i thought this was an interesting read, see what you think :)
Why LCD TVs might soon be obsolete - Tech and Gadget Features | Articles – MSN Tech and Gadgets UK
Printable View
i thought this was an interesting read, see what you think :)
Why LCD TVs might soon be obsolete - Tech and Gadget Features | Articles – MSN Tech and Gadgets UK
nice read :)
They said the same about Plasma when LCDs could be produced at larger sizes.
Funny, you still get plasma screens and in many ways they are still far superior :)
OLED screens, along with some other display tech that is due over the next few years in inevitable. I'm sure they will be better than the current tech in some situations, but as technology for existing systems improves many of those advantages deminish.
New displays don't make existing ones obsolite if they are functionally the same. Outdated, yes.
CRT -> Plasma/LCD - Massive difference in functionality because of HD resolutions, size and form factor
Plasma/LCD -> OLED - thats just an evolution of the same thing really.
It's like when you compare VHS to DVD, massive change between then, hence the reason DVD became so ubiquitus so quickly. DVD to HD disks on the other hand is another story, the latter is just an evolution of the former. The only difference with LCD to OLED is it doesn't actually matter what display technology you use, it is still going to work with everything else and you are still going to get a picture.
Slight increases in picture quality are not really enough to get excited about but a super thin OLED screen is an attractive proposition :)
Just bought a £400 set :(
Why the unhappy face?
Surely you knew that whatever high tech item you buy will be superceded by a newer better version in the future? And that what you buy now will be worth a lot less in the months to come?
This article doesn't change the usefulness or functionality of the TV you just bought. So don't worry or get upset about it, sit back and watch some TV instead :)
The artical is more an overview of some of the emerging technologies. Its a bit useless because it (obviously can't) tell you which one is going to be the best right away.
Its intresting because CRT to me still gives the best picture quality, followed closely by the recent (last 15 months) LCDs, with plasma a distant 3rd.
Personally I still prefer plasma. LCD has caught up quite considerably, but still isn't as colourful
QFT; also note:Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkstar
Personally, I don't exactly feel short-changed by my Samsung just yet... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MSN Feature
A decent plasma wipes the floor with lcd.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
And there are some very trustworthy opinions to back that up.
If OLED comes good in big sizes, it'll be a lot more than a slight increase. Pretty much every aspect of the image will be improved :)
Surely the whole LCD v Plasma debate has had it's day ?They have different benefits for different people and uses. It's impossible to state one is universally better, despite numerous "FACT!" comments on varius AV sites :rolleyes:
I prefer plasma myself, but if it's just for day to day TV watching there's not a lot in it. If it's purely for a home cinema, get a projector ! ;)
Agreed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben_
I have been told that if you want a TV over 38" then it is Plasma all the way for a far superior picture. Can anyone confirm this?
No, LCD images do not become worse after a certain size, they do become more complex to make thou.
A couple of manafacturers have dropped plasma in the last 2 years because its really a mature technology that is very much at its end of life.
Difference between Plasma and LCD TVs - Editorial explains some differences but is horrifically out of date.
My main bug bears with plasma is the way pixels 'bleed' into the ones next to it, this to me often results in a head ache :( Its the reason why i didn't buy the panasonic plasma.
Plasma is also a lot lot cheaper to make, so you can get a 'better' brand for your buck.
However in terms of refresh rate, the modern <8ms LCDs really are very good indeed, i bought my TV from a shop, paid the premium for that because i was able to see it working, next to many other brands (yes, i made the poor sods stick it next to about 6 other TVs i was considering before i bought it, but when squandering 2k on a TV its worth really doing your homework)
If your comparing a LCD from 18 months ago, plasma wins hands down. However the newer ones are just stonkingly crisp.
The only point, that plasma has over LCD, which isn't mentioend in any of the articals i googled is that if you've got a 90% white image, the backlight is still on at the same level as a 10% white image (due to the nature of having crystal 'shutters' behind RGB filters). This means if you've got your screen in use as a media PC, and have your start bar at the bottom, you can easily observice this effect by opening a white window (like notepad) maximizing it, then minimizing it. The colors in the start bar area will become a lot more bright when its minimized.
Plasmas really don't suffer from that as much.
This shot on Engadget is interesting:
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.en...comparison.jpg
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 :mrgreen:
very, very, very unfair.
Viewing angles.
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).
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).
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben_
ha blackerness. great stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkstar
You dont have to worry about burn in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugbait
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
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.
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)
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSK
Partially true according to the pro-plasma site (although I note it's Copyright dated 2007): Plasma TV vs LCD TV - Plasma TV Buying GuideQuote:
Originally Posted by Ben_
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugbait
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?
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.
Being drunk and not that bothered..
Yes, but my plasma still is better than equiv lcd.
It is still an issue, to varying extents. The people that say otherwise are generally people that want to sell TV's. You might not get it now, when the panel is new, but that's not guarantee you won't get it later, when the phosphor ages, especially if you watch the same channel/play the same game often during it's lifespan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben_
Even if you don't get any burn, retention is still a problem. If you play a game for a while, that has static items on screen, then change over to the TV you'll often see feint outlines of your game for a while. Especially if you watch something, such as football or golf, that has lots of areas of the same colour. It annoys the hell out of me.
Plasma's are better with motion though, and I'd say that screen response times on LCD's are a little misleading. They're not really the issue. Even with the lowest response rate panel, you'll still get motion problems due to the kinda "afterglow" effect.
Plasma often seems to be a more natural image too, partly because our eyes are conditioned to CRT's. Plasma is more CRT-like because it's not quite as razor sharp as LCD. Also, because of this, it often seems more flattering to SD footage.
But then, LCD is far more suited to PC use, because of this sharpness. So it's horses for courses !
Panasonic said that ? Did they guarantee it ? If so, presumably you can return it under warranty if it occurs ?Quote:
they told me to run it on eco for 200 hours and thats it (panasonic)
If so, that's the first example I've heard of, of a manufacturer giving any sort of firm reassurance about screen burn. The fact that they never previously have (to my knowledge) is a pretty big indicator that it IS still an issue.
To you, maybe. But someone with an equivalent LCD might prefer it to your plasma. Personal preference and all that ?Quote:
Yes, but my plasma still is better than equiv lcd
As to actual burn-in, I haven't encountered that so much, but image retention on the three 50" and one 63" plasmas at work IS an issue; we use them for presentations, and it's not a problem, as such, since it's usually just Powerpoint slides etc, but I wouldn't want that effect on my telly at home. The three smaller screens are NEC, the larger one a Samsung. That experience was a factor when I chose the 40" Samsung LCD that I have at home. My experience is that it produces excellent picture quality, handles motion well, and seems fine colour-wise.
i would choose lcd over plasma, ive seen a few plasmas and the screen looks like its flickering, maybe its just the refreshing i dont know or maybe its just not setup correctly but everything just looks perhaps over sharp im not sure how else to describe it, this also applies to my friends 50 inch samsung plasma, also we was watching a music channel for no more than half hour and the big red bar on the right of the screen that displays peoples txts in, playlist etc stayed there for quite sumtime after changing the channel, i just wouldnt enjoy watchin it if i had paid a grand for it as id be too worried about damaging the panel with burn in.
I'd say that its really becoming lesss and less of an issue, due to cunning driver techniques in no small part. I understand that the latest TFTs actually use a different level than they should, depending on what the crystals where changing from. So you get less of the inertia with the crstyals (this is what gives the afterglow)Quote:
Originally Posted by bigblue
They've been doing this for a while now, and it really makes a difference.
nichomach, at work we also have stupid plasmas, whats wrong with a DLP projector i don't know. They look fuzzy, and awful. PPTs are OK, but small text is just awful. Its worth saying these are quite old plasmas (3 years) and of course not full 1080p res (despite some of them been 60"!). I really don't understand why they where bought.
Ben_: its not a competition, most of it comes down to what people want them for. Now anything you or I have bought, is completely obsolete, so theirs no point trying to claim yours is the best, the point i'm trying to make is LCD has more advances to be made than plasma has, and also, if you don't take into account cost, LCD is better for most situations (for reasons went into above).
In fairness, I should say that the plasmas are popular with end users; they're less work than projectors and don't have so many issues with ambient light, and as I say, it's retention, not burn in, so a couple of goes with the utilities and they're usually fine. They're also VERY sharp. As I say, I just wouldn't want the retention on my telly at home. They're actually 1366x768, but most of our stuff doesn't involve small text, so it's not really an issue. I love the Samsung I have at home to bits, though; the motion plus stuff really does seem to do the business.