Plasma > LCD
- Thread starter ShaidarHaran
- Start date
Sony has a joint LCD plant with Samsung but they're going to be investing in a new joint LCD plant with Sharp too.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,142997/article.html
Ya the new sharp (2/3rds sharp, 1/3 sony) facility won't be ready for a couple years yet.
Because, you would tangible benefit from buying a larger 768p display or even just pocketing the cash rather than spending the cash on avoiding the need to be scaled, as the latter is rendered moot at the distance you will be view it from when using a display with quality scaling hardware.
It may seem that way for you, but in practice it is anything but. On the other hand, as I mentioned previously, silly would be trying to use a 1080p desktop on a 42" from 8' away with anything less than the eyes of a hawk.
So the experience you've been trying to argue contract my stamens of display resolution aren't even just that of output resolution, but actually rendering resolution as well? That is akin to hearing me say "Pigs don't fly." and you responding with "You're wrong, I've seen birds do it!"
How then do you suggest I test? If I scale I get complaints of blurring the image. If I don't scale I'm running a lower resolution in a portion of the screen so fewer pixels are utilized and the image becomes more difficult to see. I should note that I did move a bit closer to the screen for 720p unscaled testing, and still found 1080p to produce a superior image.
I don't know what eyes I have, other than not needing glasses, but I can certainly see my LCD (20" 1680*1050) screen from 4 feet so a 42 inch from 8 feet seems about the same to me. I sit with my LCD on the far back of my desk literally hanging off a bit and my keyboard at the front hanging the lip off and at arms length. So my default position is 3.5 feet from my 20" LCD.
@Robert
I am well aware they don't come in 720p. That was rather my point. It always from day one seemed incredibly foolish to me. I guess it is just manufacturing issues, but it seems ridiculous.
@Robert
I am well aware they don't come in 720p. That was rather my point. It always from day one seemed incredibly foolish to me. I guess it is just manufacturing issues, but it seems ridiculous.
Actually, accounting for the difference in resolution, about 4.5' from the display would be the same. Also, if you are actually arms length away, then you are either closer than 3.5" now, about 9' tall, or have some disproportionately long arms. With the odds weighing heavily on the first, I recommend using a tape measure to see just how impractical a 1680x1050 desktop is on that 20" from 4.5' away.
The increase in resolution on a 768p display over a 720p counterpart often provides an improvement in image fidelity at standard viewing distances. It would be ridiculous for manufactures to not exploit that.
As Robert explained above, the only way one can rightly test the difference between two different display resolutions is with two displays built to the same specs aside from their differing native resolutions. Anything else and you are just pointing to oranges while attempting to make an argument about apples.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is your native language english? I am just curious b/c you seem confused by what I wrote. I said I was arms length from my keyboard not screen.
I measured by the way 41 inches. That is 1 inch from 3.5 feet so my estimate was pretty dang close.
edit:
And BTW this has actually been useful to me b/c now my take away message is
42"--> 720 or 1080
=>47"-->1080
Last edited by a moderator:
English is my native language, and if you had said "arms length from my keyboard" I would have understood your meaning without issue. However, your previous statement wasn't nearly that clear, and having never seen a person use a keyboard with fully outstretched arms, I was left to assume your "and at arms length" was in respect to the monitor.
Regardless, did you bother to note how impractical your 1680x1050 desktop is on that 20" from 4.5' away?
Also, you are missing a vital part of the equation with your summery; view distance. For instance; even with a 60" display, a person with 20/20 or less won't observe any tangible benefit between a 1080p display and a 768p counterpart from more than 11' away. Or the other hand, even on a 32" 1080p display, 20/20 vision will resolve the full resolution when viewed from a distance of about 4.5' or less.
And again, with your intended viewing distance of 8", 20/20 vision won't even resolve 700 lines of resolution from a 42" display, 1080p or otherwise. However, the same eyesight at the same distance will resolve more resolution from 50" display.
Regardless, did you bother to note how impractical your 1680x1050 desktop is on that 20" from 4.5' away?
Also, you are missing a vital part of the equation with your summery; view distance. For instance; even with a 60" display, a person with 20/20 or less won't observe any tangible benefit between a 1080p display and a 768p counterpart from more than 11' away. Or the other hand, even on a 32" 1080p display, 20/20 vision will resolve the full resolution when viewed from a distance of about 4.5' or less.
And again, with your intended viewing distance of 8", 20/20 vision won't even resolve 700 lines of resolution from a 42" display, 1080p or otherwise. However, the same eyesight at the same distance will resolve more resolution from 50" display.
Last edited by a moderator:
Some very good information being posted here. I'm currently running a 22" 1680x1050 LCD and I sit about 4.5' away from the screen. In order to read the standard fonts on the desktop icons I have to try fairly hard so I've changed to large fonts in the appearance tab of display propertie which helps a lot. I have clear type font smoothing (for LCD) enabled btw. Oh I'm using a HDMI output btw. I'm thinking of upgrading to a 42" 1920x1080 next year and sitting a little farther away.
Kyle I realize it was not crystal clear after the manner of Strunk.
I am not missing the element of distance. I just happen to know where I live and what the distance will be. 8 feet max for the normal viewing. From my person experiences that translates into what I said roughly.
I will actually look at 720p plasmas. If I could get a superb 42" plasma with an awesome scalar @720p I would put it high on the list.
I think now I will either try that or a bigger LCD. LCDs have their problems, but burn in (as it is HTPC) isn't one of them and they work good in daylight even if they suck in the dark. I am actually thinking now about getting an LCD and a projector for night watching later.
Yeah, though, I'm sure you've seen it doesn't effect everything, and screws up the formating on some things as well. I recomend trying 1440x900 using either your video drivers scaling or that of the display, depending on whichever does a better job, as you might find that a preferable solution. I also have a 22" LCD, which I keep on the entertainment center that sits off to the side of my plasma. Being 8' away from that, I have to run the desktop on it at 960x600 to read it clearly from my couch. Like most LCD monitors, the scaling on it is crap, I use Nvidia drivers for that which does a decent job of it.
Very roughly. Your eperience with a 20" 1680x1080 display at 3.5' translates to what you'd resolve from a 42" at about 6.2'. Again, 8' from a 1080p desktop on a 42" is just as impratical as 4.5' from your 1680x1050 20".
Actually, my point has been that if a larger display does appeal to you, then a 768p 50' plasma can be had for around the same price as what you were looking to spend on a 42" 1080p model, and the extra display would provide you with more resolvable resolution at you your intended viewing distance despite the lower native resolution.
As for burn-in, there are a lot of misconceptions about that which lead people to assume using a plasma as an HTPC display is problematic, but very little truth to those claims. If you intend to use it strictly as a desktop then you'll need to run a screensaver or other content regularly when not using it to avoid accumulating uneven wear. However, if you'll also be playing games, watching movies, TVs, and such as HTPCs are generally used for, you'll likely accomplish that task without even having to ever even think about it. Furthermore, in the off chance you do subject the display to visibly uneven wear, as has been said by others as well as myself above, correcting that is a simple matter of displaying other content to make the fading even out.
A projector allows you to have a 70" screen though 
A 50" plasma might be nice, but the power draw would be very high as well. Though I believe with plasmas the power draw is smaller for 720p than 1080p as there are fewer cells to energize (or whatever the call the things).
An LCD needs a brighter backlight at a higher resolution, but I do not think it would be as significant as in a plasma.
I guess I will look into that as well.
I read all about the evening out the fading, but how is that really desirable? I mean wearing out the rest of the screen to match seems bad. Wearing out the screen in general seems a poor idea. I don't like the idea of the screen losing 50% of brightness in 5 years or whatever time frame it is. Meh I will probably wait till the end of the summer anyway.
A 50" plasma might be nice, but the power draw would be very high as well. Though I believe with plasmas the power draw is smaller for 720p than 1080p as there are fewer cells to energize (or whatever the call the things).
An LCD needs a brighter backlight at a higher resolution, but I do not think it would be as significant as in a plasma.
I guess I will look into that as well.
I read all about the evening out the fading, but how is that really desirable? I mean wearing out the rest of the screen to match seems bad. Wearing out the screen in general seems a poor idea. I don't like the idea of the screen losing 50% of brightness in 5 years or whatever time frame it is. Meh I will probably wait till the end of the summer anyway.
The fading isn't nearly that severe. The newer Panasonics have a 100,000 hour half-life, which means it would take nearly 11.5 years of constantly displaying regular content to fade the phosphors to half brightness, or over 34 years at 8 hours a day every day. Even the 60,000 hour half life models like the one I use will take over 20 years of use for 8 hours a day to fade of half brightness. And note that LCDs also deteriorate with use, though mostly just the backlight which can sometimes be replaced.
As for power draw, LCDs to typically average less, but even with a 50" 1080p plasma used for an average of 8 hours a day, you are only looking at about $5-10 a month.
And of couse front projection is great for huge displays. My next home will have a basement or other large room where I can fully control the lighting and build a proper home theater with a 100"+ screen. I can't rightly accommodate anything of the sort in my current house though, and hence am content with the 50" plasma I use now.
As for power draw, LCDs to typically average less, but even with a 50" 1080p plasma used for an average of 8 hours a day, you are only looking at about $5-10 a month.
And of couse front projection is great for huge displays. My next home will have a basement or other large room where I can fully control the lighting and build a proper home theater with a 100"+ screen. I can't rightly accommodate anything of the sort in my current house though, and hence am content with the 50" plasma I use now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I checked I can get
50" 720p plasma
for $200 more than
this 42" 1080p
And $100 less than the new pansonic.
42" 1080p
It is annoying to figure out which are better.
The First two are right across from one another so the image could be compared. The 42" actually looked better, but it might just be that the signal was crappy and viewing it on a smaller screen made it look nicer.
The last 42" was 60 feet away from the rest so I could not compare it well.
I was quite tempted by the 50" I have to admit just from a price/size perspective. I will think a bit about it, but I might swallow my pride and get it despite it not being 1080p. Though like I said the display did look a bit blotchy/blocky on it.
Let me know what you think based on the tech specs of those sets, or if they all suck at least how they compare to one another.
50" 720p plasma
for $200 more than
this 42" 1080p
And $100 less than the new pansonic.
42" 1080p
It is annoying to figure out which are better.
The First two are right across from one another so the image could be compared. The 42" actually looked better, but it might just be that the signal was crappy and viewing it on a smaller screen made it look nicer.
The last 42" was 60 feet away from the rest so I could not compare it well.
I was quite tempted by the 50" I have to admit just from a price/size perspective. I will think a bit about it, but I might swallow my pride and get it despite it not being 1080p. Though like I said the display did look a bit blotchy/blocky on it.
Let me know what you think based on the tech specs of those sets, or if they all suck at least how they compare to one another.
The blotchy/blocky issue is surely one of poor signal quality being more visible on the larger display, it is built with the same tech as the 42" is was next to. They are all good displays though, with what would be best depending on what features you'd benefit from. But again, at 8' from a 42" with 20/20 or less, you won't see any tangible benefit from those 1080p models over their 768p equivalents which can be had for a good bit less.
Cool.
I have better than 20/20, but I went and actually measured the room and it is more like 10 feet so I think the 50" might be fine. I wish my laptop had a hddvd/bluray drive (it does have hdmi) so I could go hook it up to the TVs and play a decent source on them and then see how they look to me.
I'm not certain about this, but I think some of the blotchy/blocky/color banding can also be caused by the seemingly low contrast ratios those sets have. It might be more evident if the two 42" were side by side.
The new Pana's have a native contrast ratio of 30,000 : 1 with dynamic contrast ratio of 100,000 : 1. The sets linked above have significantly lower specs; the 50" has dynamic contrast ratio of 10,000 : 1 (50"), the 42" a dynamic contrast ratio of 5,000 : 1 and the last 42" has dynamic contrast ratio of 20,000 : 1.
Though in the case of the 50" and 42", Kyleb said what the cause likely is. Did you notice less color banding or more dynamic range on the 50" over the first 42" or even more of a range on the second 42" over the others?
The new Pana's have a native contrast ratio of 30,000 : 1 with dynamic contrast ratio of 100,000 : 1. The sets linked above have significantly lower specs; the 50" has dynamic contrast ratio of 10,000 : 1 (50"), the 42" a dynamic contrast ratio of 5,000 : 1 and the last 42" has dynamic contrast ratio of 20,000 : 1.
Though in the case of the 50" and 42", Kyleb said what the cause likely is. Did you notice less color banding or more dynamic range on the 50" over the first 42" or even more of a range on the second 42" over the others?
You don't rightly need any HD optical media drive to test, just some quality sample files stored on your laptop's HDD.
As for the contrast ratio figures, they are just measures between the darkest and the lightest the display can show, which doesn't directly relate to how smooth of or blocky of color gradients will be displayed. There also isn't any one agreed means by which contrast ratio is measured, so comparing the numbers between displays can often be misleading.