LCD v. Plasma

After doing some checking I found out that OLED stands for Organic Light Emitting Diode, and Wiki says:

“An organic light-emitting diode (OLED) is any light-emitting diode (LED) whose emissive electroluminescent layer comprises a film of organic compounds. The layer usually contains a polymer substance that allows suitable organic compounds to be deposited. They are deposited in rows and columns onto a flat carrier by a simple "printing" process. The resulting matrix of pixels can emit light of different colors.
Such systems can be used in television screens, computer displays, portable system screens, advertising, information and indication. OLEDs can also be used in light sources for general space illumination, and large area light-emitting elements. OLEDs typically emit less light per area than inorganic solid-state based LEDs which are usually designed for use as point light sources.
A great benefit of OLED displays over traditional liquid crystal displays (LCDs) is that OLEDs do not require a backlight to function. Thus they draw far less power and, when powered from a battery, can operate longer on the same charge. OLED-based display devices also can be more effectively manufactured than LCDs and plasma displays. But degradation of OLED materials have limited the use of these materials. See Drawbacks.
OLED technology was also called Organic Electro-Luminescence (OEL), before the term "OLED" became standard”

And SED stands for Surface-conduction electron-emitter display, and Wiki says the following about this technology:
“A surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) is a flat panel display technology that uses surface conduction electron emitters for every individual display pixel. The surface conduction emitter emits electrons that excite a phosphor coating on the display panel, the same basic concept found in traditional cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions. This means that SEDs use small cathode ray tubes behind every single pixel (instead of one tube for the whole display) and can combine the slim form factor of LCDs and plasma displays with the superior viewing angles, contrast, black levels, color definition and pixel response time of CRTs. Canon also claims that SEDs consume less power than LCD displays”.
OLED screens have been used in small mp3 players and cell phone screens, and Canon has used SED in their digital camera screens because they don’t wash out in bright sun light. How this translates to larger screens remains to be seen, but we do live in interesting times.
 
Please note the following:

The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom.
To fulfill the above goals, the text contained in Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia contributors and licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The full text of this license is at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. This text should not be changed for legal reasons.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
Content on Wikipedia is covered by disclaimers.
The English text of the GFDL is the only legally binding document; what follows is our interpretation of the GFDL: the rights and obligations of users and contributors.
IMPORTANT: If you want to reuse content from Wikipedia, first read the Reusers' rights and obligations section. You should then read the GNU Free Documentation License.

Legally, anyone can copy anything from Wikipedia without copy right issues, so UG staff don’t freak out.
 
No matter the light source backing up an LCD color screen, it will never be as vibrant as plasma which has it's light generated at the color source... much like the gun in your current tube TV which beams the RGB colors direct.
 
No matter the light source backing up an LCD color screen, it will never be as vibrant as plasma which has it's light generated at the color source... much like the gun in your current tube TV which beams the RGB colors direct.
I have compared conventional picture tube TV’s to flat panel (even LCD screens, which you are so down on) and to my eyes the flat panel screens produce a much more vibrant and realistic image then the best picture tube TV’s.
 
Where did I say tubes were better than LCD's?


I said the plasma was better and that it's light and color source was similar to that of a tube. A plasma pixle works much like a TV tube. But where you only have one tube.... you have a few million plasma pixles.
 
Just wondering if anyone can weigh in on the flat-screen debate.

I was all set to get a Panasonic 50" plasma, but then saw the latest Sony 46" LCD XBR at Circuity City which, to my eyes, had the best picture I've ever seen on a flat screen. Of course they had a nice HD signal going to it, so I'm just wondering if anyone has experience with that particular model, the Sony KDL46XBR2, and how it handles a standard def. signal. In older models I've seen, plasma seemed a little more forgiving of SD, whereas the LCD screens got very blocky.

anything 1080p LCD is the latest technology. Plasma is old hat.
 
How is plasma old hat when they already have 1080p's and are due to flood the market with them in the fall.

How many times Do I have to say that LCD reaches benchmarks first cause it's a much older and perfected technology. Plasma hasn't even hit it's stride yet......


.....AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE.


Plasma will equal all the LCD benchmarks and perfection before hi-def is fully broadcast (2 years). When that happens and every one has to run out and get a decoder or hi-def TV.... plasma will be the best and cheapest technology.


The future.... thats what we're talking about. Flat or big screen TV's.... thats what we're talking about. Not today, not yesterday.Not ipods, not laptops, not gameboys.... The future and big screen TV's.
 
No one has mentioned this so far, so I thought I’d bring it up. Flat Panel TV’s (Plasma and LCD) can be very hard to adjust for a good image once you take them home and unpack them. It’s common for images to look stretched out so that every thing looks fat and bloated, or the color is far too red, making everyone look badly sunburned. The fact is picture quality varies quite a bit among HDTV sets, and calibration is often necessary to make the image look the way it should, and calibration of flat screen TV’s is far more complicated then old fashioned tube TV’s.

You adjust the screen to look good watching one DVD, lets say, but then many others look bad.

Most sets are sold with the picture too blue and too bright, a setting known as "torch mode." It looks great in the store, because we perceive a blue image as being sharper and punchier.

Plasma screens in particular benefit from having the brightness turned down, because it extends their lifespan and cuts power consumption.

Do-it-yourself methods are often hit and miss, and you often have to bring in professionals to set them up, not to mention the audio part of your home theater.
 
Last edited:
Check this out, I posted it in it's own thread also...




Associated Press: May 25, 2007
TOKYO — In the race for ever-thinner displays for TVs, cell phones and other gadgets, Sony may have developed one to beat them all — a razor-thin display that bends like paper while showing full-color video.

Sony Corp. released video of the new 2.5-inch display Friday. In it, a hand squeezes a display that is 0.3 millimeters, or 0***1 inch, thick. The display shows color images of a bicyclist stuntman and a picturesque lake.

Although flat-panel TVs are getting slimmer, a display that's so thin it bends in a human hand marks a breakthrough.Sony said it has yet to decide on commercial products using the technology.

"In the future, it could get wrapped around a lamppost or a person's wrist, even worn as clothing," said Sony spokesman Chisato Kitsukawa. "Perhaps it can be put up like wallpaper."

Tatsuo Mori, an engineering and computer science professor at Nagoya University, said some hurdles remained, including making the display bigger, ensuring durability and cutting costs.
But he said the display's pliancy is extremely difficult to imitate with liquid crystal displays and plasma display panels — the two main display technologies now on the market.

"To come up with a flexible screen at that image quality is groundbreaking," Mori said. "You can drop it, and it won't break because it's as thin as paper."

The new display combines two technologies: Sony's organic thin film transistor, which is required to make flexible displays, and organic electroluminescent display.

Other companies, including LG. Philips LCD Co. and Seiko Epson Corp., are also working on a different kind of "electronic paper" technology, but Sony said the organic electroluminescent display delivers better color images and is more suited for video.

Sony President Ryoji Chubachi has said a film-like display is a major technology his company is working on to boost its status as a technological powerhouse.

Full article here.
http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1206876.html
[/quote]
 
Heres something to consider when deciding between plasma, LCD or DLP. A plasma screen can add anywhere to $40 to $140, or more dollars to your monthly electric bill (depending on how much you watch). An LCD screen will cost you about half of that and a DLP screen cost a fraction of a plasma screen. The larger your screen, the more it will cost to operate.
 
$140 a month for a plasma....

A 100" screen playing 24/7 maybe.


How about the fact that flat screens use less juice than old CRT tube screens.


You run your A/C for an hour and it uses more power than a plasma in a month.
 
$140 a month for a plasma....

A 100" screen playing 24/7 maybe.


How about the fact that flat screens use less juice than old CRT tube screens.


You run your A/C for an hour and it uses more power than a plasma in a month.
The numbers were from a report I saw from an 11:00 PM news program, and not a technical paper, so I'm sure that they were not as accurate as a technical paper would be, after all TV news is always over blown to make the problem seem worse then it is. I'm not so sure that the flat screens use less electricity then an equal size CRT screen, however you might be right about flat screens using less electricity then a room AC unit as the room AC unit has a high demand charge every time the compressor turns on, where as the flat screen only has to turn on once. The TV news report didn't specify how much each size screen would cost for light use, medium use and heavy use, so yes the high figure would be for a very large screen on for several hours each day. If all else is equal, Plasma screens use twice as much power as an LCD screen and a LCD screen uses much more power then a DLP screen.
 
Flat screens are getting a bad rap on power but no one mentions the avg size of a flat screen is twice that of the old CRT's in peoples homes. Where a 27" TV was pretty much standard, flat screens, projections and DLP's are an avg of 42". The biggeest TV's only went up to 32" or 36"... thats about the starting point on flat screens.
 
Last edited:

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
The numbers were from a report I saw from an 11:00 PM news program, and not a technical paper, so I'm sure that they were not as accurate as a technical paper would be, after all TV news is always over blown to make the problem seem worse then it is. I'm not so sure that the flat screens use less electricity then an equal size CRT screen, however you might be right about flat screens using less electricity then a room AC unit as the room AC unit has a high demand charge every time the compressor turns on, where as the flat screen only has to turn on once. The TV news report didn't specify how much each size screen would cost for light use, medium use and heavy use, so yes the high figure would be for a very large screen on for several hours each day. If all else is equal, Plasma screens use twice as much power as an LCD screen and a LCD screen uses much more power then a DLP screen.

I think you heard "month" when it's actually "year".

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html?tag=arw
 

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
Plasma and CRT take about the same amount of power, so a 40 inch CRT uses the same amount of power at a 40 inch plasma (assuming they have the same aspect ratio).

It's sometimes hard to compare plasma;s with LCD's because in general they are made in different sizes. But if you do look at similar sizes, the power consumption of the LCDs in maybe 20% less?
 
Plasma and CRT take about the same amount of power, so a 40 inch CRT uses the same amount of power at a 40 inch plasma (assuming they have the same aspect ratio).

It's sometimes hard to compare plasma;s with LCD's because in general they are made in different sizes. But if you do look at similar sizes, the power consumption of the LCDs in maybe 20% less?
Maybe I mistook month for year, but I'm sure they said that Plasma used twice as much power as LCD, I'm sure that what they said. Of course what "They said" might not be completely true, just as what 'They said" might not be true about John McCain (I know that this belongs in the political section, I'm just trying to illustrate that ****nalists in the electronic or print media often distort the facts in oreder to make a better story).
 
Top