LCD or Plasma?..what is the difference?!

i8change

Even when you pay a lot you still get motion blur with LCD/LED:-

http://www.avforums.com/review/Sony-KDL-40HX703-Review.html

After hours of testing it was time to actually view some real world content on the Sony. Overall I found the image quality from the KDL-40HX703 to be very good for a CCFL-backlit LCD display. Sadly it suffers from the usual limitations associated with the technology, specifically there is LCD motion blur and the image luminance and colour balance changes when the screen is viewed from the sides.

And a brief mention here of the limitations:-

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sony-kdl40ex503-kdl40ex503u-20100603700.htm

We ran our usual battery of motion resolution tests on the Sony KDL40EX503U HDTV to see how well it could retain clarity during movement. The answer: fairly well. With the [Motionflow] control on its “Standard” setting, the horizontal scrolling test chart revealed approximately 600 lines of resolution.
As usual, the LCD panel resolved around 300 lines when the [Motionflow] system was shut off entirely. This is relevant, because like most manufacturers’ 100hz/200hz systems, Sony’s Motionflow does not give the user much control over its de-blur and de-judder variables. In fact, Samsung (and upcoming LG models) are the only LCDs we know of which offer this facility, and we wish more manufacturers would follow their lead. Fortunately though, even with the “Standard” Motionflow setting, films on the Sony KDL40EX503 do not look overly video-like, that is, they do not suffer from the “soap-opera look” too much. There are still small interpolation artefacts and moments where the system backs off and reveals the film’s original look temporarily, but on the whole, this is one of the better 100hz LCD experiences we’ve had. Of course, we turned the system off entirely during movie watching so we could get the authentic film look — something which is not really a problem, since the 24fps rate of film does not really reveal LCD’s motion resolution limitations anyway.

By comparison a similar priced Plasma:-

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-txp42g20-txp42g20b-20100308169.htm

Using Chapter 31 of the “FPD Benchmark Software For Professional“ as our reference test pattern, the Panasonic TX-P42G20 achieved a motion resolution of 900 with [Intelligent Frame Creation] disabled. Engaging [IFC] would boost motion resolution to 1080 (the maximum quantifiable limit in this particular test pattern).

aliEnRIK

I never said LCD was as good as Plasma for motion (I could mention phospher trails for plamas if were going to get that picky)

But the fact is that measured results and watching the actual screen are 2 entirely different things. Its like people measuring differences in speaker cables but under blind listening tests no one can actually tell a difference

That link I posted had quite a number of people tested and not ONE picked up on 'actual' motion blur

The av forum link just mentions it so maybe he used a test disc to prove that motion blur does exist, but that doesnt change the fact that in my original link 'no one' actually saw any

NO tv is perfect (far from it)

All im stating is that theres very little between LCD and PLASMA these days

Snooze

i8change wrote: »

Even when you pay a lot you still get motion blur with LCD/LED:-

http://www.avforums.com/review/Sony-KDL-40HX703-Review.html

And a brief mention here of the limitations:-

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sony-kdl40ex503-kdl40ex503u-20100603700.htm

Exactly. As usual, RIK carefully chooses his sources to ensure they fit with his own viewpoint. I've been through all this with him before where he tried (and failed) to argue his (non)case with me about the lag on the Samsung LCDs. In the end he just ended up looking like a tool.

The fact is that all LCD TVs suffer from motion blur and unless you're completely blind you're going to see very noticeable problems watching stuff that has a lot of fast panning like footie matches.

If the only thing you're bothered about is brightness, contrast and blacks then get an LCD. If you actually watch a decent watchable picture that doesn't break up into 100 squares when something moves, then buy a plasma. Simples.

i8change

Only pushed the motion aspect because it is the thing that particularly put me off LCD.

Perhaps it is minimised if properly set up, but I don't think it helps that most people cannot calibrate a set or afford to have it done professionally.

Plasma TV's are more delicate if moved, use a bit more electric, are not good in bright rooms etc etc. but motion was the deciding factor for me.

The good thing about LCD/LED and Plasma is that they each have a different look to them, so depending on your own personal preferences you can purchase the one that most suits. The only danger is that they are seldom set up correctly in shops so there is a chance of making a mistake.

aliEnRIK

Snooze wrote: »

Exactly. As usual, RIK carefully chooses his sources to ensure they fit with his own viewpoint. I've been through all this with him before where he tried (and failed) to argue his (non)case with me about the lag on the Samsung LCDs. In the end he just ended up looking like a tool.

haha

I remember that

I think youll find that YOU were the one that looked a tool

NOW I see why your pushing this so much

remind me, whats 'LAG' again? :rotfl:

weegie.geek

gonzo127 wrote: »

i didnt know they had made a full LED tv i just thought all the ones advertised where just a LCD with a LED backlight, cna you point me in the direction of some info on a full LED tv please as i would liek to read up on them

I'm not sure if they're able to make them in sensible sizes at a sensible price yet. The ones I've seen on tech websites have been photo-frame sized, and more expensive than a big telly.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Best HDTV - a compendium (WIP) work in progress .. .. .. is it LCD / PLASMA ?

Nowt much between them. 99% of people are going to get Plasma or LCD

- most new TV's are over 42" so most people should buy Plasma not LCD
- most makers measure contrast differently from each other, so the contrast argument is irrelevant
- most makers measure power consumption differently, hence the debate on which uses more leccy
- viewing angle, LCD's have more issues than plasmas
- MTBF both Plasma and LCD last about the same time
- Plasma's are cheaper that LCD's
- LCD's were originally intended for static display not moving video, hence lower refresh rates
- LCD TVs don't suffer burn-in, but can still suffer from a stuck pixel hence the ' dead pixel policy '
- Plasma's can suffer from ' burn in ' if left for extended periods [ 4 hours ] on a static image, such as a menu
- LCD's weigh half a Plasma average, they use a little less power, and run cooler than a Plasma
- go to Curry's in the daytime you will prefer the LCD / Curry's at the night time you will prefer the Plasma
- most [ but not all ] set's you see in the sheds are pre-set to ' vibrant ' ? wanna sell it - dress it in its best frock !
- a 1080p panel is best, avoid 1080i panels scaling, pixel mapping, and inter / de-interlacing will reduce 720p to less than 720p
- many top end plasma's including the panny's do not deal with SD [ 576i ] very well and that’s the Freeview / Freesat SD broadcast point
- most people would not begin to understand D65 imaging standards, let alone be able to calibrate them

Viewing distance issue, on Plasma & LCDs, same screen, same eyes, different distance. HD looks good both ways and even when close up. With SD however you would have to move away from the screen to produce better results.

The Hz issue, 50 Hz was always a fast enough refresh rate in the 80’s when TV’s screen size was sub 26”. As the size moved up people started to notice screen flicker. Remember how we could see screen flicker even on our small computer screen cycling at 70Hz, let’s remind ourselves it equates to 40% faster than the 50Hz TV. It took Sony a couple of years to admit defeat to Phillips and produce a 100Hz set that did not suffer from screen flicker, followed since of course by every other TV maker. I hazard a guess that a 50Hz set of 30”[ish] would be considered unwatchable these days.

Clarification from weegie.geek for those who need it – HD Compatible / HD Ready / Full HD

HD Compatible = mostly used on cheaper projectors, older plasmas. Things with low resolution displays like 1024*1024 *, 800*600 etc. Anything that can't actually display 1280*720 as a minimum. HD ‘ Compatible ‘ because it has HDMI / display port / component input and can accept and HD signal. It just downscales it to be able to display it.

HD Ready = something that can display at least 1280*720 without being able to display 1080p. Basically anything that is between 1280*720 (so 720p) and 1920*1080 (so 1080p). Again these will downscale 1080 pee(p) or eye(i) but not 720p.

Full HD = something that can display 1080p or above. If the panel can do 1920*1080 then it's Full HD. You won't tend to see resolutions above that in panels meant for TVs but there are some higher res panels meant for PC use that give 2650*1600 or above.

* Technically 1024*1024 is able to be labelled as HD Ready, since it has 720 or more vertical lines. To be able to use the HD Ready logo, that's all you need. Many people think that's pretty disingenuous. If I feed it 1280*720 then I want it to display each pixel, I don't want any scaling down at all. I know different displays have different pixel shapes, but the bottom line is that it's not able to display all 1280 horizontal lines.

A - decide how much £spend, select 4 or 5 within the budget, read as many reviews / ask friends - but also see the TV in their home environment / check out other forum's
B - go to a megga store (day) and compare, try to see the same sets dimly lit and you may well change your mind
C - narrow your choice to two and make your decision, but remember D & E below
D - we all have different preferences, colour, brightness, sun facing TV position, vision impairment, room shape, distance from the set
E - the human eye [ the ones in your own head ] should make the final decision, not me, forum's, price, specifications etc.

10 years after flat screens came out only half the UK has one, even if 3DTV does take off, it won’t become commonplace in the living room for perhaps the same or longer time span, if you are a drug dealer buy three and give yourself a ' bling ' moment. OLED the plastic pixel display has even less chance, if any of ever being seen in a recession. LED's are just LCD with a different type of backlight, but the same LED problems [though they are showing a year on year improvement] of poor black levels, blurry motion depiction, and narrow viewing angles.

Price point selling of mid-range [ that's the one we all buy - even though we tell ourselves we bought top~0~the~range ] TVs is aggressive, the component parts of all sets in this range means makers now have a predisposition to use cheap[er] internals which are increasingly liable to fail, over often nothing more than a 20p capacitor. Try then to get as long a warranty as you can afford, but get a copy and read the small print before you sign up to it, most so called warrantable insurance policies have more ' cop out's and exclusion clauses ' than a politician's expense sheet.

~discuss~

weegie.geek

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- most new TV's are over 42" so most people should buy Plasma not LCD

Eh? Plenty of people are buying screens under 42".

- most makers measure contrast differently from each other, so the contrast argument is irrelevant

Indeed, it'd be good to have a standard scale, but transparency isn't really in their interest.

- most makers measure power consumption differently, hence the debate on which uses more leccy

Check reviews, these tend to have real-world figures.

- Plasma's are cheaper that LCD's

Well it's difficult to measure like-for-like, but this is untrue, surely? I've not seen many budget plasmas, and a quick look gives LCDs of equal size and spec to Plasmas at maybe 10-20% less. It was hardly a large sample, but Plasmas don't seem to be cheaper.

- Plasma's can suffer from ' burn in ' if left for extended periods on a static image such as a menu

Have they still not fixed that?

- LCD's weigh half a Plasma average, they use a little less power, and run cooler than a Plasma

I was always under the impression that they use quite a lot less, especially the newer LED-lit ones.

Clarification for those who need it - HDTV [#1] / HD Ready [#2] / HD Compatible [#3]

#1 can display HD images via various external & internal sources, and does have an embedded HD tuner / TV ariel HD
#2 can display HD images via various external sources, does not have an embedded HD tuner
#3 does not have a HD panel, but can accept a HD signal from audio / video in

This whole section is nonsense, sorry.

A - decide how much £spend, select 4 or 5 within the budget, read as many reviews / come to this and other forum's for info

Reviews are paramount, but stick to respected sites. Some are clearly less independent than others.

poshcaz

Blimey boys and there toys lol
Very technical

weegie.geek

If you're spending 800 quid on something you want to make sure you get a good one, and it helps to know why it's good.