LCD Versus Plasma – The Heavyweight Championship Prize Fight
Anthony Marsh – September 9, 2008
Not since, and well before Tony Soprano and family inexplicably and abruptly left us in a state of permanent and perplexed darkness (both literally and figuratively) to the perfectly timed strains of Journey’s Don’t Stop Believin’, has a particular topic – in this case, LCD vs. Plasma – stoked the ire of so many, prompting much in the way of fevered and feverish discussion.
But, is there a voice of reason and unbiased levity in this great debate?
I offer up for you a resounding and unequivocal: YES.
Before we can traverse through this lively bit of touchy terrain, with even the faintest hopes of coming to some type of satisfactory resolution though, we need to first understand exactly what LCD and plasma technology are all about.
In no particular order of preference or ranking, let’s start with LCD.
LCD, as you may or may not know, stands for Liquid Crystal Display. Possibly for purposes of brevity and simpler name recall, it’s almost always referred to as LCD. While it may seem like a brand-spanking new technology, the first experimental LCD was made by RCA way back in a time when free love was on the cusp of giving way to bellbottoms and disco in the year of 1968. The actual origins of liquid crystals, however, date back even further, to 1888, in fact, care of an Austrian botanist named Friedrich Reinitzer. He aptly observed that when he melted a curious, cholesterol-type substance, an initial cloudy liquid cleared as the temperature rose, and once it cooled off, that very same liquid turned blue before ultimately crystallizing. And so was born the liquid crystal we all know and love today.
In terms of how LCD technology works, it all begins with a matrix of thin film transistors, a.k.a., TFTs, and liquid crystal-filled cells that are sandwiched between two sheets or panels of glass. While that has the inauspicious makings of a painfully lame joke that could kick off a Mensa convention to an uproarious throng of cheers, it’s actually the genesis of a thoroughly complex and involving process, that, in the end, finally has you watching all those lovely images on your LCD TV. Two things basically have to happen in order for the image to be displayed: first, electrical charges spark liquid crystal cells, and second is the light that shines behind these glass panels. When both of these occur, each active crystal either allows light in, or blocks it out. It’s this duality which determines how the image is displayed in terms of color and intensity of color.
Now, let’s move on to plasma or its less commonly known name, PDP (Plasma Display Panel). Not unlike LCD, there's also the misnomer out there that plasma is a new technology. In reality, the plasma video display was co-invented back in 1964 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign by three people: Donald Bitzer, H. Gene Slottow, and grad student Robert Wilson for the PLATO Computer System (the first generalized computer-assisted instruction system for all you hardcore trivia buffs). The way plasma works is as such: numerous tiny cells located between two thin panels of glass hold a mixture of noble gases (xenon and neon). When these gases are hit with controlled electrical charges, ultraviolet rays are produced, hitting the red, green, and blue phosphors, which themselves make up the network of tiny pixel cells contained within the noble gases. As this intricate and calculated process plays itself out, visible light is produced, and so is born the plasma display.
Okay, so now that we (hopefully) have a better understanding of how these technologies work, I think it’s high time we throw them into the proverbial ring against each other and see how they fare. Partly gimmick, partly effective metaphor, this boxing motif will now lead us through the fertile quagmire of this great debate.
Round 1 – Viewing Angle
Plasma technology has a viewing angle of about 180 degrees without any noticeable loss of picture quality. This all but guarantees every seat in the house is a good one. With LCD, manufacturers now claim and advertise viewing angles as high as 170 degrees. This is indeed great marketing and wordsmanship, because while you will, in fact, be able to view the TV from these angles, there will be an obvious loss in picture quality that will all but render these angles – for all practical intents and purposes – mostly useless. While LCD has made strides in this regard, more realistic figures on the very high-end brand of LCD televisions might net you viewing angles of about 90 to 130 degrees.
Plasma comes out swinging to take the opening round.
Round 2 – Image Retention
Due to the twisting nature of crystal technology in LCD, it doesn’t suffer from image retention or screen "burn in." Plasma, on the other hand, does. While they’ve closed the gap in this regard with newer, anti-burn in technologies, it’s still an issue that has some room for improvement. Keep in mind, if the primary use of your plasma TV is movies and cable TV, whereby you don’t plan on keeping it dialed in to CNN or MSNBC or Headline Sports (they all feature a constant and active screen ticker at the bottom of their programming) for hours upon hours, screen burn in is far less of an issue to be concerned about. Flipside, LCD can also suffer from image retention or ghosting which occurs when confronted with a “stuck” pixel or a retained pixel charge that comes from keeping a fixed image on the screen for too long. This happens far less frequently than image burn in with plasma, but it can crop up from time to time.
Drawing even, LCD fights back to take it in round two.
Round 3 – Fast-Moving Images
When it comes to fast-moving images or motion, plasma clearly comes out on top. With LCD technology, by its very nature, it suffers from an inherent delay problem. When you’re watching movies or sporting events where the action shifts quickly and abruptly from one side of the screen to the other (more apparent in LCD TVs that are over 35 inches in size), it’s not uncommon to notice pixel blocking or “artifacting” where images seem to create a trailing or ghosting effect of themselves. While newer LCD televisions offer quicker response times – some even advertised as low as four milliseconds – plasmas are about eight times as fast still, usually offering response times that are as commonly low as 0.87 milliseconds.
Clean win for plasma in round three.
Round 4 – Size
While in the past, plasma held the edge in the larger display-size category, it’s a virtual dead-heat right now, mainly spurred by the tremendous rise in LCD popularity amongst consumers. While LCD televisions will offer sizes in the lower ranges (15 inches, to as low as even seven) that plasma doesn’t (they only go as small as 32 inches), in the larger, home theatre sizes, they’ve now basically caught up to plasma displays. It’s now quite easy to find them in size ranges well beyond 40 inches, although in the 60-plus inch range, plasmas tend to be more readily available. As of this writing, Panasonic currently sells a 103-inch plasma model (at a cool MSRP price tag of about $80,000.00 USD), and has announced plans for a 150-inch model to be unveiled in 2010. LCD displays currently go as high as 82 inches, and Sharp has a 108-inch model in the pipeline for late-2008, and has already shown a 102-inch prototype. Yes folks, the pissing contest for your hard-earned dollars is in full effect as both plasma and LCD are doing their best to get bigger and badder.
Too close to call, so I’ll call it a draw.
Round 5 – Price-Point
In terms of price; it’s also essentially a dead-lock based on like sizes, with the better brand names on both ends commanding about the same in terms of cost. In the 40-plus inch range of TVs though, plasmas might be just a whisker less expensive these days.
In an absolute photo-finish, plasma edges it out in round five.
Round 6 – Weight and Mounting
On the average, when looking at similarly-sized LCD and plasma televisions, LCDs tend to be a little lighter on their feet, and therefore prove easier to mount for the average consumer. With the added bit of bulge that comes with plasmas, it’s probably a better idea to have them mounted by a professional and avoid any potential issues.
Somewhat of a toss-up, but I have to give an ever-so slight edge to LCD in this particular department.
Round 7 – Style and Real Estate
In terms of style and the space they take up, beyond the obvious wing-span of the larger LCD and plasma home theatre televisions, both are ultra-thin and mountable (plasmas are as thin as three inches, while LCDs can get as low as two inches), blending seamlessly into any room with the style and ease of a picture or painting that hangs in your home.
Another even round that can only end in a draw.
Round 8 – Durability and Longevity
Brace yourself for yet another cat’s game here. While both plasma and LCD will offer a display life anywhere from 30,000 to 50,000 hours, with LCD there is the potential of losing slight picture quality and color accuracy (which then requires having to re-calibrate) once the backlight fades over time. If the backlight is completely shot, it’s not yet known if, in fact, the backlight is even replaceable or worth replacing depending on the cost. With plasma, at about half-life of the display, you’ll lose about half of the image brightness, but really, this isn’t as bad as it sounds, as it’s still two to three times brighter than regular TV.
Another round, another draw, but this could change down the road assuming that LCD doesn’t effectively deal with the potential backlight issue.
Round 9 – Black Levels and Contrast
Although LCD has made up a lot of ground in this regard, in both instances – and by nature of the very mechanics of their respective technologies – plasma still gets the edge here. While plasma can get really black, LCD tends to be more on the dark gray side-of-things. This is an important round as well, because when it comes to understanding what takes an image from merely good to great, contrast and black levels play a huge part in the overall picture.
 |
 |
| (5) LCD |
(6) Plasma |
Plasma breaks the consecutive draws with a boisterous and determined round nine romp.
Round 10 – General Picture Quality and Color Accuracy
This can be the highly contentious part of the discussion that usually offers a very generalized, though somewhat accurate way of putting things. Plasma tends towards a richer, smoother, and more natural-looking picture which works best in mid to low-level lighting conditions, while LCD does still suffer somewhat from the stigma of being a more “digital-looking” picture, with colors that don’t appear as natural or realistic. The plasma advantage is due in no small part to a technological engine that features pixels which contain RGB (red, green, blue) elements that can produce millions upon millions of colors for unsurpassed color accuracy, and hence, a better overall picture. With LCD, the modus operandi which drives the technology calls for color to be reproduced by manipulating light waves and subtracting colors from white light. This is a more difficult blueprint to follow, and as such, plasma is able to deliver a consistently better image than its LCD counterpart. If you’re focused strictly on still images, or specifically computer displays and applications, LCD technology was designed (at least initially) for this, and consequently fares far better in this regard, even managing to trump its bitter rival in this category.
 |
 |
| (7) LCD |
(8) Plasma |
The graphic below (left), courtesy of IDC, illustrates in chart form how much more color accurate plasma (PDP) displays are as compared to LCD, by virtue of this RGB SMPTE color pattern comparison. Ideally, the closer to 0% percent you are, the more accurate the color. Because the human eye is less sensitive to blue color frequencies, those numbers are less significant, but in the red and green spectrum, you can clearly see how much more spot-on plasma is. The chart to the right illustrates the superior color range that plasma (yellow triangle) has over LCD (blue triangle).
 |
 |
| (9) Plasma or PDP (left), LCD (right) |
(10) Plasma (yellow triangle), LCD (blue triangle) |
Plasma with another crushing late round win.
Round 11 – High Altitude Viewing
While this isn't a concern for the average consumer looking to add that theatrical-viewing element to their home, in terms of which technology takes the cake when viewed at extremely high altitudes (6,5000 feet or more), LCD is the clear winner, as it’s not affected nearly as much by fluctuations in air pressure as plasma is.
Save for the airline industry - or people living waaay up in the mountains with electricity - I’ll declare this a moral victory of sorts for the fighting-to-the-finish, never-say-die LCD camp.
Round 12 – Power Usage
Proving to be a gamer, LCD closes out the bout with a final round victory – or does it? With respect to power consumption, LCD, by virtue of utilizing backlighting to produce its images, operates on far less power than does plasma, which has to light – subsequently using more power – each and every pixel that comprise its images. Or so we thought...
An interesting update to this particular topic: Panasonic and Pioneer are both reporting that as per independent lab tests, plasma has been shown to be at least equal to LCD in terms of power consumption, and in some cases, may even use less energy based on the fact that plasma power consumption is based upon how dark or bright the image is. So, if you’re watching mostly darker programming, in theory, your plasma display would be using less power, whereas with LCD, it uses the same constant, median supply of power, no matter what you happen to be watching.
|
|
(11) LCD
Backlight is constantly on for both bright and dark scenes |
(12) Plasma
Individually controlled light sources mean the power consumption varies according to the brightness of each scene
|
While a final round victory for LCD was all but assured, recent developments have now necessitated calling this one a draw until further notice.
Conclusion and Parting Shots
Despite some late round drama, the Rocky saga this isn’t, and when it goes to the scorecards, plasma scores the unanimous victory in this bout. While this debate has surely been slanted more in the direction of the home-theatre universe, the truth is that when you or I discuss and/or consider plasma or LCD, we do so mainly under the pretext of home theatre purchases.
At the end of all this spirited banter, there are enough well-known and researched facts out there about both technologies that allow the above conclusion to be drawn with the utmost of confidence, and free of any controversy. Having said that, both camps can take great comfort in the fact that plasma and LCD technology represents a giant leap forward from the not-so glory days of big and bulky tube televisions, and that they can, and will, only continue to get better, further astounding us with their awe-inspiring images.
All images courtesy of Panasonic and Pioneer.
Latest HDTV Reviews and Products
|
