Why LCD TVs might soon be obsolete

[Funkstar]

Yeah i thought that too.

No photos are going to show differences properly, I just thought it was an interesting blog post and photo when I read it this morning.

It would be good to see a display like this, showing proper footage, in the flesh (so to speak).

[TheAnimus]

Tottenham Court Road.

I recon i could of got my TV about 4-5% cheaper online, but i'd pay that premium happily for been able to see them, and make up my mind about it.

Originally i was going to go for a plasma, because i could just about strech to a pioneer, which had some glowing reports. But it seams that to much of Hifi and Home Theatre reviews is on a par with £200 HDMI leads giving crisp images (ie bribe time).

[Ben_]

On the reccomendation of various people that own large AV companies plasma is the thing to go for over 32.

And the panasonic plasma for the same cost as a 37 lcd is a no brainer

[Bugbait]

Originally Posted by Ben_

On the reccomendation of various people that own large AV companies plasma is the thing to go for over 32.

And the panasonic plasma for the same cost as a 37 lcd is a no brainer

That seems a bit general. My concern with plasma has always been burn in. My TV spends most of it's time on the HTPC input. Although movies and TV make up the majority of the programming it is used regularly as a web browser and a giant, power sucking jukebox for the wife (who refuses to turn it off even when in another room). I find the lower resolutions on plasma don't work well when you're using it as a monitor, but that's just my preference. For the additional initial cost of a LCD I'd prefer to have the longevity and not have to worry about burn in. Price was secondary to functionality when I was shopping for my 46".

[HSK]

Originally Posted by Funkstar

This shot on Engadget is interesting:


Yes it is a dems set up by Pioneer, but it does illustrate that there is a lot of room for improvement in the whole display market.

Pioneer KURO and friends hands-on - Engadget

The Kuro line does look fantastic.

"blackerness" love it

ha blackerness. great stuff.

[Ben_]

Originally Posted by Bugbait

That seems a bit general. My concern with plasma has always been burn in. My TV spends most of it's time on the HTPC input. Although movies and TV make up the majority of the programming it is used regularly as a web browser and a giant, power sucking jukebox for the wife (who refuses to turn it off even when in another room). I find the lower resolutions on plasma don't work well when you're using it as a monitor, but that's just my preference. For the additional initial cost of a LCD I'd prefer to have the longevity and not have to worry about burn in. Price was secondary to functionality when I was shopping for my 46".

You dont have to worry about burn in.

Not really an issue anymore, they told me to run it on eco for 200 hours and thats it (panasonic)

Living in the past man

[TheAnimus]

Burn in is still a concern on plasma, you only have to look at them on display in a shop to see that, i was looking at one of the panasonics that was new about 10 months ago now, it had the BBC HD style grey logo burnt in.

AFAIK they've made no break throughs in the last year against burn in, its an inherent problem with the actual technology.

Its worth also noting that TFT is not immune to burn in. The LED backlights practically are, but the CCFL ones not som something to do with the heat, the film and the crsytals apparently.

I'm not going to call what Ben said utter gorden brown, but if we forget about costs (producing large flawless LCDs is expensive) there is no difference between the technology used in a 25" plasma or LCD as there are in a 50" plasma or LCD. The issues the techonlogies face are still the same, and often come down to personal preference.

See them in the flesh, if your spending a 4 figure amount, its the least you can do.

[HSK]

How do they get around the problem of burn in? I heard something in the past about rotating the pixels etc...(can't remember exactly)

[Bugbait]

Plasma burn-in: Seven things you need to know - CNET reviews

7. So, if I have CNBC, CNN, ESPN, Fox News, or Bloomberg on all day long, is it a problem?
Look, if your primary use for your TV is watching stations that have stock or news tickers running on them eight hours a day, buy an LCD. The reason you want a plasma is because you can get a big-screen model (50 inches or larger) that offers deeper blacks and better off-axis viewing for less money than an LCD. And if you're a day trader sitting at home, playing the markets during the day and watching movies at night, get a small LCD for daytime use and a big plasma for night time viewing. End of story.

Similar things being said in this article: Plasma TV Burn In: Is It Still a Problem? at Plasma TV Buying Guide

Then there's this: Plasma TV vs LCD TV - Plasma TV Buying Guide

I purposely selected links from a clearly pro-plasma site to play devil's advocate. The article may be a bit old because it doesn't mention the motion compensation of the newer LCD's which makes up a lot of ground it fast moving (ie. sports) pictures. Even such a pro-plasma article suggests that LCD is better suited to my needs (ie. Used as a PC monitor). Frankly, a 100-200 hour burn it is not what I'd consider acceptable. It should be ready to go out of the box for static images, or whatever wallpaper I decide to use on it, especially when I'm paying over £1k for it. Our TV is on atleast 4-5 hours a day and much longer on weekends.

[Bugbait]

Originally Posted by HSK

How do they get around the problem of burn in? I heard something in the past about rotating the pixels etc...(can't remember exactly)

In simple terms they move the picture around so slightly that it's not perceivable by the human eye so you're on the money.

[Bugbait]

Originally Posted by Ben_

You dont have to worry about burn in.

Not really an issue anymore, they told me to run it on eco for 200 hours and thats it (panasonic)

Living in the past man

Partially true according to the pro-plasma site (although I note it's Copyright dated 2007): Plasma TV vs LCD TV - Plasma TV Buying Guide

SCREEN BURN IN

LCD technology is not prone to screen "burn-in" or "ghosting" (premature aging of pixel cells) due to the nature of the technologies "twisting crystals."

With plasma displays, static images will begin to "burn-in," or permanently etch the color being displayed into the glass display element. The time it takes for this to occur depends greatly on the anti burn-in technology of the manufacturer. Recent improvements by plasma manufacturers have certainly extended the time it takes to burn in a plasma pixel cell. In the past I was concerned to place a DVD on pause 15 minutes. Now, many of the enhancements such as better green phosphor material, and motion adaptive anti burn-in technology are greatly reducing the risk of burn in. It’s gotten so much better that I don’t even worry about it anymore. In a new model plasma from any top tier manufacturer I would put "ghosting" estimates at an hour or more now (Ghosting can be "washed" out by displaying static gray material). Permanent burn-in I would put at more than 10 hours.

We've had the TV on HTPC mode for 12+ hours before . I agree that for most users (under 4 hours per day) burn in is no longer an issue.

[Ben_]

Its all based on opinion isnt it.

I asked the owner of a very large electrical wholeseller what tv I should buy for the cash he came up with a panny plasma. As did another guy I trust.

I bought it, its great.

[TheAnimus]

Originally Posted by Bugbait

In simple terms they move the picture around so slightly that it's not perceivable by the human eye so you're on the money.

Problem is they still have a burn in, because no matter how much you move the image, if you've got a block of white red and blue (sky news for instance) its goign to burn in that corner more.

[Ben_]

Why is the best TV arguably on the market for the money a plasma then?

Why would the Kuro be so highly regarded if after you used it it painted a picture on your screen for ever..


The Animums do you even own a plasma tv, or are you just doing the usual ****e of reading forums then passing the opinion on as your own?

[TheAnimus]

Past tense (owned) an plasma, now just LCDs.

I had a 32" samsung which i thought was cheap at the time for my bedroom, its a TFT and not bad. It used to run media center in my lounge.

I then bough a 50" panasonic plasma, mail order, which got sent back, purely because it looked what i can only describe as fuzzy, running MCE it looked ok, but slipping out to do any web surfing it really looked dodgy. I hadn't seen it in the flesh before, and assumed it must of been broken (after spending time thinking it was the il-90mv board at fault, because it is a c**t of a motherboard)

I then decided in for a penny in for a pound and squandered even more dosh in buying its replacement, but also spent a lot of time, the shop i bought it from in the end i'd left a deposit with because i got the impression they thought i was wasting their time. I spent about 5 hours in total in their shop over the course of a couple of weeks looking at each panel.

I didn't really worry too much about value for money, because i needed a larger TV because my new lounged dwarfed the old one. I wanted something that would last at least 5 years, preferably as long as i live in the flat for and i didn't want to have to make multiple sets of wholes in the wall!

Hence why i settled on it what i did.

When it comes to the passing opinion, mostly if you look back you'll find me slaggnig of LCD as a monitor, or a tv, with gushing support of the merrits of CRT. Interstingly enough at the time i was developing a couple of LCD drivers, to provide an alternative the SED1330 so i mostly spent time slagging of the flaws of a technology i was that i was very intermat with (well its predicessors).

If only i could just base my experiance of a sales person, then i'd have the authority to know my opion must be valid.

[Ben_]

Being drunk and not that bothered..

Yes, but my plasma still is better than equiv lcd.