Today’s New York Times has an article entitled “Sharpening Plasma’s Image”, wherein the author posits some concerns regarding the shortcomings and viability of plasma TVs.
The piece compares and contrasts the performance of L.C.D. and plasma TV sets in the following areas:
- Screen Size
- Plasma had the size advantage, but LCD is catching up.
- Resolution
- They give the edge to LCD which generally has higher resolution.
- Contrast
- Plasma wins at a contrast ratio of 3,000:1, while LCD is around 800:1. But then they qualify that by saying that LCDs look better in brightly lighted rooms and vice-versa.
- Color Reproduction
- Plasma has a wider color gamut, but LCD is improving by moving to LED-based backlighting … they cite the Sony Qualia 005
- Brightness
- They waffle, but seem to give the edge to Plasma.
- Burn-In and Panel Life
- LCD wins here, but Plasma has greatly improved of late.
- Power Consumption
- LCD uses much less power.
The Times gives an overall edge to Plasma, and thus they seem to be in agreement with most other reviews. But they’re saying that LCD is coming on strong in terms of panel size and price reductions.
Sharpening Plasma’s Image. New York Times article referenced above.
Similar reviews that compare Plasma to LCD can be found at the following websites:
Plasma vs LCD TV.
LCD TV Vs Plasma TV.
Flat-panel TVs: plasma and LCD.
LCD TVs versus Plasma TVs. … a statistical outlier in that they prefer LCD by a wide margin.
Related posts:
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Hmm delicate! .-). Thanks for sharing
The best thing would be a TV screen that looks sharp in rooms that are brightly lit and dark.
Judging by this comparison, LCD seems to be the winner, with the power consumption factor weighing heavily on my mind.
How big a difference does a TV’s burn-in factor make to the viewing experience?