SD and HD TV viewing advice

coolagarry

'Which' Report Continued

Power consumption

Plasma TVs use more power than LCD TVs
Based on our test results, a 42-inch plasma TV typically uses 277 watts when switched on, compared to an 180 watt average for the 40-46-inch LCD TV category. That's 50% less energy than plasma televisions.
However, some TV manufacturers point out that the power use of a plasma television is directly dependent on picture brightness, while an LCD TV picture requires a constant source of illumination. The theory goes that a plasma TV should use less power over time.
But, in reality, plasma TVs require significantly more power to achieve the same brightness level as an LCD TV, putting something of a 42-inch widescreen hole in the theory. See 'How to use less electricity' for some energy saving tips, or check out our guide to energy saving appliances.
VERDICT LCD TV wins hands down
Versatility

Both LCD and plasma TVs can be wall-mounted. However, wall-mounting kits usually cost extra and cost more the bigger the TV. Plasmas weigh a lot more than LCDs (even those of comparable screen-size), so setting them up or moving around could prove problematical.
VERDICT LCD TV
Cost of LCD and plasma TVs

Prices have plummeted for LCD and plasma TVs in general, and cost is now much less of an issue than it was. LCD TVs tend to be cheaper, purely because of a smaller average screen size.
However, 42-inch plasma TVs for under £1,000 are now easy to come by. Prices for comparable screen sizes are now pretty similar.
VERDICT It's a draw

aliEnRIK

I wouldnt trust 'which' to make me a cup of coffee

spud17

Also, what date is/was the Which report?

I'm not much into TV, but even to me, some of the findings appear fairly out of date.

Inactive

aliEnRIK wrote: »

I wouldnt trust 'which' to make me a cup of coffee

Nor would I.

Marty_J

coolagarry wrote: »

Based on our test results, a 42-inch plasma TV typically uses 277 watts when switched on, compared to an 180 watt average for the 40-46-inch LCD TV category. That's 50% less energy than plasma televisions

Good grief, they can't even do basic maths.

Since when does 50% of 277 equal 180?

It used about a third less energy, not half as much.

whybelieve

Thanks for all these comments / advice / opinions - it is all really uesful and enables me to understand the complexities and background to the TV issue

aliEnRIK

Marty_J wrote: »

Good grief, they can't even do basic maths.

Since when does 50% of 277 equal 180?

It used about a third less energy, not half as much.

The other problem with that is that when theyre CALIBRATED the results are much closer together (In fact some plasmas are cheaper to run than LCDs once calibrated)

Thats the old ~ LETS TURN UP THE CONTRAST AND SWITCH 'EVERYTHING' ON setup

Leopard

Marty_J wrote: »

Good grief, they can't even do basic maths.

Since when does 50% of 277 equal 180?

It used about a third less energy, not half as much.

They slid on the usual banana skin of the innumerate.

From a number to which 50% has been added, only 33% needs to be subtracted to restore it to its original value.


Actually, though, I agree with its ultimate conclusion - personally. After much research and viewing at specialist Pioneer/Panasonic dealers and at Sony dealers, I chose to buy a Sony 52" rather than a Pioneer 50". The price was not a factor. I prefer the image rendered by a Sony LCD to the image rendered by a Pioneer or Panasonic plasma.

And that's irrespective of the fact that the Sony has a nice matte screen and the Pioneer and the Panasonic (and both species of Samsung) have a glossy, reflective screen which (as with computer displays) I find extremely annoying and distracting. If I wanted a 50" (or a 24", a 17", a 15.4" or a 13.3") mirror I'd buy one specifically.

Inactive

At the end of the day, it all boils down to personal preference, one mans meat etc.

I prefer Plasma, for it's deep blacks, which I have yet to see replicated on any LCD, but that may not be the optimum requirement for all.

aliEnRIK

To be fair. Sony screens (At least 1k plus) are very VERY good. Theyve recently released an LED screen. Costs a lot but they reckon its quite comparable to a Pioneer Plasma 50" which is considered to be the best in the world (Measureably the best too). Not AS good but given a few years the LED screens are REALLY going to hold their own

When I eventually upgrade the Pioneer I have now I may very well buy a Sony (Especially as Pioneer have ceased production, if only for the time being)

On top of that theres at least 3 other very different types of tvs going to be released on the market at some point so Plasmas and LCDs will probably very quickly become a thing of the past