Plasma or LCD?

[scooterscot]

Our european apartment needs a telly, plasma seems cheap as chips these days - this one caught my eye:

LG RZ 50 PJ 350, 127 cm (50") Plasma-HD Ready - Karstadt - Schöner shoppen / LG / Marken G - L / Alle Marken / Marken A - Z / Multimedia

Is LCD really worth the extra buck for something who occasional watches the odd movie and the news?

[doodab]

Our european apartment needs a telly, plasma seems cheap as chips these days - this one caught my eye:

LG RZ 50 PJ 350, 127 cm (50") Plasma-HD Ready - Karstadt - Schöner shoppen / LG / Marken G - L / Alle Marken / Marken A - Z / Multimedia

Is LCD really worth the extra buck for something who occasional watches the odd movie and the news?

As the owner of a large plasma TV, I would say a) compare the power consumption b) think about how well your house is heated already. The one I have sucks down 450W and warms the lounge up nicely, and that one is about 50% larger in terms of surface area. I would also ask yourself if you need a 50" screen. Mine is 42" and if I'm totally honest it's almost a bit too large when you are sat 4m away. I certainly wouldn't want anything bigger.

Also, that one is "HD ready", i.e. will accept HD signals, but it's not actually full HD resolution.

1.366 x 768 Pixel

I would say that for fast moving stuff like sports and action movies, plasma is better IMO, although I haven't seen many recent LCD ones.

[PAH]

The LG 50PJ350 is only 720p, so if you're wanting proper HD and more future proofness go for the newer LG 50PKxxx series that is full 1080p HD.

By coincidence I've recently bought a 50PK350 (for around £500 so probably within your budget) and it absolutely beats my previous 47" LCD in every department. Even the old issue of screen burn (with logos etc) doesn't seem a problem after the initial running in period, though I'm not much of a gamer so rarely have a constant image on the screen for more than the length of a movie (with the black borders).

Only thing I'd consider the slightly more expensive 50PK590 version for (which is 95% the same as the 350) is if you need the extra HDMI input, though there are plenty of HDMI switchboxes around to solve that.

For games then LCD may still be the better option (depending on refresh rates etc), but for movies and TV I'm loving my plasma, and at the price it is a bargain. I did briefly consider the 60" version but they're still well over a grand so for bang per buck a 50" is the sweet spot at the moment, if you have the space.

[scooterscot]

I would also ask yourself if you need a 50" screen. Mine is 42" and if I'm totally honest it's almost a bit too large when you are sat 4m away. I certainly wouldn't want anything bigger.

Very good point I'd not considered. The lounge in the flat back home is nearly 30' in length so it gobbles up the 42" screen happily. However the lounge is just over 3m in width. Calm down scooter...

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

At my last gig they had 3 LCD's and one was taken to another dept so they decided (stupidly) to buy a Plasma. Awful

[thunderlizard]

KUATB

[AtW]

Plasma is tulip - only good if you have no choice (ie very large screens: 60''+)

[IR35 Avoider]

Is LCD really worth the extra buck for something who occasional watches the odd movie and the news?

LCD is better if you are going to use it for computer graphics at all, since you don't have to worry about screen burn issues. If only watching video, then the best plasma is better than the best LCD. (When I was shopping for the best possible 50" plasma 6 months ago, the choice came down to between Panasonic and Samsung. The Panasonic was reputed to be the best but it was 50% more expensive than the equivalent Samsung. The Samsung was also much better looking - the Panasonic looked bulky and old-fashioned.)

[IR35 Avoider]

As the owner of a large plasma TV, I would say a) compare the power consumption b) think about how well your house is heated already. The one I have sucks down 450W and warms the lounge up nicely, and that one is about 50% larger in terms of surface area.

I also had the perception that this was an issue, but found that nowadays plasmas consume only slightly more power than LCDs. My 50" plasma has power consumption of 190W

I would also ask yourself if you need a 50" screen. Mine is 42" and if I'm totally honest it's almost a bit too large when you are sat 4m away. I certainly wouldn't want anything bigger.

The official recommendation for getting the full benefit of 1080p high definition is something like sitting two screen widths away from the screen. (Some advice says you should sit closer/ have a bigger screen.) At a 4 meter distance, a quick calc. in my head tells me you need something like an 80" screen. (I wonder if you're the same person who in another TV thread, said he couldn't really see the quality difference of HD. There's a reason for that, at your ratio of viewing distance to screen size, I doubt there is much difference.)

[IR35 Avoider]

Plasma is tulip - only good if you have no choice (ie very large screens: 60''+)

The best video quality is provided by quality plasmas. Go check out AVforums if you don't want to take my word for it. Given that plasmas are generally cheaper than LCDs, for a given price you will definitely get better picture quality from a plasma than an LCD. Obviously you should do your research and get the best one. (Best plasma > best LCD is true, any plasma > any LCD is not what I'm saying.)

Having said that, if you're not an AV buff who wants to have the best, then modern LCDs are very good. If you actually need an LCD (for games, computing, etc.) then a reasonably good one will be 90% as good as a good plasma, for video.