On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:24:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:19:52 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

Originally, I went plasma because of viewing angle problems in the
living room. - Panasonic 42".

And I don't care what kind of LCD TV it is, I can tell the difference
sitting off angle, even minor, with an LCD that I can't see on a
plasma.

Now I have an LCD in my office - Toshiba 27" because I don't sit at an
angle to the TV. Comparatively, in terms of picture color, blah,
blah, blah it's about the same in terms of performance.

So that's why I went with plasma in the living room and LCD in my
office.

What kind of angle are you talking about? I watch regularly about 20
degrees off center, and the picture looks pretty good to me.

I don't have a plasma here to compare it to, but I didn't notice any big
difference in Best Buy with the two types right next to each other.
--
John H

"John H." wrote in message
...


I don't have a plasma here to compare it to, but I didn't notice any big
difference in Best Buy with the two types right next to each other.

"Torch Mode"

Eisboch

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:34:01 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .


I don't have a plasma here to compare it to, but I didn't notice any big
difference in Best Buy with the two types right next to each other.

"Torch Mode"

Eisboch


Yeah, but they were all in the same mode.
--
John H

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:19:52 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with
the recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought
that might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:
http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...-32468193.html

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

Power consumption, heat generation, picture brightness, operational
lifetime, reliability. Another big reason is that even if you go by
the rated spec for Plasma length of service, that doesn't include
burn-in. I use my LCD TV as a *big* computer monitor and also for
playing games with the PS3. LCD does not suffer from screen burn with
static areas of bright screen. Plasma does.

When I watch a 4:3 program on my widescreen, I don't want to
strrreeecchhhhh it to fill the screen and have it distorted. But you
have to do that to prevent plasma burn-in. I want to see it 4:3 with
black bars on the side. If you do that a lot with plasma, the area
where the bars are will eventually be brighter than the rest of the
screen when you watch a fullscreen program. Some stations put gray
bars up for you to prevent plasma burn-in. But they're far and few
between. If you watch a lot of movies with the 2.35 aspect ratio,
your plasma display will burn-in the area between the black bars on
the top and bottom of the display.

It doesn't matter anyway as this whole debate will become moot as soon
as LED panel technology becomes more mature.

Steve

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:19:48 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:24:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:19:52 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

Originally, I went plasma because of viewing angle problems in the
living room. - Panasonic 42".

And I don't care what kind of LCD TV it is, I can tell the difference
sitting off angle, even minor, with an LCD that I can't see on a
plasma.

Now I have an LCD in my office - Toshiba 27" because I don't sit at an
angle to the TV. Comparatively, in terms of picture color, blah,
blah, blah it's about the same in terms of performance.

So that's why I went with plasma in the living room and LCD in my
office.

What kind of angle are you talking about? I watch regularly about 20
degrees off center, and the picture looks pretty good to me.

I can tell the difference just sitting one or two feet right or left.

I don't have a plasma here to compare it to, but I didn't notice any big
difference in Best Buy with the two types right next to each other.

I can.

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:34:01 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .


I don't have a plasma here to compare it to, but I didn't notice any big
difference in Best Buy with the two types right next to each other.

"Torch Mode"

Is that what they call overdriving blue?

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:44:52 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:


That has always been my impression, that the blacks were blacker and it
made the other colors more vivid.

That is really the one area where plasmas still have an advantage over
LCD: deeper blacks. If that's you're only criteria, plasma wins.
Almost every other criteria is either a tie or LCD wins. The
vividness of colors on the LCD really depends a lot on how you have it
adjusted. You can make the colors way too vivid if you want to. So
if it can display colors *too* vivid, it looks fine when you dial it
back.

Another thing about color reproduction on LCD panels is that it really
depends greatly on what kind of panel you have. TN, IPS, S-IPS, PVA
are pretty much in the order of greater color ability. Also in the
order of cost. The backlight type makes a difference too. So cheaper
LCD panels are going to have a problem reproducing some colors while
more expensive ones will do just fine.

A good CRT, like one with a Sony Trinitron tube, will blow away any
LCD or Plasma panel for picture quality when it comes to black level
and color reproduction. That's why those are still used by
photo/graphics artists. We have some high-end Sun CRTs at work next
to a bunch of flat panel LCDs and the difference is stunning.

Steve

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:15:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:19:48 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:24:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:19:52 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

Originally, I went plasma because of viewing angle problems in the
living room. - Panasonic 42".

And I don't care what kind of LCD TV it is, I can tell the difference
sitting off angle, even minor, with an LCD that I can't see on a
plasma.

Now I have an LCD in my office - Toshiba 27" because I don't sit at an
angle to the TV. Comparatively, in terms of picture color, blah,
blah, blah it's about the same in terms of performance.

So that's why I went with plasma in the living room and LCD in my
office.

What kind of angle are you talking about? I watch regularly about 20
degrees off center, and the picture looks pretty good to me.

I can tell the difference just sitting one or two feet right or left.

I don't have a plasma here to compare it to, but I didn't notice any big
difference in Best Buy with the two types right next to each other.

I can.

That's the result of calibrated eyeballs.
--
John H

"Steve" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:19:52 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?



Power consumption, heat generation, picture brightness, operational
lifetime, reliability. Another big reason is that even if you go by
the rated spec for Plasma length of service, that doesn't include
burn-in. I use my LCD TV as a *big* computer monitor and also for
playing games with the PS3. LCD does not suffer from screen burn with
static areas of bright screen. Plasma does.




Steve, please don't think I am arguing with you or against LCD, but your
information is dated.

Newer plasma displays are not permanently affected by screen burn. If used
as a
video game monitor for hours and hours, they may develop a temporary
residual image, but it goes away in a short period of time. The older
plasmas *did* have a permanent screen burn problem and the owner's manuals
warned against using them for extended periods of time with static images
like video games or watching in a non-wide screen mode. That is no longer
true, but the reputation remains.

BTW, my daughter with the two boys has a 3-4 year old plasma and the boys
use it for hours and hours (too much) playing their various video games.
There's no evidence of screen burn on their set.

Power consumption is an issue, although the difference between a large
screen LCD and a large screen plasma is not a huge issue. 100 watts or less
difference.

I still maintain that the plasma, when adjusted properly, produces a better
quality picture than a properly adjusted LCD, and I just spend an hour or so
re-confirming that. The new LCD is very nice. The older 50" plasma is
better. Both are Samsungs. The difference is really only important to
nit-pickers, like me.

Frankly, since I picked up, carried into the house and installed these TV's
myself, the biggest advantage of the 46" LCD over the 50" plasma is that the
LCD weighs about half that of the plasma. :-)

Eisboch

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:34:01 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..


I don't have a plasma here to compare it to, but I didn't notice any big
difference in Best Buy with the two types right next to each other.

"Torch Mode"

Is that what they call overdriving blue?

Yes. If you used your Digital Video Essentials disk and did the color
adjustment while looking through the blue filter they provide, I'll bet your
setting ended up significantly lower than the factory default setting.

Eisboch