Idei san : Technological visionaries are screwing Sony...

[maskrider]

Both OLEDs and Plasmas have better contrast, better brightness, better color saturation. LCD's also have more of a "screen door" or visible grid. Oh, and let's not forget viewing angles which still can't reach 180 deg with comparable brightness and refresh rate (e.g. "blurry LCD with motion trails") Plasma's are easier to manufacture in larger sizes too.

LCD's only advantage is lack of "burn in" and weight. But home theater philes only care about IQ, not weight, long lifespan (who'se gonna keep a TV for more than 10 years?) and power consumption.

If you want the best image quality, no way will you go for lcd over plasma. Many HT people still go with CRTs over LCD projectors because of LCD's many short comings. LCOS may be it's saving grace. I own an LCD projector and the screen door aliasing annoys me, and I still have to deal with contrast issues I wouldn't even think about with a plasma. I also own a 19" inch LCD flat panel monitor, and while it is vastly brighter than a CRT, I am annoyed at motion trails in counter-strike that I wouldn't get with plasma.

Well, to videophiles without a budget, LCD definitely don't cut it. Most of my friends are still using CRT projectors (and coincidently, mostly Sony G70).

OLED isn't ready for prime time yet. It have yet to prove itself even in the small display arena, and so far only Kodak as a big brand name use it on one of the DC models. For mass market products, LCD is the only choice as it is a proven technology and it is still improving.

I know the beauty of OLED as I have been wowed by it in InfoComm 2001/CES 2002. I have been waiting for its commercialisation since then. There was nothing but some prototypes until recently.

The recent Sony Qualia projector (which is a high end product) is a DILA projector which has a very high native resolution of 1920x1080.

The LCOS/DILA projectors are much better than LCD because the light is reflected than passing through the LCD panel, much like the workings of DLP.

 

[PC-Engine]

Actually when I was talking about big LCDs, I was talking about a 40" direct view LCD which costs around $5000 which isn't outrageously expensive. It has a 170 degree horizontal/vertical viewing angle and a 600:1 contrast ratio which is equal to a typical CRT direct view monitor/television. For clarification direct view = non-projection ie desktop/notebook LCDs.

 

[maskrider]

Actually when I was talking about big LCDs, I was talking about a 40" direct view LCD which costs around $5000 which isn't outrageously expensive.

For 40" I will definitely go for Plasma than LCD. 42" Plasma is even cheaper than LCD.

 

[PC-Engine]

Actually when I was talking about big LCDs, I was talking about a 40" direct view LCD which costs around $5000 which isn't outrageously expensive.

For 40" I will definitely go for Plasma than LCD. 42" Plasma is even cheaper than LCD.

Personally I'd go with LCD because I don't have to worry about screen burn-in. Also the LCD has a nice 1280x768 resolution too. Considering large plasmas are made by so many companies it's price relative to a big 40" LCD is expected. I just hope 50" and 60" direct view LCDs are not too far off and not too expensive.

 

[DemoCoder]

Yeah, instead of the rare chance of screen burnin with Plasmas, you have to worry about bad pixels with LCDs. Bad pixels are so common, most manufacturers don't consider it an LCD defective even if it has 10 defects on a 21" LCD flat panel.

OLED isn't ready for prime time yet. It have yet to prove itself even in the small display arena, and so far only Kodak as a big brand name use it on one of the DC models. For mass market products, LCD is the only choice as it is a proven technology and it is still improving.

I disagree. Plasma and DMD are also proven technologies. Plasma monitors are uber-superior to LCDs. We have a 30" plasma DVI monitor at the office hooked up for web conferencing (and playing games in off hours) and it blows away LCD.

 

[maskrider]

OLED isn't ready for prime time yet. It have yet to prove itself even in the small display arena, and so far only Kodak as a big brand name use it on one of the DC models. For mass market products, LCD is the only choice as it is a proven technology and it is still improving.

I disagree. Plasma and DMD are also proven technologies. Plasma monitors are uber-superior to LCDs. We have a 30" plasma DVI monitor at the office hooked up for web conferencing (and playing games in off hours) and it blows away LCD.

Saying LCD is the only choice is when comparing to OLED. Plasma and DMD are also proven for sure.

 

[PC-Engine]

Yeah, instead of the rare chance of screen burnin with Plasmas, you have to worry about bad pixels with LCDs. Bad pixels are so common, most manufacturers don't consider it an LCD defective even if it has 10 defects on a 21" LCD flat panel.

Burn-in is a major concern if you play games a lot on a plasma with fixed HUD type menus and I think that's one of the main reasons why you don't see smaller plasmas used for computer displays. I sure wouldn't want a burn-in pattern of a maximised IE window or a taskbar on a plasma. For watching movies etc. it's fine though. Imagine playing a game like Phantasy Star Online for 8 hours straight on a plasma...not good.

 

[London Geezer]

yes i agree. I'm not totally familiar with the time it takes to get a burn-in, but for someone like me, having 8 hours long sessions at FFX was kinda "normal".....
i wouldn't want my brand spanking new £2000 worth Plasma TV (which doesn't exist at the moment ) being ruined just for playing games.....

 

[DemoCoder]

I think you are overestimating burn-in. CRTs are also succeptable to burn in (moreso than Plasma) and I've never heard of someone getting windows task bar or hud burned in who didn't do something unreasonable (e.g. leave taskbar up for 80 hours without screensaver and without any change to the screen at all)

BTW, most Plasma screens have a builtin burn-in eraser. Even the worst burn-ins can be completely fixed with a 48hr treatment.

If you wanna overhype the burn-in potential just so you can end up with a vastly inferior LCD flatplanel image quality, go ahead. I don't know anyone with a plasma who was subject to it, but I do know plenty of people with LCDs that had really bad stuck pixels.

 

[notAFanB]

BTW, most Plasma screens have a builtin burn-in eraser. Even the worst burn-ins can be completely fixed with a 48hr treatment.

doesn't this reduce the lifetime of the screen?

 

[London Geezer]

If you wanna overhype the burn-in potential just so you can end up with a vastly inferior LCD flatplanel image quality, go ahead. I don't know anyone with a plasma who was subject to it, but I do know plenty of people with LCDs that had really bad stuck pixels.

it's not that!! it's that someone like.... uhm... ME wouldnt wanna spend thousands for a Plasma before checking that all these "myths" are actually true...

it's not like buying a toaster u know what i mean.... some people (again, ME) like other things (food, entertainment, clothes...) and can't afford thousands for a TV, let alone one that gets ruined after an unspecified time that is shorter than 4 years...

 

[notAFanB]

London-boy:

I've run into the same dilema (which probable explains the CRT back home).

there's too much misinformation and pseudo anecdotal evidence to pick out just what's what!

LCD is a definate nono for me tho, simply because I hate trails when I'm playing.

 

[PC-Engine]

BTW, most Plasma screens have a builtin burn-in eraser. Even the worst burn-ins can be completely fixed with a 48hr treatment.

doesn't this reduce the lifetime of the screen?

Yes it does. As a matter of fact it's not really a fix at all. Basically what happens is that the *erasing* is really extended burning to evenly distribute the burned areas. As a result, your screen gets dimmer negating any benefit it had over LCDs in the first place

For example let's say you have a small portion of a piece of paper that is burned. To remedy this burned portion, you burn the whole whole piece of paper so that the original burned portion doesn't stand out as much as before. Not only that but now your piece of paper is not as white as it once was.

BTW I don't know anybody who has significant stuck pixels on their LCDs so it works both ways...

Large percentages of stuck pixels are a thing of the past and as the technology gets even better than it already is, it will become a moot point. Same with response times.

 

[notAFanB]

For example let's say you have a small portion of a piece of paper that is burned. To remedy this burned portion, you burn the whole whole piece of paper so that the original burned portion doesn't stand out as much as before. Not only that but now your piece of paper is not as white as it once was.

interesting, I was led to beleive (there's an enthusiast site that I don't remember). that some models remedy burn-in by cluster burning (as above) twice. that is 2 sets of polarised images?

 

[PC-Engine]

For example let's say you have a small portion of a piece of paper that is burned. To remedy this burned portion, you burn the whole whole piece of paper so that the original burned portion doesn't stand out as much as before. Not only that but now your piece of paper is not as white as it once was.

interesting, I was led to beleive (there's an enthusiast site that I don't remember). that some models remedy burn-in by cluster burning (as above) twice. that is 2 sets of polarised images?

Yes it basically burns a negative image of the burned positive image.

 

[DemoCoder]

Well, it all depends on how long you plan to keep your display. Personally, burn in has never been an issue for me.

For me, the major issues are contrast ratio, brightness, color saturation, and refresh rate. LCD fails on all of these. An LCD next to a Plasma looks washed out and blurry. And in games, the motion trails are just plane annoying.

Most LCDs have stuck pixels, but the higher the resolution, the harder it is to notice them. If someone has a 21" LCD, but no stuck pixels, they're lucky. (BTW, a stuck pixel on an LCD is usually 1/3 the size of an actual pixel) You have to be unlucky and get a cluster or 2 or 3 to notice them, and you can usually only notice them if the screen is completely black.

LCDs have a life in projection, but for flat panels, they just look too sucky if they are arranged in a store next to a Plasma or CRT like a WEGA HDTV.

 

[notAFanB]

For example let's say you have a small portion of a piece of paper that is burned. To remedy this burned portion, you burn the whole whole piece of paper so that the original burned portion doesn't stand out as much as before. Not only that but now your piece of paper is not as white as it once was.

interesting, I was led to beleive (there's an enthusiast site that I don't remember). that some models remedy burn-in by cluster burning (as above) twice. that is 2 sets of polarised images?

Yes it basically burns a negative image of the burned positive image.

ah right.

now this is gonna sound like I'm nit picking but your analogy isn't quite correct then. it gave me the impression tht the screen bets progressively more 'burn'/'darker as time goes on.

still if this is how it works repeated abuse of 'reburn' gonna kill the the screen in no time, aren't there alternative solutions ?

 

[PC-Engine]

Well, it all depends on how long you plan to keep your display. Personally, burn in has never been an issue for me.

For me, the major issues are contrast ratio, brightness, color saturation, and refresh rate. LCD fails on all of these. An LCD next to a Plasma looks washed out and blurry. And in games, the motion trails are just plane annoying.

Most LCDs have stuck pixels, but the higher the resolution, the harder it is to notice them. If someone has a 21" LCD, but no stuck pixels, they're lucky. (BTW, a stuck pixel on an LCD is usually 1/3 the size of an actual pixel) You have to be unlucky and get a cluster or 2 or 3 to notice them, and you can usually only notice them if the screen is completely black.

LCDs have a life in projection, but for flat panels, they just look too sucky if they are arranged in a store next to a Plasma or CRT like a WEGA HDTV.

It's true that some LCDs look more washed out than others, but the same can be said of plasmas. Anyway a typical CRT direct view television has a CR of 700:1 the best LCDs so far have a CR of 600:1 so the gap is narrowing. LCDs are rapidly improving on all fronts and there's no reason why they won't be able to compete with plasmas in the living room.

As for the blurring, that's not the fault of the LCD. When I watch DVDs on my LCD using my computer, it's very clear. The LCDs that are made for the living room use some sort of scaling circuity that cause the blurring.

 

[DemoCoder]

It's true that some LCDs look more washed out than others, but the same can be said of plasmas. Anyway a typical CRT direct view television has a CR of 700:1 the best LCDs so far have a CR of 600:1 so the gap is narrowing. LCDs are rapidly improving on all fronts and there's no reason why they won't be able to compete with plasmas in the living room.

Closing the gap? A typical high quality plasma (not the bargin brands) will deliver anywhere from 1200:1 CR to 3000:1 CR with a brightness of atleast 600-700 CDM. Colors (especially blacks) are worse because of the subtractive nature of LCDs. If the screen can't display true black (because the pixels can't stop atleast a little white light from leaking through), how do you think reds, and blues are going to look if there is additional light leaking through?

A plasma loses brightness over time (14 years half life average) because of the burn in factor, but Plasma's are passive devices. LCDs will accumulate failed pixels over their lifetime whereas Plasmas never have (post manufacturing) failed pixels. Let's compare a 10 year old LCD vs a 10 year old Plasma and see which is degraded more.

As for the blurring, that's not the fault of the LCD. When I watch DVDs on my LCD using my computer, it's very clear. The LCDs that are made for the living room use some sort of scaling circuity that cause the blurring.

Most HT setups disable interpolation and use an external high quality scaler. I run pre-scaled DVI into all my devices. But that's not the "blurryness" I'm talking about. I'm talking about blurriness caused by a refresh rate that is typically greater than 1/30th of a scan, and because of light leakage in brightscenes.

 

[PC-Engine]

The blurriness are evident in LCD televisions and LCD projection televisions. They are not evident when watching DVDs from a PC on a desktop LCd. A 40" LCD direct view flat panel with a 1280x768 resolution will look the same as a 19" LCD with that resolution. Only difference is it's bigger. A DVD isn't going to look blurrier than it does on a laptop's LCD or a desktop's LCD. I've seen HD material on a 50" Pioneer plasma and it doesn't look more clear than my desktop LCD. It does look more clear than those new LCD flat panel televisions like those AQUOS from Sharp.

Like I said a CRT direct view television has a CR of 700:1. I don't hear people complaining about the CR on those. So you can have a theoretical CR of 10000:1 but if it's not percievable then it's a moot point. When I goto the theater to watch a movie, I don't complain about how it looks washed out compared to my CRT television at home because I prefer the film look as it looks more real. To much contrast make everything look fake.

Anyway since you're talking about blurriness due to refresh rate..well why do you think the response times of LCDs are getting so low?

If you wanna play games then get a fast response LCD...that's what they're for