CRTs vs Plasmas & LCDs

Hi Krish !

To your questions I would like to add another one here. For screen sizes upto 29" what is the advantage of LCD or Plasma over CRT? Especially if we are not looking for HDMI compatibility.

^^Slimmer, cooler, and much more power efficient. Add bragging rights as per taste.

All depends on what you are going to watch... if its SD signals all the time, makes sense to go for a CRT/Rear projection instead of an LCD/Plasma. A standard definition interlaced signal would look atrocious on an lcd/plasma. If its HDTV/dvd/hd-dvd/bluray watching mostly, I'd buy an LCD in a heartbeat :).

I'd buy an LCD in a heartbeat

Why not a Plasma ???

reignofchaos schrieb:

All depends on what you are going to watch... if its SD signals all the time, makes sense to go for a CRT/Rear projection instead of an LCD/Plasma. A standard definition interlaced signal would look atrocious on an lcd/plasma. If its HDTV/dvd/hd-dvd/bluray watching mostly, I'd buy an LCD in a heartbeat :).

It's going to be mostly for C&S and movies.I do not see myself investing in a HD DVD or Blu Ray DVD player in the near future.The software for these formats neither going to be plentiful or cheap.

My question on colour fidelity still stands.Does a CRT beat LCDs and Plasmas on that count.

^^Slimmer, cooler, and much more power efficient. Add bragging rights as per taste

Unfortunately I ain't the Onida type

K

With the kind of usage you have outlined I think a 29" CRT should do for you in case you have a limited budget-do check out the Philips 29 " cost around 20K was very impressed by the picture quality.
BTW, a friend who had picked up a plasma & was suffering awful quality thru cable, recently got a DTH connection-TataSky; the picture quality is unbelievable, even for doordarshan,just like DVD.
So, if cost is not much of a consideration, you could think along these lines.
Re Plasma vs LCD, as per the viewing experience, LCDs offer a sharper picture, while in Plasmas, the colour appears more vivid-however, the recent LCDs have caught up in picture depth-Sony's V series, Samsungs Bordeaux series.
This was the conclusion while recently shopping around for large screen HDTV ready TVs-took around 2-3 good DVDs( Gladiator, Shakespear in love etc) and viewed them simultaneously on various makes of LCD/Plasma TVs.
The Bordeaux was the final choice.

Hi,
The Sony is good only at the higher price end. You should either go for Panasonic Tau or Philips. One forum member says there is a Philips pixel plus for 24000. The Tau costs around 17000.
cheers
shri

hi krish,

plasma tv would offer better picture. shorter life cos of burn in on the glass. lcds longer life but to me the picture quality suffers a bit. i think lcds are also more power efficient. i hope its not the other way around. do check up on this. i'd second reignofchaos. an rptv any day over a plasma or lcd. somehow the picture seems so much more real. if you're going in for sony, the bravia range is supposed to be good. they're only focusing on lcds now though. they think its the way forward. you could pick up a test cd to check out the blacks, reds etc... assuming they're available here.


regards

Correct me if I'm wrong:

-motion is depicted better in Plasma
-Larger screen sizes - Plasma is better
-Plasma has a wider viewing angle
-Lip sync may be a problem in Plasma - so you need a DVD player or AVR with a lip-sync delay to match the PDP
-The charge on the Plasma screen "misaligns the crystal" and so requires regular discharging / realignemnt