p m said:
Kennith, care to offer some objective reasons?
I've explained them all so many times that even
I don't feel like going into great detail.
Put very, very simply:
An LCD is a filter in front of a light source. A plasma display
is the light source.
Those are the constants that separate the two technologies, and generate both the benefits and drawbacks of each.
Here is as much as I can handle right now. I'm exhausted.
The very nature of a plasma display allows a good model to render pinpoint accurate gray-scale information. Blacks are black without voodoo that affects the rest of the array. A black cell is simply brought to idle, and every cell can do it. Some displays have lower idle values than others, but the point remains the same.
An LCD must attempt to "block" a pixel in order to darken it. This always allows light to leak around edges and even through the pixel itself, preventing an LCD from reaching good black levels without trickery.
A popular trick these days involves LED lighting. Instead of a conventional lamp behind the liquid crystal array, LEDs are used, which can be locally dimmed to produce deep blacks. Local dimming does affect the rest of the array, though, and adverse adjustments must be made in order to display fine detail in very dark scenes. In bright scenes, local dimming also causes issues, and so do the adjustments you needed to make in order to display the dark scenes properly.
Another popular trick involves active adjustment, with which the calibration of the display is altered automatically between preset values in order to preserve picture quality between contrast shots. This technology is complete and utter bullshit in any incarnation.
Nowadays, it's common to see supplementary filters or incredibly glossy finishes on an LCD in a further attempt to give the impression of a deeper black.
An LCD simply cannot render a proper black without help, and the help always causes other problems. Whites suffer as well, because it's the backlight that determines the temperature of the image. Any calibration you may perform simply attempts to filter out the error, which affects the picture yet again, commonly crashing one end of the scale.
These are tricks, and they affect color representation, as grayscale information is critical to every facet of an image.
Fine LCD computer monitors are better in all these respects, but they cost a fucking fortune, and they still aren't quite right. A 50 inch display of that quality is astronomically out of reach for most people, and would still suffer the same issues, even if they were toned down a great amount.
A plasma is perfect for moving images for numerous reasons. An LCD is not.
Oh, you will see 1,346,827,895,834.73462hz displays popping up all over the place, but it's a load of hogwash. that nonsense makes things even worse; throwing in countless frames where there should only be a few in a standard ratio. Anything not moving quickly becomes nearly static, and fast moving images suffer as well.
An LCD simply cannot display motion properly without help, and the help fucks things up.
There are countless more issues, but these are the big ones.
Now, a plasma historically hasn't been good with static images. They've become far better recently, though. Today, they are no more likely to burn in than a nice CRT. Still, it's an issue. If you use a plasma display as a computer monitor, it's time to bring back the old screen saver, just to be safe.
As a computer monitor, or as any other monitor that is to see static images for lengthy periods of time, a plasma generally isn't the best choice. Some televisions are left unattended for lengthy periods of time, left displaying paused video game images, stuck on news broadcasts with that little ticker running along the bottom, or simply used to view extensive 4:3 media. In these events, a plasma might not be the best choice.
Guitar hero is like kryptonite to a plasma. It's a fucking no-go. If you play that shit for hours on end, get an LCD. Other than that abomination, games are outstanding on plasma displays, for the same reasons movies are.
You may never see a burn in issue with a plasma, but go LCD just for peace of mind if you believe you use your displays in manners such as those.
Plasma displays also use more energy, and it's not by a small margin. If you are a broke-ass fuck that is going to run out and spend two fucking grand on a television
anyway, you probably ought to pick up an LCD. You might want to ditch the Rover, as well. First on your to-do list, however, should be sterilizing yourself to prevent you from having damn-fool children.
If you want a big screen, you have to pay to play. If you can't afford to run it, don't buy one. Energy use is not a factor in purchasing something so extravagant.
One of the drawbacks of all that pretty white light that a plasma display can produce is brightness. They just can't compete with something that's got a kajillion watt furnace behind it. If you have the thing right beside your kitchen window, or if you've got a person in your house that's got to have all the windows open and every light on constantly, an LCD may be easier on the old eyes.
I've not even touched on the technical detail, nor have I hit every point, but enough is here to get things somewhat clear.
If your big ass flat screen is for sports, movies, or good HD programming, and it isn't sitting right beside a neutron star, a plasma is a fine choice.
If you have a television just to have a television, and simply want a worry-free brain-rotting experience no matter what you do, an LCD is the way to go.
Cheers,
Kennith
