Plasma > LCD

[vazel]

Good info in this thread. I always liked plasmas better for their better contrast(contrast has a huge impact on the way colors look to me) but this thread cements it without a doubt.

One thing that should be mentioned is motion resolution.
LCD tvs, when not showing static images, don´t show their 1080p or 720p resolution. Instead, the worst ones fall to 300 lines of resolution, and the best to 550-600 lines.
New FullHD plasmas remains, even in most intense moving scenes, in the range of 880-950 lines of res.

Wow I didn't know that. I've read on AVS how some displays don't de-interlace 1080i properly and you end up getting a lower resolution as a result.

 

[Sxotty]

Plasmas don't inherently loose any resolution from motion, and certainly don't loose as much are suggesting in your "800 lines and 300" argument. I'm not riled up at all here, but if something I've said has upset your calm then I recommend taking a breather and rereading what has been presented in this thread.

From the link in this thread

The result, three distinct groups emerged from this test of the twenty 1080p displays. All displays in the top group were plasma HDTVs. They all had a static resolution of 1080 lines and a measured motion resolution of 830-880 lines, depending on the specific display. The next group consisted of microdisplay rear projectors, static measured 1050-1080 (depending on the display) while motion resolution ranged of 610-780 lines. The bottom group were all the LCD flat panels, with a static resolution of 400 (one panel) to 1080 lines and motion rez coming in at 360 lines (one set tested) to 600 lines. Three of the LCDs tested were 120 Hz models (one was the Sony KDL-46XBR4 reviewed here), all 120 Hz models had 600 lines of motion resolution.

That same percentage is 553-586 for a 720 set for that top group. Those are plasmas.

So I would rather have 880 lines than 586 lines

If you want to explain why that reviewer is incorrect please go ahead, but I could definitely see the difference between those resolutions.

600Lines for 120Hz LCDs seems pretty poor.

 

[wishiknew]

Hi all.

Was at the electronics store the other day but noticed something. The plasmas seem to flicker to me. Ok maybe it is not but the image was not solid. Kinda like looking at 72/under hz vs 85hz on a crt. Am I seeing things? I thought plasmas pulse fast enough to not be seen.

 

[kyleb]

From the link in this thread

...

That same percentage is 553-586 for a 720 set for that top group. Those are plasmas.

Those are the results for his tests on some 1080p plasmas being missused to extrapolate to lower display resolutions.

So I would rather have 880 lines than 586 lines

But can you name one rational reason to spend more for those 880 lines, or even 1080 lines, when you are going to be viewing it at a distance where your eyes (assuming you don't have better than 20/20 vision) can't even fully resolve what a 768p plasma will provide at a lesser price?

If you want to explain why that reviewer is incorrect please go ahead, but I could definitely see the difference between those resolutions.

600Lines for 120Hz LCDs seems pretty poor.

I don't understand what these last bits are about. I never suggested any LCD, or contradicted the reviewer you quoted in any way.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Hence the "better than 20/20" qualifcation. Do you not know what that means?

I'm not sure what I've said to you to cause you to take up such a tone, but surely you can disagree politely.

Which doesn't have anything to do whith my statement about the differece in 768p and 1080p native resolutions at that distance on a display of that size.

Like I said, my eyesight is by no means fantastic, and you can bet your butt I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p.

I'm talking about established science, while you are talking missunderstanding and conjector.

In what world does a quantification of difference in pixel count equate to "misunderstanding and conjecture"?

 

[ShaidarHaran]

After using my Panasonic plasma extensively both for gaming and as a general PC display since day 1, my personal experience has been that while I have seen some image retention (this easily corrected by the TV's anti-image retention routine that can be run from the setup menu) I have seen no evidence of burn-in. In fact, it's excelled at every task I've thrown at it.

Totally satisfied with my purchase and glad I went this route over LCD.

Your experience mirrors mine. Granted I've only had my TV a few weeks, but my roommate and I have offset schedules (I work days, he works nights) so the thing is almost always on watching cable, playing PS3 games, PC games, and watching Blu-rays. Image retention is noticeable on occasion, but I have yet to see any permanent burn-in.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Hi all.

Was at the electronics store the other day but noticed something. The plasmas seem to flicker to me. Ok maybe it is not but the image was not solid. Kinda like looking at 72/under hz vs 85hz on a crt. Am I seeing things? I thought plasmas pulse fast enough to not be seen.

I don't see flicker on my plasma... They probably were just using low res content or low quality analog cables or perhaps had the tv configured incorrectly (or one of a million other possibilities).

 

[ShaidarHaran]

But can you name one rational reason to spend more for those 880 lines, or even 1080 lines, when you are going to be viewing it at a distance where your eyes (assuming you don't have better than 20/20 vision) can't even fully resolve what a 768p plasma will provide at a lesser price?

I grow tired of hearing absolute statements like this.

Everyone's experience viewing any display will differ, as everyone has different eyesight, and a different SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT OF IMAGE QUALITY. You can claim "science!!!1oneonerabble!" all you want, but if your "science" can be disproven by my own experience, it is no longer science.

If a person is sensitive to resolution in PC monitors, they likely will be in TVs as well, despite the increased viewing distance (increased size counter-acts this of course).

 

[kyleb]

I'm not sure what I've said to you to cause you to take up such a tone, but surely you can disagree politely.

I didn't intend to be abrasive there, it was an honest question. Based on your "Everyone's eyesight is different though." I figured that either you overlooked the "better than 20/20" qualifcation in my statement, or you don't understand what it means. If the confusion was based on the latter, I'd be happy to explain the meaning of the the prhase or anything else I've said here.

Like I said, my eyesight is by no means fantastic, and you can bet your butt I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p.

And as I said, I've said noting to suggest you shouldn''t.

In what world does a quantification of difference in pixel count equate to "misunderstanding and conjecture"?

The misunderstanding is the bit about differing eyesight, and the conjecture is your attempt to make a judgment on the value of display resolution based on your experience with varying input resolutions. Again, I'd happy to answer any questions you might on my comments.

I grow tired of hearing absolute statements like this.

It wasn't a statement, it was a question. I take it you don't have an answer for it either?

 

[suryad]

This is a great thread indeed. COnsidering the 4.5k price tag of the Pioneer 60 inch, I am a bit hesitant in purchasing it over an LCD. So just going by your opinions would it be a safe investment?

 

[ShaidarHaran]

I didn't intend to be abrasive there, it was an honest question. Based on your "Everyone's eyesight is different though." I figured that either you overlooked the "better than 20/20" qualifcation in my statement, or you don't understand what it means. If the confusion was based on the latter, I'd be happy to explain the meaning of the the prhase or anything else I've said here.

And as I said, I've said noting to suggest you shouldn''t.

The misunderstanding is the bit about differing eyesight, and the conjecture is your attempt to make a judgment on the value of display resolution based on your experience with varying input resolutions. Again, I'd happy to answer any questions you might on my comments.

There's no misunderstanding on my part. All I'm saying is you should not make absolute statements about a purely subjective matter such as image quality, even by implication.

It wasn't a statement, it was a question. I take it you don't have an answer for it either?

It was a loaded question, and that's being polite.

Meh, anyway, seems we're just arguing for the sake of argument now.

 

[AlNom]

This is a great thread indeed. COnsidering the 4.5k price tag of the Pioneer 60 inch, I am a bit hesitant in purchasing it over an LCD. So just going by your opinions would it be a safe investment?

Plasma is worth it IMO. It might require a bit more care in terms of the image retention, but... yeah. image quality ftw.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

This is a great thread indeed. COnsidering the 4.5k price tag of the Pioneer 60 inch, I am a bit hesitant in purchasing it over an LCD. So just going by your opinions would it be a safe investment?

After switching from LCD to plasma, I see no reason to go back. I would put my measley $1200 plasma up against the best LCD on the market at this time, and fully expect my plasma to have superior contrast, shadow detail, and motion resolution than even a $5000 LCD.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Plasma is worth it IMO. It might require a bit more care in terms of the image retention, but... yeah. image quality ftw.

One thing I'd like to add here WRT anti-image retention features:
both Pioneer and Panasonic do pixel wobbling/orbiting which basically makes burn-in all but impossible in real-world usage scenarios. Also, my Panasonic has a "scrolling bar" feature that the user can select from the advanced picture setup menu which is literally a white bar that scrolls from left to white which "wipes" the image.

 

[AlNom]

Regular TV viewing does well too

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Regular TV viewing does well too

Yes, I generally use cable tv as a "screensaver" for my plasma, but I am careful to pick the channel (no ever-present news tickers or bars on the screen).

 

[kyleb]

There's no misunderstanding on my part. All I'm saying is you should not make absolute statements about a purely subjective matter such as image quality, even by implication.

There is a serious misunderstanding here. I am talking about the objective matter of how much resolution 20/20 vision can resolve from a given display area at a given distance. I can provide sources if you need.

It was a loaded question, and that's being polite.

No, it wasn't; neither a loaded question, nor polite to try and brush it off as one.

Meh, anyway, seems we're just arguing for the sake of argument now.

I am simply trying to share information so that my fellow B3Ders may benefit from making rational purchasing decisions, and I am at a loss as to how my comments here could be reasonably construed as anything but that.

 

[kyleb]

One thing I'd like to add here WRT anti-image retention features:
both Pioneer and Panasonic do pixel wobbling/orbiting which basically makes burn-in all but impossible in real-world usage scenarios.

Actually, wobbling/orbiting just slowly moves image around on the screen a bit. It doesn't do anything to stop the uneven fading known as "burn-in", but rather just spreads the wear it around a bit so the edges between the difference in brightness aren't as sharp.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Actually, wobbling/orbiting just slowly moves image around on the screen a bit. It doesn't do anything to stop the uneven fading known as "burn-in", but rather just spreads the wear it around a bit so the edges between the difference in brightness aren't as sharp.

"spreading wear around" reduces burn-in by definition.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

There is a serious misunderstanding here. I am talking about the objective matter of how much resolution 20/20 vision can resolve from a given display area at a given distance. I can provide sources if you need.

You can use terms like "science" and "objective" and even cite sources all you like, but the simple fact that my < 20/20 eyesight is able to resolve 1080p resolution should tell you what kind of "science" you're referrencing, that being junk.

I'm sure I've seen the same sites you've seen discussing the matter, you know the ones with the nice graph that shows appropriate resolution for display size and viewing distance.

No, it wasn't; neither a loaded question, nor polite to try and brush it off as one.

Fine, I'll quote you again and elaborate:

But can you name one rational reason to spend more for those 880 lines, or even 1080 lines, when you are going to be viewing it at a distance where your eyes (assuming you don't have better than 20/20 vision) can't even fully resolve what a 768p plasma will provide at a lesser price?

It's a loaded question because your premise is false. > 20/20 vision is not required to distinguish the difference between 720p and 1080p at the display sizes and viewing distances being discussed.

I am simply trying to share information so that my fellow B3Ders may benefit from making rational purchasing decisions, and I am at a loss as to how my comments here could be reasonably construed as anything but that.

I take issue with the information you are presenting, because my own real-life experience does not corroborate these so-called "scientific, objective" findings.