There is no doubt a Plasma is superior....in a dark room, as they can produce a million shades of any color. But it is not a practical TV under normal daytime conditions. But I also withdraw from the debate for the sake of the thread.
|
|
08-18-2011
There is no doubt a Plasma is superior....in a dark room, as they can produce a million shades of any color. But it is not a practical TV under normal daytime conditions. But I also withdraw from the debate for the sake of the thread.
08-18-2011
...Before I stop talking about TV's, I just need to mention one last thing. You can edit/delete this if need be (The reply)
Most LED's automatically adjust brightness in their environment.
Actually...
"Plasmas suffer from a lot of myths and misconceptions though. They no longer suffer burn in, they do work in high altitudes, and they no longer have short life spans (they can easily last the same or longer than LCDs). Also, they are no longer necessarily power hogs. You can get energy star certified Plasmas now."
"LCDs are inherently flawed at fast motion playback though. They do not have good refresh rates/response times. They suffer from motion blur (ghost trails). This is why you see sets advertised with 120Hz and 240Hz. This is a compensation for that. While it does help a lot, it doesn't fix the inherent flaw. Also, you have to pay a steep price premium for this feature."
"LCDs based on CCFL backlights will have weaker colors, blacks, and contrast compared to Plasmas. The industry response to this was the creation of the LED backlight for LCDs. This helps immensely. It doesn't beat plasma, but it gets LCDs 'into the game' so to speak. But again, you pay such a large price premium for this feature. You can get a Plasma for far less than an LED LCD."
I take back what I had to say regarding LED > Plasma.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Tags for this Thread |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
