|
Re: DEBATE: Plasma or LCD?
Here is my take on the whole deal; the thing nobody has mentioned in durability and longevity.
LCD tv's use pixels which vary depending on what resolution you buy; 1080p for example means 1080 vertical lines, the "P" just stands for progressive scan which is just a means for transmitting moving images to the screen in sequence. Depending on the size of the LCD there will be a certain amount of CCFL's (cold cathode flourescent) bulb that back light the pixels. An LCD can have one of more of the bulbs go out and still work, sure you might notice some areas that aren't as bright but it will still work. And you can have the CCFL's replaced by a TV shop or a experience technician. I have fix countless LCD's at my job by replacing the CCFL's. This is what makes LCD's a bit more pratical; when all teh CCFL's are working the tv is 100% at all times.
Plasma tv's are quite a bit different; but are commonly confused with LCD's, plasma's use electronically charged gas to display the image, the technology is very cool but there is a major draw back. From the time you power on a plasma it is not 100% anymore; slowly over time the gas will break down and the picture will not be as vibrant. Sure it might take a year or so of use to see a difference but it is definetly there. I think the image quality initially will be better with a plasma but it will slowly get worse. And if the screen is damaged at all you risk the chance of the gases leaking out and basically making the tv junk. To the best of my knowledge you cannot repair a plasma when it dies.
I agree that DLP is the best bang for the buck; there are a few slight drawbacks but when you can get one for half the price they aren't that significant.
We exclusively use LCD monitors for our slot machines; there have been some manufactures that used plasmas for signs and what not but soon found out that all the continous use wears them out very fast. The LCD's are a far better option overall in my opinion.
|
Threaded Mode