Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

DLP vs LCD vs PLASMA

matticus008 said:
Certainly they weigh more than LCD counterparts, but not by some obscene amount.

EDIT: oops, that's the wrong Samsung model. The others are accurate.
Click to expand...
Here's another recent Sony model that is 52 lbs with the pedestal 43ish without. [If that Sony had been available at that price this summer it would probably be in my family room instead of the Samsung.]

I would say that a factor of 2 (from 45 lbs easily wall mountable to 90 lbs with no option due to depth), while not obscene, is a pretty big difference.

B
 
balamw said:
Here's another recent Sony model that is 52 lbs with the pedestal 43ish without. [If that Sony had been available at that price this summer it would probably be in my family room instead of the Samsung.]

I would say that a factor of 2 (from 45 lbs easily wall mountable to 90 lbs with no option due to depth), while not obscene, is a pretty big difference.

B
Click to expand...
Incidentally, it occurred to me that I hadn't checked current weights of DLP TVs, and they have exercised some weight loss advancements as well (pardon the pun). Here is a 56" DLP TV which apparently weighs 72 pounds, which is quite a bit less than 90 pounds.

Suffice it to say, then, that the weight figures I used were a bit outdated. Consider that a 56" LCD TV might in fact weigh more than this, but it's hard to tell because they're rare at that size. That example is a tad deeper, at 18", due to its larger size, or about triple the LCD. A Samsung 46" DLP TV weighs closer to 60 pounds these days--again, not tremendously more than 43-50 pounds for the LCD.
 
I bought a Sony LCD HDTV a few months back and I'm very pleased with it.
Plasma is going obsolete very quickly. Its not the way to go. DLP haven't taken off at all in Europe, but I'm assuming that's because of the sheer size of the things. They're fairly hefty.

Although my personal preference is an LCD, I can imagine that if you're budget doesn't stretch all that far that a DLP is an interesting alternative. You have to have the space though! :D
My only problems with DLP are their relative lack of brightness and also the terrible viewing angles. You really have to make sure you're as good as right in front of it to get the optimum picture quality.
 
Whatever its merits (or lack of) for TVs, DLP is a very good and useful technology for projectors. If you're looking for a light, portable projector that performs well, DLP is the way to go. While some people might see a slight rainbow effect, projected DLP images are a bit softer and lack the pixelated grid effect you can see from LCD projectors.
 
If you want 720p or 1080p your going to want a plasma, because LCD does 1080i.

Just keep in mind that a Plasma is for a room that is not as brite. LCD's are perfect for rooms that are very brite...;)
 
vi2867 said:
If you want 720p or 1080p your going to want a plasma, because LCD does 1080i.

Just keep in mind that a Plasma is for a room that is not as brite. LCD's are perfect for rooms that are very brite...;)
Click to expand...

I have a Westinghouse 47" LCD that has a native resolution of 1920 x 1080 (2 million pixels). It also accepts 1080p signals through its HDMI and component inputs. I have yet to see a plasma with this resolution - the new high resolution plasmas are 1024 x 1080 or some variant - this is half the # of pixels. Is this a big deal? Perhaps not for watching video, but it wouldn't be as good of a computer monitor. The price was also a steal - $2500 Cdn. The downside to this set (and LCDs in general) is that the black levels/contrast ratio is only average.

The resolution that a set can accept and the resolution that a set can display are two different things. Any display technology could accept 1080p if its chip set was capable, but if the resolution of the set is not 1920 x 1080, then the resolution of the source material will be automatically reduced to match what the set is capable of displaying. LCDs are not limited to 1080i and I have yet to see a plasma that can display a full 1920 x 1080 (I'm not sure why this is...).
 
I stand corrected, I guess when I was shopping around about 6 months ago for a flat screen tv I didn't see any LCD's that did 1080p.:(
 
Plasma TV's are also notorious for inhaling enormous amounts of electricity (and thus driving up your elec bills). So if you are one of those people interested in energy efficiency, LCD's are probably a better way to go.

I have a nice Sharp Aquos LCD flatscreen and I love it. Widescreen has been weird getting used to, as many channels don't offer it as a format (I don't have Hi-Def), so I have to use the 'Smart screen' feature to fill out all that extra space. They are great for movies though. :)
 
I guess my take on the whole LCD vs. Plasma vs. DLP TVs argument is this:

They are all good. Better than good, in fact. Sure, some types have advantages over the others, but in the end most modern HDTVs of any variety made by a good manufacturer are going to look great, so I'd just find the TV that seems to be the best fit for your house and budget and pick it up. Your personal preference is more important than worrying about having better color saturation/brightness/deeper blacks than other televisions.
 
Some pros and cons of different display devices:

Plasma
Pros: High brightness, high contrast, less digital artifacts, closest to CRTs in picture quality, looks stunning when new.
Cons: Expensive, burn-in, high break down rate (Phillips repaired 13,000 units last year), picture quality degrades after 4 weeks of normal use, plasma cells loose inert gas over time and in high elevations, uses lots of power (42" set consumes over 400W).

LCD
Pros: Slim like plasmas, good brightness and contrast, use much less power, more models available in 1080p that work great as computer monitor for gaming. Burn-in almost non-existent. The 1080p models are fantastic and rival the best plasmas for less using Cold-Cathode-Flourescent-Lighting (CCFL) back lighting. This is currently the best option out there.
Cons: Lots of older models out there in varying sizes with old style back-lighting. Back-lighting lasts 3-4 years before it goes bad and then panel is dead. CCFL will last twice as long, LED based backlighting will be out next year and offer longer life + better birghtness & contrast. LCDs over 40" are very expensive.

DLP
Pros: Best band for the buck if you want a picture bigger than 42", no burn-in and uses less power.
Cons: Brightness/Contrast not as good plasma or LCD, but newer models from Samsung & Mitsubishi are quite good. Color wheel causes "rainbow effect" (RBE) that is seen on fast moving motion (dark object moving against a light background). Only a few people see RBE, but once you do, it is bothersome. Newer RGB LED lighting removes color wheel, but is not as bright and has some picture geometry issues that will be resolved by models available by Aug. 2008.

Conclusion: If you want to buy now, a set that is up to 40" get an LCD that uses CCFL back lighting and is 1080p compatible. A 40" set should cost about $2000. The best ones out there are from Samsung and Mitsubishi (LN-S4095 and Mits 37"). If you want something larger than 40", then consider the new DLPs from Samsung & Mitsubishi that are the new high contrast models capable of 1080p.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Note a distinction between 1080p and 1080p compatible. One has the actual resolution, the other can downsample the signal to something lower, such as 720p.
Click to expand...
This is particularly insidious as all HDTVs must support 1080i input even if they lack the resolution to fully display it.

B
 
SpankyPenzaanz said:
I have decided to buy a new tv especially with the holidays around the corner. I am pretty sure I want something from the 32" to 42" range. The only prefrence I have is that it is capable of 720p or 1080p over either componet or vga (for me xbox360). I would like to hear people experinece and any thing to be wary of. I have seen some great deals (at least they seemed that way) when I went to sams the other day. Thanks
Click to expand...
The two big questions you need to answer are:

(1) What sort of content are you going to be viewing (in addition to the 720p/1080p), and
(2) What are the size/weight restrictions of where you will be placing the device.

LCD is definitely becoming the most popular format, but a major drawback is the difficulty interpolating different resolutions (because of individual pixels). A standard-def broadcast on an HD LCD screen looks pretty craptastic. So, if you're planning on hooking up the TV to your non-HD cable box, be prepared for some substandard viewing. I have a DLP TV, and this does not seem to be a problem - SD and HD both look great. I can't speak for Plasma. The main drawback to DLP is that you do have some depth - typically 12-24 inches, which may or may not be an issue. They aren't that heavy. Some people think the viewing angle isn't that great, but that hasn't been my experience at all. Plasma has a smaller footprint but is heavy as all hell, mounting on a wall usually means some heavy-duty supports, as opposed to LCD which is considerably lighter (but does require a separately-purchased mount if you want to put on a wall.)

I've been tempted time & again to buy an LCD, but the lack of variable resolution is a real bummer, especially when you have multiple formats (HD at 1080i or 720p, DVD at 480p, standard broadcasts at 480i.) This winds up biting you in the butt when you buy LCD because generally at the store they only play HD or DVD format. I'd love to buy a nice big LCD with 480 lines of vertical resolution (shows DVD and SD TV just fine) but they only make these up to 20". :(

Dave
 
Carguy172 said:
don't get a DLP there big bulky images burn into them and there color accuracy isn't great.
Click to expand...
Absolutely incorrect. Blacks are actually blacker on most DLP's than LCD, and there is absolutely no burn-in. I've had a 50" DLP for 3 years, no burn in at all. Despite having a dvr with frequent long pauses...

Dave
 
My roommate works at Best Buy and bought a Westinghouse 40" LCD for super cheap. (Best Buy marks them up insanely)

It's just sick for games. He has it on his desk and sits right infront of it. The color quality is not as good as a better brand, such as Sony but it does 1080p and is cheap. And huge.
 
Dave00 said:
I'd love to buy a nice big LCD with 480 lines of vertical resolution (shows DVD and SD TV just fine) but they only make these up to 20". :(
Click to expand...
:eek:

At least hope for 960 lines and just use a simple 2:1 scaling. :p

Have you actually watched DVD or other SD content on a largish LCD HDTV from a reasonable viewing distance? It may not look as great as HD content up close, but it is very viewable when you're sitting on the sofa.

B
 
balamw said:
Have you actually watched DVD or other SD content on a largish LCD HDTV from a reasonable viewing distance? It may not look as great as HD content up close, but it is very viewable when you're sitting on the sofa.
B
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about just the difference between HD and SD. I'm talking about how SD looks interpolated on an HD LCD, vs. a technology that scans lines in. Compare an SD broadcast on a CRT vs. HD LCD, and you'll see what I mean. The LCD looks horrendous. For a comparable effect, if you have an LCD monitor, try changing the resolution to 640x480 (or anything smaller than native, really). The problem is that the formats don't scale by integers (480/720/1080) so the interpolated pixels come out very choppy.

Dave
 
Dave00 said:
I'm not talking about just the difference between HD and SD. I'm talking about how SD looks interpolated on an HD LCD, vs. a technology that scans lines in. Compare an SD broadcast on a CRT vs. HD LCD, and you'll see what I mean. The LCD looks horrendous. For a comparable effect, if you have an LCD monitor, try changing the resolution to 640x480 (or anything smaller than native, really). The problem is that the formats don't scale by integers (480/720/1080) so the interpolated pixels come out very choppy.

Dave
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. I regularly watch SD content and DVDs on my 1360x768 LCD display. It doesn't look as bad as you make it out to be. I'm far more annoyed by the compression artifacts I see when watching DVDs blown up to 40" than the scaling artifacts.

I'll ask the question again. have you actually watched SD content on an LCD in a real viewing conditions and not 6-12 inches from the screen in a store. Even old iTMS 320x240 content displayed on a large LCD looks better than VHS on an SDTV ever did when viewed from the sofa.

B
 
balamw said:
I'll ask the question again. have you actually watched SD content on an LCD in a real viewing conditions and not 6-12 inches from the screen in a store. Even old iTMS 320x240 content displayed on a large LCD looks better than VHS on an SDTV ever did when viewed from the sofa.

B
Click to expand...
I agree completely with balamw. When viewed from a reasonable (normal) distance, the artifacts aren't noticeable, and it just looks "blurrier" than HD content. I don't see any good way to show SD content on a big screen without seeing issues up close, as there are not many scan lines, and so, one way or another, it won't look pretty up close.
 
Dave00 said:
I'm not talking about just the difference between HD and SD. I'm talking about how SD looks interpolated on an HD LCD, vs. a technology that scans lines in. Compare an SD broadcast on a CRT vs. HD LCD, and you'll see what I mean. The LCD looks horrendous. For a comparable effect, if you have an LCD monitor, try changing the resolution to 640x480 (or anything smaller than native, really). The problem is that the formats don't scale by integers (480/720/1080) so the interpolated pixels come out very choppy.

Dave
Click to expand...

DLP, LCD, and plasma all have fixed resolutions. Whether SD looks horrible or average on these sets mostly depends on how advanced the chipset is that deinterlaces and scales the picture. Some models have better chipsets, others are rudimentary.

I have read about people who have different components capable of deinterlacing/scaling. They can have vastly different picture quality (PQ) depending on which components they use to convert the signal. (Cable box/DVD player vs receiver vs the television.) One that comes to mind is a common US cable box vs the JVC-702 receiver vs a typical HDTV. Letting the 702 receiver convert the SD video results in a better picture on the same tv because it has a more advanced chip set.
 
balamw said:
I'll ask the question again. have you actually watched SD content on an LCD in a real viewing conditions and not 6-12 inches from the screen in a store. Even old iTMS 320x240 content displayed on a large LCD looks better than VHS on an SDTV ever did when viewed from the sofa.

B
Click to expand...
Yes, I've looked at SD content on HD screens in normal viewing conditions. The subtle difference you're talking about is between SD and HD content when viewed in native conditions - i.e., if you compare an HD broadcast on an HD screen to an SD broadcast on an SD screen, the differences are subtle (but noticeable.) However, compare SD on an HD LCD screen to SD on an SD screen, and the difference is rather dramatic, even from a distance. This is why on product review sites you often see negative comments on LCD HDTV's. "I got it home and it looks much worse than my 10-year-old CRT!"

As for your comment about iTMS content at 320x240 vs. VHS on an SDTV, I beg to differ. The VHS looks MUCH better (as it should, at 4x the resolution).

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back