September 24th, 2007
Leo & Amber reunite in Vancouver for TV debate
Leo Laporte
We’ll be debating LCD vs Plasma and the Future of Television this Thursday, 27 September, from 11:30a-12:30p at the Future Shop store, 1740 West Broadway in Vancouver. The CBC’s Tod Maffin will be moderating (and keeping us from throwing any punches). FYI - I am on the LCD side of the debate.
There’s very limited seating at the store - it’s first come, first serve - but you can also watch online at FutureShop.ca. Free registration required - limited to the first 1000 registrants.
What do you think? LCD or Plasma?
P.S. I love Kevin Smith and his boring-ass life. We just got word that while I'm in Vancouver Thursday morning, hours before the Future Shop event, I am interviewing Mr. Smith about his new book. The film director is not in Vancouver, but he is in Toronto on Sept. 27th . He's agreed to do our TV chat via web cam, but this time it will be me on the web cam in my hotel room in BC and Kevin in Toronto with the Webnation camera crew (OK, minus Jane Goodall). Not many Hollywood types would be game to do an interview like this, but Mr. Smith is a big-time geek (I mean that in the most flattering way!).
March 14th, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (21)
Posted by: SteveintheUK | around 10 months ago
Hi Amber First off, glad your getting to meet Leo face-2-face again, just hope it doesn't turn into a fist fight, my money would be on you. If you where doing this debate a year ago then Plasma's would have won due to the better spec at the time. ie, higher contrast ratios, being brighter and having a quicker response rate. LCD's at the time only had a contrast of 1,000-1,500 with a 350-500 cd/m^2 and a response rate of 15+m/s. So Plasma's looked a lot better when watching fast moving objects, so Leo and his Plasma's would have won last year. But todays LCD have a contrast ratios and response rate that can not only match plasma screens but can keep up with fast moving objects. The Philips 42PFL7432D 42" has a contrast ratio of 8,000, is very bright at 5,000 cd/m^2 and is really quick at only 5ms. see link for spec at http://wapurl.co.uk/?005C0A3. or the Sharp AQUOS LC-52D62U 52" which has a response rate of only 4ms. see link http://wapurl.co.uk/?XNCNXRR Faster response rates equals less motion blur so giving a crisper image and therefore causing less eye strain, plus with the higher brightness it means you can turn the brightness down in order to extend the sets life span. For some more info and TV specs/reviews have a look at 'PC World.Com' at http://wapurl.co.uk/?F7C9MPZ Anyway, good luck with the debate, when we got my brother a Hi-Def TV about 6 months ago, we started out looking at Plasma's but ended up get a full 1920x1080 HD LCD for half the price of the plasma 1024x768, and the LCD had a smoother picture even when both where set to 720p. Have fun in Vancouver, LCD's rock, or at least until DLP's get cheaper
Posted by: SteveintheUK | around 10 months ago
Oh forgot to say, the slow response rate of the Apple range of LCD's, which are all 14ms, is why I prefer Dell monitors, which are between 5-8ms. So are a lot better for video editing. Sorry for the long comments but hope it is of help.
Posted by: Mike K. | around 10 months ago
Woohoo! That Futureshop isn't too far from our shiny new Vancouver apartment. My wife and I moved from Ontario to BC a few years ago just as CommandN was starting up and never made it to any of the meetups. Can't see why we couldn't make it out to this event.
Posted by: Mike K. | around 10 months ago
Whoops. Too fast with that Post button. Forgot to answer the question: With improvements in brightness and response time, plus the general lower cost than plasma, LCDs are the way to go.
Posted by: Tyson Williams | around 10 months ago
LCD is much better technology in my opinion.
Posted by: Toronto | around 10 months ago
I miss the show in Toronto!
Posted by: Alex | around 10 months ago
I really don't think response times seem to matter once below the threshold of 14ms. The human eye can detect motion up to about 60-70Hz, which tops out at a little more than 14ms. Anything below that is non-detectable, so why does it matter when viewing in real time (exceptions for high speed photography and editing)? I think the most important aspect is price, because the quality is about equal these days. LCD would be the way to go in my book. They're lighter in weight, give off less heat, and use a lot less electricity.
Posted by: SteveintheUK | around 10 months ago
@Alex It's true that the human eye can't detect motion below 14ms, but what the manufactures class as 14ms and what is actually 14ms are two different things. Like all things electrical the manufactures do seem to play with the figures a little bit. If you run the same footage a Apple 30" rated at 14ms next to a Dell 30" rated at 8ms in a side by side test you will notices now much slower the Apple is when displaying fast moving objects, especially when showing a close up of a face as the person turns. I used to work in video editing and yes we did try this test. As for price, my local Tesco's has 27 TV screens over 28" for sale and all but 2 are LCD. They had a LG 42" 42LC55 LCD 1366x768res, for £900 and a LG 42" 42PC55 Plasma 1024x768 for £800 running next to each other so the price of Plasma has drop a lot lately, but this may just be LG's. The LCD, although a little grainier then the plasma, was nicely and more relaxing to watch as the Plasma seemed to have trouble keeping up with fast motion. Just out of interest, all the computer monitors on sale there, apart from one, where rated at 6ms or below. One even calmed a response rate of 1.8ms, but this may have been a type O. By the way, why are Plamsa so much heavier then the same size LCD? even thought the case is the same, IE the two 42" LG's
Posted by: Sina Motamedi | around 10 months ago
please please please post it on youtube :)
Posted by: Will Pate | around 10 months ago
Jealous you get to go to Vancouver, and hang with Leo. Give him a high five from me, we'll meet someday :)
Posted by: Hooliosphere | around 10 months ago
Hey Amber, Is that EST or PST?
Posted by: Amber Dawn | around 10 months ago
It is PST :).
Posted by: Alex | around 10 months ago
@SteveintheUK I think there are a couple of factors as to why plasma tvs are heavier than LCDs, namely because plasma itself (the material) is denser than the liquid crystal material. Since plasma takes more energy, it also requires a bigger power supply, which weighs more.
Posted by: Alex | around 10 months ago
@SteveintheUK I think there are a couple of factors as to why plasma tvs are heavier than LCDs, namely because plasma itself (the material) is denser than the liquid crystal material. Since plasma takes more energy, it also requires a bigger power supply, which weighs more.
Posted by: ironmask55 | around 10 months ago
G Chord
Posted by: Casey McKinnon | around 10 months ago
I'm so jealous! I LOVE Kevin Smith! Keep in mind that he loves John Hughes movies and Degrassi... talk about a fun guy to hang out with :)
Posted by: Dave | around 9 months ago
I had to be in classes today while the debate was going on...any way I can catch the footage someplace else? *fingers crossed*
Posted by: Amber Mac | around 9 months ago
Future Shop plans to put out a video, so I will post the link here when it's online ;). -Amber
Posted by: David | around 9 months ago
So... apologies for the threadjack but I see on twit.tv that you guys have stopped N@N. How fierce was the debate? Did you fall out?
Posted by: dalesd | around 9 months ago
I missed this event. Is there video available online somewhere?
Posted by: Philip Roy | around 10 months ago
Amber, just listening to Net at Nite and you say - "I would never waste 3 hours of my life watching an awards show because the best stuff is going to be on the web in 3 minutes the next day" So you and Leo should call it a draw and go off and surf the web!