LCD or plasma?

Spot|DSE wrote on 6/16/2005, 5:26 PM

Just curious to know what displays folks are using in their homes, or with Vegas for HD viewing? Plasma, or HD? Plasma seems to be the big buy, but LCD's are coming down in price. Samsung, Sony, and Toshiba all have announced lower cost LCD's, and I'm not only considering buying a home display, but curious about what opinions are. I'm only going to be buying a native resolution display, but making considerations.
I do LOVE my Sony 234 LCD monitor for the computer.

Comments

Coursedesign wrote on 6/16/2005, 6:20 PM

LCDs are also getting better, as evidenced by Sony's Luma series which impressed me a lot. They are also absolutely guaranteeing that different Luma monitors can be color calibrated to match each other to perfection, the only ones today I think.

For home use, I saw a $899 HDTV LCD at Circuit City that blew away other screens at twice the price. Definitely coming.

Contrary to what Consumer Reports supposedly found recently, there is a large difference between ED and HD native resolution when it comes to these flat screens.

After looking at a lot of different both midrange and high end plasmas, I cannot see that the issue of native resolution is anywhere near as important as the video processing and the quality of the pixels so to speak.

1920x1080 native resolution has just become available at the high end, but I don't think they're worth the money at this point, it's too early on the curve. Very soon there will be significantly better displays at a much lower price.

Better to get a lower native but still HD resolution with really good video processing than a first generation where they had to make compromises. I suspect this may be the case even at the $25K price point right now, but others may have already found otherwise.

Remember that only 0.01% (if that) of available HD source material was actually shot in 1920x1080p. The rest was shot in at best 1080x1440 interlaced, then pixel stretched and scaled to 1920x1080p square pixels. A really good chunk of available HD footage was even shot in 720p (Varicam) and then scaled up.

So I don't see the point of going overboard on native 1920x1080 at this time.

I would love to hear from anybody who has experienced this differently.

Spot|DSE wrote on 6/16/2005, 7:39 PM

Remember that only 0.01% (if that) of available HD source material was actually shot in 1920x1080p. The rest was shot in at best 1080x1440 interlaced, then pixel stretched and scaled to 1920x1080p square pixels. A really good chunk of available HD footage was even shot in 720p (Varicam) and then scaled up.

I realize this, but am also wanting to be forward-looking. I don't have a lot of television time, most of my stuff comes off a projector at home anyway, but this is for the studio for comparisons of cameras on the consumer side. So, it's a combination of "impress clients" and test display for various experiments. Hence the desire for the native resolution. Your advice however, is very astute and sound.

Wolfgang S. wrote on 6/16/2005, 10:37 PM

To me the question is more: how long will we have to wait to see 1920x1080 pixels coming down in price, to a level where prosumers will be able to buy such a LCD? I mean, 25 K$ is impossible if you run video as a not-for-profit hobby.

Cheno wrote on 6/16/2005, 10:39 PM

Spot,

The new Sony WEGA LCD's have a 5 inch footprint and in my opinion, look everybit as clear if not better than the plasmas. Longer life span too.

This is merely my consumer opionion however I agree with your Sony broadcast LCD liking as well.

mike

John_Cline wrote on 6/16/2005, 11:42 PM

Spot,

I realize that the question was about the choice between LCD or plasma, but I think you know what I'm going to say next.... my choice would be neither one.

I'm tellin' `ya, the Sony XBR960 34" 16x9 is the best looking monitor I have ever seen at a price mere mortals can afford. Yes, it's a CRT and, yes, it weighs over 200 pounds, but it natively displays all 18 ATSC formats including 1920x1080 and 1280x720 HD and it costs under $2000. And did I mention how insanely great the pictures looks? It has the same dot pitch as a computer monitor. You simply can't see the individual picture elements like you can on an LCD, or particularly, plasma.

John

RBartlett wrote on 6/17/2005, 3:41 AM

From the day that a plasma is filled it leaks. Leaking is noticable within 7 years from all manufacturers. So if you can get one that was manufactured in the last 12 months, you've got a good start for its working life.

LCD, well colour and contrast ratio apart (from other technologies), the Sharp range are assured for 50+ years. So an LCD seems to be something that like a CRT is likely to be around, if not always in your main living space, for many years on.

Beware 16.2 million colour panels that use a 6bit DAC with adjacent pixel dither to sumulate some part of an 8bit dynamic range per colour plane. I've got one and it was the right one for the price and for a web terminal, but beware of the same technology being in your HDTV.