It shouldn't cost $7000 (65" price) for an LCD to rival plasma quality. And the input lag is too high for video games...
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/tx55ax902b-201411073944.htm
Well, let's break that down.
Fair warning - I have often argued in favor of LCDs because before I went all Android, I was an HDTV freak and early adopter of HD. Later, I was an early adopter of LCD HD (boy did that suck) and followed it closely until it improved and then devolved some. So, please challenge anything that strikes you as fanboy sounding - my intention is only to inform about LCDs because - just like with audio and Android - I hate misinformation and hype.
Grab a tasty beverage, and let's go!
First, many videophiles swear by plasma. And I'm ok with that so long as it doesn't get into pixie dust.
What does it mean to say "LCD as good as plasma?"
That's very multifaceted. Plasma has wider viewing angles. Do you care? I never watch off axis.
LCD generally does better in lighted rooms than plasma? Do you care? Some people only watch in darker rooms and / or during the evening.
But let's talk about objective picture quality. Plasma lovers cite two things - deeper blacks and smoother or crisper motion.
Now - about LCDs - what's the issues? Recall that I said that they are like a little shutter at each subpixel (and I am actually the hoser that introduced that concept and nomenclature to the internet). And we begin there.
What does it mean when we talk about 60 Hz? Despite fancy processing, that's the top speed of your input sources.
And that's 16.66666 ms per image. 60 frames per second, 1/60 second per frame. Remember that - 1/60 second.
Now - let's talk about the shutters - let's talk about the speed and what they tell you anymore (but they used to).
The earlier LCD HDTVs had a response time of over 8 ms, and many much worse, some as high as 12.
So while you were supposed to be seeing a frame for 1/60 second, 1/2 to 3/4 of that time, the shutters were in motion.
Enter the original bad motion complaints. For good reason.
By 2009, Samsung produced one panel that responded at 2 ms. That's 1/500 of a second and that's enough to rival plasma.
Plasma (actually it's the phosphors) respond well and far below 1 ms - so why is 2 ms pretty much ok?
Think about taking pictures - go to a high school or little league game - and try to stop the ball. You don't even come close until the shutter speed is better than 1/125 second. 1/500 will do the job - but 1/1000 and 1/2000 really makes it freeze.
So if 1/500th is the minimum, why is that enough? One, you only see it for an instant in a moving train of images and two, you can't get an image better than the speed of the camera operator and the broadcast.
But that wasn't sexy to market and along came the Hz Wars, ultra thins, LED back lighting and - the transition to digital TV - and market demand.
I suspect that most LCD panels today have 4 to 6 ms response times - it's cheaper.
But can LCD do it and rival plasma on that front? Yes.
Next - deep black. OK. Don't turn on a phosphor light - you got black.
LCD? Only gets as black as the shutters can close to hide the back light. And current LCD technology can only really compete on that at the top end - and never break even. The upside that they don't discuss is that LCD has the potential (based on panel quality, back light quality and yadda yadda yadda) for truer white. Remember how LCDs do better in brighter rooms and settings than a plasma? Well, that's more light - and truer white is all about more light.
That doesn't come out in contrast measurements and the Holy Grail praise for plasma blacks.
The final picture quality issue is really about the program source but LCDs get all of the blame.
Cable and satellite has lousy pictures. They over-compress and drop frames. (Netflix does too but how much depends on your network as much as anything.)
Anyway - that leads to a simple name for the phenomenon - motion artifacts. You see things made up as the TV struggles with the source.
LCD, because of its engineered nature, shows motion artifacts as harsh stuttering. Really sets your teeth on edge.
Plasma, by its engineering nature, shows motion artifacts as a big loss of details.
And because people are accustomed to lost details in TV, will praise plasma without stopping to question why most of the show is closer to SD than HD because at least it isn't harsh and stuttering.
But none of it is ok and the real blame goes to the source.
I've got a lot more to say on this but I'll stop here. If there's interest, I'll continue.