Choosing A Television

[::Hitesh:: 1,763]

Choosing a television set can be quite a daunting task especially if you are looking for an LCD or plasma. Choices abound and there are some myths about the technologies, too. Unlike what many believe, there are major differences between the two types and you can’t substitute one type for the other merely on their looks.

What’s under the hood?

To be honest, there isn’t much of a hood to look under. But inside the sleek and thin exterior, plasma TVs employ a matrix of tiny plasma gas cells that are charged by precise electrical voltage to create a picture.

In the case of LCD panels, liquid crystal display make up the screen. Imagine liquid crystal pressed between two glass plates to which varying electrical charge is applied to create an image. That’s an LCD television.

Despite the advances made in LCD and plasma technology, however, there are experts and gamers (they really do use TVs a lot) maintain that CRT (cathode ray tube or your regular TV) still offers the best quality.

To the layman, however, it’s not the technology and how it works that matters too much. It’s the quality of the TV that he is worried about. Both LCD and plasma TVs offer excellent picture quality. But obviously both have their pros and cons.

What’s best for you?

Depending on your budget and your requirements (maybe in that order of preference), the choice of an LCD or plasma TV will vary. One line of thinking insists that for basic home theatre requirements, plasma screens are slightly better since they can render black better than LCD TVs. This means that the contrast and, therefore, the level of detail on a plasma TV would be better. The reason LCDs cannot achieve as true a black as plasma TVs can has to do with the liquid that is backlit and does leak a little. Improvements are happening all the time and in due course, this should be rectified, but by then, plasma may have become the predominant choice.

In addition to the above, one of the major factors in favour of plasma TVs is their better viewing angle. This allows viewers to sit at acute angles and still get a clear picture.

But it’s not all bad for LCD TVs. One of the biggest advantages they have over plasma TVs is the price . But even technically, there are some advantages that an LCD TV offers. For instance, LCD TVs have higher native resolutions than plasma TVs of the same size. What this means is there are more pixels on the screen and if you are one of those who like to see every minute detail, an LCD may offer more. Of course, this also depends on the source and an ordinary cable TV connection won’t let you notice the difference.

The one myth about LCD TVs that doesn’t hold true for new generation models is the ‘blur’ that was noted in fast scenes or when watching sports (more noticeable when watching a car race as opposed to cricket or snooker!). This has improved significantly and the difference between a plasma and LCD in this regard is almost negligible.

The running cost of a TV is something that many don’t consider. With increasing screen sizes, the power consumption will also increase and in this regard, LCD TVs outscore plasma TVs once again. LCD TVs are said to consume up to 30% less power than plasma TVs.

Another downside that plasma TVs suffer from is the screen burn-in. For whatever reason (and we cannot really think of a reason good enough), you leave your TV on with a still image (say you paused a movie), there is a chance that the ghost of this image may get burned in permanently on the screen. Which means that even if you turn it off, a faded image of this will be visible. While newer generation Plasma TVs suffer less from this ailment, it hasn’t been entirely eradicated. And if you are wondering about TV channel logos, they are translucent and don’t leave the same sort of ghost behind!

When you are looking at plasma or LCD TVs, you may come across a piece of information that says “60,000 hours” or some such number. This is the time for which your plasma TV will have optimum brightness after which it will start to fade off. In case of plasma TVs, the accepted duration ranges between 30,000 and 60,000 hours while in case of LCD TVs, it is virtually guaranteed for 60,000 hours. If you actually convert this to days, it works out to about 2,500 days or about six years of continuous viewing.

* LCD TVs offer more pixels and so you can see more minute details

* LCD TVs are said to consume up to 30% less power than plasmas

* Plasma screens render black better than LCD TVs. The contrast and level of detail are therefore better

* Plasmas offer better viewing angles. It allows you to get a clear picture even from acute angles

[Arun 795]

For watching normal TV channels, a CRT TV is the best over a LCD for now. It will take a lot more time before we can start to see High Definition TV channels in India. I heard Zee TV is coming up with a Hindi and English movie HD channel by this year end. The picture quality on my Videocon Bazooka 21" CRT TV is much better than my Samsung 32" Full HD LCD TV. I voted for LCD though as its great to watch HD and BluRay on it.

[vishal28 0]

I use local cable operators Set top box & have a Panasonic Viera LCD tv... It's 32" and the picture quality is mind blowing.....

Plasma is an obsolete technology... Go for LCD

[konquerror 21]

For watching normal TV channels, a CRT TV is the best over a LCD for now. It will take a lot more time before we can start to see High Definition TV channels in India. I heard Zee TV is coming up with a Hindi and English movie HD channel by this year end. The picture quality on my Videocon Bazooka 21" CRT TV is much better than my Samsung 32" Full HD LCD TV. I voted for LCD though as its great to watch HD and BluRay on it.

As far as I know...Sun is already broadcasting HD content in India.

[city02 63]

I have bought a 1 year old LG 32" plasma,

2 yr old Panasonic VEIRA 32" LCD, and

1 month old Panasonic VEIRA 32" LCD.

1. For a given size plasma is CHEAPER than LCD.

2. Burn in / ghost images is a real issue with plasma and not LCD.

3. Motion blur happens on older LCDs specially when watching night scenes on DVD [on cable TV its not as aggravating]

- using component video reduces it by almost half but you can still clearly see the blurring

- HDMI reduces it further so its subtle [only sudden movements against dark background produce streaking].

4. TVs are getting thinner and lighter each year [not just cheaper]

- my plasma is 5 kg lighter and 1 inch thinner than our oldest LCD.

- the new LCD is 1 kg lighter than the plasma and as thin.

5. The plasma has a reflective screen and produces glare during daytime viewing unless all curtains are drawn.

LCD has 'matte' screen and are best for daytime viewing.

6. Plasma will consume more power than LCD at the same screen size

7. Plasma is 'HD ready' but LCD is 'full HD'

- this issue is irrelevent for me since we don't have any HD players [blu-ray] or discs

8. Plasma is not available below 32" [due to technical/manufacturing constraints] but LCD is

- in fact you would be hard pressed to find a 32" plasma these days.

My benchmark is Rs. 1000/inch and branded 32" dropped below this level over a quarter ago.

Chinese 37" [benQ] have touched this level [without exchange] at Vijay Sales.

My next buy will be a branded 42" for 42 k at 0% emi with 0 fees on a card...

I can wait till the prices/offers drop to this level.

Don't go by any claimed response times since there are no standards or verification of the times.

EU has just released standards for measuring these times which include:

1. full cycle [black to white to black] instead of half cycle

the cycle times are not 'symmetric' so the full cycle can be 2.5 - 3 times the half cycle!

so a claimed response time of 4ms could have a full cycle time of 9-10ms.

2. G2G [grey to grey] measurements since full black to full white takes much less time with hardware assists [cheats] and is not considered 'real world'

[dkaile 1,051]

Rather than investing 40K in a LCD/Plasma TV, right now I would suggest people to invest that money in getting a decent Projector of NEC (VT40 e.g.) and enjoy normal TV on a 29" CRT and use the projector for your special occasions like watching finals of Champions Trophy with your friends or Watching STAR TREK (latest - BD Rip) on a 15-20 feet screen, like I do...

You will leave your friends breathless and enjoy an experience which an ordinary 32/40" LCD etc. can never give...

My Configuration in my Bedroom-

29" Samsung CRT (current cost about 15K)

Tata Sky

World Space Radio

Pioneer DVD/Divx Player (cost around 3k)

YAMAHA 6.1 av Receiver/Amplifier (cost 18K) 1500W RMS

14x2 Channel WoodStock (Delhi) Graphic Equaliser 1990 vintage (my cost 3.5K; Stereo; for enjoying pure audiophile music only - can be skipped)

NEC Projector (any good new model) (my cost 70K; current cost 40K)

2 Main WoodStock (Delhi) Speakers make of 1990 vintage, still going strong and beats the crap out of latest speakers with their 12" Woofers, imported cone tweeters, and strong 6"mid range (1340 W RMS; my cost 6K; current should be around 10K)

4 Sony Speakers (2 for surround, 1 Voice and 1 Back channel from a defunct Sony Music system I had)

This configuration will blow the HELL OUT of any latest screens; believe me I have seen and tested...

[ani_meher 42]

Superb reply, city02!

dkaile: How's the power consumption of projectors as compared to LCDs/Plasma? Also, what about bulb life? What's the expected cost and expected frequency to change bulb?

[city02 63]

LED will have longest life and lowest power consumption followed by:

- LCD, then

- Plasma, then

- Projectors [overhead type]

Bulbs are very expensive to replace and usually almost 2/3rd - 3/4th [65-75%] the cost of the entire projector on avg.

The same is true for LED, LCD, Plasma - if some pixels go bad, there is no practical way to 'repair' them and replacing the 'tube'/screen is over 3/4th the total cost of the TV.

There is an interesting but purely academic case when Plasmas take less energy than LCD when the scenes/video is mostly black.

Black is the lowest power consumption state [i.e., OFF] for both Plasma & CRT.

But its full ON for LCD [maximum twist of the crystals] hence contrast ratios are much more important in LCD than in Plasma or CRT [true black].

[dkaile 1,051]

^

I have been using my projector for 5 years now without any bulb replacement; my use is occasional (1-2 movies a week with friends huddled together with popcorn and special sporting events);

Until our broadcast quality goes HD, there is no sense in these LCDs/Plasmas, until u have BD Players aka PS3; CRTs provide more depth and better picture quality for normal TV viewing as on date in India; Dont get into false claims of any DTH provider that they are providing HD broadcast, NONE IS; Arun also experimented a lot with this with me and I think he has also reached this conclusion...Whats the use of hardware if software is not there.... Its just a showpiece then...

Edited October 14, 2009 by dkaile

[sgiitk 32]

The future will be LED. However, wait for another generation to come before taking the plunge.

CRT is obsolescent - the biggest problem is distortion esp. as the set ages.

LC v Plasma :Plasma is brighter and having more contrast. But is real terms in a normal room (as against a dark room) any contrast about 5000 is irrelevant. Plasma has a faster response (however whether the eye can respond is a moot point), and Plasma has a life on only about 5 years.

I was quite happy with Cable. Replaced my CRT TV (Sony > Samsung, after 10 years on the former). Suddenly the picture became bad. Got Satellite. The image quality forced me to go to LCD.

Edited October 14, 2009 by sgiitk

[dkaile 1,051]

Before we go and compare all three, allow me to share common Myths or Misconceptions :

• CRT is obsolete, no one use them now - MYTH.
• LCD is but better than Plasma - MYTH.
• Plasma has best picture quality - MYTH.

The purpose of this post is not to persuade you to buy one of these, but to make you aware of all the Pros and Cons of these three technologies. Here we go…

1. CRT Monitor:
   • CRT stands for Cathode Ray Tube.
   • Technical Architecture:
     • Pros
     1. Professionals in Multimedia, Print and Movies use CRT monitors to verify and validate colors.
     2. CRT displays true to life colors are textures.
     3. It is very economical and last much longer than LCD and Plasma.
     4. New generation CRT monitors will be much flatter and will need less voltage.
     5. No bad or dead pixels.
     6. Easily duplicates any preferred aspect ratio.
     7. Produce a very dark black.
     8. Fast response times and no motion artifacts. Works best for rapidly moving or changing images.
     9. Produce the highest contrast levels commonly available.
     10. Rarely results in saturation and compression. CRTs are on the bright-end of the intensity scale.

     [*]Cons

     1. They usually are bulky are require more space.
     2. Use more power and produce more heat than a compared to LCD and Plasma.
     3. Vulnerable to geometric distortion.
     4. Very sensitive to electromechanical objects like a speaker.
     5. May harm you eye if not configured properly, as it may radiate small amount of X-Rays aka Gamma Rays (usually in inferior older models)
     6. Converts to a toxic waste as it contain lead.

     [*]LCD Monitor:

• LCD Stands for Liquid Crystal Display.
• Technical Architecture:
  • Pros
    1. Perfect sharpness at native resolution.
    2. Excellent longevity.
    3. No practical screen burn-in effect.
    4. Silent with no moving parts or fans.
    5. Relatively lightweight with flexible mounting options.
    6. Very thin.
    7. Available in smaller sizes. (26 inches onwards)

Cons

1. Fixed resolution.
2. Not proficient at producing black and very dark grays. Not appropriate for use in dimly lit and dark conditions.
3. Expensive cost-to-size ratio compared to other technologies.
4. Notorious "screen door" effect on smaller models like in mobiles.
5. Sooner or later will have dead or bad pixels.
6. Slow response times and scan rate conversion result in severe motion artifacts and image degradation for moving or rapidly changing images.
7. The aspect ratio and resolution are fixed.
8. Considerably more expensive purchase price than comparable CRTs
9. Restricted viewing angles. Viewing angles affect the brightness, contrast and colors shown. Wide angles can lead to contrast and color reversal. .

3. Plasma Monitor:

• Plasma monitors are created by sandwiching noble gases between two sheets of glass.
• Technical Architecture:
  • Pros
    1. Excellent contrast ratios and black levels.
    2. Excellent color reproduction.
    3. Excellent viewing angle with no real loss of color or contrast.

Cons

1. Fixed resolution.
2. Although thin, plasma TVs are fairly heavy.
3. Susceptible to screen burn-in.
4. Lower real peak brightness.
5. Uses a lot of power compared to LCD.
6. Minimum screen size of a plasma screen is around 42 inches.

So whats the conclusion ? Well in my opinion all three of them are winners. They all serve a specific purpose and may not be replaced by the other in their area of expertise. The only thing you need to do is pin point the specific reason you want to buy a monitor for and then with they help of the above data, choose which one is best suited for you.

Edited October 14, 2009 by dkaile

[::Hitesh:: 1,763]

LED TV are here,

Samsung is selling it, but prices are very high

32inch LED tv = 70K

[sgiitk 32]

LED TV are here,

Samsung is selling it, but prices are very high

32inch LED tv = 70K

Right now it is first Gen - so high prices, long term reliability a ?

This is why I said wait for a couple of generations.

[manishag 17]

LED TV are here,

Samsung is selling it, but prices are very high

32inch LED tv = 70K

i have a doubt on the average life of LED TVs. in 2005 when i worked with samtel at that time the average life of one LED cell was almost 24 hours.

[Greens 21]

Can anyone suggest a good LCD (42")TV?

[dkaile 1,051]

LG - the model that has inbuilt USB and Divx player.....

[sgiitk 32]

I am not sure whether an inbuilt DVD player is good or bad. I do not see technology standing still for the next 10 years. This is what a TV can be expected to last.

Does it support BluRay which is already here.

[Greatest 55]

Dkaile's post about comparison was oper... +1 from me

Dkaile's post about comparison was super... +1 from me

[csmart 472]

the energy consumption is comparatively high in plasma and LCD. if you are buying below 40" then LCD. if >40" then plasma.. plasma is better when you watch sports compare to LCD. but difference is not so visible.

in India, everyone will promote LCD and that too Sony. its like they odnt know what is Plasma and that other cos make TVs.

since HD is very very remote in India, it does not make sense to go for flat panel. the quality does not make any sense unless watching DVDs. even though sun is providing HD, none of the channels are in HD negating the sun benefits.

over a period, plasma have solved problems like burn-in issues and are now at par with LCD. for normal viewer, both are same without any problem. manufacturer plays vital role.

in the long run, i think LED will prevail.

[Harshal 11]

For some reason all the proponents of CRTs have neglected one thing that is the most valuable in Indian metros. LCDs and Plasmas outscore over CRTs on this big time. SPACE. Just by installing an LCDs instead of a CRTs I have freed up so much space in my house. Considering the floor area occupied by CRTs and the rates of property in Mumbai it should weigh in on your decision.

Please do not reply by saying that there are Slim/SuperSlim TVs around. As far as I know, you cannot wall mount them.

[::Hitesh:: 1,763]

Can anyone suggest a good LCD (42")TV?

Go for Panasonic

They offer 3 years warranty,

Good customer care service (not required but they have)

In build Memory card reader / USB

good contrast ratio

reliable product.

[Greens 21]

Finally I have decided to purchase Sharp LC-46A66M. I am getting it for 82k.

I couldn't find any detailed review on this product.

I mostly watch movies & documentaries (few HD). I got a TATA SKY+ & ONKYO Home Theatre for DTH & Audio.

Any suggestions?

http://www.sharpindialimited.com/products/lc-46a66m.php

[sgiitk 32]

@Greens: Many people reckon Sharp make the best LCD screens. The rest is straight forward so I think you have made an excellent choice.

Edited October 16, 2009 by sgiitk

[Harshal 11]

I agree Sharp is considered a good buy world over in LCDs coming close to the Sony/Samsung panels.

[raju_a 31]

My friend Sharp pineered LCD television technology. They are the best. Its only in India they haven't been able to market well.

I agree Sharp is considered a good buy world over in LCDs coming close to the Sony/Samsung panels.