LCD Vs. Plasma - the war rages on

Katherine Hannaford writes...

Incase you and your alabaster skin have been hiding under a rock the last few years, there's been a raging debate going on all across 'tinterwebs regarding Plasma TVs and LCD TVs - namely which one pwns the other, to use the colloquial jargon most Plasma/LCD fanboys employ. But which is the best telly, and why is there so much confusion in regards to what to spend your notes on? It's a tricky subject, and just for you - yes, you, you there with the greasy hair and bleary eyes, I've spent the last couple of hours reading up on all I can find on the subject. Ahh, 'tinternet...it's good for something other than sprouting random Peter Kay quotes, no?

So what exactly are the differences between the two? "What the flaming heck are they, in the first place!?", I can hear you screaming at your computer monitor. Well, err...you better sit down there, it'll be tough to break it to you, but they're...both TVs. Shock! Horror! Yes, people really do get riled up about TVs, much like we get riled up over the iPhone, pink tool kits, or...Mac fanboys?!

LCD stands for ‘liquid crystal display’, which can be anything from a computer monitor to a TV, which is the most commonly known form. They're renowned for their thin, flat displays, light weight (let's blame it on the fashion designers, shall we?), and good colour reproduction. One thing which is definitely an incentive is that they have perfect sharpness at their native resolution. Why would you want to buy one over a Plasma? Well, they're generally good for smaller TVs, with larger displays best being left to plasmas. This means that anything under 42" would be better suited as an LCD screen, so look out for Samsung, Sharp, Sony, and Panasonic, who are all renowned for being the better manufacturers of these screens.

One thing worth mentioning is that LCD screens do tend to be fairly expensive, however this may be set to change. Word came to me today during my research via Business Week that Sony and Samsung have actually teamed up recently, and created a giant $3 billion factory in Seoul, in order to create inexpensive LCD screens. This new technology will see them being able to produce six 52" panels from a single sheet of glass, thus lowering the cost for consumers.

Samsung's President in charge of the LCD department commented on the issue recently, saying that consumers will soon be paying less for a 50" LCD TV in 2007 than we paid for 40" in 2006. All good news for those who have their hearts set firmly on an LCD screen, and with good reason too, as they have a great reputation, with the public spending $22.5 billion on LCDs in 2006, and only $7.2 billion on Plasmas in the same year. So, does the majority rule? Or is it simply a case of sheep following sheep?

The other alternative to an LCD is, of course, the Plasma. As aforementioned, they're not as commercially successful as the LCD, but that could be due to the cost. Plasmas tend to be recommended to consumers if they want larger than a 42", as anything above and beyond that is done best with a Plasma. And, as we have learnt with age, bigger tends to demand more cash, unless of course you're in the market for a slim phone (yes, iPhone, I'm looking at you here). Much fuss has been made about 720i and 1080p (for a great explanation on this, check out this hilarious site), and it's a lot easier and cheaper for Plasmas to meet the 1080p standard (generally perceived as being the better of the two standards) in screens larger than 50".

The contrast ratio is brilliant on Plasmas, as is the colour reproduction. They tend to be very heavy and not as thin as LCDs, however do tend to be cheaper than their competitor when compared size-by-size. Pioneer, LG and Panasonic are the leading brands generally, with the first company recently publishing the results of a survey, in which they claim Plasmas by Pioneer have better contrast, superior black tone, better resolution, and a greater response speed than LCDs, amongst other findings. All very debatable, of course, and I'm sure many noses would be out of joint upon hearing those results. Up until very recently, they always had a good reputation for having better blacks and colours than LCD, but with the latter improving their technology recently, it's a bit of a moot point. One thing which should be mentioned about Plasmas is that they often suffer from what's referred to as 'burn-in'. This means that static images sometimes remain on the screen, even after they've gone - for instance, a TV station logo may disappear from the screen, but you'll still be able to see a faint trace of it. If you're a hardcore video-gamer, then I personally would suggest you steer clear of the Plasmas, for this reason alone.

So which to spend your hard earned cash on, then? Well, as you will have noticed, it really depends on your requirements. What size screen are you after? What's the quality of light like in the chosen room? Will you be watching mostly high-def TV, or standard def? Do you wish to wall mount, or stand on the ground? Definitely spend the hours researching which is best for your situation, and make sure to invest your money correctly, I'm sure you don't need me telling you HDTVs are an expensive investment! But once you've made your choice between the two formats, check out our brother blog, HDTV-UK, for which TV to actually splash your cash on. And get one for me, while you're at it!.

Katherine Hannaford is editor of The Bag Lady, and writes for Shiny Shiny, Tech Digest, and WiiWii. She currently has a JVC CRT and is looking for a sugar-daddy to help her buy a Samsung LCD...keen?