either since it still suffers the same problem as plasma. It uses chemicals to create a picture.

I'm a DLP person myself. No chemicals. Just mirrors. Unfortunately the technology seems to be going away.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

bobukcat said:


> c) a small screen size is needed / desired.


Not sure about that one at all....respectfully disagree...from firsthand LCD use experience at the 55" size level...


----------



## bobukcat

hdtvfan0001 said:


> AMEN
> 
> Pretty much said it all....with the addition of one thing....based on the "abandon ship" of the plasma platform by manufacturers the past 2 years...that's a risk many will not take.
> 
> Sure Plasma looks OK...but...what happens when in 2 years you can't get support/parts?
> 
> I live in a very large metro area, and only 4 places will service a Plasma, and almost 100 places will service an LCD.
> 
> Just not worth the hassle.
> 
> *(Besides...I already own a space heater).*


I don't want to re-hash old threads too much but as I've pointed out before, there is no guarantee that parts will be more readily available in two years for an LCD you buy today rather than a plasma you buy today. I have a four year old DLP that parts (other than refurb) have been unavailable for going back almost two years. If it makes you feel better about your purchase, that's fine with me but I'll take a better looking picture anyday.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Chris Blount said:


> I'm a DLP person myself. No chemicals. Just mirrors. Unfortunately the technology seems to be going away.


I'm with him ^^^^^^ on that.

DLP is still going strong on the projector side, which I prefer there as well.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

bobukcat said:


> If it makes you feel better about your purchase, that's fine with me but I'll take a better looking picture anyday.


Me too...which is why I prefer my DLP projector.


----------



## bobukcat

Chris Blount said:


> I personally have never liked plasma. Too many things can go wrong and the good ones are very expensive.
> 
> I'm also not a big LCD fan either since it still suffers the same problem as plasma. It uses chemicals to create a picture.
> 
> I'm a DLP person myself. No chemicals. Just mirrors. Unfortunately the technology seems to be going away.


Even CRTs used chemicals to produce a picture so I'm not too worried about that. I like DLP for rear-projection but if you want to hang it on a wall your only option if front projection. They're certainly the best-bang-for-the-buck when you want a large screen size but I'm a little miffed about the poor reliability of the Mits DLP I bought 4+ years ago and don't really like the price of replacement lamps too much either.


----------



## Chris Blount

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'm with him ^^^^^^ on that.
> 
> DLP is still going strong on the projector side, which I prefer there as well.


That's true. I forgot about that. I have a 3 year old DLP 720p projector that is still going strong and picked up one of the last Samsung 61" LED/DLP Rear Projections sets in December. I love both! Within the next year I plan to start shopping for a 1080p projector. I hope to find a reasonably priced DLP version.


----------



## bobukcat

Fontano said:


> Not the greatest of comparison there, as you are paying (again IMHO) 25% more on the product simply because the word SONY is on it.


Sure, but that was just an example and it's not like Sony doesn't sell a LOT of those expensive LCDs, there are plenty other LCDs that are more expensive than a comparable plasma. I'm going to abandon thread here because this is starting to turn into a re-hash of a previous thread about the new Panny plasmas but I just encourage people to actually consider and look at Plasma rather than just dismiss it because of all the FUD that's spread against it.


----------



## Zellio

LED lcds are easily as good as plasmas.

I have a few of the newer samsung lcd tvs. Plasmas for a long time were superior, not so much now.


----------



## Mark Holtz

I thought all CRTs were discontinued.


----------



## SayWhat?

Can't wall mount a DLP or sit one on a narrow shelf.


----------



## bobukcat

Mark Holtz said:


> I thought all CRTs were discontinued.


AFAIK they are, my point was that they used chemicals (one of Chris' dislikes of plasma and LCD) and would last for a long time, chemicals aren't our enemy.


----------



## bobukcat

Zellio said:


> LED lcds are easily as good as plasmas.


No, they really aren't and there are several side-by-side reviews that point that out along with why they aren't.


----------



## idoco

" Why do people prefer inferior LCDs to superior Plasmas or even CRTs?"

Lack of glare with the LCD's. I have a very bright room that gets lots of sun. With a plasma and the glare off of the glass the TV would be unwatchable half of the day. With an LCD even with the sun low and shining right at the TV there is almost no glare.

Idoco


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SayWhat? said:


> Can't wall mount a DLP or sit one on a narrow shelf.


Even giant screens are thin and can be placed alot of places....get a projector.


----------



## ShawnL25

I think the op was trying to relay frustration in that while the kuro has hands down the best picture, people still seem to believe that LCD's have a better picture because brighter = better. And to that point I agree with the OP it is strange what people pretend to know about. On to other posts for the money a rear projection DLP offered the best picture for your $. I have one and love it. But truthfully at this point in the tech. cycle an HD TV is similar to a Computer in that it is an expendable purchase that you will make every 5-10 years so price ultimately is going to be a factor in your selection.


----------



## paulman182

I don't know about people in general but I just like the look of an LCD over a plasma.

And if I insisted on getting the best of everything I bought, I sure wouldn't have much.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ShawnL25 said:


> I think the op was trying to relay frustration in that while the kuro has hands down the best picture, people still seem to believe that LCD's have a better picture because brighter = better.


In a number of locations and setup positions, it IS better.

Try putting a Plasma in a room with alot of windows or natural light reflections...yuck.


----------



## harsh

Chris Blount said:


> I'm a DLP person myself. No chemicals. Just mirrors. Unfortunately the technology seems to be going away.


If you like DLP, you should love LCoS. No fiddling with color wheels.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Try putting a Plasma in a room with alot of windows or natural light reflections...yuck.


What display technology wouldn't suffer horribly in such an environment?


----------



## Grentz

I love the picture on my Samsung LCD...one of the best TVs I have seen and it is a good priced middle of the road model (A550).

and working installing high end systems, at a company that sold TVs (and had TVs from all over the world sent as samples to test), and just as an enthusiast I have seen a ton of different TVs in person and in direct comparisons.

I have not been thrilled by most plasmas, even ones that get good reviews. There are a few I have really liked, but they have been extremely high priced models that most consumers dont even buy. I think people just have their own viewing preferences as well in what they like.

I frankly dont care for rear projection LCoS and DLP TVs all that much, the picture has never impressed me that much unless you are in the perfect viewing conditions and position. I do love DLP projectors though


----------



## Grentz

harsh said:


> What display technology wouldn't suffer horribly in such an environment?


LCD is very good in high ambient light conditions. But it does suffer still.

Plasma and DLP can become almost unwatchable in extremely bright rooms though. (my living room is EXTREMELY bright)


----------



## bobukcat

paulman182 said:


> I don't know about people in general but I just like the look of an LCD over a plasma.


:barf:

Just kidding, to each his own - I've just always wanted to use that icon! :brush:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> What display technology wouldn't suffer horribly in such an environment?


One connected to DirecTV. :lol::lol::lol:

A question just waiting for a punch line...


----------



## bobukcat

Grentz said:


> I frankly dont care for rear projection LCoS and DLP TVs all that much, the picture has never impressed me that much unless you are in the perfect viewing conditions and position. I do love DLP projectors though


I find it interesting that you say that because the issue with having to be in the right spot for them to look right has always been my biggest problem with LCDs, contrast and color accuracy begin to fall off quickly when viewed off-axis. :shrug:

I guess it's a good thing there's more than one display technology out there. :icon_da:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I have to say... that when I see a good Plasma side-by-side with a good LCD... I usually prefer the look of the Plasma.

But, as others have said, the price is typically much higher and ultimately the picture quality is not enough higher to make up for that cost to my wallet.

I still prefer CRT (can't get it anymore) and DLP, now that I have a DLP replacing my failing CRT... DLP had the same price point as my old CRT set and similar (but better) picture quality in my opinion..

I never wanted to hang my TV on the wall, so that feature of the LCDs/Plasmas never comes into play with me.


----------



## Chris Blount

Stewart Vernon said:


> I never wanted to hang my TV on the wall, so that feature of the LCDs/Plasmas never comes into play with me.


Yeah, that seems to be a big selling point with a lot of people. It doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other. I like having my DLP on a stand. That way I can hide my HTPC behind it.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> One connected to DirecTV.


Is that because they crank up the gamma to plasma levels?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

For me, I can certainly see the difference, but the 5% difference doesn't help me with the 50% price bump. Not only that, but you can tell me as much as you want that newer plasmas don't burn in. I know that's the mantra. Sorry, I'm still seeing 12-18 month old plasmas with burns in them. I just can't be replacing a $5,000 TV every 12 months.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Chris Blount said:


> Yeah, that seems to be a big selling point with a lot of people. It doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other. I like having my DLP on a stand. That way I can hide my HTPC behind it.


Maybe back when a TV was just a TV... but yeah, I have a Dish receiver + Audio receiver + CD player + Blu ray player... and they have to go somewhere... which means I have to have a stand for them anyway... so hanging the TV on the wall doesn't really save space when I still have to put the entertainment center there to hold all the other equipment.

Now, that said... IF the Dish 922 comes out and supports wireless monitors like they said at CES... I might consider small wireless monitors for other rooms in the house for that feature.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Moved to the Displays forum as a more appropriate venue._


----------



## harsh

Stuart Sweet said:


> I just can't be replacing a $5,000 TV every 12 months.


We'll just have to see how well those fluorescent LCD backlights hold up.

One of the attractions of projection technologies that use micro-mirrors is that each new bulb represents a factory fresh picture.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm pretty happy with my Samsung LED DLP TV that I bought to replace my failing CRT.

I like the idea that the LED will produce a consistent level of brightness over time (as opposed to lamp DLPs that slowly fade) and the LEDs will never burn out.

Sure, other possible points of failure... but every TV has those.

It is a shame DLP, and especially the LED DLP, has been shown the door.

On the future-front, though... the OLED stuff I've read sounds promising.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

harsh said:


> We'll just have to see how well those fluorescent LCD backlights hold up.
> 
> One of the attractions of projection technologies that use micro-mirrors is that each new bulb represents a factory fresh picture.


Agreed about the backlights, but I can say that the backlight on my 3-year-old LCD has lasted 3 years so far, unlike the 1 year I would have expected had I bought a plasma at that time.


----------



## bobukcat

Looking at BB's website you can get a Samsung 58" 1080P plasma cheaper ($2184) than any of Samsung's LCDs bigger than 52", and that is not a sale price. There are higher end 58" Sammy plasmas at $2599 and $2899 but these are still cheaper than their higher end 55" LCD and all of their LED Edge-lit LCDs are over $3K (even on sale). 

I repeat, LCD is not always cheaper than Plasma!!!


----------



## bobukcat

Stuart Sweet said:


> Agreed about the backlights, but I can say that the backlight on my 3-year-old LCD has lasted 3 years so far, unlike the 1 year I would have expected had I bought a plasma at that time.


Why would you only expect plasma to last one year? I have a 3 year old 50" Pioneer that gets a lot of use and it still looks as good as it did the day I hung it on the wall.


----------



## Jack White

sigma1914 said:


> I like how you use Kuro and Magnolias as examples since everyone can afford a $5000+ set.  I don't care what "experts" or others who throw "facts" about what's better...As long as I like MY tv, that's what matters.


I paid $1726 plus tax plus 4 year protection plan for my Pioneer Elite Pro 111-FD and I got my part time job just so I can get incredible discounts like that. If picture quality is important enough to you, then you'll find a way to get an incredible deal or save your pretty pennies and that what you think you deserve. There are people who paid 3 or 4 times as much as I did for a FAR inferior LCD than my Kuro Elite.


----------



## Jack White

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In a number of locations and setup positions, it IS better.
> 
> Try putting a Plasma in a room with alot of windows or natural light reflections...yuck.


But WHY watch tv in a sunny room in the first place? I never have and I don't see the obsession of watching tv in a sunny room. I just use blackout curtains and my Plasma and CRTs look better than any LCD I've ever seen. I just hope they make OLED laptops soon so I never have to use an LCD ever again. I have to use LCDs at work at school and that reminds me how horrible their picture quality really is YUCK. The BIGGEST thing most people don't realize is that *THE VAST MAJORITY OF HD LCDS are actually ONLY STANDARD DEF FOR MOTION, they're ONLY HIGH DEF FOR STATIC IMAGES*. MANY HD LCDS have LESS motion resolution than Standard Def CRT. DO some research, that's a FACT.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

I love my big LCD. But you can't beat the picture on my Sony 34XBR960 CRT TV. Best blacks, great contrast, and ISF calibrated.

But I just bought my dad a $399 Sylvania LCD HDTV from Target. Watched Finding Nemo on ABC Famly HD, and the PQ was amazingly good. Amazingly.

And I'm a "HT" snob.

Honestly, I think that the TVs of 2009 are all really good.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

bobukcat said:


> Why would you only expect plasma to last one year? I have a 3 year old 50" Pioneer that gets a lot of use and it still looks as good as it did the day I hung it on the wall.


You are a lucky man. The day I lost all my affection for plasma is the day, several years ago, when I was touring a home where I knew the owner had put in a large plasma about nine months earlier. Clearly burned into the screen was a ghost image of the "Now Playing List" from an HR10-250 receiver. That's what I mean by a plasma TV lasting a year.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jack White said:


> The BIGGEST thing most people don't realize is that *THE VAST MAJORITY OF HD LCDS are actually ONLY STANDARD DEF FOR MOTION, they're ONLY HIGH DEF FOR STATIC IMAGES*. MANY HD LCDS have LESS motion resolution than Standard Def CRT. DO some research, that's a FACT.


Not sure where you are getting *your facts*...but...apparently you haven't seen the 2009 series of LCD TV's then...they, in fact, are designed specifically to support much better viewing motion - quicker 120Hz or more refresh speeds.

Saw several of them just this past weekend at Best Buy - several were side by side plasmas - looked equally great.

You can start updating your facts by seeing these 40 examples of mostly LCDs and some DLPs with 120Hz to start with...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&_dynSessConf=6891809586908979134&id=pcat17071&type=page&ks=960&st=120+hz&sc=Global&cp=1&sp=&qp=crootcategoryid%23%23-1%23%23-1%7E%7Eq31323020687a%7E%7Encabcat0100000%23%231%23%2314&list=y&usc=All+Categories&nrp=15&iht=n


----------



## Zellio

Jack White said:


> But WHY watch tv in a sunny room in the first place? I never have and I don't see the obsession of watching tv in a sunny room. I just use blackout curtains and my Plasma and CRTs look better than any LCD I've ever seen. I just hope they make OLED laptops soon so I never have to use an LCD ever again. I have to use LCDs at work at school and that reminds me how horrible their picture quality really is YUCK. The BIGGEST thing most people don't realize is that *THE VAST MAJORITY OF HD LCDS are actually ONLY STANDARD DEF FOR MOTION, they're ONLY HIGH DEF FOR STATIC IMAGES*. MANY HD LCDS have LESS motion resolution than Standard Def CRT. DO some research, that's a FACT.


Um, no. Alot of lcds have low refresh rate, but are still high def. If you watched a high def lcd with low refresh rate, it will still be high def, only the 'ghosting' from the low refresh rate will give you a headache.

Either get your facts right or quit watching high def lcds with low refresh rates, because you aren't making any sense.

But the simple fact is, the high def picture on any lcd is still high def in motion, but the same picture on a low refresh lcd would refresh alot less then other tv types and end up all jerky.


----------



## Jack White

In all the tests the 120hz sets alone are *STILL ONLY STANDARD DEF FOR MOTION*
The ONLY LCD ever tested that was High Def for Motion was the 950 series Samsung. That was ONLY when the motion enhancer was turned on and the interpolation was set to low.
In ALL OTHER SETTINGS it only had 330 lines of motion resolution. I believe that the XBR8 is also High Def for Motion, but only if all the settings are right and it's standard def for motion under all other settings, but the XBR8 wasn't tested by that magazine.
60hz LCDs have about 330 lines of motion resolution(less than a 40 year old CRT). 120hz LCDs had in the neighborhood of 500 to 650 lines of motion resolution STILL NOT HIGH DEF.
Only Local Dimming LED Backlit LCDs with the Motion Enhancer turned on were High Def for motion. *Basically 98% of LCDs are really NOT HIGH DEF for television, they're ONLY HIGH DEF when used as slideshow viewers*.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not sure where you are getting *your facts*...but...apparently you haven't seen the 2009 series of LCD TV's then...they, in fact, are designed specifically to support much better viewing motion - quicker 120Hz or more refresh speeds.
> 
> Saw several of them just this past weekend at Best Buy - several were side by side plasmas - looked equally great.
> 
> You can start updating your facts by seeing these 40 examples of mostly LCDs and some DLPs with 120Hz to start with...
> 
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&_dynSessConf=6891809586908979134&id=pcat17071&type=page&ks=960&st=120+hz&sc=Global&cp=1&sp=&qp=crootcategoryid%23%23-1%23%23-1%7E%7Eq31323020687a%7E%7Encabcat0100000%23%231%23%2314&list=y&usc=All+Categories&nrp=15&iht=n


----------



## Jack White

SORRY, *MOST LCDS are NOT HIGH DEF for motion. That's a FLAT OUT LIE*.
Here are the numbers to PROVE IT. People who bought an LCD thinking it was High Def for Motion have been tricked. It's High Def as a Slide Show Viewer, but it doesn't have a fast enough response time(microsecond or nanosecond) for HD Motion Resolution.

Make Model Size/Technology Native Res Deinterlace 3:2 Pulldown Static Res Motion Res Bandwidth

JVC LT-32E479 32"" LCD 768p Pass Fail

JVC LT-32P679 32" LCD 768p Pass Fail

JVC LT-42X579 42" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1050 330 Full

JVC LT-42P789 42" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1050 330 Full

LG 42LG60 42" LCD 768p Pass Fail

LG 42LG70 42" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 1050 620 Full

LG 47LG60 47" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 1080 600 Full

LG 47LG50 47" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 330 Full

LG 37LG50 37" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1000 320 Full

LG 52LG50 52" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 320 Full

LG 42LG60 42" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 1080 580 Full

LG 37LG60 37" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 1080 580 Full

LG 32LG30 32" LCD 768p Pass Fail

LG 37LG30 37" LCD 768p Pass Fail

LG 37LG50 37" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 330 Full

LG 42LG50 42" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1050 330 Full

LG 42LG30 42" LCD 768p Pass Fail

LG 42LG50 42" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1050 330 Full

LG 26LG30 26" LCD 768p Pass Fail

LG 42LG70 50" LCD 1080p Pass Fail 1050 620 Full

Mitsubishi LT-46149 46" LCD 1080p Pass Fail 1080 620 Full

Panasonic TC32LX85 32" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Panasonic TC-37LZ85 37" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 330 Full

Panasonic TC-26LX85 26" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Philips 47PFL7422D/37 47" LCD 1080p/60Hz Fail Fail 830 320 Unsupported*

Philips 42TA648BX 42" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 1050 350 Full

Philips 42PFP5332D 42" Plasma 768p Fail Fail

RCA L32HD320 32" LCD 768p Pass Fail

RCA L26HD32D 26" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Samsung LN-40A630 40" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 1050 580 Full

Samsung LN-46A750 46" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 900 580 Full

Samsung LN-46A630 46" LCD 1080p./120Hz Pass Fail 1080 580 Full

Samsung LN-46A650 46" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 1050 580 Full

Samsung LN-32A540 32" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Samsung LN-46A550 46" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1000 310 Full

Samsung LN-52A650 52" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 800 580 Full

Samsung LN-46A540 46" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1050 340 Full

Samsung LN-19A330 19" LCD 900p/60Hz** Pass Fail

Samsung LN-19A331 19" LCD 900p/60Hz** Pass Fail

Samsung LN-22A451 22" LCD 1050p/60Hz** Pass Fail

Samsung LN-32A450 32" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Samsung LN-32A330 32" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Samsung LN-32A550 32" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 330 Full

Samsung LN-32A650 32" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 320 Full

Samsung LN-37A550 37" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 900 330 Full

Samsung LN-37A330 37" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Samsung LN-40A750 40" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 1050 600 Full

Samsung LN-40A650 40" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 900 580 Full

Samsung LN-40A550 40" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1050 330 Full

Samsung LN-40A450 40" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Samsung LN-40A330 40"LCD 768p Pass Fail

Samsung LN-46A650 46" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 1050 580 Full

Samsung HL-61A650 61" DLP 1080p Pass Fail 1080 330 Full

Samsung LN-52A550 52" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1050 320 Full

Samsung LN37-A450 37" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Samsung LN-46A950 46" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Pass*** 1080 *1080****/330 Full ONLY High Def for Motion LCD in test*

Sharp LC-42D65U 42" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 330 Full

Sharp LC-46SE94U 46" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 1080 550 Full

Make Model Size/Technology Native Res Deinterlace 3:2 Pulldown Static Res Motion Res 
Bandwidth

Sharp LC19SB14U 19" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Sharp LC26SB14U 26" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Sharp LC-32D44U 32" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Sharp LC-32D64U 32" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 320 Full

Sharp LC-37D64U 37" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 260 Full

Sharp LC-37D44U 37" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Sharp LC-52D64U 52" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 320 Full

Sharp LC-65SE94U 65" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 1080 580 Full

Sharp LC-65D64 52" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 380 Full

Sharp LC-52SE94 52" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Fail 1080 580 Full

Sharp LC-46D64 46" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 320 Full

Sharp LC-42D64 42" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 320 Full

Sony KDL-46W4150 46" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Pass 1060 600 Full

Sony KDL-46W4100 46" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Pass 1060 600 Full

Sony KDL-46Z4100/B 46" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 1080 600 Full

Sony KDL-32L4000 32" LCD 768p Pass Pass

Sony KDL-37XBR6 37" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 1080 320 Full

Sony KDL-52W4100 52" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Pass 1080 580 Full

Sony KDL-52V4100 52" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 1080 310 Full

Sony KDL-40Z4100B 40" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Pass 1050 600 Full

Sony KDL-40S4100 40" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 1050 310 Some

Sony KDL-46V4100 46" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 320 Full

Sony KDL-46S4100 46" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 1080 320 Full

Sony KDL-52WL135 52" LCD 1080/120Hz Fail Fail 900 580 Some

Sony KDL-46WL135 46" LCD 1080p/120Hz Fail Fail 780 600 Some

Sony KDL-32XBR6 32 LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 1080 330 Full

Sony KDL-19M4000 19" LCD 900p/60Hz** Pass Fail

Sony KDL-40V4100 40" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 1080 320 Full

Sony KDL-40W4100 40" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 1050 600 Full

Sony KDL-37N4000 37" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Sony KDL-42V4100 42" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 1080 320 Some

Sony KDL-37M4000 37" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Sony LN37A450 37" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Toshiba 32CV510 32" LCD 768p Pass Pass

Toshiba 32AV500 32" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Toshiba 32RV530U 32" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 1050 340 Full

Toshiba 46V530U 46" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 1000 320 Some

Toshiba 42XV540U 42" LCD 1080p/120Hz Pass Pass 1050 600 Full

Toshiba 37AV50U 37" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Toshiba 19AV500U 19" LCD 900p/60Hz** Pass Fail

Toshiba 37V530U 37" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 900 320 Some

Toshiba 37CV510U 37" LCD 768p Pass Pass

Toshiba 42RV530U 42" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 980 330 Some

Toshiba 42AV500U 42" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Vizio VO47LF 47" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1080 330 Full

Vizio VO22LHDTV10A 22" LCD 1050p/60Hz** Fail Fail

Vizio VW26LHDTV20F 26" LCD 768p Fail Fail

Vizio VO32LHDTV10A 32" LCD 768p Pass Pass

Vizio VX37LHDTV10A 37" LCD 768p Pass Fail

Vizio VO42LFDHDTV10 42" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Pass 780 340 Full

Vizio GV42LFHDTV10A 42" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 1000 340 Full

Westinghouse TX47F430S 47" LCD 1080p/60Hz Pass Fail 850 325 Full


----------



## barryb

Stuart Sweet said:


> You are a lucky man. The day I lost all my affection for plasma is the day, several years ago, when I was touring a home where I knew the owner had put in a large plasma about nine months earlier. Clearly burned into the screen was a ghost image of the "Now Playing List" from an HR10-250 receiver. That's what I mean by a plasma TV lasting a year.


My Plasma (Pioneer) is years (I am thinking going on three years) has no burn in of any kind.

Not only that it beats the crud out of my Pioneer (same size) LCD when it comes to PQ.

Thats my only experience with LCD VS Plasma, so I am probably not the best reviewer. All I can add is what I see in my own house, and the LCD has been in our guest room for two years now for a reason. The Plasma not only won; it beat the heck out of the LCD.

I am sure they make better LCD's these days, but I am not looking as I am very content with the Plasma we watch daily.


----------



## barryb

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In a number of locations and setup positions, it IS better.
> 
> Try putting a Plasma in a room with alot of windows or natural light reflections...yuck.


I have that room. Windows everywhere, and guess what? It does not affect (glare my screen) in any way that would be distracting.

The entire back wall of my living room is windows.

To me its a personal preference, and one that needs to be decided by looking at lots of TV's. This is an investment made based on what disposable income a person has on hand.

Once the spending factor is in place, then the hunt begins. A TV is not something they are going to put on your head stone once you pass... its something you watch, and by the OP asking this [can of worms] question: its something they have to figure out for themselves.

If my TV went out right now I would replace it with a plasma... a bigger one.


----------



## LarryFlowers

OK Mr. White, you have proven your point, you are smarter than all the rest of us. Your breadth and depth of knowledge of all things HD is obviously superior to ours. Thank you for the information.

Two minor points...

1. It will be a flat out miracle if, under current economic conditions and LCD's vastly superior sales numbers if anyone is still making plasmas in 2-3 years.

2. No one cares.

Larry



Jack White said:


> SORRY, *MOST LCDS are NOT HIGH DEF for motion. That's a FLAT OUT LIE*.
> Here are the numbers to PROVE IT. People who bought an LCD thinking it was High Def for Motion have been tricked. It's High Def as a Slide Show Viewer, but it doesn't have a fast enough response time(microsecond or nanosecond) for HD Motion Resolution. et al....


----------



## paulman182

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Jack. Most of us are happy with what we have and if we weren't, we'd get something else. This satellite forum is not really one of the high-end hair-splitting, "pay 100% more for 5% better" type home theatre forums. Those are fine, but this board generally is not that kinda place.


----------



## sigma1914

Jack White said:


> I paid $1726 plus tax plus 4 year protection plan for my Pioneer Elite Pro 111-FD and I got my part time job just so I can get incredible discounts like that. If picture quality is important enough to you, then you'll find a way to get an incredible deal or save your pretty pennies and that what you think you deserve. There are people who paid 3 or 4 times as much as I did for a FAR inferior LCD than my Kuro Elite.


Should I bow to you for getting that deal? 

You're arrogance & braggart attitude throughout this thread still won't affect mine, or probably anyone's, opinions on what we buy or what we like. You made a thread that boasted your opinion and did so with your mind set one way just to continue to belittle others opinions.

In the end, no one will change your mind...enjoy your _best tv & audio system ever_ and good luck in school, even though you're forced to use those horrific & blur filled LCDs. :lol: (Why not hook up your PC to an all-mighty plasma?)


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I think this thread has gotten a bit too impolite. Please try to be a bit more respectful toward each other's opinions. Thanks.


----------



## Zellio

http://www.hdguru.com/will-you-see-...008-model-test-results-hd-guru-exclusive/287/

http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2008-resolution-tests-125-hdtvs.pdf

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145596

I looked up what Jack was screaming about, and of course he's twisting his facts. This is motion resolution *for 1080i broadcasts*, and alot of plasma sets have this problem too. (Check the pdf file)

If you view the pdf file, you will find *the same list Jack gave us, although he carefully took out every single Plasma also listed as having less motion resolution.*

If lcds actually had a motion resolution of 330 lines, I wouldn't be able to read individual words while playing Crysis on my HDTV.










And my Samsung ln40a550 is one you listed.

Come back when you understand what your talking about Jack.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stuart Sweet said:


> For me, I can certainly see the difference, but the 5% difference doesn't help me with the 50% price bump. Not only that, but you can tell me as much as you want that newer plasmas don't burn in. I know that's the mantra. Sorry, I'm still seeing 12-18 month old plasmas with burns in them. I just can't be replacing a $5,000 TV every 12 months.


Completely agree with those observations.


----------



## bobukcat

Zellio said:


> http://www.hdguru.com/will-you-see-...008-model-test-results-hd-guru-exclusive/287/
> 
> http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2008-resolution-tests-125-hdtvs.pdf
> 
> http://www.hdguru.com/will-you-see-...008-model-test-results-hd-guru-exclusive/287/
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145596
> 
> I looked up what Jack was screaming about, and of course he's twisting his facts. This is motion resolution *for 1080i broadcasts*, and alot of plasma sets have this problem too. (Check the pdf file)
> 
> If lcds actually had a motion resolution of 330 lines, I wouldn't be able to read individual words while playing Crysis on my HDTV.
> 
> Come back when you understand what your talking about Jack.


There are two different tests and only the de-interlacing test you are talking about is tied to broadcast (ATSC) signal. If you look at the bandwidth roll-off test it is performed with a BD test disc,


> This Blu-ray disc contains a Monoscope pattern (pictured above) which is made up of a series of four black lines that gradually come together in a wedge-like pattern that appears at the top, bottom and sides. Numbers adjacent to the lines indicate resolution. There are both stationary and moving versions of the pattern. In both instances, a number corresponds to the location of where all four lines can still be distinguished as they converge. The maximum resolution is 1080 lines "per picture height". If you want to calculate how many pixels a given display can resolve across the screen, simply multiply the resolution number by 1.77777.


 so obviously it's not an ATSC signal going into the set, and yes - many of the sets tested displayed only 330-600 lines out of the 1080 available whereas the plasmas were displaying at least 800 lines. Your LN40A550 failed his 3:2 pulldown test (as did almost all the TVs tested) and scored 330 lines of motion resolution with the BD test disc.

The fact is that there are millions of these sets out there and people are happy with them, but then a lot of people think they're watching HD just because it's an HDTV (I'm not saying that is the same, just pointing out that a lot of people are not very discriminating when it comes to PQ). You'll never hear me say that there aren't a lot of LCDs that produce a nice picture, I just think that Plasma produces a better picture and in sets 50" and larger they are often CHEAPER than a comparable LCD. If you're happy with your purchase though who really cares what others think of it?

For those that still believe Plasma is on it's death bed you may want to read this article from HDGuru, according to this Plasma owns 50% of the market share in the 50" and larger category. http://hdguru.com/is-plasma-dead-samsung-panasonic-and-lg-answer/422/


----------



## hdtvfan0001

bobukcat said:


> *If you're happy with your purchase though who really cares what others think of it?*


A nice post in its entirety.

The single highlighted point cited above says it best, but unfortunately, it contradicts both the tone of and words in the thread title. 

While I personally disagree on a single point you made - I personally think Plasma is not on its death bed, but is in the hospital undergoing a full examination for major pains....your overall post makes the most sense of the lot to this point.


----------



## bobukcat

Stuart Sweet said:


> You are a lucky man. The day I lost all my affection for plasma is the day, several years ago, when I was touring a home where I knew the owner had put in a large plasma about nine months earlier. Clearly burned into the screen was a ghost image of the "Now Playing List" from an HR10-250 receiver. That's what I mean by a plasma TV lasting a year.


I've had concerns about it but after falling asleep with the local weather sub-channel on the screen the other night (it has the radar but a lot of static fields for the current weather like Temp, Humidity, etc) and waking up 8 hours later with it still there I freaked out worrying there would be significant image retention (which is actually the correct term for what you're refering to, even though most people call it burn-in). This was on the older 50" without the more advanced orbitor function. I turned the set to a different channel and breathed a very long sigh of relief as there was no image retention whatsoever. I wonder how long that "Now Playing" list was on the set you described (my 622 won't stay on one of those screens that long, it eventually goes back to programming IIRC), how old that set was and if they had any of the screen protection features enabled.


----------



## Jack White

sigma1914 said:


> Should I bow to you for getting that deal?
> 
> You're arrogance & braggart attitude throughout this thread still won't affect mine, or probably anyone's, opinions on what we buy or what we like. You made a thread that boasted your opinion and did so with your mind set one way just to continue to belittle others opinions.
> 
> In the end, no one will change your mind...enjoy your _best tv & audio system ever_ and good luck in school, even though you're forced to use those horrific & blur filled LCDs. :lol: (Why not hook up your PC to an all-mighty plasma?)


This thread is actually more for people who are in the market to buy a new television.
If I have convinced them to buy the best television or their money instead of buying into the LCD hype, then my work is done. I'm sorry to have hurt the feelings of some LCD owners, but I think it was worth it if even 1 person buying a new television decides to get a Plasma instead of an LCD because of my post.
This video is all most posts summed up in a video. This is perfect for people who don't like to read. On the left a 120hz Samsung LCD, and on the right a Panasonic Plasma.


----------



## Jack White

Sorry, you're wrong. 120hz Samsung LCD vs Panasonic Plasma.
You CAN'T read the words on the books on the LCD.
Samsung 120hz LCD on left and Panasonic Plasma Neo Panel on Right.







Zellio said:


> http://www.hdguru.com/will-you-see-...008-model-test-results-hd-guru-exclusive/287/
> 
> http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2008-resolution-tests-125-hdtvs.pdf
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145596
> 
> I looked up what Jack was screaming about, and of course he's twisting his facts. This is motion resolution *for 1080i broadcasts*, and alot of plasma sets have this problem too. (Check the pdf file)
> 
> If you view the pdf file, you will find *the same list Jack gave us, although he carefully took out every single Plasma also listed as having less motion resolution.*
> 
> If lcds actually had a motion resolution of 330 lines, I wouldn't be able to read individual words while playing Crysis on my HDTV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And my Samsung ln40a550 is one you listed.
> 
> Come back when you understand what your talking about Jack.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

Yeah, I think we're splitting hairs here. Both technologies are excellent. I picked my Sony 52XBR4 (LCD) because I wanted a TV that will last me 10 years. I'm not sure a plasma can endure 10 years with me. I watch tons of letterbox movies. My main concern with plasma was burn-in and power consumption.

Sure plasmas may be "slightly" better. However, this does not mean LCD TVs suck. That's like saying Corvettes suck because a Ferrari is slightly faster.

I am still blown away with my TV's performance. The way I look at it (my whole family agrees too), the LCD technology we currently have in our living room has better black levels and is much sharper than any movie theater in our neighborhood.

If you own a plasma or LCD, we're all winners!


----------



## Jack White

Hutchinshouse said:


> Yeah, I think we're splitting hairs here. Both technologies are excellent. I picked my Sony 52XBR4 (LCD) because I wanted a TV that will last me 10 years. I'm not sure a plasma can endure 10 years with me. I watch tons of letterbox movies. My main concern with plasma was burn-in and power consumption.
> 
> Sure plasmas may be "slightly" better. However, this does not mean LCD TVs suck. That's like saying Corvettes suck because a Ferrari is slightly faster.
> 
> I am still blown away with my TV's performance. The way I look at it (my whole family agrees too), the LCD technology we currently have in our living room has better black levels and is much sharper than any movie theater in our neighborhood.
> 
> If you own a plasma or LCD, we're all winners!


You actually have a LEGIT reason for prefering LCDs. If you watch 2:35:1 movies on a Plasma ALL THE TIME, then you're going to get IR even with the best pixel orbiter and other anti IR technologies. If you watch 2:35:1 maybe one a day or once every other day then a Plasma should be no problem. Your tv is certainly better than the average LCD and it's probably still High Def with motion at the speed of 6 seconds per screen as it drops to 600 lines for 5 seconds per screen motion. So your tv is probably still high def up to 90% of the time depending on the motion of what you're watching.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Jack White said:


> You actually have a LEGIT reason for prefering LCDs.


Anyone who likes *their own personal viewing *of LCD and *spends their money* has a LEGIT reason. 

These factors are not going to be dictated by anything else or anyone else except the buyer.

Posters here have clearly proven "superiority" is in the eyes of the beholder (with contrasting views), and that the selection process is far more complex than just any one single factor.


----------



## sigma1914

Maybe Jack should continue this at AVS.


----------



## julesism

I got a 42" phillips plasma in the fall of '05 but sold it on craigslist last fall. I move around a lot so I wanted a lighter TV and wanted something that had HDMI inputs. I ended up getting a 40" series 5 sammy LCD which I'm very happy with. I think the brightness and contrast levels and overall PQ on the plasma was a bit better, but only HT snobs notice. so many things about the LCD were right for me... the price, the energy consumption and heat, no more glare off the glass, and much lighter\easier to move


----------



## Zellio

bobukcat said:


> There are two different tests and only the de-interlacing test you are talking about is tied to broadcast (ATSC) signal. If you look at the bandwidth roll-off test it is performed with a BD test disc,
> so obviously it's not an ATSC signal going into the set, and yes - many of the sets tested displayed only 330-600 lines out of the 1080 available whereas the plasmas were displaying at least 800 lines. Your LN40A550 failed his 3:2 pulldown test (as did almost all the TVs tested) and scored 330 lines of motion resolution with the BD test disc.
> 
> The fact is that there are millions of these sets out there and people are happy with them, but then a lot of people think they're watching HD just because it's an HDTV (I'm not saying that is the same, just pointing out that a lot of people are not very discriminating when it comes to PQ). You'll never hear me say that there aren't a lot of LCDs that produce a nice picture, I just think that Plasma produces a better picture and in sets 50" and larger they are often CHEAPER than a comparable LCD. If you're happy with your purchase though who really cares what others think of it?
> 
> For those that still believe Plasma is on it's death bed you may want to read this article from HDGuru, according to this Plasma owns 50% of the market share in the 50" and larger category. http://hdguru.com/is-plasma-dead-samsung-panasonic-and-lg-answer/422/


And I'd love to see who paid for these tests and how they were done. Because I play pc games with very small text, and my games are high action, high motion. At 330 lines I wouldn't be able to read the text.

I can read it motion or none motion from sitting right in front. No changes.

And yes, this has been tested on crt monitors as well as one plasma unit. Used as a pc there is no 'motion resolution'.


----------



## Zellio

The simple fact is, Jack and his friend cat want to say that lcds themselves have a motion resolution, and I can easily prove that it's bunk. If there's issues with BD playback or 1080i, I dunno. But the devices themselves stay at full resolution when used on pcs.

If anything though, pcs send the entire resolution while atsc and BD are variable resolutions, so I'm wondering if that has anything to do with this.


----------



## Zellio

After looking at all of these examples, I won't get an answer back because they are refering to 'ghosting', which lcds do with bad refresh rates.

But again, that is not a resolution problem. Bad refresh doesn't suddenly lower your resolution, it simply refreshes the higher resolution alot less of the time then a plasma or crt.

The blur that Jack is of course, again, being misleading about, is blur because lcds are refreshing the resolution alot less of the time then the plasma on the right, and so alot less data is coming.

But to call this a 'motion resolution' is ludicrous, because the same resolution is still coming in.


----------



## Jason Nipp

*sigh* 

Nice to see were still arguing about this same topic. :nono:


----------



## Zellio

Jason Nipp said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Nice to see were still arguing about this same topic. :nono:


Well in all honesty, the same argument was made by Jack, who made the topic (Which seems like an attempt to bash LCDS), and has repeatedly twisted facts like not including plasmas that have problems too.

The same arguments will continue because Jack isn't looking for a discussion, he's looking to bash Lcds.


----------



## Jack White

Zellio said:


> The simple fact is, Jack and his friend cat want to say that lcds themselves have a motion resolution, and I can easily prove that it's bunk. If there's issues with BD playback or 1080i, I dunno. But the devices themselves stay at full resolution when used on pcs.
> 
> If anything though, pcs send the entire resolution while atsc and BD are variable resolutions, so I'm wondering if that has anything to do with this.


Here's a FAST PAN in a videogame on 3 different displays.


----------



## Zellio

Jack White said:


> Here's a FAST PAN in a videogame on 3 different displays.


You ether have motion blur on or are taking the absoloute worst image you can find.






I'd also like to know what refresh rate that lcd is, It can't be below 8 ms.

To be honest, that 'example' looks like the exact same image 3 times, with blur put on the top two times...


----------



## Stuart Sweet

all due respect Mr. White, those do not look like photos taken of real screens. They look much more like Photoshop was used to produce them. Did you intend them to be images of actual screens?


----------



## bobukcat

Zellio said:


> And I'd love to see who paid for these tests and how they were done. Because I play pc games with very small text, and my games are high action, high motion. At 330 lines I wouldn't be able to read the text.
> 
> I can read it motion or none motion from sitting right in front. No changes.
> 
> And yes, this has been tested on crt monitors as well as one plasma unit. Used as a pc there is no 'motion resolution'.


AFAIK no one has ever accused HDGuru of bias (other than his own stated preferences) or called into question his testing methods. He does free-lance work for HT and some other Magazines and clearly states how the tests were done and with what equipment. I will point out that he even states the one Sammy LCD produced all 1080 lines when set correctly and congratulates Sammy for achieving this. As I said before, these tests don't necessarily equate to an unwatchable picture because then no one would be happy with the resulting product, which is obviously not the case. PQ is a subjective quantity with some measurements to help determine the objective side of it, just because you don't like the results doesn't mean they aren't accurate.


----------



## bobukcat

Zellio said:


> The simple fact is, Jack and his friend cat want to say that lcds themselves have a motion resolution, and I can easily prove that it's bunk. If there's issues with BD playback or 1080i, I dunno. But the devices themselves stay at full resolution when used on pcs.
> 
> If anything though, pcs send the entire resolution while atsc and BD are variable resolutions, so I'm wondering if that has anything to do with this.


If it's easily proven that they don't have this problem I would like to see your results and I'm not talking about saying "My LCD looks great during motion shots, so there can't be any lack of resolution during those shots", I'm saying you need a quantitative way to measure it, much like the tests referenced have done. Clearly he is a professional with a lot of experience and professional equipment with which to do these tests.

Again, I'm not saying that LCDs suck, I'm simply presenting facts and then adding my opion that *to me *plasma looks better. Please do not lump me in with others that may have an opinion that there's only one logical choice in the matter.


----------



## Zellio

bobukcat said:



> AFAIK no one has ever accused HDGuru of bias (other than his own stated preferences) or called into question his testing methods. He does free-lance work for HT and some other Magazines and clearly states how the tests were done and with what equipment. I will point out that he even states the one Sammy LCD produced all 1080 lines when set correctly and congratulates Sammy for achieving this. As I said before, these tests don't necessarily equate to an unwatchable picture because then no one would be happy with the resulting product, which is obviously not the case. PQ is a subjective quantity with some measurements to help determine the objective side of it, just because you don't like the results doesn't mean they aren't accurate.


No, I get what HDGuru is talking about, but 'ghosting' is highly questionable to call 'motion resolution', esp. when the resolution in motion is still full hd.


----------



## Zellio

bobukcat said:


> If it's easily proven that they don't have this problem I would like to see your results and I'm not talking about saying "My LCD looks great during motion shots, so there can't be any lack of resolution during those shots", I'm saying you need a quantitative way to measure it, much like the tests referenced have done. Clearly he is a professional with a lot of experience and professional equipment with which to do these tests.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying that LCDs suck, I'm simply presenting facts and then adding my opion that *to me *plasma looks better. Please do not lump me in with others that may have an opinion that there's only one logical choice in the matter.


Again, ghosting shouldn't be called 'motion resolution'. Lcds have the same resolution in motion as plasmas do, they just refresh alot slower.

And I will say again that Led Lcds, esp. the Samsung type, are better then plasmas. Panasonic plasmas and Kuro are still better.

Notice I said led lcds  Most lcds look like crap.

In all honesty, the only lcds I've liked are the 2008-2009 versions. That doesn't mean I agree that ghosting is 'motion resolution'. Thats a horribly bad definition for ghosting.

And I also don't like people like Jack who twist facts, because Plasmas ghost too.

But ya, sorry for lumping you in.


----------



## Zellio

Now if you ask me what I would get for my bedroom, if we are talking JUST MOVIE WATCHING, plasma, no two ways about it.

But I play pc games too, which translates to tons of burn in.


----------



## MadManNBama

If they were still popular, I'd just get another DLP. My set is only 720p and 46in and is 4 yrs old. No motion blur or anything. So what if it isn't flat and doesn't look so good when you stand, it looks great from my sofa.

But really, I would love one of those new THX Panny plasmas, but the after Xmas prices of the current 120Hz LED TVs and improve the black level will make my move to 58in and 1080p too good to pass up.


----------



## Zellio

MadManNBama said:


> If they were still popular, I'd just get another DLP. My set is only 720p and 46in and is 4 yrs old. No motion blur or anything. So what if it isn't flat and doesn't look so good when you stand, it looks great from my sofa.
> 
> But really, I would love one of those new THX Panny plasmas, but the after Xmas prices of the current 120Hz LED TVs and improve the black level will make my move to 58in and 1080p too good to pass up.


Personally, if you ask me, none of the current tv techs are really all that great.

LCDs have a good future, cheap, easy to make, but they are still another 3-5 years from greatness.

And no, OLED isn't the future either. Red green and blue colors die easily, and it would take a long time to lower price and stabilize the rgb.


----------



## bobukcat

MadManNBama said:


> If they were still popular, I'd just get another DLP. My set is only 720p and 46in and is 4 yrs old. No motion blur or anything. So what if it isn't flat and doesn't look so good when you stand, it looks great from my sofa.
> 
> But really, I would love one of those new THX Panny plasmas, but the after Xmas prices of the current 120Hz LED TVs and improve the black level will make my move to 58in and 1080p too good to pass up.


If you're looking at anything larger than 52" you'll be hard pressed to find a *quality* LCD for less than a Panasonic Plasma.


----------



## Jack White

MadManNBama said:


> If they were still popular, I'd just get another DLP. My set is only 720p and 46in and is 4 yrs old. No motion blur or anything. So what if it isn't flat and doesn't look so good when you stand, it looks great from my sofa.
> 
> But really, I would love one of those new THX Panny plasmas, but the after Xmas prices of the current 120Hz LED TVs and improve the black level will make my move to 58in and 1080p too good to pass up.


Don't be fooled by the THIN so called LED tvs, they're just LCDs with LED EDGE LIGHTING. 
They also have motion blur. If you MUST have an LCD, get with that has LOCAL DIMMING LEDs like the XBR8 or Samsung A950. Plasmas are WAY CHEAPER ANYWAY. A 50" Panasonic 1080P Plasma costs about $1300 which is a lot less than 50" Blurry LCDs and THOUSANDS LESS that non-blurry LOCAL DIMMING LED LCDs.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

bobukcat said:


> If you're looking at anything larger than 52" you'll be hard pressed to find a *quality* LCD for less than a Panasonic Plasma.


Over 52"...hmm....If I'm looking for something large...

One might want to consider the newest projectors....several of the DLP ones, in particular, have stellar imagery.

The only Plasma I've seen anywhere that can compete with my 106" DLP projector costs 5 times what I paid for the projector...


----------



## bobukcat

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Over 52"...hmm....If I'm looking for something large...
> 
> One might want to consider the newest projectors....several of the DLP ones, in particular, have stellar imagery.
> 
> The only Plasma I've seen anywhere that can compete with my 106" DLP projector costs 5 times what I paid for the projector...


Sorry, I was referring to Flat Panels only, not projectors.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

bobukcat said:


> Sorry, I was referring to Flat Panels only, not projectors.


No problemo....its just that there seem to be alot of generalizations floating around in alot of these posts here...


----------



## Hutchinshouse

Jack White said:


> Don't be fooled by the THIN so called LED tvs, they're just LCDs with LED EDGE LIGHTING.
> They also have motion blur. If you MUST have an LCD, get with that has LOCAL DIMMING LEDs like the XBR8 or Samsung A950. Plasmas are WAY CHEAPER ANYWAY. A 50" Panasonic 1080P Plasma costs about $1300 which is a lot less than 50" *Blurry LCDs *and THOUSANDS LESS that non-blurry LOCAL DIMMING LED LCDs.


Perhaps you're going a little too far with this statement: "*Blurry LCDs*"

*That is kind of like calling a slight breeze a hurricane.*

Obviously LCDs are plenty sharp. Just look at the sales numbers. Plasma is being annihilated by LCD. If they were blurry, this would not be the case. Plus, no one would throw down thousands for a blurry HDTV.

Sure plasma is good, LaserVue is better. Faster refresh rate than Plasma, better color reproduction than plasma.

Perhaps in a year or so we'll see a thread like this: *"Why do people prefer inferior Plasmas to superior LaserVue?"*

:lol:

*Go Lakers!*


----------



## bobukcat

Hutchinshouse said:


> Perhaps you're going a little too far with this statement: "*Blurry LCDs*"
> 
> *That is kind of like calling a slight breeze a hurricane.*
> 
> Obviously LCDs are plenty sharp. Just look at the sales numbers. Plasma is being annihilated by LCD. If they were blurry, this would not be the case. Plus, no one would throw down thousands for a blurry HDTV.
> 
> Sure plasma is good, LaserVue is better. Faster refresh rate than Plasma, better color reproduction than plasma.
> 
> Perhaps in a year or so we'll see a thread like this: *"Why do people prefer inferior Plasmas to superior LaserVue?"*
> 
> :lol:
> 
> *Go Lakers!*


Except you still can't hang 'em on a wall which will automatically disqualify them for a lot of people. It's also still an RP technology so viewing angle won't be as wide as direct view. I actually think OLED will be keep LaserVue from ever being more than a short-term niche technology.


----------



## spartanstew

This is a funny thread.


----------



## Richard King

I think I'll keep my big screen.


----------



## bobukcat

Richard King said:


> I think I'll keep my big screen.


Never argue with the man with a Reel-to-Reel tape deck in his setup!


----------



## Greg Alsobrook

Richard King said:


> I think I'll keep my big screen.


Looks good... Until there is motion... Then it's likely to look like this...


----------



## bobukcat

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Looks good... Until there is motion... Then it's likely to look like this...


What were you doing in Richard's living room??? :lol:


----------



## ciurca

Marlin Guy said:


> Jack,
> Love your music....
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> LOL...don't know how many on the board got the White Stripes/Raconteurs reference.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Looks good... Until there is motion... Then it's likely to look like this...


!rolling


----------



## machavez00

Here's a wall mountable Sammy DLP


----------



## Jack White

Ofcourse LCDs outsell Plasmas becuase Plasmas are 42" to 150" while the bulk of LCD sales are in 19" to 40" segment. When you compare 50" and up, Plasmas hold at least 50% marketshare.



Hutchinshouse said:


> Perhaps you're going a little too far with this statement: "*Blurry LCDs*"
> 
> *That is kind of like calling a slight breeze a hurricane.*
> 
> Obviously LCDs are plenty sharp. Just look at the sales numbers. Plasma is being annihilated by LCD. If they were blurry, this would not be the case. Plus, no one would throw down thousands for a blurry HDTV.
> 
> Sure plasma is good, LaserVue is better. Faster refresh rate than Plasma, better color reproduction than plasma.
> 
> Perhaps in a year or so we'll see a thread like this: *"Why do people prefer inferior Plasmas to superior LaserVue?"*
> 
> :lol:
> 
> *Go Lakers!*


----------



## Nick

Addressing the OP's original question,


> "Why do people prefer inferior LCDs to superior Plasmas or even CRTs?"


The answer is contained within your question. _"...people prefer ...LCDs to...Plasmas..."._ I just brought another LCD home tonight -- that makes six LCDs in my home, but no plasma.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Nick said:


> Addressing the OP's original question, The answer is contained within your question. _"...people prefer ...LCDs to...Plasmas..."._ I just brought another LCD home tonight -- that makes six LCDs in my home, but no plasma.


Congrats - nice to know there are still smart shoppers out there.


----------



## barryb

bobukcat said:


> Never argue with the man with a Reel-to-Reel tape deck in his setup!


I was just gonna post the same thing. 

What? No turntable?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

* DBSTalk would like to make it known that neither Greg Anthony nor any SportsCenter anchors were harmed


----------



## bidger

Thanks for the disclaimer Money I Could Be Saving By Switching To Geico.


----------



## Richard King

bobukcat said:


> Never argue with the man with a Reel-to-Reel tape deck in his setup!


Three, er, four.


----------



## Richard King

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Looks good... Until there is motion... Then it's likely to look like this...


Very nicely done. Jack couldn't have done better. :lol:


----------



## Richard King

barryb said:


> I was just gonna post the same thing.
> 
> What? No turntable?


The turntable sits beside me at my desk (as does the reel to reel that is in the picture now).


----------



## barryb

Richard King said:


> The turntable sits beside me at my desk (as does the reel to reel that is in the picture now).


It's really hard for me *not* to derail this thread Richard. 

I will just end this with one thing: In my house tubes (as in audio) win over the plasma, that beat the heck out of the LCD.


----------



## Nick

This thread is beginning to resemble a schoolyard argument:

*"My ______ is ______ than (not then) your ______ !"*

.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Indeed. Please, all of you, please do a better job of convincing me that this thread needs to stay open.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

Stuart Sweet said:


> Indeed. Please, all of you, please do a better job of convincing me that this thread needs to stay open.


I dare you to close it.

LCD wins, Lakers too!


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I'm not 5 years old. I don't respond to dares.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

Yes, my reverse psychology worked.  I'm just having fun. This thread could stay open until "H" freezes over. I already know I like LCD better than plasma.


----------



## Zellio

Hey, I'm at least arguing facts. Don't lump me in with this.


----------



## barryb

It's most certainly a personal preference..... much like "paper or plastic".

It's your home, and there is no reason for anyone to tell you what you need to watch.

I found it interesting that a commercial clipped by during my traditional FF while watching Pitchmen last night:

http://www.lge.com/us/tv-audio-video/televisions/LG-lcd-tv-47LH55.jsp

I am not posting this to fan the flames... I just thought the timing of this commercial was, well, interesting.

Expensive: yes.


----------



## bobukcat

barryb said:


> It's most certainly a personal preference..... much like "paper or plastic".
> 
> It's your home, and there is no reason for anyone to tell you what you need to watch.
> 
> I found it interesting that a commercial clipped by during my traditional FF while watching Pitchmen last night:
> 
> http://www.lge.com/us/tv-audio-video/televisions/LG-lcd-tv-47LH55.jsp
> 
> I am not posting this to fan the flames... I just thought the timing of this commercial was, well, interesting.
> 
> Expensive: yes.


I agree with what you're saying; it's your money buy what you like. But I don't think that should make my posting independent testing results and actual pricing comparisons to combat the common misconceptions about plasma fall into the category of whose setup is better than someone elses.

The LG link you posted is a good example, they're boasting 240Hz refresh rates where even cheap plasmas have a 600Hz refresh rate and have for almost as long as the technology has been around.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

bobukcat said:


> The LG link you posted is a good example, they're boasting 240Hz refresh rates where even cheap plasmas have a 600Hz refresh rate and have for almost as long as the technology has been around.


...and yet the human brain/eyes cannot detect the difference between those 2 rates...

Kinda falls in line with the 1080i and 1080p arguments that floated out there from time to time...sometimes people just have to figure out when TV manufactures are conjuring up new reasons just to sell TVs (usually for more money).


----------



## Hutchinshouse

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...*and yet the human brain/eyes cannot detect the difference between those 2 rates*...
> 
> Kinda falls in line with the 1080i and 1080p arguments that floated out there from time to time...sometimes people just have to figure out when TV manufactures are conjuring up new reasons just to sell TVs (usually for more money).


Flies can. If they bought a TV they'd buy the plasma. 

Edit: Come to think of it. I bet flies think our TV technologies suck.


----------



## bobukcat

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...and yet the human brain/eyes cannot detect the difference between those 2 rates...
> 
> Kinda falls in line with the 1080i and 1080p arguments that floated out there from time to time...sometimes people just have to figure out when TV manufactures are conjuring up new reasons just to sell TVs (usually for more money).


If you're saying that a person can't see the difference between 1080i and 1080P on a 60" or larger screen I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on that.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

bobukcat said:


> If you're saying that a person can't see the difference between 1080i and 1080P on a 60" or larger screen I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on that.


It all depends on how close to the TV you are.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Hutchinshouse said:


> It all depends on how close to the TV you are.


...yup...among other things....


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Let's please not do the 1080i vs 1080p debate again...

But to squash the argument...

1080i 60fps is virtually identical to 1080p 30fps.

1080p 24fps is actually less frames BUT might look better than 1080i 60fps because films are shot at 24fps so the conversion to 30fps for TV broadcast can introduce issues.

1080p 60fps would be superior to 1080i... but nobody is broadcasting 1080p 60fps... so outside of perhaps some video games, it's a non-discussion.


----------



## Richierich

I have a $14,000 Samsung Top-Of-The-Line at the time Plasma which is Very Good but my Newer $5,000 LCD is Definitely Much Better visually with everyone that has looked at it with the same type of Directv DVR, HR21-700. 

So far a 55" Plasma versus a 52" LCD I definitely go with the LCD!!!


----------



## peano

But a $4,000 Kuro plasma would blow your $5K LCD away.


----------



## Zellio

And what would a lcd from 2001-2004 (I'm betting that is around the time he got his plasma) blow away?

No matter how much fools bash lcds, you can't deny that lcds show the best promise, and have improved the most of any technology.

Plasmas have always looked good. Crts always looked good. I have a 13" lcd tv from 2002-2003 as a kitchen tv, and a 2004 19" lcd monitor. Both look horrendous.

Lcds have always looked bad, starting at around 2005-2006 looked decent/good, and in 2008-2009 lcds have begun looking great.


----------



## Zellio

BTW, you guys can thank the rise of the good looking LCD for making Plasmas like the Kuro a decent price, and if lcds keep improving at their current rate, they will be as good looking as OLED before OLED can live beyond 5000 hours.

And that isn't 50 years away, it's 5 or less.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

peano said:


> But a $4,000 Kuro plasma would blow your $5K LCD away.


And a Mitsubishi LaserVue would blow away the Kuro plasma. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

richierich said:


> I have a $14,000 Samsung Top-Of-The-Line at the time Plasma which is Very Good but my Newer $5,000 LCD is Definitely Much Better visually with everyone that has looked at it with the same type of Directv DVR, HR21-700.
> 
> So far a 55" Plasma versus a 52" LCD I definitely go with the LCD!!!


I've seen them both.....they're both *excellent*...so it's a tough pick....but the wallet might be the winner in a "draw".


----------



## bobukcat

Hutchinshouse said:


> And a Mitsubishi LaserVue would blow away the Kuro plasma. :lol:


Not if you want to watch it from an angle or angles instead of straight on, and what will that LaserVue cost you?


----------



## paulman182

Like I'm gonna spend multiple thousands for a TV and sit way over to the side!

I'd better get front row center!


----------



## Hutchinshouse

bobukcat said:


> Not if you want to watch it from an angle or angles instead of straight on, and what will that LaserVue cost you?





paulman182 said:


> Like I'm gonna spend multiple thousands for a TV and sit way over to the side!
> 
> I'd better get front row center!


I'm just playing. Kuro is a good TV, so are new LCDs.

Straight up, why would I spend thousand and sit to the side. My chair is centered to the TV and my speakers, down to the inch. My wife thought I was being a little OCD when I got out the tape measure.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Yeah, that "viewing angle" is a bit overplayed in my opinion.

Yes, a wider viewing angle means better design... but how often do you need that?

When I get to the extremes of my set I'm standing against a wall uncomfortably... so I'd never really watch from there! Any of the comfortable seating or standing locations in my house look just fine.

We, as humans, like our periphery vision but we don't watch things for extended periods of time that way! When something interests us, we turn to look more directly at it... so it should be no surprise we watch our TVs the same.

On a related note... I remember all the years laptop computers used "wider viewing angle" as a bragging point for the better built-in displays... and then recently I started seeing a company selling a privacy device that you put on your laptop monitor to intentionally reduce the viewability from other angles for security!

Just goes to show how not all features are features after all.


----------



## bobukcat

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah, that "viewing angle" is a bit overplayed in my opinion.
> 
> Yes, a wider viewing angle means better design... but how often do you need that?
> 
> When I get to the extremes of my set I'm standing against a wall uncomfortably... so I'd never really watch from there! Any of the comfortable seating or standing locations in my house look just fine.
> 
> We, as humans, like our periphery vision but we don't watch things for extended periods of time that way! When something interests us, we turn to look more directly at it... so it should be no surprise we watch our TVs the same.
> 
> On a related note... I remember all the years laptop computers used "wider viewing angle" as a bragging point for the better built-in displays... and then recently I started seeing a company selling a privacy device that you put on your laptop monitor to intentionally reduce the viewability from other angles for security!
> 
> Just goes to show how not all features are features after all.


In my case this comes into play in both primary viewing locations in my house and even to some degree in the bedroom (I know there are a LOT of jokes we could use for that one!!  ). In the basement there is the prime seating areas but also a bar that gets a lot of use on one side and pinball machines lined up on the other. If you wanted to sit at the bar and watch a game or if you were on one of the pins at the closest end and wanted to glance back to catch the score, see a replay, etc, an RP set or to lesser degree FP LCD would suffer from lack of brightness, contrast, etc. No such problem with the plasma. In the case of the upstairs where I have a DLP it's not as bad but there are times that being able to look in the window from the back patio to catch an update on the score or something that the lack of brightness at that angle makes it difficult. In the bedroom it's nice to catch the headlines, traffic and weather while brushing my teeth, etc in the connected bathroom - here the angle is very extreme and RP would be virtually unviewable (there's not enough room there for an RP anyway but...) but again the plasma is still very good and easy to see the graphics from those angles.

I agree that for movies you are probably going to seek out a good spot, but even then if you have a bit of a crowd watching some people may get stuck in less than ideal locations. So, it may not apply to a lot of people but it definitely applies to me in more than one case.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bobukcat said:


> I agree that for movies you are probably going to seek out a good spot, but even then if you have a bit of a crowd watching some people may get stuck in less than ideal locations. So, it may not apply to a lot of people but it definitely applies to me in more than one case.


I agree to take a step back from what I posted... It's not that I don't believe viewing angle is important... just that I think it gets overplayed.

For someone like you, and the scenarios you describe, it is absolutely a factor and I get it. I was just thinking of all the folks that go into a TV store and get sold on viewing angle as a feature even though it might never matter to them.

Marketing hype is sometimes just hype... but every once in a while, it is a real feature that will matter to some (like yourself) but it is overmarketed as something that matters to everyone even when impossible.

With the layout of my living room, for example, and the fact that I put my TV in a corner at an angle (in place of where an alternate house design called for a fireplace)... I've rendered it virtually impossible to be inside the house and greater than 45 degrees angle from the viewing plane of the TV.

So in my case, viewing angle never comes into play anymore since replacing my older CRT rear projection. That one was unwatchable at the extremes of my living room. But I absolutely see where it is important in your situation.


----------



## Richierich

I sit off center on my LCD and it looks Perfect. It is definitely better than my more expensive Plasma which was #1 when it came out. 

I can't believe that I can get much better than my LCD but who knows as it also depends on your vision.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

For me one of the biggest issues is color. I have near perfect color vision and I can see slight differences hues and plasmas just looks better to me.

However, as good as my color vision is, I can only really see the difference side by side. Otherwise it’s only occasionally when I know what colors something should be that I notice issues on our LCD. From that standpoint if all I had was LCD I wouldn't really care that much. 

The only thing I can really see a difference in without them being side by side is blacks. I watched things on our plasma and then watch the same thing on our LCD I can tell the difference in the black areas.

I have calibrated both our TVs using DVE.

Let’s face it; it’s High Definition TV, it looks great on either technology. 

Mike


----------



## Richierich

First of all I would like to say that not all Plasmas are created equally as is the same for LCDs so you can not make a Blanket Statement that all Plasmas have a better picture quality than LCDs. That's ABSURD!!!

Now I and my wife along with several of my friends who have seen both my expensive Plasma and my Top-Of-The-Line (at the time I bought it) LCD everyone is in agreement that the LCD Picture is better. However, the Plasma picture quality is good but just not quite as crisp or bright as the LCD.

Another thing I might add is about a conversation I had with a Multi Multi Millionaire friend of mine who had spent over $250,000 on his Whole House Audio/Video Systems including a 120" Display in his Home Theater Room, several Plasmas and LCDs, etc. He argued that he had the Best Plasmas and LCDs and went to great lengths to explain why they were the BEST!!!

I asked him what he normally did when he watched TV and he said "I get a Glass Of My Favorite Wine and Watch A Movie." I asked him how many glasses of wine he normally drank during a movie and he said "Probably 3 or 4 glasses." I then told him that he had severely diminished his vision because of alcohol so that now it was as if he were looking at a cheaper version of the plasma or LCD. If PQ were so Important than why would he ruin it by diminishing his Vision as that must be so Important to him as he had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to get the Best Picture available.

Also, your hearing is distorted too so your Perfect 7.1 Surround Sound is not as Perfect and Great Sounding as it used to be so you will then have to turn up the Volume.

End Of Story!!! Enjoy whatever you watch!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

richierich said:


> First of all I would like to say that not all Plasmas are created equally as is the same for LCDs so you can not make a Blanket Statement that all Plasmas have a better picture quality than LCDs. That's ABSURD!!!
> 
> Now I and my wife along with several of my friends who have seen both my expensive Plasma and my Top-Of-The-Line (at the time I bought it) LCD everyone is in agreement that the LCD Picture is better. However, the Plasma picture quality is good but just not quite as crisp or bright as the LCD.
> 
> Another thing I might add is about a conversation I had with a Multi Multi Millionaire friend of mine who had spent over $250,000 on his Whole House Audio/Video Systems including a 120" Home Theater Room, several Plasmas and LCDs, etc. He argued that he had the Best Plasmas and LCDs and went to great lengths to explain why they were the BEST!!!
> 
> I asked him what he normally did when he watched TV and he said "I get a Glass Of My Favorite Wine and Watch A Movie." I asked him how many glasses of wine he normally drank during a movie and he said "Probably 3 or 4 glasses." I then told him that he had severely diminished his vision because of alcohol so that now it was as if he were looking at a cheaper version of the plasma or LCD. If PQ were so Important than why would he ruin it by diminishing his Vision as that must be so Important to him as he had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to get the Best Picture available.
> 
> End Of Story!!! Enjoy whatever you watch!!!


Interesting perspective, and a funny story at the end to boot. :lol:


----------



## peano

It all comes down to visual acuity. If LCD looks good to you thats great. Enjoy.


----------



## Jack White

richierich said:


> I sit off center on my LCD and it looks Perfect. It is definitely better than my more expensive Plasma which was #1 when it came out.
> 
> I can't believe that I can get much better than my LCD but who knows as it also depends on your vision.


I trust that your "more expensive plasma" is not a Pioneer Kuro Elite as it BLOWS AWAY any LCD ever made by a large margin and in fact it's so superior that it will blow away LCDs from 5 years from now.
I compared the XBR8 and the Samsung A950 for a long time to the Kuro Elites and the Kuro Elites BLEW away those $5K+ LCDs.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

I did a side by side comparison using the Pioneer Kuro and my 1979 Star Wars Darth Vader LCD watch. My watch has a faster refresh rate, better blacks and better color reproduction. Long live LCD, plasma is toast. If plasma is so good, where's the plasma watches?

Just joking, I don't care. :lol:


----------



## -Draino-

peano said:


> But a $4,000 Kuro plasma would blow your $5K LCD away.


I've seen the Kuro plasma, my TV blows away that plasma...by far.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

peano said:


> But a $4,000 Kuro plasma would blow your $5K LCD away.





-Draino- said:


> I've seen the Kuro plasma, my TV blows away that plasma...by far.


Ding Ding! Let's get ready for round one.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I've watched people perform LIVE and that blows away any recorded HD production I've ever watched on TV.

The resolution of reality is way beyond 1080p!


----------



## Hutchinshouse

Stewart Vernon said:


> I've watched people perform LIVE and that blows away any recorded HD production I've ever watched on TV.
> 
> The resolution of reality is way beyond 1080p!


Yeah, but was the refresh rate faster than the Kuro? :lol:


----------



## Richierich

I'm VERY VERY HAPPY with my Samsung LCD and I just hope he is as happy with his KURO!!! I was in the Home Theater Business and could have had anything I wanted but this was the Best at the Time and Now I Am Enjoying It!!!


----------



## -Draino-

Stewart Vernon said:


> I've watched people perform LIVE and that blows away any recorded HD production I've ever watched on TV.
> 
> The resolution of reality is way beyond 1080p!


It's funny though how alcohol can affect the refresh rate of reality :lol:


----------



## Mike Bertelson

All I know is when I've compared plasma and LDC side-by-side plasma wins, hands down, every time. Now, at the same time, the person with me didn’t always agree. You figure it out. :shrug:

What happens when you find experts who compare the two technologies? Well you can find reviews falling on both sides.

One thing all the experts agree on, and what I feel is most important, is that which you choose depends on what your particular conditions and requirements are. IMHO, if you don’t take that into account before choosing a TV you are probably not going to get the best HDTV for your needs.

However, I've also never seen a decent flat panel where the picture sucked...it is High Definition after all. 

Mike


----------



## Swheat

Me, I prefer the look of an LCD. Of course, I am not including the KURO in that statement. Because I would never spend that much with all of the other options availible.


----------



## Richard King

> it will blow away LCDs from 5 years from now.


Would you please loan me your time machine this weekend? I need to go forward about a year or so so that I can make some investment decisions next week.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Richard King said:


> Would you please loan me your time machine this weekend? I need to go forward about a year or so so that I can make some investment decisions next week.


Only a year...you might do better going 50 years...I'm just sayin' :grin:


----------



## Richard King

Nah, I just want to go ahead one year and bring back the Wall Street Journal.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Richard King said:


> Nah, I just want to go ahead one year and bring back the Wall Street Journal.


As long I can get a peek. :grin:


----------



## Richierich

What Jack doesn't realize is how HD Displays are Calibrated to sell a particular product. HiFiBuys use to push Mitshubishi and so they put them in the Best Locations and Calibrated them to produce the best Picture Quality according to the conditions in that particular environment and then they just took the other units out of the box and hooked them up with no calibration.

I play golf with a good friend who worked with them for 8 years and he told me that they were trying to make the Mits look better because they had a lower price point. 

I am a certified ISF Calibrator and I can tell you that I can make either one look better or worse than the other due to the signal I input and the settings I play with.

Jack, you just fell for one of the oldest games in the Video Display Business. Why do you think all Display Devices are Jacked up out of the box as far as Video Display is concerned. 

Because the manufacturer wants their displays to look good under florescent lights which is not what it will be in their home but looks good in BestBuy or wherever. 

Also, the thing about Plasmas Leaking Gas came out long before LCDs were even thought to be a challenge to the Plasma Market as I had to fight that battle along time before I considered LCDs as a viable alternative because they were too expensive to produce in large displays for the masses at that time.

Actually now they have settings for In Home Use and for Commercial use and you just switch it when you get it home.

So I can play those tricks that you saw in that video and make either one look better than the other.

It also sounds Arrogant to say that what you like is Superior to everyone else's choice which is Inferior. You may like Vanilla Ice Cream and I may like Chocolate better but for you to say Vanilla is Superior is just your Subjective Interpretation and Audio and Video is always subject to our Individual Subjective Audio and Visual Interpretations.


----------



## paulman182

I have passed the part of my life where I went strictly by test results and reviews and now give more weight to my own likes and dislikes. There was a time that I would have compared TVs and took one that looked inferior to my eyes simply because it had better test results.

Now, though, if I like the picture quality and features, the reviews are secondary, although I do read and consider them. I can't argue that LCDs have better contrast, response time, or viewing angle than plasmas because the tests show it not to be true, but I can say that I like LCD better anyway and that's what I want.

I don't require "the best," just "the best for me."


----------



## Mike Bertelson

paulman182 said:


> I have passed the part of my life where I went strictly by test results and reviews and now give more weight to my own likes and dislikes. There was a time that I would have compared TVs and took one that looked inferior to my eyes simply because it had better test results.
> 
> Now, though, if I like the picture quality and features, the reviews are secondary, although I do read and consider them. I can't argue that LCDs have better contrast, response time, or viewing angle than plasmas because the tests show it not to be true, but I can say that I like LCD better anyway and that's what I want.
> 
> I don't require "the best," just "the best for me."


That's kind of an important point.

I know people who have their TV in bright sunny rooms. Plasma doesn't work well in theses cases.

Wants and needs should be the first factor in deciding, not the shootouts and scientific testing.

Mike


----------

