pinkhelmets
Inactive User
Most reviews published seem to be biased purely for sales benefit, ie. a plasma company will 'prove' their screens come out best on test while lcd manufacturers will have proof that customers prefer their products. If you read comments from consumers then a plasma owner will favour plasma, an lcd owner will favour lcd, a crt owner will favour the old format, and projection owners are just laughed at. So whats the truth?
I have tried to use as many facts as possible and write this purely with an unbiased view. Hope it helps, even though I know plasma owners will still say theirs is the best and lcd owners will still say theirs is best, CRT owners will say they have best pictures
, in reality its all about what you can get for your money.
Eg. Plasmas have slightly less resolution than an equivelent LCD, which tends to be reported as a 'softer' look, or you could argue its a less-defined look. It may just be better for S-Def pictures but worse for a PC display, its a controversial subject and I dont intend to condem anyones choice.
Physical Size
Size is the all important factor for sales at the moment. CRT just takes up far too much room for the size of displayed picture. Typically an average widescreen crt will need 2ft depth or more, compared with a couple of inches average depth for modern solutions. Plasmas are generally around 3 inches depth, Large LCD can be around 2 inches depth.
Screen size
CRT comes last since the glass tube has a physical manufacture size limit, so typically the maximum widescreen will be 32". LCD has the best range of screen size, covering 1" to about 45" although the latest LG screen has been produced at a size of 100". Plasma currently comes out top for screen size since they suit the current most popular tv range of 32" to 63" and have a lower 'price per inch'. The latest Pioneer has been manufactured at 103" so does beat the LG... just, however the questions is- how long will plasma win on screen size? Plasma screens will be limited to a maximum size due to difficulties manufacturing glass tubes that hold the plasma, whereas LCD seems to have less limitation and is catching up fast, with prices per inch falling.
Price
This is difficult to judge as we are in the middle of price wars. LCD has already cheaper for 'very small' screens and also mid-size screens, perhaps 27" ~ 37" whereas Plasma remains cheaper for the larger 42" ~ 63" range. The original CRT comes out best on price for the small screen size, 14" ~ 27" but for how long? The crt prices are heavily reduced to clear old stock and due to a lack of sales, so LCD will undoubtedly win on price of the small range too.
Resolution
CRT comes out last for resolution due to various limitations. Plasma resolution is always less than the equivelent LCD, simply because the pixels in a plasma are rectangular. LCD comes out top for pure resolution posibilities, since the pixels are square shaped the screen will be made up of more dots.
Resolution is THE biggest arguement, since having more resolution does not always mean the best final picture. Generally a standard definition screen will look best with standard definition pictures; a 'HD-ready' or mid-definition screen will be best suited to mid-definition or pc images; a True High-Definition screen will look best with High-definition pictures.
Viewing Angle
Plasma typically has a viewing angle limited to about 160 degrees. LCD did have a poor name for viewing angles since old screens were designed as computer monitors, but they have now surpassed Plasma... just. Mostly an LCD viewing angle will now be 175 degrees. CRT wins here because there isnt really a viewing angle limit.
Refresh Rates
As LCD was designed for data and not video it has always been slightly slower to refresh, but recent improvements mean rates have rapidly reduced to typically less than 8ms, and we are seeing 5ms in affordable screens. Plamsa and CRT are about the same so both win on the refresh speed. The arguement of interlaced vs progressive is a different subject but a crt uses interlaced which runs half the speed of progressive, so the arguement can be that plasma comes out on top. Really this is a non-issue now, all 3 are considered equal to the eye.
Brightness/Contrast
Under ideal conditions (no ambient light) and perhaps on paper the advantage goes to plasma technology. The reported brightness/contrast specs will be higher for a plasma because LCD TVs are backlit and therefore light must be blocked to create blacks. Plasmas have individual pixels that are either on or off, creating deeper blacks and better contrast. With ambient light in 'real-world' situations LCD TVs can often look better/brighter because the special glass surface of a plasma is made to reflect light, which dulls brightness and contrast. An LCD reflects very little light, so contrast levels are maintained even in a highly-lit room. CRT levels compare more initially with plasma but with non-reflective benefits more similar to LCD. Officially CRT has a higher contrast ratio but less brightness than both lcd & plasma. With that said modern differences result in no clear winner to a human eye, blacks are black, whites are white.
Life-span
A surprising fact to many- A crt is now considered as the worst of the 3 for actual screen life. An average CRT will have a 20,000 hour half-life, which means it will be 20,000 hours before the light measures half of its original brightness. A plasma typical half-life is 30,000 hours, with an LCD typical lamp life of 30,000 hours. The life-span of the screen itself is no longer an issue as under normal use the figures for all are beyond 15 years.
Repairs
Plasma comes last, mostly its hugely expensive to repair a plasma and since they run at high temperatures they may offer the least reliablity. LCD repairs are also costly, lamps can usually be changed but costs of repair may mean its still cheaper to buy a new unit. CRT comes out best with more repairers available and possible least repair costs.
Screen burn / dead pixels / bleeding
Plasma is known to suffer screen-burn, although most modern units have solutions to reduce the possibility. LCD can have stuck or dead pixels. CRT can be damadged from magnetism, ie. speakers, they can develope clouded areas, bluring and bleeding of colours. So all 3 are considered about equal for possible pixel fault.
Power-consumption
CRT comes out last and is the least energy efficient. Plasma produces a lot of heat but is relatively more energy efficient. LCD is the most efficient and uses less energy than the other two.
Shipping/Installation/Durability
CRT are bulky and the heaviest, so cost more to ship. They are also fairly fragile when shipping, and wall installation is not really sensible. Plasma are heavy and cost more than LCD to ship, and they are considered very fragile. Delivery &/or installation can be tricky for plasmas. LCD comes out top, it is cheapest to ship due to lower weight and a much higher durability. Sturdy walls are not as important as for plasma so LCD can usually be installed easier.
I have tried to use as many facts as possible and write this purely with an unbiased view. Hope it helps, even though I know plasma owners will still say theirs is the best and lcd owners will still say theirs is best, CRT owners will say they have best pictures
, in reality its all about what you can get for your money.Eg. Plasmas have slightly less resolution than an equivelent LCD, which tends to be reported as a 'softer' look, or you could argue its a less-defined look. It may just be better for S-Def pictures but worse for a PC display, its a controversial subject and I dont intend to condem anyones choice.
Physical Size
Size is the all important factor for sales at the moment. CRT just takes up far too much room for the size of displayed picture. Typically an average widescreen crt will need 2ft depth or more, compared with a couple of inches average depth for modern solutions. Plasmas are generally around 3 inches depth, Large LCD can be around 2 inches depth.
Screen size
CRT comes last since the glass tube has a physical manufacture size limit, so typically the maximum widescreen will be 32". LCD has the best range of screen size, covering 1" to about 45" although the latest LG screen has been produced at a size of 100". Plasma currently comes out top for screen size since they suit the current most popular tv range of 32" to 63" and have a lower 'price per inch'. The latest Pioneer has been manufactured at 103" so does beat the LG... just, however the questions is- how long will plasma win on screen size? Plasma screens will be limited to a maximum size due to difficulties manufacturing glass tubes that hold the plasma, whereas LCD seems to have less limitation and is catching up fast, with prices per inch falling.
Price
This is difficult to judge as we are in the middle of price wars. LCD has already cheaper for 'very small' screens and also mid-size screens, perhaps 27" ~ 37" whereas Plasma remains cheaper for the larger 42" ~ 63" range. The original CRT comes out best on price for the small screen size, 14" ~ 27" but for how long? The crt prices are heavily reduced to clear old stock and due to a lack of sales, so LCD will undoubtedly win on price of the small range too.
Resolution
CRT comes out last for resolution due to various limitations. Plasma resolution is always less than the equivelent LCD, simply because the pixels in a plasma are rectangular. LCD comes out top for pure resolution posibilities, since the pixels are square shaped the screen will be made up of more dots.
Resolution is THE biggest arguement, since having more resolution does not always mean the best final picture. Generally a standard definition screen will look best with standard definition pictures; a 'HD-ready' or mid-definition screen will be best suited to mid-definition or pc images; a True High-Definition screen will look best with High-definition pictures.
Viewing Angle
Plasma typically has a viewing angle limited to about 160 degrees. LCD did have a poor name for viewing angles since old screens were designed as computer monitors, but they have now surpassed Plasma... just. Mostly an LCD viewing angle will now be 175 degrees. CRT wins here because there isnt really a viewing angle limit.
Refresh Rates
As LCD was designed for data and not video it has always been slightly slower to refresh, but recent improvements mean rates have rapidly reduced to typically less than 8ms, and we are seeing 5ms in affordable screens. Plamsa and CRT are about the same so both win on the refresh speed. The arguement of interlaced vs progressive is a different subject but a crt uses interlaced which runs half the speed of progressive, so the arguement can be that plasma comes out on top. Really this is a non-issue now, all 3 are considered equal to the eye.
Brightness/Contrast
Under ideal conditions (no ambient light) and perhaps on paper the advantage goes to plasma technology. The reported brightness/contrast specs will be higher for a plasma because LCD TVs are backlit and therefore light must be blocked to create blacks. Plasmas have individual pixels that are either on or off, creating deeper blacks and better contrast. With ambient light in 'real-world' situations LCD TVs can often look better/brighter because the special glass surface of a plasma is made to reflect light, which dulls brightness and contrast. An LCD reflects very little light, so contrast levels are maintained even in a highly-lit room. CRT levels compare more initially with plasma but with non-reflective benefits more similar to LCD. Officially CRT has a higher contrast ratio but less brightness than both lcd & plasma. With that said modern differences result in no clear winner to a human eye, blacks are black, whites are white.
Life-span
A surprising fact to many- A crt is now considered as the worst of the 3 for actual screen life. An average CRT will have a 20,000 hour half-life, which means it will be 20,000 hours before the light measures half of its original brightness. A plasma typical half-life is 30,000 hours, with an LCD typical lamp life of 30,000 hours. The life-span of the screen itself is no longer an issue as under normal use the figures for all are beyond 15 years.
Repairs
Plasma comes last, mostly its hugely expensive to repair a plasma and since they run at high temperatures they may offer the least reliablity. LCD repairs are also costly, lamps can usually be changed but costs of repair may mean its still cheaper to buy a new unit. CRT comes out best with more repairers available and possible least repair costs.
Screen burn / dead pixels / bleeding
Plasma is known to suffer screen-burn, although most modern units have solutions to reduce the possibility. LCD can have stuck or dead pixels. CRT can be damadged from magnetism, ie. speakers, they can develope clouded areas, bluring and bleeding of colours. So all 3 are considered about equal for possible pixel fault.
Power-consumption
CRT comes out last and is the least energy efficient. Plasma produces a lot of heat but is relatively more energy efficient. LCD is the most efficient and uses less energy than the other two.
Shipping/Installation/Durability
CRT are bulky and the heaviest, so cost more to ship. They are also fairly fragile when shipping, and wall installation is not really sensible. Plasma are heavy and cost more than LCD to ship, and they are considered very fragile. Delivery &/or installation can be tricky for plasmas. LCD comes out top, it is cheapest to ship due to lower weight and a much higher durability. Sturdy walls are not as important as for plasma so LCD can usually be installed easier.
