With 1366x768 res plasmas out and 1080p on there way, are these taking away the selling points of LCD's.

One of the beauties with LCD is that PC looks amazing clear and crisp on them at 1366x768.
Do the plasmas with 1366x768 res look just as good?

And now with plasmas at the res of LCD's, and with better viewing angles and colour depth and better blacks, is there a need to buy an LCD???

Some opinions in this would be awesome?

thanks

You're opening up pandora's box by asking this question here...

Good! that's what i want. I want peoples personal opinions on which they think is better and why???

I personaly think plasma has a more smoother natural image i find LCD to sharp

It's personal preference and depends what you'll be using it for. NY Times has a good article (you might need to register to access it) but it could be seen as biased.
NY Times Article

For me, it's plasma. I won't be connecting it to a PC and have a room that doesn't get a heap of sunlight.

For me 1366x768 plasma is way way better ....
simply because I ain't seen any 50" LCD in the stores yet

it would be used to connect to a media centre PC, so i assume you think LCD is better for that?

I wouldn't be the one to comment on that - it's not something that interests me. Now that you're getting more specific I'm sure you might get some more useful comments.

Same resolution but LCD panels are smaller than plasmas, hence LCD pixels are smaller, picture looks sharper, especially with computer graphics as opposed to motion picture.

so the pixels on LCD's are physically smaller then on plasmas?

Not necessarily. The same sized plasma and LCD with the same resolution will have very similar sized pixels.

yeah thats what i thought, so then at the same res and size, what would be the better picture for connecting to a PC

You seem to not realise at 1366x768 there are no same sized plasma vs LCD.
This res only comes in 50" plasmas, and in a range of 28" to 42" LCDs.

Anton P, Thankyou for pointing this out - my mistake. Of course pixels are gonna be smaller on an LCD screen... because the screen is SMALLER.

Pheegan, I don't think anyone can give you advice one way or the other. You need to go out and see for yourself.

Also note that LCD pixels have a higher "fill factor" (also known as aperture ratio).

This is the ratio of the illuminated portion of the pixel to the black spaces in between.

Plasmas have a lower fill factor which is why they have a "gappy" appearance. (Sometimes referred to as a screendoor effect)



You can't get the desirable 1366x768 res in 42 inch plasmas, only in 50"+.

The 42's all have a rectangular pixel, non 16x9 resolution of either 1024x768 or 1024x1024.

These resolutions are reasonably good for HD video, but not so good for computer use, high res digital photo display, or HD video gaming.

I'd go either for a 50 inch plasma or check out a 37-42 inch LCD to get the resolution you want.

42" HD plasma is only 1024 x 768, not 1366x768

and 1366x768 lcd in 42" is old stock. new stock is 1920x1080

as for who is better, im not biting go visit some shops and decide for urself. god gave you legs and eyeballs for a reason!

Couldn't agree more. Let your eyes and ears make the decision. The challenge of course is to find a store that allows you to make an appropriate comparison. Certainly the salespeople I've come across in several stores (in Brisbane - Sony Central, Myer & JB) haven't been very helpful in assisting my purchase decision. But in your search, keep in mind that what you see demonstrated in the store isn't necessarily what you'll experience at home - different lighting conditions, different source equipment etc.

mate i would, but can't find a shop that will let me compare the two with a PC running on them, so i wanted to see if anyone here has had an opportunity to compare them....




thanks offshore, that would explain the sharper image on the LCD's.
That's the exact type of technical answer i was looking for, cheers.

for me lcd have a poor refresh rate

If you are looking at screen sizes of 50"+ then I would be shopping for a 1080 display, not 768. This leads you down the trail of LCD for now.

I have also heard of a new LCD technology where the backlight is made up of an array of tiny white LEDs directly behing the screen. This array is connected so that individual LED can be turned off and on in accordance with the picture brightness which gives contract values in excess of Plasma. Has anyone else heard about this?


What is the typical refresh rate of a plasma? We are now seeing LCD refresh rates below 8ms for TVs and as low as 2ms for monitors. How do these compare to Plasmas?

yes, I just posted the link in another thread, but here it is again :

http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRe...0901_0000284318

[quote name='evil_josh' date='Sep 22 2006, 08:19 AM' post='489297']
If you are looking at screen sizes of 50"+ then I would be shopping for a 1080 display, not 768. This leads you down the trail of LCD for now.

I just picked up a Samsung 46" LA46M51B at a good price in Perth, it has the 1366x768 Resolution (True 16:9) and displays HDTV 1920x1080i@50Hz seems like a good buy to me.

Just to clarify, this is not "connected to a PC" in the important sense. A media centre is still just an expensive arangement of digital tuners (ie standard TV watching). From what I've read people seem to find LCD screens better for viewing actual computer generated content on (eg an XBox or using Excel on your TV)

FWIW both technologies are pretty amazing these days as long as the panel has a minimum 768 lines of vertical resolution. There's no absolute answer to which is better (as this thread is probably indicating). Plasma's do tend to get the edge being cheaper for the same size (this is due to supply issues rather than any better PQ in the LCD)

Regards

Peter Gillespie