3D Plasma TV vs. 3D LCD TV

[Bernal]

3D Plasma TV vs. 3D LCD TV

by: Robert Wiley

"....Another coming battle between these two technologies is brewing. Upon first inspection one might think that plasma and LCD technologies will show 3-D content in much the same way. However, this is not the case as the two technologies are very different in the way the process and display content information.


Panasonic's VT25 Series 3D Plasma
won multiple awards at CES 2010
One of the main differences between the two which will also have an impact on 3D TV viewing is processing speed. LCD technology has come a long way in attempting to increase processing time (refresh rate) with Hz rates improvements to 120Hz, 240Hz, and now some claim 480Hz (this is a manipulated specification and not true 480Hz. By contrast plasma TV technology has never had an issue with motion blur, and side to side jerky panning and therefore never really had to advertise such superiority since it was the first technology to market in larger size televisions. Now with increased marketing efforts of LCD manufacturers to remove the stigma of slow refresh rates by touting these ever increasing Hz rate figures, plasma technology manufacturers have taken a stab at refresh rate times by somewhat measuring speed of processing; calling it "sub field drive," or "sub field motion technology." Both of the major manufacturers with these specifications put a number on processing speed of 600Hz.

Why does this matter with 3D TV viewing? For the simple reason that LCD TVs will typically not be able to show 3D content in full HDTV 1080p. Through some light math and experimentation, our best estimates come in at about 600 lines of effective resolution capability for a 120Hz LCD HDTV, and 700 to 800 lines of effective resolution for a true 240Hz LCD TV. Plasma technology has the speed to delivery the full 1080 lines of resolution to each eye.


LG's 9500 series was just one of
many 3D capable LCDs on display
Is this a big problem? Probably not very much since 600 to 800 lines of resolution per eye is still a very high definition. From a practical standpoint it does not bother me initially, especially since most 3D content will initially be animated anyway. However, what may be a bigger differentiator is whether or not there is motion blur, or panning issues with 3D content in LCD 3D TVs. Some of the animated 3D content looked very nice on LCD 3D TVs at CES 2010, while other TV programming did not. My bet is that normal TV programming, and film reproduction does not initially look great, and that animated is excellent.

One other advantage that I believe plasma technology will have in the 3D TV race is depth perception. Plasma starts with an advantage here, as the pixel structure of a plasma cell has always yielded slightly better depth of picture.

I would put black levels between the two at a push if comparing superior model against superior model. Some of the newer LED TVs have very good blacks to compete with plasma.

In brightness and color vibrancy I would give the edge to LCD/LED TVs, while in color rendition and accuracy I give points to plasma TVs.

Overall, I believe plasma will be the most adaptable technology for 3D TV content. Quality varies a lot between brands, and model quality varies within brands. But plasma gets the nod on the whole..."


"....6 Myths about 3D TVs

Myth #1: 3D TVs will increase the price of my new TV dramatically.
Actually, 3D compatibility will just be a new feature of many of the HDTVs entering the market place in 2010. As such, it will not necessarily increase the cost of production of the TVs any more than another feature such as 120Hz rate in LCD TVs would. However, the feature is being included on the higher end models offered by manufacturers which also include a host of other top features such as super thin design, increased black levels, better processing engines, high Hz rate, and others. For this reason, the TVs with 3D compatibility will appear more expensive, but it's not because of the 3D enabled feature.


Mitsubishi has been making
3D TVs since 2007
Myth #2: 3-D TV technology is a new feature for 2010.
Actually Mitsubishi has had 3D enabled DLP televisions on the market since 2007. The feature is not new, but it has been improved.

Myth #3: 3D TV owners must always wear the 3-D glasses.
3D glasses will only need to be worn when viewing 3D programming. 3-D is just another feature of the TV. The TV will operate as a normal 2D TV with all but your 3-D content - sans glasses.

Myth #4: 3D Glasses will not be necessary with the new 3-D TVs.
This is true of a small test sample subset of smaller LCD monitors in the 15" to 20" size range. It's possible to view 3D content when viewing these specialized monitors from directly front and center with little movement. This will not be the case for 3-D TVs available in stores to consumers. They will all need 3-D glasses to be able to view the 3D content.

Myth #5: 3-D Content will always be viewable in full high definition.
any of the new LCDs with 3D capability will only be able to display 600 to 800 effective lines of resolution"
Strangely enough with many of the new LCD 3D TVs you will not see full high definition 1080p. Many of the new LCDs with 3D capability will only be able to display 600 to 800 effective lines of resolution. While this is a good resolution it is not close to 1080p. There are exceptions such as a special line of LCDs developed by Sony (LX900 series and HX900) and good ole plasma. Panasonics 3D plasma TVs will show you a full HD picture.

Myth #6: All 3-D Glasses are the same and the glasses come with the TVs.
Unfortunately 3-D glasses in most cases must be purchased seperately. They will cost around $50 to $100. There are anaglyph 3-D glasses with different colored lenses, linear polarized, and circular polarized glasses. There are also 3-D shutter glasses. The TV manual that comes with your 3-D TV will let you know what type of glasses you will need...."

[polkfarmboy]

I have always thought LCD was crap but the low resolution sucks because as a gamer plasma results in burn in after many hours of play

[mutelight]

as a gamer plasma results in burn in after many hours of play

False

If there was drastic neglect, leaving a game for many hours on end with a static image, then yes. Heavy gaming? No

[polkfarmboy]

False

If there was drastic neglect, leaving a game for many hours on end with a static image, then yes. Heavy gaming? No

Ermmmm...... false because theres always a static image when I play for hours and hours day after day at online shooters

I take it you dont know what video games look like

[comfortablycurt]

False

If there was drastic neglect, leaving a game for many hours on end with a static image, then yes. Heavy gaming? No

Not entirely true.

Many video games have various meters/dials/displays etc.. which are always displayed on the same part of the screen, regardless of what you're doing in game. This can definitely result in burn in on plasmas.

Take a racing game for instance. The picture is always changing, yes...but the speedometer/tach is always displayed in the same part of the screen.

[tcrossma]

I've never had any problem with burn-in on my plasma. I occasionally have some very temporary retention, but it goes away quickly. Burn-in has not been an issue with plasma in recent years.

[Rick88]

I've never had any problem with burn-in on my plasma. I occasionally have some very temporary retention, but it goes away quickly. Burn-in has not been an issue with plasma in recent years.

Agreed. I have had mine for 27 months and have had zero issues with burn-in.

[Bernal]

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/show...32#post1338532

[Conradicles]

Plasma Rules!!!

[comfortablycurt]

I've never had any problem with burn-in on my plasma. I occasionally have some very temporary retention, but it goes away quickly. Burn-in has not been an issue with plasma in recent years.

Agreed. I have had mine for 27 months and have had zero issues with burn-in.

My parents plasma was a very early model. We got it basically right when plasmas first came out. The earlier ones had a much bigger burn in problem.

The CNN news logo, along with their scrolling news bar are both burned into the screen...along with several other images.

From what I've heard though, newer plasmas aren't quite as prone to burn in.


The only time you can really see it on mine is right when you turn the TV on, and the screen is still black.




All that said, I've generally found plasmas to have a somewhat softer and more natural picture. I've always preferred them to LCD's. Whenever I upgrade from my ancient CRT though, I'll most likely get an LCD. Plasmas use up WAAAAY more electricity than LCD's do, and while that may not be a concern to everyone, it definitely is to me.

[bluecomet]

Good luck fixing a plasma. I would take a high end Sony XBR LCD anyday over plasma.

[Rick88]

Plasmas use up WAAAAY more electricity than LCD's do, and while that may not be a concern to everyone, it definitely is to me.[/QUOTE]

Not so true on the newer models. Check out the Crutchfield catalog comparison charts on tv's and they show power usages. The gap has narrowed considerably in the last couple of years.

[Bernal]

Plasmas use up WAAAAY more electricity than LCD's do, and while that may not be a concern to everyone, it definitely is to me.

Not so true on the newer models. Check out the Crutchfield catalog comparison charts on tv's and they show power usages. The gap has narrowed considerably in the last couple of years..

+1 ...." Not so true on the newer models ".

[coolsax]

^ reported

[Bernal]

^ reported

....

[fattmann]

Ok, back on the topic of 3D... lol

Having watched both the Samsung c7000 and the Panasonic VT-20 a decent amount in a retail setting, I'm split.

The Sammy suffers from heavy crosstalk, yet the Panny requires me to heavily focus on the picture to achieve full detail, with the only crosstalk being on the outer edge of the screen. I know that may be a personal effect, thought i would share though.

Also, if you put a '600 hz' plasma next to a 120hz LCD, the motion performance is night and day. Plasma still suffers from telcine judder, at least on bluray. The LCDs sometimes develop artifacting around moving characters, but the judder is vastly reduced. Matter opinion which is better I guess.

[anhchungdoan]

Plasma Rules!!!

+1.

Pioneer Plasma uses 14 sub fields x 60 HZ = 840 HZ. LCD = 60/120/240Hz.

[Bernal]

+1.

Pioneer plasma uses 14 sub fields x 60 hz = 840 hz. Lcd = 60/120/240hz.

+1 :)

[FHT]

completely agree +2

[fattmann]

So no actual discussion about 3d tvs then... lol.