Why is plasma better than LCD?
Answer:
I find it amazing that people still perpetuate falsifications regarding plasma.
They don't leak gas and require re-charging every few years
They are no more susceptible to screen burn that LCD's
Plasma's are better at reproducing blacks than LCD's, this is because an LCD relies on having a bright white backlight constantly on, behind every pixel in the display. The only way for an LCD to produce black is by turning a semi-transparent crystal as dark as possible and trying to block out as much of that bright white light as it can. Plasma's on the other hand can simply turn off individual pixels, and when they're off, they're totally off - so blacks, truly are black.
Plasma's are also better at producing a wider range of colours, produce brighter whites, and work better in changing light conditions.
Any modern day plasma HAS THE SAME longevity as an LCD. Forget all this leaking gas nonsense.
Where Plasma's fall down, is that it is currently quite difficult (hence expensive) to pack the plasma cells close enough together for the ultra high resolution screens that are easily made with LCD's. As such, a 'Full HD' (1080p) Plasma set has to be quite big, and so will set you back a fair amount of money, whereas you can pick up a 1080p LCD quite cheaply these days. But rest assured that the 1080p Plasma would look sooooo much better.
Although a lot of people reading this will think I'm biased, I'm not, I am quite impartial, these are just the facts. Which is why I will also mention that LCD's are better for use as a PC monitor (which is kinda obvious since this is what they've been used for for ages). Oh and if you live high up in the mountain, you may be better off with LCD.
Do a quick google/yahoo of "plasma vs. lcd", look for the impartial reviews, and you will find all I have said above, confirmed. So, unless you live high up in a mountain and want to replace your PC's 15" TFT with a 40" TV, and want to pay as little as possible for it ... I would say that plasma is your better choice.
-- As for Tom S's comments, infact it is Plasma's that have the better refresh rate than LCD's, good LCD's have a response time of 8ms, Plasma response time are measured at around 1000 times faster. And regarding the "one touch can ruin part of your screen" thing, I actually laughed.
no, plasma's get damaged really easily, plus LCD is better quality picture.
It isn't, LCD is better.
LCD are better - they last longer - and don't leak gas everywhere after a couple of years - they are more robust
because...it's not!
lcd is better
some good info here - it's from November, but still relevant
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/c...
It isn't. Both have their own problems. I would only consider a DLP TV.
LCD is in fact better, because of the following reasons:
1) LCD has a better image quality (crisper picture),
Plasmas get very dirty very quickly,
2) Newer LCD use enhanced screen refresh rates (because TVs actually flash to make the picture stay there, and because it flashes faster you get a better picture) whereas Plasmas are limited to a smaller Screen refresh rate.
2)Plasmas are easily damaged (one touch can ruin part of your screen),
DD is correct.
100%
Good Job DD, I didnt want to explain all that my self.
As above, plus plasma screens are highly promoted and endorsed by Pioneer, Panasonic and Hitachi.
A recent survey carried out by Synovate in the U.K and Europe (where people weren't told whether they were watching a plasma or LCD television, or who the manufacturers were) 65% actually preferred plasmas to LCDs.
The website below give you the facts, rather than the hype -
Plasma is NOT better than LCD. I researched that very topic for ages before finding out that plasma is starting to have problems already. Sony got out of the Plasma & DLP technology a while ago, because both of those were having troubles. The best & most reliable & most natural looking picture is on LCD, either Sony, Panasonic, or Samsung, in that order. Plasma takes a lot of electricity to run because the small phosphorous filled orbs behind the screen need to be energized to give you the picture, and that takes more power than the Liquid Crystal Display, which is what LCD is.
Each to their own. I'm happy with my Sony Bravia. It has none of those shortcomings you describe that older LCDs might have HAD. Plus, it will be looking great long after your Plasma wears out. So, enjoy. The main thing is that you're happy with yours and I'm happy with mine.
BTW, Sony's SXRD blows them all away.
LCD's are far superior. I don't car what anyone says. Side by side, there is no comparison between the excellent picture quality of and LCD and the crappy picture of a plasma.
RIP plasmas.
The answers post by the user, for information only, CeQnA.com does not guarantee the right.