Plasma vs LCD?

Hi guys, new to the forum and looking for a little help, because I don't know a thing about TVs. I'm looking for a new TV for my living room and I saw a Vizio at the store that seemed like a pretty good deal ($1,400). It was this 47 inch XVT LCD http://www.vizio.com/productDetails....=1640&pid=1504.

I hadn't heard of Vizio before so I looked at their website and found out there's a 50 inch XVT plasma coming out for the same price, which is this http://www.vizio.com/productDetails....=1600&pid=1502.

So I have a few questions. First, which is better, LCDs or Plasmas and why is the price of the plasmas less? Also, does Vizio make a good TV? I hadn't heard of them, but they say they use the same parts as Panasonic. Would either of these be a good TV, or could you recommend something in the same price range?

Thanks for the help,

Brian

[tonyvdb]

It depends on your budget, Vizio is not a great brand name and may or may not last. They tend to use cheep parts and this over time may cause early failure.
There are lots of things to consider when buying a display. Lighting conditions affect how well the display will preform. LCD and Plasma both have good and bad points. LCD looks better in a darker room and Plasma has great contrast so will work in well lit rooms better. Plasma gets hot and needs good ventilation. DLP is another option but is not as thin as the others due to the rear projection nature of the display.

I have seen many great deals on good brand name displays including a Sony 52" LCD at under $1500.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

Plasmas look better than LCD's in dim rooms....due to their lower black levels and higher ansi contrasts.

LCD's are brighter.
Plasmas handle motion better.
LCD has a cleaner image.
Plasmas have phosphor lag.(though I've never seen it)
LCD's have sample and hold = blur.
Plasmas are more film-like.
LCD's are more video-like.

[salvasol]

I agree with Tony and Matt

Here is a chart I found on CNET that compares both Plasma and LCD.

Remember that "We get what we pay for", so, if you have the extra money to buy something better do it (just look online for reviews to get and idea); go look at the TV (if there's any way that you can take it to your place where it will be used, do it) ...most sotores don't have TV calibrated properly, so after you get your new TV (plasma or LCD) don't forget to calibrate it to get the best picture

[Mike P.]

Plasmas apparently lose their brightness 3 times as fast as a LCD, from what I've read.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

Iwould doubt that given th half lives....but could be wrong.
Either way 50K-100k hours is going to take a LONG time.
I'd be more worried about LED lifespan in the new LCD's....though not much at all.

[thxgoon]

Agreed with most of above. Half lives on modern displays render the difference in plasma/lcd lifespans moot. Cheap parts may still lead to early failure but hard to tell.

I've never heard of phosophor lag, from what I've read each individual cell is flashed several times per second making motion instantaneous. I personally prefer the look of plasmas as more natural. Lcd's look very enhanced and fake IMHO.

[pitriago]

Agreed. I cannot tolerate the sight of LCD displays. They all too blocky & blurry to me. The video artefacts do not allow me to see anything else.

[Divine0425]

Ive always wondered that my self good answers guys....

[SteveCallas]

Both plasma and LCD have made enough advancements that nowadays the primary difference is going to be whether you can live with a glossy screen or not. The majority of plasmas have glossy screens, and if you don't like seeing your reflection or the reflection of objects in your room during dark scenes, it can become very annoying.

Plasmas are generically given the nod in terms of black level performance, however, this is an oversight based on the popularity of the Pioneer Kuros. If you disregard the Pioneer Kuro, and compare other plasmas like Panasonic, Samsung, LG, or Vizio to say Sony XBR or the upper level Samsung LCDs, you'll actually find that the LCDs have a lower measured black level and higher contrast ratio. Not every plasma is a Pioneer Kuro.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

There are MUCH bigger differences than the screens on lcd's and plasmas.
Even the two top LCD's which you named that use local dimming still have off axis issues with contrast, black level and screen uniformity.
Not to mention Sample and Hold.
And those are the top two LCD's.
I would take a Panny or Sammy plasma over any LCD to date, let alone a Kuro.

-jme

[SteveCallas]

Sorry, should have been more clear - not the local dimming LED LCDs, but rather just the Sony XBR6 and Samsung 630, 650, or 750 series. Not counting the Pioneer Kuros, plasma black levels on the whole nowadays aren't always better like many are led to believe.

[thxgoon]

I'd argue your point on the glossiness of screens. I think that unless you are in a very bright environment or have windows at such an angle that they glare on the screen plasmas will do fine.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

Also, most LCD's nowadays use glossy screens.

[SteveCallas]

It's not only glare, it's seeing your own reflection in the tv screen. That's something that should have disappeared once and for all with tube tvs, it really takes you out of the experience.

Most LCDs use glossy screens? No. A few Samsung models come in both glossy and matte screens, but aside from those, I'm not familiar with many others.

[thxgoon]

SteveCallas wrote:

It's not only glare, it's seeing your own reflection in the tv screen.

I haven't seen that on tv's since the tube days, and even then it wasn't bad. My current living room setup employs a 3 year old panasonic plasma with a sliding glass door on the left wall and skylights in the ceiling. I've never noticed any glare let alone seen my face in the screen!

[Prowse]

I've been debating Pioneer plasma vs Sony TFT (50") for a while.

We've just installed two new Pioneer plasmas at work, had both down on lowered brightness and contrast as per the avoiding plasma burn instructions and both suffer from burn. I just couldn't handle paying-out a lot of money on a screen and having screen-burn. So it's going to be TFT for me.

I'd love the Pioneer blacks for movies, but will be using the screen for gaming (3-4 hours at a time) and just know that this would wreck the screen.

[lcaillo]

What kind of burn did these sets have and from what kinds of images? Please post some specific information so that people can put your experience in a meaningful context.

While it is true that differential aging is sometimes hard to avoid in phosphor based sets like PDPs, it is very uncommon in a short time in recent PDPs that are not run at full contrast or nearly so. Under normal home viewing conditions, even with gaming, what you describe is usually limited to displaying the same thing for very long periods of time, such as news banners and tickers.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

Prowse wrote:

I've been debating Pioneer plasma vs Sony TFT (50") for a while.

We've just installed two new Pioneer plasmas at work, had both down on lowered brightness and contrast as per the avoiding plasma burn instructions and both suffer from burn. I just couldn't handle paying-out a lot of money on a screen and having screen-burn. So it's going to be TFT for me.

I'd love the Pioneer blacks for movies, but will be using the screen for gaming (3-4 hours at a time) and just know that this would wreck the screen.

You got permanent burn-in on both Kuro's?
From what?

[Prowse]

E-A-G-L-E-S wrote:

You got permanent burn-in on both Kuro's?
From what?

Yep, only slight burn but it's there on both Panasonic displays.

We have both screens used as a permanent video-link between two offices, so the images are very static most of the time. Even with pixel shifting, much reduced contrast etc, they've still slightly burnt. NB: We could detect burn after one days use.

I know that I'll be gaming on the screen I select, which could be for several hours at weekend. I'd hate to get damage to a screen. It's basically screen burn & fluorescence vs dead pixels & blur. Choices, choices.

[lcaillo]

Sounds like you had some image retention, which is really different than burn-in. Burn-in is actually differential aging in parts of the display and is permanent, though it can get covered up in time by reverse aging patterns. IR is a temporary condition.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

Prowse wrote:

Yep, only slight burn but it's there on both Panasonic displays.

We have both screens used as a permanent video-link between two offices, so the images are very static most of the time. Even with pixel shifting, much reduced contrast etc, they've still slightly burnt. NB: We could detect burn after one days use.

I know that I'll be gaming on the screen I select, which could be for several hours at weekend. I'd hate to get damage to a screen. It's basically screen burn & fluorescence vs dead pixels & blur. Choices, choices.

As said above, sounds like IR.
Also, you had stated they were Pioneer's before but Panasonic's now?

[Owen Bartley]

I'm out looking for a new 50" display in the next few months, and as of right now I'm open to either plasma or LCD, although after reading this thread I may start with the plasmas. The room it will be going in has good light control, and a wide viewing angle, so off axis picture will be important. Features aren't going to be a deciding factor, the most important will be overall picture quality. HDMI 1.3 would be important, and several HDMI inputs would be helpful since I do not have a switching receiver. Finally, I'd like to keep the budget around $2,000 CDN. I'll be checking out stores over the next little while, and I'll try to report back any findings. Recommendations are always welcome.

[Wright712]

I would recommend the Pioneer Kuro as mentioned previously in the thread. Check with forum sponsors. These days prices are falling to below $2000 USD. My $0.02 (USD)

[Owen Bartley]

Wow, really? Kuros below $2,000? Quickly checking Future Shop and Best Buy gives me a best CDN price of $3,200. I will definitely keep an eye out though.