1. Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
    Dismiss Notice

LCD still not comparable to Plasma, OLED, or DLP

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Flint, Dec 27, 2010.

  1. Flint

    Flint "Do you know who I am?" Superstar

    I just completed reading a series of papers on designing displays written for engineers and designers of displays. In the papers, which were written by different experts from different countries, it was made extremely clear that nearly all of the limitations LCD technology has always had are still present. While all of the authors admitted LCD has advanced dramatically over the past 10 years, they were very quick to point out all of the inherent flaws with the technology.

    Those flaws include:
    - Ghosting from realized pixel refresh rates being low and lagging.
    - Color accuracy
    - Inability to produce accurate black levels
    - Off axis viewing limitations
    - Blurring of images with fast moving content (sports)

    While most of these issues have been deemed acceptable by consumers they are becoming a real issue again now that 3D TV is hitting the market.

    In a couple of the articles references were made to studies performed where average users found nearly all LCD TVs severely lacking when attempting to produce 3D content, some were so bad viewers said they had lost all interest in 3D at home. Since 3D TV at home requires the isolation of the frame images between the left and right eyes, the real refresh rate limitations of LCD are causing ghosting of the 3D image, especially with the way foreground object which is almost always the center of attention in 3D content. This can cause serious viewer fatigue and headaches.

    In the same tests, Plasma and OLED performed perfectly since they both have a pixel refresh rate considerably faster than will ever be necessary for perfectly reproduced 3D.

    So, what are we to do?

    The market has already decided the lighter weight, lower cost, lower power consumption and the agressive marketing for LCD TVs makes them the obvious choice. I guess we'll just have to put up with it until something better comes along, because Plasma isn't popular and OLED is way too costly to get to market with reliable and huge screens.
  2. Rope

    Rope Well-Known Member Famous

    Panasonic incorporated a new quicker cell response on all their plasma 3D displays. 2D consumers are hoping Panasonic will incorporate the same technology on their 2D models.

  3. DIYer

    DIYer Well-Known Member Famous

    So was plasma during its early days. I think it will take the same footsteps as other displays which is good for us.
  4. Towen7

    Towen7 Well-Known Member Staff Member Moderator

    I remember the first plasma screen i saw in person in a retail store was a 42"(ish) model and was priced at $10,000.
  5. Botch

    Botch I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S! Superstar

  6. Botch

    Botch I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S! Superstar

  7. TitaniumTroy

    TitaniumTroy Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the info, Flint.
  8. Doghart

    Doghart Well-Known Member

    Now they just need to make one that doesn't BUZZ over 5000 ft.



  9. Flint

    Flint "Do you know who I am?" Superstar

    Yep, there are some weaknesses with Plasma, including the high altitude thing. Plasma doesn't offer the longest use-life by a far margin. It cost more, weighs more, generates much more heat, and consumes much more power than LCD. But, it looks a millions times better when the same money is spent.
  10. Towen7

    Towen7 Well-Known Member Staff Member Moderator

    Millions times better? Millions? Really? I'm sorry but that is more than a little of an exaggeration. Cmon!
  11. Rope

    Rope Well-Known Member Famous

    Half life on virtually all plasma displays is 60,000 hours, meaning after 60,000 hours of viewing the picture will appear half as bright as the day it was new. If the owner views 8 hours per day, that equates to 20.54 years to half life. The odds of the owner upgrading before half life arrives is a definite.

    I recently spent 3 weeks looking for a display for my Mom and Dad, and could not find an LCD that was within my budget. I ended up purchasing a Samsung plasma that came in $200.00 under a comparable sized LCD.

    Doghart -

    Runco produces a high altitude model plasma, although you will have to plan a bank heist, or hit the loto in order to bring one home.

  12. Botch

    Botch I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S! Superstar

    Nah, it's not an inch over 780,063 times better... :laughing:
  13. Haywood

    Haywood Well-Known Member Famous

    I am all about LCD's smaller footprint, lower weight, lower power consumption and other advantages when it comes to bedrooms, kitchens and other non-critical viewing areas. It is a much more convenient and cost effective solution for general viewing than anything else out there today. The question comes with what to do about one's main display. That is where I am willing to put up with larger size, higher weight, greater power consumption, etc in the pursuit of the best possible picture. I'm very pleased to have scored on of Samsung's excellent 2nd generation 1080p LED Light Engine DLP sets before they stopped making them. It looks way better than even the best LCD set of comparable size.

Share This Page