TVs & Home Theaters forum

General discussion

Ok now I have three more LCD/Plasma questions

by bkchurch / January 30, 2007 10:24 AM PST

I was shopping in Best Buy today and the guy I spoke to told me that LCD's are actually more likely to burn-in than plasma. This kind've surprised me since to my knowledge LCD's don't burn-in at all. He also said because of the slow response time of most LCD's I'll probably have issues with ghosting and lag, is this true? and since i'm comparing LCD's and Plasma I might as well ask: is there a big difference between a plasma's native resolution of 1024x768 and an LCD's 1366x768? If i'm not going for 1080p I really don't want want to have give up any more resolution.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Ok now I have three more LCD/Plasma questions
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Ok now I have three more LCD/Plasma questions
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
by Riverledge / January 30, 2007 10:46 AM PST

YOUR SALESPERSON doesn't know apples from oranges!!!
I'm sure he was trying to sell you a plasma HD-TV that he makes a better commission on.

If 1080p isn't a big deal to you, don't worry about native res.

P.S. What HD-TV models were you comparing???

Wishing you better salespersons, and ultimately a great purchase!!!


Collapse -
Well actually it's odd
by bkchurch / January 30, 2007 8:46 PM PST

Because the TV's I was looking at were all $1000 and the plasma he directed me to was also $1000 so he wouldn't be making a better comission. On top of that he informed to check out CNET to see for myself and apparently if you just display a white screen on a plasma for awhile the burn-in will go away. I thought this was odd since i've been here for a month and have learned countless things from the people here (that not being one of them).

Collapse -
by Riverledge / January 31, 2007 3:36 AM PST
In reply to: Well actually it's odd

STORES AND other retailers can manipulate prices in many ways.

Take your case, you're comparing two HDTVs selling for $1000,
brands "ABC"(LCD) and "XYZ"(plasma.) Say the dealer pays $500 for the
"ABC" LCD, but pays $800 for the "XYZ" plasma, and retails both for $1000.
In this case the dealer is making $500 on each "ABC" set, and only $200 on every "XYZ" plasma.
Which one do you think the salesperson is going to push???

Good shopping, river.

Collapse -
Plasma burn-in "removal" by leaving on white screen?
by twyrick / February 2, 2007 12:18 AM PST
In reply to: Well actually it's odd

Just FYI, leaving a plasma display on a bright white screen for a while doesn't really "make burn-in go away", in a strict sense. What it does is burn in all of the pixels until they're all burnt to an even level. It fixes the burn-in issue in the short-term, but shortens the life of the display in the process.

Newer plasma monitors advertising "anti burn-in" features do the same type of thing automatically. They burn in the whole display evenly at set intervals, masking any burn-in problems you might create.

Collapse -
Know before you speak.
by brandoj82 / January 31, 2007 3:22 PM PST

No doubt the salesperson didn't know what he was talking about. But Best Buy employees are non-commission. Please be more educated on something before you accuse.

Collapse -
Are both display 16:9?
by ahtoi / January 30, 2007 3:38 PM PST

If they are then the lcd has better resolution.

Collapse -
Bad HDTV salesman are still hard to digest for me!
by grammag / January 30, 2007 6:51 PM PST
In reply to: Are both display 16:9?

Bkchurch, when you gain more knowledge you will understand the generalizations that your salesman threw out there. Sorry to all the great salespeople who might read what Im about to say. Ignorant salespeople are so common that I dont even ask them questions any more. If I ask questions, I run the risk of having to put on my polite face and walking away disgusted. I usually take some extra time to seek out the information myself (on the computer, someone I can trust). Just stay away from that one guy and do as River suggested by posting your choices here on cnet. There are some very knowledgeable people here that are generous with their information. Good luck with your purchase.

Collapse -
Let me jump in here. . .
by Coryphaeus / January 31, 2007 4:18 AM PST

That guy is an idiot.

LCDs do not burn in. Period. The design of the pixels makes it impossible. Response time can be a factor, but you'll never notice it. The newer LCDs have a response time of around 5 ms. That's practically zero.

Go to a different store and compare the two side by side. Buy what looks best to you.

Collapse -
by bkchurch / January 31, 2007 4:59 AM PST

The fastest response time I've seen on an LCD TV is a Sharp Aquos with 6ms. Most of the others i've seen are 8ms. Where have you found LCD TV's with a 5 ms response time? Btw thanks for the help everyone, I'll just say no thanks next time someone offers to help me in Best Buy.

Collapse -
I went to some makers' sites & found this info
by NM_Bill / January 31, 2007 5:19 AM PST
In reply to: 5ms?

though it was just what I found for one set per maker - may not be consistent across all models.

Samsung 2ms
Sharp 4ms & 6ms
Sony 8ms
Olevia 8ms
Panasonic 16ms

See, there are plenty of different screen refresh rates. Obviously you must check out individually, each set you consider.

Collapse -
by bkchurch / January 31, 2007 12:08 PM PST

I'll check into that but I think i'm just gonna get past the issue of having a behemoth TV and go for the Sony WEGA XBR970. I've heard nothing but good things about it and since it's a CRT it won't have to scale images to fit the pixels so it will run 480i/p, 720p, and 1080i all beautifully.

Collapse -
by stewart norrie / January 31, 2007 12:33 PM PST
In reply to: Ok

This tube Sony is about the only t.v. that cnet folks agree on. Every other display type its like world war 3. A year ago I bought a 73" Toshiba d.l.p. monster And boy was I bashed ha ha screen door effect, lamps . color wheel, fans I thought I had just bought a Pinto.But the truth is the set has been trouble free and picture quality is stunning But after one short year my t.v is model T technology but until 70" Plasma sewts are on sale for $4000 Iam happy stewee

Collapse -
Yea, I wish I could afford a TV like yours
by bkchurch / January 31, 2007 9:17 PM PST

I really want a 50" Samsung 1080p DLP unfortunately I need the money to buy a PSWii60 and i'm headed to college next year. Maybe one day I'll be able to afford a monster like yours though.

Collapse -
by bajaman / February 5, 2007 11:09 AM PST

What is DLP and is it better than Plasma or is it the same thing? I am confused.

Collapse -
Keep reading here as yes, you are confused
by NM_Bill / February 5, 2007 12:28 PM PST
In reply to: DLP

I have a DLP (digital light projection) which is a rear projection shallow, light set. It is the cheap way into the new big screens. They have spinning color wheels which are subject to failure (yes, I had a failure) & also overly expensive lamps to eventually replace. My set is 4 years now & I can tell it's not as bright as new but I'm not about to buy a $180 new one yet.

Then if you refer to Consumer Reports late last year review & they let you know plasmas have about 3% 1st year repairs; LCDs have about 4% 1st year repairs: & DLPs about 10% 1st year repairs.

Welcome, but you do need to read here for awhile to get acquainted with things high def.....

Collapse -
The truth of the matter is...
by Buckwilder / February 1, 2007 12:24 AM PST

Response rate should always be measured in 'rise and fall', that is: how quickly a pixel can illuminate to it's peak luminescence and then deplete before refreshing with its next required color.
Some mfr's are now advertising a response rate that calculates 'grey-to-grey'...this is NOT an accurate representation of true refresh rate. Most LCD panels have a native refresh of 8ms. Compnaies like Sharp will advertise a r/r of 4ms, or with their gaming panel a r/r of 5ms. Typically acheiving these refresh times requires the use of 'add-on' video processing. Sharp's nick name for the boosted r/r on their gaming display is 'Viper Drive' technology. Even the Sharp set that advertises a 4ms response time has an asterik in the tech spec's that states this r/r can only be acheieved if 'Fine Motion Mode' is me this is a head scratcher, I'm a little weary. Look for LCD panels in 2007, 2008 to have a native panel r/r of 4-6 ms's.
To answer your question...LCD's do not, will not, cannot--burn in--period.
Plasma's have per-pixel illumation and thus better picture truity from all viewing angles. They also typically create (when properly calibrated) a more 'realistic' looking image. LCD's suffer from the use of false contouring and the like, which often leads to sharp yet 'digital painting' images. Black level is up for grabs depending on the set...although neither at this stage do a suberb black. Plasma's get the slight nod because each pixel is individually lit, and therefore not subject to an ever-present backlight as is the case with LCD. Look for better contrast ratio's (100,000:1) in the coming generations to cure that 'black level' issues most current gen sets experience. Interesting to note that Samsung just released a prototype wherein their LCD panels are backlit with LED's that can turn on an off, therefore allowing for a much deeper black resulting from the absecnce of backlight when the LED is off.
In the end for pure picture quality I would recommend Plasma...don't concern yourself too much with resolution, it actually ranks number 3 or 4 on the ISF's overal video quality scale. There are more important things such as color accuracy/reproduction etc. A 50" 1365 X 768 720p native PDP like the Pioneer for example will do the job amazingly, and also r/r is never an issue so you can enjoy sports, action moves and video games without any discernable ghosting.

Collapse -
well burn in no, image retention yes
by mikeyo10 / February 1, 2007 9:06 PM PST

well by it's nature static images won't burn in on lcd as they do on plasma panels. With that being said if you leave static images on lcd for long enough, that image may be retained for an indefinate period of time. The timeframes for this to happen on LCD are much longer than that of plasma and it may disipate, but it does happen. There are many factors that can cause it such as the viscosity of the LCD and heat. I have seen it. I work in the digital signage space and have seen it in airports with commercial lcd panels running static images before. As for response times any company can produce "marketing numbers" using bechmarks like 'grey-to-grey' as Buckwilder said. Contrast ratio numbers are a even bigger joke. As someone with over 20 years in the AV/IT industry my advise is buy what looks good to you in terms of the image. You are going to have to sit in front of it every night, not the sales person so let your eyes make that judgement. Check some forums for reliability and service issues on that specific model before you buy and get extended warranty where possible.

Collapse -
LCD vs Plasma
by DeltaBravo / February 2, 2007 12:59 AM PST

That was a good detailed answer. The general rules to remember are 1.LCD sets run a little cheaper than Plasma. 2. Pixel response is better on Plasma and noticeable on "larger" screens when viewing fast action sceens (such as sports). 3. Plasma screens have a slightly wider viewing angle and deeper blacks, while LCD might have brighter colors.

Overall, most of the critics have said LCD is the choice up to and including 42" and Plasma is the best choice for 42" and larger. This means they tie overall at 42".

If you're looking to replace a standard TV with an LCD or Plasma, make sure you go for a screen size at least 20% larger. This will give you a set with the same screen height as before, but with a wider view. If you replace a standard set with the same size flat panel it will look like a smaller screen.

Collapse -
The real truth about LCD burn in
by rotterr / February 2, 2007 9:56 PM PST

You are correct that LCDs do not suffer "burn in". That's because the LCD manufacturers call it "image persistence". It's the equivalent of burn in. Just Google this term. Or check out Apple's official statement at

Collapse -
LCDs DO burn in!
by kgilbert / February 1, 2007 9:01 PM PST

Never say never. I have seen a number of LCD computer monitors where a company logo has been displayed for weeks on end demonstrate clear burn-in. Maybe this doesn't happen with LCD TVs, but I wouldn't be completely certain on that. Still, probably less likely than with plasma.

Collapse -
"better picture truity" ??
by rmf / February 1, 2007 10:59 PM PST

What is "better picture truity" ?

Anyway, CRT's get burn-in. I used to see crt terminals and pc monitors that display a form to be filled in or whatever with severe burn-in. But I have 5 crt televisions and none of them have any burn-in because the image is always changing. If left on the same channel with that obnoxious logo in the corner it mighr be a problem, but who does that?

Collapse -
LCD may not have burn-in, but..
by arkster / February 1, 2007 11:31 PM PST

LCD may not have burn-in, but everybody keeps forgetting that LCD panels may come with defective pixels from the factory, which may give you a burn-in effect right away. The best kept secret that every panel may have certain percentage of defective pixels. Better names in LCD panel manufacturers manage to keep it to a minimum. For eample my computer LCD monitor from IBM came with several defective pixels, I can see them when I seat close to it. The monitor is made in China.
You are better off staying with Japanese and Korean makes (s.a. LG and Samsung, which makes LCD panels for SONY)

Collapse -
LCD vs. Plasma
by forkboy1965 / February 1, 2007 11:50 PM PST

Purchasing a new t.v. is tough today. So many choices and options. I agree with most of the other posts that LCDs do not suffer burn in and that Plasma can. That said, from everything I've read (including information on Consumer Reports online) plasma t.v.s have come a long way from the old days of common burn-in issues. One very sound recommendation CU makes is to adjust your plasma (or any t.v. for that matter) away from automatic settings marked "vivid", "intense", etc. These settings typically push brightness and saturation to levels that are really too high and can help create a situation where burn-in is more likely.

Regarding the issue of response time on LCD televisions, unless you are watching an awful lot of high rate of motion objects on the screen it's very unlikely you'll ever really notice the issue of ghosting. Maybe if you could place a plasma next to a LCD and watch the exact same feed you might notice something, but even then it's not necessarily likely.

All other issues aside consider the room in which you will setup your future purchase. If it's a brightly lit room (especially with lots of windows) you may find the highly reflective surface of plasma screens an irritation. LCD's matte finish is a definite advantage in a room with lots of natural light from windows.

Finally, regarding salespersons: some are very, very good and some are awful. It's always best to take anything you read or hear from anyone (including those of us posting here on CNET) with a grain of salt. You are almost always best served by reading as much as you can from a variety of sources and look for the common links and hope that they represent the truth. Short of that get yourself a subscription to Consumer Reports - at least they're objective.

Collapse -
BB emplyee
by dnero80 / February 2, 2007 5:42 AM PST
In reply to: LCD vs. Plasma

Im sorry so many people have bad exsperirnces in BB. Before I worked there I did too and it was part of the reason I wanted to work there. I think bad sales people are more a reflection of bad managment really. Wrong people in the wrong jobs. Plus we have training material we're all supposed to go over, which if every actually used, they would all be experts but they dont. So I guess just like anywhere else it can happen.

Collapse -
The Bottom Line
by froasier / February 2, 2007 6:07 AM PST

Don't worry about burn-in, especially on an LCD. Also, don't worry about response time--you won't notice it. If anything, just check reviews on each specific model to make sure there's no ghosting. ( and both have customer reviews, and of course you can check here, or even Google the model and the word "review".)

As for resolutions, 1366x768 is an HD 720p widescreen resolution, whereas 1024x768 is the same height (number of lines) but not widescreen (which makes it not HD by some standards), so the LCD is definitely better in that respect, if those numbers are right.

From what you've said, I'd go with the LCD, but the bottom line is get what looks better to you. When you're comparing them, try to go for the same conditions (room lighting, video content, viewing distance and angles).

Hope that helps!

Collapse -
Best Buy??
by cretin / February 2, 2007 10:43 AM PST
In reply to: The Bottom Line

I just bought a plasma at the "Magnolia" center in Best Buy, which shows their upper end Tv's. I got lucky & got somebody super sharp who helped me focus on what I was seeing & the way they were displayed, not being in rows, where I could see them in the same line of vision was a big help! So it can happen at Best buy if your fortunate! I'm going to make a new thread to report what I found in thanks for the good advice I found here . But I settled on the Panosonic 50" 600U after comparing it to the Samsung 56" DLP with their new LED light. I might have bought it if it came in 61" since I came from a 4 year old Mitsu 65" HD. After seeing them in the same line of vision it was, in my eyes, a no brainer! Couldn't be happier I think I'm wearing 3D glasses sometimes!
Best to all! Steve

Collapse -
LCD burn-in and lag/ghosting...
by justhelping / February 4, 2007 2:40 AM PST

I seem to recall reading that one of the big screen manufacturers is dropping plasma production altogether this year or next and focusing on LCD production. One reason is that they're just not selling like LCD's. Just a guess but I'll bet that many of those plasmas at Best Buy are sitting collecting too much dust and the clerks have been told to try and get them gone.
As for burn-in with LCD, that's a new one to me as well. The clerk was either dumb or telling a lie to make a sale. That's never happened to anyone before has it!
Someone else here posted that new plasmas have a so-called anti burn-in using random burning method. Doesn't sound like a good thing does it?
As for ghosting and lag. I bought a smaller LCD tele from Costco less than two years ago with a 16ms response time. Yes, there is a ghosting and lag problem. At times it can be quite distracting. It's particularly noticeable around moving dark objects. For example, someones dark nostril when moving makes it look as though they have a slight nosebleed as the red tries to catch up. As someone else here pointed out however none of the newer sets seem to suffer from this as most have 8ms or better response time. My pc monitor here has an 8ms rating and movies on it are fantastic with no noticeable lag or ghosting at all. Wish I had the dough to buy a new large LCD tele.
Hope this made sense.
Good luck

Collapse -
Do your own Research
by Maestro_64 / February 5, 2007 2:15 AM PST

As you probably saw, everyone has miss information and I would not go as far as saying they do not know what they are talking about or they are lying to you. People get pieces of information and then try to connect dots that do not really connect.

Saying an LCD does not have burn depends on the what you mean by that and under what conditions. All Displays/TV/Monitors have some sort of "Burn-in" or residual image that will occur. Burn-in on an LCD for a computer does occur (as someone pointed out) since the image many times does not change much over time. Saying that about a TV LCD is not true since the image usually is changing all the time. Many times your hear about image burn-in on HDTVs because if you display a non-HD image it tends to only fill part of the display and many TVs fill the non-image space with gray or some other non-black color this will cause the burn-in if you leave is like this too long. This has occurred since people bought HDTV and did not have an HD source for their primary viewing.

With that all said this is not a reason not to buy, it can be controlled so it never happens. The old Picture tube TV is the worse for this, followed by plasma, then LCD. The only reason I put LCD last is usually you can reverse the affect. (This based on my own experience of many years of testing LCDs for the Computer industry)

The other issue you brought up and there is lots of different information out there is refreash/response rate. Again someone gave you lots of good information about this. Now you have to ask yourself how will slow refreash affect my viewing experience. Again in general computer use of an LCD this is not much of an issue especially if all you are doing is reading emails. Response rate comes into play when you are watching an image that is changing and how fast that image changes. If all you do is watch soap operas then you would probably never notice a slow response rate, but if you are a NASCAR fan, you probably see the your favorite drivers car blur across the screen.

Too many times people put together punch lists of features and compare the numbers and say faster/more/bigger is better than slower/less/smaller. Many time non of this matters, it is all about your experience. If it works for you and you like how it looks then that is all that matters, because having a feature you never use is not worth what you paid for.

One last thing, most people who sell usually do not understand what they are selling and if throwing out numbers makes a sale than that is all that matters to them. So get all the facts, find someone who can translate the numbers and fact into a real world experience for you, then you decide what you want to pay for.

If you get a person asking you how you use something and what you plan to do with it and other related questions usually the person cares about your experience and will guild you to what you want.

Collapse -
LCD Image Persistence
by NewsyL / February 5, 2007 5:04 AM PST
Collapse -
Plasma Burn-In my experience
by TheViper1 / February 15, 2007 1:49 AM PST
In reply to: LCD Image Persistence

I purchase a PDP-4360HD last August and am now noticing "image retention" or "burn in" of station fixed image logos. Pioneer, this morning, told me that I can't watch a station which displays fixed images for more that two hours. Now, I enjoy watching the news on CNN but can't do that for too long, this is very unreasonable. Being aware of this problem, I regularly change screen format so that the logo is in a different location but it has not helped. I spent a significant amount on this TV and am very upset and angry. My contention is that this technology is inferior and should never have been sold to the consumer. In addition Pioneer will not do the "right thing" and cover this under warranty even though they agree I took all precautions..

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?