I recently sold my samsung LCD550(2008 model) because I wanted a slightly larger set. Since then I have been doing a lot of research and have come to the general consensus that most experts and AVS members agree that plasma is superior to Lcd is most cases. That being said I was ready to pull the trigger on a Panasonic G series, I went to best buy to take a look at all of the models and all of the plasmas looked rather dull and flat to me. I have read about store lighting having horrible effects on plasma thus the reason for Lcd's popularity and how all of this changes in home lighting so I took what I saw with a grain of salt. I proceeded to walk towards the back of the store and there were a large number of sets in a much darker room, I was expecting this to show off plasmas true strengths over the LCD's. In the room there was a panasonic g10 side by side with a samsung 650 lcd model, I compared the two for about 30 minutes the Lcd just seemed to have more depth to the picture, this was most obvious when the blu-ray was showing close-ups of faces. Dont get me wrong..the plasma didnt look awful but the lcd just seemed to have so much more depth. Im not eliminating plasmas from my search but made me question everything I read. Am i missing something? Keep in mind this same scenario took place when I looked at plasma/lcs's in the magnolia room.

Thnks for your help/insight

(also can plasmas display pure white? they all looked blueish white?)

"Blue" whites is most likely improper calibration on any display.

larry

I always found plasmas to be dull next to LCDs and wondered why some people thought plasmas to be better than LCDs.

I finally discovered that if you just watched the plasma for a few minutes, rather than switching back and forth, and then went to the LCD, you would discover a more natural cinematic picture on the plasma.

I had some issues with my 2007 LCD so I returned it. Hopefully the new LCDs are improved.

If you like the LED LCD then get that but you might want to check the off axis viewing first. My Sony looked OK at Costco but when I got it home there was pronounced picture degradation when I moved sideways or stood up.

I recently sold my samsung LCD550(2008 model) because I wanted a slightly larger set. Since then I have been doing a lot of research and have come to the general consensus that most experts and AVS members agree that plasma is superior to Lcd is most cases. That being said I was ready to pull the trigger on a Panasonic G series, I went to best buy to take a look at all of the models and all of the plasmas looked rather dull and flat to me. I have read about store lighting having horrible effects on plasma thus the reason for Lcd's popularity and how all of this changes in home lighting so I took what I saw with a grain of salt. I proceeded to walk towards the back of the store and there were a large number of sets in a much darker room, I was expecting this to show off plasmas true strengths over the LCD's. In the room there was a panasonic g10 side by side with a samsung 650 lcd model, I compared the two for about 30 minutes the Lcd just seemed to have more depth to the picture, this was most obvious when the blu-ray was showing close-ups of faces. Dont get me wrong..the plasma didnt look awful but the lcd just seemed to have so much more depth. Im not eliminating plasmas from my search but made me question everything I read. Am i missing something? Keep in mind this same scenario took place when I looked at plasma/lcs's in the magnolia room.

Thnks for your help/insight

(also can plasmas display pure white? they all looked blueish white?)

You haven't seen properly calibrated displays. Viewing at 'a store' is difficult to do unless you know they have been calibrated, or at least know reference settings you can adjust yourself.

I have found that an in-store demo of any piece of AV equipment in any environment can catch your eye\ear. The question is whether you can live with it after a week or so? You have to go through the "Honeymoon" stage.

Since plasmas emit light, the black levels look better than LCDs since the LCD backlgiht is on all the time. In a darker room, plasma look best. However, plasma have much more interal reflections so the brighter the room, the garbage white light of the reflection gets added to the black level of the plasma, which lowers contrast. This is why contrast is always rated in a darkroom environment. They will not look as good as an LCD in an area where there is increased reflected loss.

Also, to "minimize" or eliminate burn-in, the plasma mfgs have turned down the intensity of white. THis is why plasma's white level looks dingy.

Still plasmas have a perfect viewing cone and a softer look to them. Also, LCDs are still primarily sold with fluorescent tubes and who like stareing at fluorescent lighting.

Also, to "minimize" or eliminate burn-in, the plasma mfgs have turned down the intensity of white. THis is why plasma's white level looks dingy. Plasma displays have an aggressive brightness limiter and this is why full screen whites may look dim in context to an LCD.

Burn-in prevention has nothing to do with it. In fact an ABL can enhance burn-in by maxing
the peak brightness at low APL.

Excuse me???? When you use a phosphor, it gives off less light. A white screen is using all the pixels. If you turn up the white level's brightness, they will have a phosphor aging effect, because a phosphor, as it settles (this is why there is/was a break-in period), will produce less light. It is not a plasma "thing". It is physics as it pertains to all emmissive display technologies, including CRT, OLED, plasma, EL (electroluminscent) and vacuum fluorescence. I understand how a "brightness limiter" is used to slow down phosphor aging.

So educate me; why would plasma manufacturer down the brightness of the display if it weren't to slow down or prevent burn-in. Is it so they look bad and don't sell?

Lastly, your last statement has really stumped me. "ABL can enhance burn-in by maxing
the peak brightness at low APL".... Aggressive "brightness limiting" increases burn in at peak (I am assuming high brightness) at "low APL"???? HUH????? Please explain to me, cuz I don't get what you mean.

I understand how a "brightness limiter" is used to slow down phosphor aging. Power on demand displays (any display that generates light in an array) have the opportunity to use an automatic brightness limiter to primarily reduce power consumption. Secondary to that the ABL stabalizes average brightness which is beneficial in the home theater setting to reduce eye fatigue (see link below).

Eye fatigue and display brightness (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15912474#post15912474)

So educate me; why would plasma manufacturer down the brightness of the display if it weren't to slow down or prevent burn-in. Is it so they look bad and don't sell?In the case of Plasma the primary reason of course is to conserve power and limit heat output (see link below pp 16-20).

Display Power Characteristics (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/tv_vcr/Presentation_2_Challenges.pdf)

Lastly, your last statement has really stumped me. "ABL can enhance burn-in by maxing
the peak brightness at low APL".... Aggressive "brightness limiting" increases burn in at peak (I am assuming high brightness) at "low APL"???? HUH????? Please explain to me, cuz I don't get what you mean.ABL enables high peak brightness at low APL as very little power is required to do so. Burn probability will be highest at low APL and high peak brightness as contrast will also be highest.

So educate me; why would plasma manufacturer down the brightness of the display if it weren't to slow down or prevent burn-in. Is it so they look bad and don't sell?


So that you don't melt the power supply and destroy the TV.

It has nothing at all to do with burn-in prevention.