plasma or lcd

so i been lookin at samsung plasmas and lcd's, i can not make up my mind, some people say plasma's are better and others say lcd's (not just for games)

anyways here's the models ive been looking at so far

for plasma's

PN50A550 (samsung) $1900

Ive heard alot about the pianeer 8G Kuro but haven't been able to get an actual model number or price

LCD's

LN46A650 (samsung) $2400

and then the LN-T4681 $2800 i have no idea if this model is newer or better than the above lcd

Im leaning towards the samy plasma because i heard plasma's look better in the home lightening. could anyone offer any more info or advice? my spending limit is around $2500 maybe a bit more

plasma's just seem alot bigger and cheaper, however i have not seen them in person just the lcd's.

most places you'll go will have LCDs. I personally like Samsung the most, then LG. My roomate got a 42" LG LCD 1080p and its pretty nice, but not quite as nice as a samsung (that would probably cost an extra $300). i am not too familiar with plasma, but i've heard they are more likely to have motion blur playing games. but if i was you, id ask professionals and do your research online. and for $1500 or a little less you should be able to get a full 1080p LCD at about 40" or so.

goodluck

most places you'll go (like sports bars) will have LCDs. I personally like Samsung the most, then LG. My roomate got a 42" LG LCD 1080p and its pretty nice, but not quite as nice as a samsung (that would probably cost an extra $300). i am not too familiar with plasma, but i've heard they are more likely to have motion blur playing games. but if i was you, id ask professionals and do your research online. and for $1500 or a little less you should be able to get a full 1080p LCD at about 40" or so.

goodluck

LCD owners will always say LCD and Plasma owners will always say Plasma.

Think about this: Why do all high end gaming PCs use LCD monitors? For that matter, why aren't Plasma PC monitors more popular, or, available at all? LCDs simply display digital signals better than Plasma. The technology has been around longer and is been closer to being perfected. LCDs draw less current, put off less heat and in general, have longer lives.

I don't think you'll regret buying either, you'll get outstanding results from both, but for gaming or watching DVDs through a HDMI or other purely digital signal, LCD is the better way to go.

LCD owners will always say LCD and Plasma owners will always say Plasma.

Think about this: Why do all high end gaming PCs use LCD monitors? For that matter, why aren't Plasma PC monitors more popular, or, available at all? LCDs simply display digital signals better than Plasma. The technology has been around longer and is closer to being perfected. LCDs draw less current, put off less heat and in general, have longer lives.

I don't think you'll regret buying either, you'll get outstanding results from both, but for gaming or watching DVDs through a HDMI or other purely digital signal, LCD is the better way to go.

i have a samsung ln-t4665f which is the one model older than the samsung you are looking at.

it performs as good if not better than every single tv i looked at before purchasing mine, which was a ton of tvs.

several of my friends have plasmas and when we have done side by side comparisons mine always comes out the winner, much to my friends' dismay.

i would go with the samsung just from personal experiences, but really i think now-a-days all the major brands are really putting out excellent products and you wont be disappointed with any choice.

game on, friend, game on

Think about this: Why do all high end gaming PCs use LCD monitors? For that matter, why aren't Plasma PC monitors more popular, or, available at all? LCDs simply display digital signals better than Plasma. The technology has been around longer and is closer to being perfected. LCDs draw less current, put off less heat and in general, have longer lives.bluedevil64

I completely disagree with this part of your statement. High end gaming PCs use LCD monitors because plasma screens do not come in that small of a size. Your will rarely see plasmas smaller than 42" with the exception of a couple manufacturers that have 37" screens. And as for the longer lives part, the new plasmas introduced by Panasonic and Samsung have a longer half-life than the vast majority of LCD screens.

Both LCD and Plasma displays have been around since the 1960s, and neither are close to perfection. Both still have flaws.

LCDs have input lag, motion blurring, and a narrow viewing angle (some are better/worse than others in these respects).

Plasmas have green fringing on fast movement (again, some are better/worse than others). Many people say burn-in, but that's way overblown. Plasmas have as much of a chance of burn-in as a CRT.

Personally, I would go with a plasma, since you can get a larger screen for less money than a comparable LCD.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

There is no market for smaller plasma monitors since LCD has cornered the market. Even folks who use their TV as a computer monitor are mostly buying LCD. LCD sales are also better than Plasma. Now With OLED technology coming out, LCD has an even bigger advantage over Plasma.

Any new, reputable LCD is free from all the traditional LCD issues, most high end Plasmas are as well, but It's been said by many an expert, LCD is the best way to display digital signals. They both have their drawbacks and advantages, but after much research, I went with LCD.

I have been through 3 LCD sets, only replacing the previous set with a larger set and have yet to go with a plasma. For what I use it for, gaming and DVD, on a digital signal, LCD is simply a better display.

Like I said, nothing against Plasma, I'd never tell someone they bought the wrong TV, but LCD is just better for gaming.

Run from this thread as fast as you can buddy, just a quick skim has shown me that you'll be misinformed more than you'll be helped.

I tend to like Plasmas better (and for whoemver that cites a higher usgae of LCD's as it being a superior product, you should just tune them out right now) due to their better black reproduction and i seem to be the only one on the planet whose eyes are much more sensitive to the piercing brightness of LCD's (even when they arent actually bright) and am much more accustomed to the natural light of the Phosphor based Plasma display.

FYI, the 8G Kuro model numbers you're looking for are 5080 (720p) and 5010 (1080p) (a quick look at a website selling them or the pioneer website would have gotten those pretty quickly though), they are probably the best displays you can hope to find right now.

I dont have issue with LCD, so dont dismiss me as necesarily biased, of course i have a very nice LCD monitor for my computer (S-IPS) and I have owned LCD tv's in the past. If anything, I am less of a PQ snob, and care most about "dealbreakers".

To me it basically comes down to the fact that with LCD's my eye strain creeps up much faster than one my tube tv (especially when gaming, where my eyes are open alot more) and only become halfway tolerable when they are gimped to lose their one main advantage over plasmas in a good looking picture, while Plasmas i have to watch SD content with grey bars to prevent uneven wear (i hate stretching and i would prefer black bars).

In the end it depends on your needs though. But dont let the store floor torch mode of LCD's fool you, keep in mind that you'll likely tone down that brightnes by quite a bit if you take one home, so keep than in mind when you look at both.

Furthermore, while burn in is not an issue, if you find yourself bothered by image retention then you may not like plasma or find it's advatnages worth it.

Overall though if Plasma did away with the SD problem and IR tommorow i'd say that is a clear winner, although if LCD tv's found a better backlighting approach, i'd likely buy one (even if lesser picture quality).

yah i think im goin plasma, and i been hearing alot about that pio 5080 but the one in my price range is only 720p, and i can get a newer samsung 650 plasma that is coming out in a few weeks for about $200 less than the 720p pio

then just today i find out pio is coming out with the new 9g's in june, but im sure they will be way out of my price range.

and i also read that mitsubishi is coming out with new Laservue lcd's in the 3Q of this year :(

must be in the eye of the beholder then, all i see is opinions.

my sony lcd displays perfect blacks, just as good as any high end plasma. same with color reproduction. no motion blur, no eye strain, no input lag.

but again, you'll be happy with either type. just stay away from those DLP sets....... ;)

must be in the eye of the beholder then, that or i just bought a really nice lcd. it's just like console fanboys, everybody is right.

my sony lcd displays perfect blacks, just as good as any high end plasma. same with color reproduction. no motion blur, no eye strain, no input lag.

but again, you'll be happy with either type. just stay away from those DLP sets....... ;)

must be in the eye of the beholder then, that or i just bought a really nice lcd. it's just like console fanboys, everybody is right.

my sony lcd displays perfect blacks, just as good as any high end plasma. same with color reproduction. no motion blur, no eye strain, no input lag.

but again, you'll be happy with either type. just stay away from those DLP sets....... ;)

bluedevil64

hm, no it's not the same as console fanboys. there are facts to be had in the discussion. Like for instance, the Sony LCD may look fine to you, but any AV enthusiast worth his salt could easily prove that it does in fact not display perfect blacks (both in level and consistency).

It's in the eye of the beholder in the end, but if someone genuinely wants to know what is best, the Pioneer Kuros are the current answer hands down, and that is independent of most technological preference in many instances (most recent LCD and Plasma shootouts pretty much always end with the Kuro on top).

I myself wish i could get a Kuro, but I need a set in the 40-42" range and they no longer do that size come the 9G's.

LCD gives ghosting on any fast movement, from looking at every LCD in the showroom. The picture is brighter, but that ghosting is disgusting.

I took a Samsung 42" plasma which, by the way, looks stunning with a 360, as well as being far better value for money. LCD is a technology that needs a lot more expensive technical workings to make it run to acceptable speeds. Hence the extra price.

I was already convinced by looking at 10 of each, but then i asked two guys in two different shops what they'd buy, and both said plasma.

"Why do all high end gaming PCs use LCD monitors?" because to make Plasma screens that small would be very expensive and completely unnecessary? Screens this monitor size is what LCD is best suited to.

i have a samsung ln-t4665f which is the one model older than the samsung you are looking at.

it performs as good if not better than every single tv i looked at before purchasing mine, which was a ton of tvs.

several of my friends have plasmas and when we have done side by side comparisons mine always comes out the winner, much to my friends' dismay.

i would go with the samsung just from personal experiences, but really i think now-a-days all the major brands are really putting out excellent products and you wont be disappointed with any choice.

game on, friend, game on

skrillalover

i am going to buy a new tv too i only have one question.

which is more durable to humidity plasma or lcd

LCDs tvs have a larger pixal count. LCDs are said to be better then plasmas for games. Personally I have a new Samsung LCD 1080p..picture is greatWMDfreeman99

IMO plasma is better because you never have to worry about response times as they are always instant, blacks are better and the best plasmas have the best contrast ratio's. They also have the best colours with a deeper colour pallette and almost always the greatest range of colours for better blending. This give better flesh tones and makes scenes that are full of things like neon lights in the city just look fantastic.

LCD's provide a slightly brighter image due to being a backlit display, dont have any risk of burn in and are cheaper at higher resolutions due to LCD's being easier to produce, especially when trying to make really small pixels like on a 1080 set. LCD's also use less power than plasmas.

If your budget is small get an LCD as you'll get more for your money. If you have a bigger budget get a plasma as the best plasmas are better than any LCD giving a smoother image, with better colours and blacks and they look much more natural and real on films.

i am going to buy a new tv too i only have one question.

which is more durable to humidity plasma or lcd

eggfork

Dont worry about this.

LCD owners will always say LCD and Plasma owners will always say Plasma.

Think about this: Why do all high end gaming PCs use LCD monitors? For that matter, why aren't Plasma PC monitors more popular, or, available at all? LCDs simply display digital signals better than Plasma. The technology has been around longer and is been closer to being perfected. LCDs draw less current, put off less heat and in general, have longer lives.

I don't think you'll regret buying either, you'll get outstanding results from both, but for gaming or watching DVDs through a HDMI or other purely digital signal, LCD is the better way to go.

bluedevil64

About the only thing you've said here with any merit and truth is that LCD's use less power. I haven't noticed much difference in heat between the 2 technologies, plasma may run a tad warmer in some cases but I've felt some LCD's that are quite warm too and this simply isn'tan issue, I have AV equipment that run s a lot hotter.

I dunno, a few people have mentioned that Plasmas and CRT's are equally suscptible/reistant to IR/burn in, but i dont beleive thats true, it definetly wasnt when plasmas first came out despite being phosphor technology, but i still dont beleive it is even now. I'm not sure why though, but from their inception, even to the improved state they are at now, CRT's are still more resistant, as even the small amount of temp IR you get now i never saw on a tube tv, and the kind of burn in precautions that many take with plasmas just never even needed to be done period on a crt.

I will say though i wouldnt have been surprised if theer was the possibility of uneven phosphor wear, something that Plasmas are equally as suscptible to and something that i dont feel has been improved upon. Only reason we never even got to test out how much CRT's could get that was because there were so few widescreen CRT's, and 4:3 material on a widescreen display is the main way to cause that.

plasma's are better IMO. But i'd settle for an lcdjacksik

plasma tvs are much better at color reproduction, meaning you get more vivid colors, black blacks and white whites. If you're looking for a pioneer plasma them be prepared to spend at least 3,000$ w/o a warranty. They are the most expensive, but they are also the best, so in the end you get what you pay for. Unless you do a lot of blu-ray viewing then i wouldnt really worry about getting a top of the line plasma. I've heard good things about smsung and panasonic plasmas.

i hear lcds are better. but the only real info that i know is that lcd's use up like half the electricity plasmas do. at least in like 2005 it was. cos thats when i got my lcd. but no idea about really recent stuff.especensor

A lot of what people say about plasmas just isn't true anymore, I'm not sure about the energy comsumption versus an lcd, but I know that their estimated operation life and burn in anre not issues anymore.

If you're willing to spend 2800$ then I'd suggest you just go here and get a better TV for less.firebreathing

scratch that, do not go there...............EVER.

Newer PLasma tvs DO NOT GET BURN IN!

They have anti burnin technology now in the new models of panasonic

???

Go to a real home theater site and say that.

LOL!

Yet aren't LCDs out selling Plasma's like crazy? I recall reading an article somewhere, maybe cdfreaks.com that Panasonic or Phillips was going to stop making their own plasmas this year and start putting their label on someone elses due to lack of sales and cost effectivness. Does anyone else remember reading something along those lines?zarakand

And yet any reputable review site will hail a Plasma model as the best flat panel model currently out. where is the disconnect? do you really want to know?

People arent that smart, they will immediately go for the bright display (Sony LCD's were bright enough several generations ago, but they STILL KEEP INCREASING THE BRIGHTNESS AND BRAGGING ABOUT IT), only to realize once they bring it home (Especially if they are a gamer) that it will dry/fry their eyes twice as fast at that setting than their previous Tube. They will then either put up with it, or put the brightness down just about where a Plasma may be, but you'll be getting a lesser picture by many degrees.

[QUOTE="zarakand"]Yet aren't LCDs out selling Plasma's like crazy? I recall reading an article somewhere, maybe cdfreaks.com that Panasonic or Phillips was going to stop making their own plasmas this year and start putting their label on someone elses due to lack of sales and cost effectivness. Does anyone else remember reading something along those lines?Dirk13

And yet any reputable review site will hail a Plasma model as the best flat panel model currently out. where is the disconnect? do you really want to know?

People arent that smart, they will immediately go for the bright display (Sony LCD's were bright enough several generations ago, but they STILL KEEP INCREASING THE BRIGHTNESS AND BRAGGING ABOUT IT), only to realize once they bring it home (Especially if they are a gamer) that it will dry/fry their eyes twice as fast at that setting than their previous Tube. They will then either put up with it, or put the brightness down just about where a Plasma may be, but you'll be getting a lesser picture by many degrees.

I agree that Plasmas are consitently rated to produce better pictures, just wanted to point out that it was ironic that this technology was "loosing" against lcd.

It's not that ironic, it happens alot that the more quality product is often niche. AMD for a long time made much better processors than Intel, but Intel still far and away sold more units.

The average shopper isnt very smart, and is still accustomed to the good old days when you'd just pick out the tube brand that had the brightest picture.

It's not that ironic, it happens alot that the more quality product is often niche. AMD for a long time made much better processors than Intel, but Intel still far and away sold more units.

The average shopper isnt very smart, and is still accustomed to the good old days when you'd just pick out the tube brand that had the brightest picture.

Dirk13

what he said, i dont know about you guys, but my samsung lcd has a ghosting issue that is deff noticeable. When i watch blu-ray with my ps3 via hdmi video quality seems to vary between movie or even between different scenes of the moive. Pan's Labyrinth gives me an all around good picture while Terminator 2 gives me a good picture sometimes. Also, the black levels (or absence of) are pretty noticeable, my tv has a 7,000:1 contrast ratio, although that probably isnt even the real number. If I had the money to get a new tv I'd take my chances with burn in and get a plasma for sure.

Plasma and LCD monitors/TVs are all in all equally good but in different areas. If you watch TV more than you play games or watch movies, go for a Plasma, no doubt. But if you play more games and watch more movies that you watch the telly, you go for the LCD.

Personally I think Plasma softens and smoothes everything very nice but when I want to go Full HD I want all the sharp edges that send chills down your spine. So personally I'd go for a Liquid Crystal Display, heck I already got one and are about to get a second!

Good Luck mate! ;)

Plasma and LCD monitors/TVs are all in all equally good but in different areas. If you watch TV more than you play games or watch movies, go for a Plasma, no doubt. But if you play more games and watch more movies that you watch the telly, you go for the LCD.

Personally I think Plasma softens and smoothes everything very nice but when I want to go Full HD I want all the sharp edges that send chills down your spine. So personally I'd go for a Liquid Crystal Display, heck I already got one and are about to get a second!

Good Luck mate! ;)

Mr_Shield

See that black and white cahracterisation doesnt really work very well.

LCD's can in many instances smooth an object alot too, especially scaling.

When they are both running at the same resoltuion though, i'm a little unsure as to your rationale behind smoothness and sharpness, the detail should be relatively the same.

Furthermore, why do you really think LCD's are better for gaming hm? Last time i checked Plasmas had 0 input lag and better motion resolution.

Considering i no longer hear about any kind of permanenet IR from gaming on a Plasma (much like Phosphor based CRT's have long been, oddly plasma got set a bit back when they came out initially for some reason) i fail to see why you'd so "go LCD" for people who play games.

My one and only issue with Plasmas continue to be the complete lack of improvements of any kind done about uneven 4:3 wear (which may or may not have been an issue with CRT's, i know IR wasnt, so maybe this is new for plasmas as well ,but if there were more widescreen CRT's i think they may have suffered from that as well).

Are you kidding me? Those models aren't even comparable. The A650 has 50,000:1 contrast, 120hz frame rate, and a 4ms refresh rate. It has by far the greatest picture. Plasmas do usually have a faster refresh rate but if you're getting the 650 model it doesn't even matter. jesseandnikki

Whether one likes LCD's or not, it does seem like, hearkening to my example earlier, that the average consumer, *ahem*, the average mainstream LCD shopped, doest exactly know a whole lot about what they are saying.

First of all 120hz is not the frame rate, and 4ms is not a refresh rate.

120hz is the refresh rate, but IMO it's more of a gimmick than a legitimately useful function (much like ever increasing brightness it simply isnt that useful of a feature, unless you like the artificially generated soap opera look that makes the movie look exactly NOT like it was intended).

as for the 4ms, that's fantastic, it probably helps reduce input lag.....doesnt negate the fact that it will still have input lag, while it is a non-issue with plasmas.

Lastly, it's not a very good idea to quote Contrast ratios to compare brands (although it "might" be helpful within a brand while comparing a line of sets).

The only thing 120Hz does is to smoothen the picture frame rate. It copies each frame and uses it twice.

And so Dirk13, like I said before, LCD and Plasma screens are nowadays almost equally good. Then PERSONALLY I rather use a LCD screen cause of the facts that it's not as fragile as plasma, plasma consumes more electricity and doesn't last as long as LCD screens. LCD displays are also better at displaying large amounts of data which makes it more compatible with a computer and vga connections. It also provides a better template for GAMING.

That said Plasma is still one heck of a technology, beats LCD all in all I guess. But still, I play games, use my comuter a lot and watch movies. So my LCD TV is perfect for me, it does the job and it does it better than a Plasma would do it, except for maybe movies, but that I can live with, heh.

Chillin' ;)

The only thing 120Hz does is to smoothen the picture frame rate. It copies each frame and uses it twice.

And so Dirk13, like I said before, LCD and Plasma screens are nowadays almost equally good. Then PERSONALLY I rather use a LCD screen cause of the facts that it's not as fragile as plasma, plasma consumes more electricity and doesn't last as long as LCD screens. LCD displays are also better at displaying large amounts of data which makes it more compatible with a computer and vga connections. It also provides a better template for GAMING.

That said Plasma is still one heck of a technology, beats LCD all in all I guess. But still, I play games, use my comuter a lot and watch movies. So my LCD TV is perfect for me, it does the job and it does it better than a Plasma would do it, except for maybe movies, but that I can live with, heh.

Chillin' ;)

Mr_Shield

A better template for gaming? your post kind of reads like a vague marketing pamphlet.

In case you had not checked any specs recently, plasmas last just as long as LCD's (not that it matters, i woudnt imagine anyone using either for the entirety of their normal lifespan).

I dont even know what you mean about fragility, as you didnt really explain it.

Lastly, if they are both 1080p they are both displaying the same amount of data, one doest really do it better than the other, anything else is mainly in the processing.

They are most certaintly not on equal footing yet, as the main improvements i see on LCD's by year is in alot of areas it doesnt need further improvement, such as brightness. It is getting better black levels, albeit still not matching plasma in regular use or extreme explicit testing.

LCD's above all else need A)more eye friendly light emission systems, rather than continueing to make their fluorescent moisture suckers even brighter, it's particularily bad for gamers, who blink less B) better color accuracy and C)as always better black levels as well as better black level consistency.

Like I said new pansonic plasmas DO NOT GET SCREEN BURN. They have anti burnin technology.

Plamas and LCD are nearly equal, but panasonic plasmas are equal or better to any good LCD hdtv

[QUOTE="Mr_Shield"]

The only thing 120Hz does is to smoothen the picture frame rate. It copies each frame and uses it twice.

And so Dirk13, like I said before, LCD and Plasma screens are nowadays almost equally good. Then PERSONALLY I rather use a LCD screen cause of the facts that it's not as fragile as plasma, plasma consumes more electricity and doesn't last as long as LCD screens. LCD displays are also better at displaying large amounts of data which makes it more compatible with a computer and vga connections. It also provides a better template for GAMING.

That said Plasma is still one heck of a technology, beats LCD all in all I guess. But still, I play games, use my comuter a lot and watch movies. So my LCD TV is perfect for me, it does the job and it does it better than a Plasma would do it, except for maybe movies, but that I can live with, heh.

Chillin' ;)

Dirk13

A better template for gaming? your post kind of reads like a vague marketing pamphlet.

In case you had not checked any specs recently, plasmas last just as long as LCD's (not that it matters, i woudnt imagine anyone using either for the entirety of their normal lifespan).

I dont even know what you mean about fragility, as you didnt really explain it.

Lastly, if they are both 1080p they are both displaying the same amount of data, one doest really do it better than the other, anything else is mainly in the processing.

They are most certaintly not on equal footing yet, as the main improvements i see on LCD's by year is in alot of areas it doesnt need further improvement, such as brightness. It is getting better black levels, albeit still not matching plasma in regular use or extreme explicit testing.

LCD's above all else need A)more eye friendly light emission systems, rather than continueing to make their fluorescent moisture suckers even brighter, it's particularily bad for gamers, who blink less B) better color accuracy and C)as always better black levels as well as better black level consistency.

I simply gave you straight facts and pleeease, I like LCD more, don't try to convince me otherwise, won't work. LCD is proven to be slightly better than plasma for gaming and there's still no 100% guarantee of no screen burn in plasma since their "anti techniques" only are made to keep the screen in motion as much as possible in form of screensavers and such. But like I said:

They are almost equally good, plasma's better at one thing, LCD another, why argue?