lcd or plasma?

skity

skity

CAGiversary!
firstly to start it off i know where the search button is at and i couldn't find anything


secondly i been saving up money to buy a new tv my old 32 crt is just not making me happy any more

so far i have saved up 800 to put towards a new tv i been looking doing research blah blah blah but i can seem to get a consistent answer

so ill try here

whats better for gaming plasma or lcd?
 
In before the "plasma burn in" crowd shows up. It's less of a problem now than it used to be, and half life expectancy is the same as lcd. The things you need to worry about are your ambient light level, because plasma tvs are highly reflective, and lag. HDTV's lag, its not the screen refresh, its the processing the tv does to the image before it puts it up. You'll want a tv with game mode, and on many sets, the VGA input shows little or no lag.

check out this thread on srk, fighting games are very sensitive to lag so they pay special attention
http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=174085
 
Plasma for me.

I use a Panasonic TH-50PZ77U and a Sony KDL46XBR2... the Plasma is clearly superior for gaming.

For reference, through lag/input lag testing I found that the Panasonic set was virtually lag free with/without game mode enabled. The Sony stayed true to it's word and averaged close to 6-8ms response time.

Word.
 
I still like the LCD better but when I first bought mine Plasma had its issues more so then now. The issues are not as bad as they were when the sets were just coming out. Same goes for DLP. In the past I was not able to watch DLP because I was one of the few people that could see the different color bars on the sides of the screen. When I bought my first HD TV out of the 2 or 3 sales people and about 6 other peole looking at TVs I was the only one who saw the bars on all DLP tvs and one other person saw them on one or 2 of the DLPs but that was it, and they had to look hard for them they were not as noticable to them as they were for me. Now I can look at a DLP no issue. I have yet to look at one of the LED TVs but I want to look to see what the picture is like for them.

To me it is not going to be what is better Plasma, LCD, DLP, or LED it is going to be just what looks better to the viewer. It might even be to that point now. I just suggest you got and look at different TVs and see what one looks better to you. Forget about the Plasma, LCD, DLP and LED then go home and look at some reviews for the TVs.

For brands I suggest checking otu Samsung and if their TVs are as good as they were in the past Sony.

EDIT: Also you might want to check out Vizio and Olevia. They are on the lower end when it comes to cost but I have heard good things about Vizio and have an Olevia and like it.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']choose the size/resolution you want and get the cheapest one you can find regardless of technology[/QUOTE]

Well, one should also factor in quality--if they care at all about picture quality.

You generally get what you pay for, so you really want to look at a lot of TVs, find the one you like the picture the best on in your price range and then shop around for a while and find the best price on it you can.

I stay away from budget brands myself as I thought they all looked pretty crappy compared to say Panasonic or Pioneer Plasmas and Sony, Samsung and Sharp LCDs etc. I orginally took a chance on a Vizio 42" plasma in 2007 and it made a loud buzzing noise that their technician couldn't fix (said it was just common with that model). So I ended up pay a couple hundred more and getting a 50" Sony LCD Rear Projection TV and have been 100% happy with it. I'm sure Vizio has fixed that buzzing issue with their newer plasmas (and I don't think the LCDs had it ever), but the picture quality just isn't as good as paying more for a top brand in which ever type of TV you decide on.

In any event, a TV is something you'll probably use for years (unless you're just getting a small one for a dorm room or something-- in which case it's maybe better to go with a cheap one for now) so it's one thing where it's better off to not be a cheap ass, save up longer and get the one you really want. I'd go at least 50" if you have the room for it, I'd never buy anything small after getting used to mine.

If I had to buy a TV today, I'd probably go with a 50" Panasonic or Pioneer plasma. I think the pictures on those still top LCDs from what I've seen in stores. Especially for movies which I watch a lot more than I game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I always heard that LCD was the way to go because with plasmas, you get burn-in. I wound up picking up a Samsung plasma about six months ago and I cant stress enough how great it is. The colors are so much richer than any of the LCD TV's we own. Whether it be TV, movies, or games, the picture quality is excellent, and in my opinion, on another level. If you know how to take care of the TV, you wont get burn-in. Just remember to shut it off when its not in use.
 
get a plasma man. I got a samsung plasma about a year ago, never regretted for a second. my parents have an LCD and just looking in comparison, when both screens are optimized, the plasma's colors are just richer and more vibrant.

Unless you're watching something for about 6-8 hrs straight with a still image in one place, you're not gonna get burn in. even if you do get some slight image retention, there's a number of things you can do to fix it, taht's already installed on the tv.

long story short, PLASMA
 
Years ago when the had all just come out burn in was a big issue with plasma and well all other then crt. CRT had the lowest chance of getting it if it got it at all however plasmas had the biggest chance. From what I have heard now is that had dropped a lot since then. LCDs can still get it and I know this first hand. Also as long as you do not keep the same picture on all the time I would not worry now about burn in on any tv.
 
[quote name='pochaccoheaven']lcd because it does the the job just as good as plasma without having to pay so much.[/QUOTE]

Depends on size. For instance, with 50" (the smallest I would buy for my main TV) you're going to get better picture for less money with Plasma most of the time.


But the real key with TV shopping is to just factor your budget, don't be cheap if it's going to be your main TV for several years (be willing to save up longer) and go out and look at a lot of TVs and find the one you really like.

Try to maximize both picture quality and screen size within your budget so you don't end up disappointed in a month or two and get buyer's remorse. I've seen many people regret buying a TV too small, or regret going with a cheaper TV when they start to notice things about the picture quality and/or see nicer displays.

But if it's just going to be small TV for gaming for a couple years or something, you don't have to be as careful as you'll be using it short-term and not spending all that much anyway.

[quote name='hsuuperman']
Unless you're watching something for about 6-8 hrs straight with a still image in one place, you're not gonna get burn in. even if you do get some slight image retention, there's a number of things you can do to fix it, taht's already installed on the tv.

long story short, PLASMA[/QUOTE]

Yep, there's not really much threat of burn in. Just temporary image retention that will go away when you change channels or run the screen cleaner in the menu for a couple minutes. And even that issue isn't nearly as bad as it was even a few years ago.
 
I've had a Polaroid 40' flat panel LCD for a year and a half now an it's worked like a dream for me. Bought it for 800 when Circuit City was still in business. I've never had any problems with it and have never experienced any lag. Bought an HDMI cable for it for less than 10 bucks and after about 40 hours of Street Fighter IV, 60 of Soul Calibur 4, and over 200 of Call of Duty 4, I have yet to see the screen lag one bit.

If you're going to stick with a 32 inch then 720 is just as good as 1080, but if you're going bigger you want to go with 1080. Now you can probably get a much better model for the same price I paid for this one, since technology gets cheaper over time.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, one should also factor in quality--if they care at all about picture quality.

You generally get what you pay for, so you really want to look at a lot of TVs, find the one you like the picture the best on in your price range and then shop around for a while and find the best price on it you can.
[/QUOTE]

bah. I bought a 32" Westinghouse 720p LCD a little over a year ago and the picture is perfect. Cheapest 720p 32" tv i could find and have had ZERO problems...some people are too hung up on name brands when most of the innards are the same thing.
 
It just depends how picky you are about picture quality (colors, black level, motion blur, etc. etc. etc.), how big the set is and how close you sit. Flaws are less noticeable on smaller sets and the further away you sit from the TV. And some people just can't notice the difference or just don't care and would rather save the money as the picture on the cheaper sets is good enough for them. And that's fine.

I'm not a videophile, but I watch a lot of movies so I'm pretty picky compared to the average joe (just not on the level of people on sites like AVS Forums) so I can tell a difference between a nice plasma and the off brands when I go to compare in the store etc.

But of course, it's up to the individual and their eyes etc. on what looks better and how much they care about picture quality etc. etc. There's nothing wrong with the off brands if you're not that picky, will never buy a calibration disc etc. etc. If you go to the store and the off brand looks great to you, and you can't tell much of a difference (assuming you're playing with the calibrations to turn down the brightness etc. and then comparing) then by all means go with the cheaper brand as there's no sense in paying for improvements you don't notice or care about.

And it also depends on how much of a cheapass someone is. I'm not much of one at all, in the sense that I don't mind paying more for quality to get a better TV, or meal or beer etc. etc.. I just want the best deal on the specific product I'm looking for that I can find as no sense in paying more than you have to for whatever you decide to buy. :D But others are very tight with their money (or just on tight budgets) and have to stick with cheaper options.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong: but LCD's slowly start getting dimmer the second first turned on. With Plasma, this doesn't happen.
 
[quote name='BondJamesBond']Correct me if I'm wrong: but LCD's slowly start getting dimmer the second first turned on. With Plasma, this doesn't happen.[/QUOTE]

Nope, both get dimmer.

It's referred to as half-life (time to half original brightness). That used to be a weakness of plasma, but now the half-lifes are about the same as LCDs (still varies set to set of course). Not counting the more expensive LED LCDs as those I believe have a good bit longer half lifes.

But in any case, the half lives are long enough that pretty much no one will be bothered by it before they want an new TV years down the road anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i dont think anyone has brought this up but last time i checked, LCDs used much less power than Plasmas.

one of my friends sold his Plasma cause it was an energy hog.
 
[quote name='RonnieWrecked']i dont think anyone has brought this up but last time i checked, LCDs used much less power than Plasmas.

one of my friends sold his Plasma cause it was an energy hog.[/QUOTE]

Yep, that's definitely a fair point. They do use a good bit more power. The LED LCDs especially use a lot less.
 
I skimmed some of the longer posts and maybe I missed it, but it is my understanding that plasmas are going away. The manufacturers feel that they have hit the limit of what they can do with a plasma. For that reason, you can get a plasma cheaper than a comparable LCD.

I have both and have gamed on both. I really think it comes down to the individual model rather than LCD vs. plasma.
 
Plasma is cheaper per inch, also the LCD being "much less" power consuming is now a myth as they both are energy star'd too; it is a few dollars difference in energy cost compared to lcd's.
 
[quote name='ufskenney']I have both and have gamed on both. I really think it comes down to the individual model rather than LCD vs. plasma.[/QUOTE]

For the most part.

But still, there are difference in the technology and a person may prefer a comparable Plasma over a comparable (in terms of features, black level etc. as much as possible) over an LCD while someone else may prefer the LCD.

So again, if it's going to be a main TV for a long time, it's just crucial to get out and look at a TON of TVs of every style and brand and figure out what looks the best to you in your price range.
 
Plasma or LCD I like Panasonic the best. Some may argue Samsung is better, but from what I've read their warranty services blows!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']For the most part.

But still, there are difference in the technology and a person may prefer a comparable Plasma over a comparable (in terms of features, black level etc. as much as possible) over an LCD while someone else may prefer the LCD.

So again, if it's going to be a main TV for a long time, it's just crucial to get out and look at a TON of TVs of every style and brand and figure out what looks the best to you in your price range.[/QUOTE]

That is pretty much my point. The OP's question would be similar to asking should I hire a male or female. They are going to get generalizations about males and females that are mostly based on stereotypes.

IMO the better question would be to have 2 - 4 TVs in their budget range picked out and ask for comments on those sets.

BTW, OP I voted for LCD.
 
I voted LCD.

I'm sure plasma tvs are great, but comparing a 50 inch Panasonic plasma to a 52 inch Samsung LCD, I went with the Samsung almost instantly.

Not having to worry about daytime or nighttime view, leaving my game paused for a bit, or having to break in my T.V. made LCD the choice for me. I don't mind black levels that aren't as deep; I can live with that. The Sammy was also way more aesthetically pleasing IMO.

OP, you really have to go to a store and mess around with their sets in person, and see what you like best. It gets repeated a lot, but only because it's very true.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']It's really hard to compare in stores because they usually have a wall of tvs, bright lights and horrible settings.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you definitely have to play around with the settings. Not much you can do about the lighting though. But still you're comparing the TVs all in that lighting condition--so at least the conditions are equal.

Point being if you adjust the settings what looks better to you in the store should look better in your house as well. It's just going to look much better in proper lighting and without all the distractions around.
 
def go with the plasma, we bought a lcd tv at first then returned it and got a plasma. the colors are very fluiant and the picture quality is crisp
 
The problem with some plasmas is that when they age the get burn marks in the center of the screen (white streak), I haven't had that happen with a LCD yet, but it might.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, you definitely have to play around with the settings. Not much you can do about the lighting though. But still you're comparing the TVs all in that lighting condition--so at least the conditions are equal.

Point being if you adjust the settings what looks better to you in the store should look better in your house as well. It's just going to look much better in proper lighting and without all the distractions around.[/QUOTE]

But the problem is that lcd looks better than plasma in a higher light environment, so even though they're equal, it's not an accurate representation of what the tvs would look like in an actual viewing environment. That's one of the reasons plasma is slowly going away, people see that lcd looks better in store and assume that it's the same in their house so people buy more lcd tvs.

We got a 50" Panasonic Viera a couple months ago and it's great. I don't game on it since I only have a Wii and my other TV is fine for it. But HD video on it looks amazing, I watched some of the Nascar race last night and it looked so incredibly good. At the same time I was watching a preseason football game which was not in HD and it was almost hard to watch in comparison.

http://www.hometheatermag.com has a lot of good information on choosing a TV and reviews, including a good comparison of lcd and plasma: http://www.hometheatermag.com/buyersguides/flatpanels/#whattobuy
 
I vote LCD.

My LCD does not reflect light, uses less power, I can leave it on all day without worrying about any IR or burn in. Sure the blacks aren't as dark as a plasma, but the white sure look brighter lol.

I also use to have a plasma and it was an energy hog, it would've been great for the winter because it made the whole room hot. I also had to break the TV in for 200 hours and I still saw some IR after playing games with static images, it wasn't permanent but it broke my heart to see. The plasma also was super reflective, my room has 3 windows, no matter during the day or night I could see myself iun the TV.

Things like this are very important to look into. I can tell you that I enjoyed gaming on the plasma more because of the rich colors, but I enjoy the LCD more because I don't have to worry about the TV.
Get what is affordable to you, this is a big investment IMO. Unless you pay for what you really want you'll never be satisfied. I'm more than happy with the TV I chose but when I walk into a store and see a Samsung LED slim panel, I get the urge to purchase a TV, it looks beautiful and it's the same thickness of an iPhone.
 
I bought a Vizio 32 inch plasma back in November and I couldn't have been more delighted with it. From the style of the TV itself (rather thin frame with a glossy black finish) as well as the image quality. I was also scared about the burn in talk but being as the TV is used to play XBOX 360 by me and my brother anywhere from 8 to 12 hours on a DAILY basis there is no image burn in. I even leave my TV on overnight for noise while I sleep, nothing has happened. It was also the cheapest at the time, costing me about 510$ after taxes and what not. You might wanna check out Vizio plasmas because they're stylish as well as pretty good quality so far. :D

*EDIT*
Here's a 42" which is the same exact same as mine except it being bigger. It's also around 730$ so you might wanna check it out!
http://www.vizio.com/product.aspx?id=2696&pid=1504
 
LCDs are suppose to be clearer most of the time and do not burn images, unlike Plasma. Probably best to go with LCD, as it seems to be better for gaming.
 
Panasonic for plasma.
Samsung for LCD.

I've tried both, and prefer plasma for gaming and watching movies.

As long as you've logged in your pre-burn in hours (first 200 hours I think?), burn in shouldn't be a problem with current plasmas.
 
lcd, both of my sister's plasma tvs have burn ins, because her sons always play 360 on one of them and ps3 and wii on the other. Ultimately, you spend more money than you normally would for a tv.
 
Plasmas have a little better picture quality, but what really drives me to only buy LCDs is weight. Plasmas are pretty damn heavy and more easily damaged in a move. The PQ on an LCD is getting close enough for me to a plasma considering 5 years ago we were all watching on junk. My dad has a first gen HDTV and it's so annoying to watch. It has no hdmi and only one HD input. It has a special filter over the screen that ends up reflecting the whole room. (Thanks Mitsubishi). It was a $3k-$4k TV at the time. So really either way you'll be happy. If you've got the cash, I'd recommend going for a top end LCD though, just because they've got the edge on gaming and computing.
 
I would still say Plasma by a slight edge. We have a 22 inch Vizio LCD in the other room and a 32 inch Vizio Plasma in the main room. Vizio Plasma seems to get a better picture overall but It's hardly noticeable with the recent Vizio that we've gotten.

However, if your a true cheap ass I would go with a LCD. The electricity savings can be $5+ if not more a month which overtime can get you a new game or whatever you want. With electricity going up every year (at least in my state CT) who knows maybe you'll save even more with a LCD.

Other advantage I can think of with the LCD is the heat. The plasma shit is like sitting in front of a fire place in the summer. Great in the winter but bad in the summer :p

LEDs are going to be the way to go in a few years but for now they are too expensive.
 
On the plasma burn-in issue...

It's true that it's really hard to get permanent burn-in on a modern plasma, but temporary image retention might be more of a problem than plasma fans will tell you. I have a fairly new 42" Panasonic plasma, and I follow the rules - I set the pixel orbiter to the highest frequency, I ran the 200 hour break-in (actually did it for 10 days/240 hrs), and even after having done so I still keep the brightness & contrast low. Unfortunately, I currently play Gears of War 2 about 2-3 hours a night. For those who don't play it, the game has a HUD in the upper right corner showing a white silhouette of your currently selected weapon and ammo level on a black background.

I can often see a faint shadow of the HUD when I'm watching TV or movie scenes with a light (especially white) background; I can only make it go away after a couple of days of watching TV while avoiding Gears, but it does eventually disappear. Running the screen wipe doesn't do a whole lot. It doesn't totally ruin my viewing experience or anything, and my girlfriend says she rarely notices it, but I can see the shadow and it bugs me. If you do a lot of gaming with static images you may get noticeable image retention, even if it doesn't burn in.

Before I bought the TV, people told me I'd never experience anything like this if I ran the break-in ritual; now, I'm hearing and reading that I have to pass 1,000 hours on my TV, and then I won't get any more persistent image retention. We'll see. I kind of wish I had gone LCD - I really love the plasma's picture, but I wouldn't mind a TV I could just use without having to think about these things.
 
I own both, and I have been able to test each.

I have a 42" Philips LCD, and a 42" Samsung Plasma. Both bought at the same time, about three years ago.

My Plasma does extremely well with retention. HUD's and sports tickers will only stay on the screen for a minute or two at most, no matter how long I have played. The color is a lot deeper, and richer. I love it for HD. This used to be my primary gaming unit but I recently switched over to my LCD to get more use out of my Plasma in the living room.

(If you ever need to fix retention that isn't going away you can google "JScreenFix" and burn the dvd and run it for a few hours.)

My LCD is great for gaming as I don't have to worry about any retention at all. It always goes away on the Plasma, but I'm still anal about it. The picture quality is still amazing, but not as deep as the Plasma. So now, with the LCD moved into my "man loft" as my primary gaming unit, I game without the retention worry. I leave a NCAA ticker on the screen all night and I don't have to worry about running my tv for a minute to scare away the ghost ;) . Another notable factor is that with the LCD in my loft, I don't feel the radiating heat of the power hog plasma in my face!



For movie's and general watching - Plasma
For gaming - LCD

IMO.
 
I prefer plasma. Better blacks (typically), better motion resolution, a more crt-like image. Despite that, I bought an LCD a year ago. I wasn't worried about image retention, but uneven phosphor wear was a major concern. I still watch a lot of 4:3 content (still have a lot of PS2 games to play), and even the biggest plasma proponents will tell you that 4:3 watching should be very limited.

I do like my LCD though. It's a lower-end Samsung, but it still puts out a fine picture.
 
Far and away, Plasma TV's are so much nicer. If properly calibrated, the picture is amazing. I dislike LCD"s because motion blur is easily visible (in my eyes). Plasma's can have phosphor trails, so neither is perfect.

But really, burn-in is a non-issue these days. Don't leave something paused on the screen for hours on end, and you'll be fine.

(I have a Panasonic P50G10.)
 
I posted earlier in the thread, but I'll post again.

Response time is a huge issue for me. Fighting games are the main games played in my household. And current/recent gen Plasmas get the nod everything (when we aren't using the trusty CRT).
 
Am I the only one thinking LED instead? I have an LCD and from what I hear LCD and Plasmas are about the same nowadays, so why not go get the new shit. Get the paper thin screen and save on the low energy cost too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top