Why is blank better than blank?

[DealsR4theDevil]

Taking everything out of the equation (such as burn-in, cost, lifespan, etc), I am talking pure picture quality only, which do you think produces the better picture, LCD or Plasma?

I have a 42" Pioneer Elite PureVision PRO940HD 720p Plasma that I bought for $2,600, it has been professionally calibrated and I watch my Blu-rays on my PS3 via HDMI cable. My friend, we'll call him Joe for arguments sake, just bought a 42" Sharp Aquos LC42D64U 1080p LCD for $1,400 and my other friend, Bob believes that the Sharp is better than my Pioneer in EVERY way.

Now I will admit that my TV has the lower resolution, but black levels and color tones are much more accurate on my TV, in fact when I bought it I was deciding between it and a 1080p Sony XBR. The black levels bothered me too much on the XBR so I went with the Pioneer Elite 720p (I couldn't afford the Pioneer Elite 1080p).

Now I have seen my friends TV playing the same Blu-rays through a PS3 and there is no comparison in black levels or color tones. In my opinion, mine is clearly better in that department (agian, I know he has the higher resolution). But Bob highly disagrees, in fact, Bob believes his 720p Vizio is better than my TV because "Plasmas suck."

I am tired of arguing with him, so I turn to the good people here at Blu-ray.com to prove me wrong or help my argument.

LCD or Plasma! Which do you think produces the better picture and why?

PS: if my TV is truly inferior to the Sharp Aquos (which I disagree with), then it is ludicrous that mine retails for $1,000 more.

[bageleaterkkjji]

if you are talking the camera just sitting there i would say if they are equal in brightness and color then whichever one has smaller spaces in between pixels will create better picture....if we are talking panning i would take plasma only because the plasma i had (60hz refresh)didnt have as juttery a picture as my lcd(30 fps 60hz refresh) or so i think (havent had my plasma since like the end of dec 05) so i dont remember either lol

[bageleaterkkjji]

if i were you and thinking about a new tv i would wait until a tv has at least1080p 24fps 120hz 500,000:1 at least contrast for a decent price...well thats what im going to wait for at least..its either going to be the samsung series after 81f as long as it does 24fps and 120hz or ill wait for oleds to get longer lifespan and cheaper then $2500 for an 11 incher... i mean cmon girls can get 11 inchers for free im sorry i couldnt help myself but i would say if you get another tv make it an lcd or oled plasmas have burn in whether or not its a problem you still have to worry about it..and they use more power and lcds and oleds will have better blacks so theres really no reason to have a plasma imo

[DepTii]

It's true, plasma produces the better colors and black levels, but I think you are comparing apples to oranges. If the choice is between 720p and 1080p, I don't really give a damn about black levels. Now if they were both 1080p, then yes, the plasma would be the obvious choice for better picture quality.

Just keep in mind, with use of LEDs as backlighting for the newest LCD panels, those black levels and color representations are catching up to plasma.

[bageleaterkkjji]

Originally Posted by DepTii

Just keep in mind, with use of LEDs as backlighting for the newest LCD panels, those black levels and color representations are catching up to plasma.

well samsung with the 81f already has better blacks then plasma except for like 1 pioneer( you cant get any blacker then no light at all) they just need to make it so no light leaks at all into the black pixel area (im sure it has to do with their reflective screen reflecting onto the screen where the blacks are making it show light and not leaking)because then you cant get a deeper black with the pixels turned completely off

[bageleaterkkjji]

and i think why people say plasma produces better colors is because they pop off the screen from having good blacks compared to the average lcd...it just depends on the bits of color the tv has and what not

[Grisle]

I thought it was common knowledge that Plasmas produced the best picture quality. I own an LCD, but I'm looking at getting a plasma. The XBR and the 71, 81 series of TVs produce a great picture and it's getting a lot closer to a plasma picture, but there's no comparison between those sets and the Pioneers. My brother-in-law has a 720p Pioneer Elite and it looks better with BDs than my friends XBR. I myself want a 1080p only because I feel I need to buy at least the current technology, but for those that have the 720p Pios I am still envious. Resolution isn't even the number one spec that makes a great picture quality. Here's a snippet from an article on picture quality:

"Ultimately, we agree with the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF), a group that consults for home-theater manufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, when it says that the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio, the second-most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy. Though resolution may be the most talked-about spec these days, it comes in fourth on the ISF list, and after you sit watching five TVs lined up side by side, you understand why. The fact is a relatively pristine high-def source such as Mission: Impossible III looks sharp on just about any HDTV, and your eye, when looking for differences, is drawn first to things like depth of detail in shadowy material (black levels) and the color of the actors' skin tone and how natural it looks."

[Kayne314]

There are some fantastic LCD panels out there. The people on this site won't hesitate to tell you what they are. Sharp does make a very good LCD, and they are by far the best FOR THE PRICE. There are better LCDs than your buddy's Sharp though, and most good Plasma TVs will produce better color.

If you were to compare a 720p signal on both your buddy's Aquios, and your Pioneer... Well your Pioneer will win hands down in simply every way.

Blacks are richer. Colors are more true to life. Refresh rate, ect... The Pioneer is better than the Aquios. No contest.

It is when playing 1080p signals that the Aquios will win. I'll take the sharpness and detail 1080p provides. It is a trade-off, and depends on the distance you sit from the TV. If you are far enough back for the 1080p to not matter, then I'd still give the edge to your Pioneer. At closer distances though the 1080p will make itself felt, and the detail will push the edge to the Aquios.

Don't lament you purchase though. I work in electronic sales, and I see more and more people coming in to replace LCDs because of damage to the screen all the time. LCD TVs are very susceptible to damage, and scratches that your Pioneer is not.

The people who buy Plasmas have generally made a purchase for the long haul, and have a relatively trouble free purchase. The people with LCDs seem to replace them more often. Not because they wear out (they don't) but because somebody leaned on the screen and broke it. Something was thrown in the living room and broke it. Somebody who didn't know any better cleaned the screen with something abrasive, and scratched the hell out of it.

It's only my opinion, but I think you made the better purchase. LCD TVs can be simply fantastic, but so can Plasma TVs. Enjoy yours. It sounds nice.

[aygie]

Had both, my LCD is 1080p m plasma 1080i, noticed the difference immediately, but saying that my plasma wasn't great anyway. Would love to see a high end Plasma doing its thang.

[Getus]

When i bought my panny 1080p plasma, i compared it to a sony lcd and a samsung lcd. because they where at the same price level.

I bougth the plasma, way beter blacks and beter colour. I felt it more pleasing to the eye.

I olso saw a sharp lcd 1080p and a pioneer plasma (720p) both to expensive for me. But if i had to chouce between them. it will be de pioneer no doubt.

i noticed some difference in detail, but that was at the distance i wachted it from that was not the biggest deal. for me it was the same motive wy i bought the panny. it was the better picture in my opinion. better blacks and better colour. it was more realistic. more pleasing to the eye.

So i think your plasma is better than the lcd.

[DealsR4theDevil]

Thank you for all your responses.

For the most part everyone agrees with me. I never did say that my Pioneer is better than the Sharp, I of course notice the higher resolution in the Sharp, but like you have all agreed, the Pionneer wins in black levels and color tone.

Grisle, you basically summed up my whole argument:

Originally Posted by Grisle

I thought it was common knowledge that Plasmas produced the best picture quality. I own an LCD, but I'm looking at getting a plasma. The XBR and the 71, 81 series of TVs produce a great picture and it's getting a lot closer to a plasma picture, but there's no comparision between those sets and the Piioneers. My brother-in-law has a 720p Pioneer Elite and it looks better with BDs than my friends XBR. I myself want a 1080p only because I feel I need to buy at least the current technology, but for those that have the 720p Pios I am still envious. Resolution isn't even the number one spec that makes a great picture quality. Here's a snippet from an article on picture quality:

"Ultimately, we agree with the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF), a group that consults for home-theater manufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, when it says that the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio, the second-most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy. Though resolution may be the most talked-about spec these days, it comes in fourth on the ISF list, and after you sit watching five TVs lined up side by side, you understand why. The fact is a relatively pristine high-def source such as Mission: Impossible III looks sharp on just about any HDTV, and your eye, when looking for differences, is drawn first to things like depth of detail in shadowy material (black levels) and the color of the actors' skin tone and how natural it looks."

Now I understand that some people will sacrifice the 720p Pioneer Elite's black levels and color tones for a 1080p LCD, and thats perfectly fine, I realize the 1080p TV has the higher resolution. It is as you said a "trade off" (unless you get the best of both worlds with a 1080p Pioneer Elite!):

Originally Posted by Kayne314

It is when playing 1080p signals that the Aquios will win. I'll take the sharpness and detail 1080p provides. It is a trade-off, and depends on the distance you sit from the TV. If you are far enough back for the 1080p to not matter, then I'd still give the edge to your Pioneer. At closer distances though the 1080p will make itself felt, and the detail will push the edge to the Aquios.

But when someone goes as far to say that the Sharp Aquos is better than the Pioneer in EVERY way like my friend Bob did and, even more ludicrous, he claims his 720p Vizio is better than my 720p Pioneer Elite. That my friends is a full pledged example of fanboyism (or stupidity):

Originally Posted by DealsR4theDevil

Now I have seen my friends TV playing the same Blu-rays through a PS3 and there is no comparison in black levels or color tones. In my opinion, mine is clearly better in that department (agian, I know he has the higher resolution). But Bob highly disagrees, in fact, Bob believes his 720p Vizio is better than my TV because "Plasmas suck."

I could sell my Pioneer Elite right now and buy BOTH the Sharp and the Vizo with change to spare! But who would wanna do that!

Oh, and Bob, just to let you know. Your Vizio talk kind of reminds me of your friend, the one that would say the Honda Civic is better than the Ford Mustang because the Mustang is an American car.

[DealsR4theDevil]

Can some of the people picking LCD in the poll please offer some reasons why?

I noticed that all the posters so far prefer plasma while the poll is split 50/50.

[Psiweaver]

As the ISF thing explains resolution really is not as important as most people make it out to be. The worst thing is a high res TV with a low quality scaler as most material is not 1080p and so many TV's can look worse with a higher resolution.

The important things are that the picture is free of artifacts, the color is accurate and properly saturated and things look life like. If the picture looks very natural, most people would not notice whether it was 1080p or 720p.

Plasmas tend to do a better job at black level and creating the depth of field needed for natural images that have lots of pop. This leads to a more lifelike view and is ultimately why good plasmas look better than good LCD's.

[btf1980]

Originally Posted by DealsR4theDevil

Can some of the people picking LCD in the poll please offer some reasons why?

I noticed that all the posters so far prefer plasma while the poll is split 50/50.

Most people pick what they own, not what is better. If there was an honest review and people were remotely objective, LCD would not win anything. Plasma is the closest technology to attaining CRT like color reproduction and black levels. CRT is the benchmark, plasma comes the closest to that benchmark. End of story. In every head to head shoot out review between the top of the line LCD and Plasma, whether it's Sound and Vision Magazine, Home Theater Magazine, Cnet, etc, every last one chose plasma. There isn't one that chose an LCD over a plasma, not one. That should tell you something. I've owned LCD's and while the pictures are getting better and better every year, no videophile is going to chose an LCD over a plasma.

I think people just go to stores, see the oversaturated colors of LCD's in harshly bright rooms and think that is better, and under those horrible conditions many do look good. So many people don't actually know what realistic colors look like, they think bumped up, high contrast settings in torch mode is good. So most manufacturers set their out the box settings for LCD's in torch mode, and likes moths to a light, Joe Sixpack consumer is attracted to that. What does he know about accurate colors? Not a damn thing when he sees the latest 120hz, AMP nonsense at Bestbuy and Circuit City.

[btf1980]

Originally Posted by DepTii

It's true, plasma produces the better colors and black levels, but I think you are comparing apples to oranges. If the choice is between 720p and 1080p, I don't really give a damn about black levels. Now if they were both 1080p, then yes, the plasma would be the obvious choice for better picture quality.

A perfect example of the typical consumer who will pick an inferior product because it says 1080p!! With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. The Pioneer 5080 is better than any LCD of that size (and likely cheaper as well!!) on the market today, despite the fact that the native resolution is 1366 x 768. The Pioneer accepts a 1080p/24 signal and has one of the best internal scalers there is out there on any display, that is more important than just having a native resolution of 1080p. It will look better. It wasn't the tv of the year, besting the XBR4, XBR5, Samsung 71/81 and everything else for no reason at all.

[CptGreedle]

I am not picky either way. It looks like my vote evened it out 50/50 even. LOL

Still... OLED will be the future, much better image and contrast... if only it didn't cost so much!

[maximiza]

I voted for Plasma since I own one, one downside of plasma is more electricty is needed then LCD. I think the future may hold laser TV's will be better the OLED's, but I guess it depends what happenes with the pricing and uses.

[cathexist]

Don't you worry about blank, let me worry about blank...

[Sonny]

I have both , but Plazzy's all the way , people who dont like um have never owned one (a good one!) Really I'll take either one JUST SO I CAN WATCH MY BLU-RAY'S (Plazzys are better though)& ceap in mind that I have an XBR5 which is so F***ING sweet...

[DealsR4theDevil]

Originally Posted by btf1980

Most people pick what they own, not what is better.

Clearly!

Over 50 poll responses and not one post explaining why anyone thinks LCD is better!