I'm going to buy a new HDTV in the next months, and I was initially oriented to Plasmas, as they have a better color reproduction than LCD, especially with dark colors.

But I recently read about the new LED lcds, that seem to have finally obtained a good color range (like the Samsung LE40M91).

My question is then: are the colors better in Plasma TV o LED lcd TV?

Thanks in advance.

Plasma is still top dog, LCD is close to color reproduction, but not to the level of Plasmas.

Plasma is still top dog, LCD is close to color reproduction, but not to the level of Plasmas.
I think you may need to go review the Color Gamut of the new 40" Samsung LED LCD - i don't think a plasma even approaches it's numbers - perhaps an Elite may?

September 6, 2006 Samsung used the backdrop of the IFA show to announced a 40" LCD TV with high powered LED Backlight technology. The new technology has already received the prestigious "Innovation Award" from the EISA (European Image and Sound Association) for its superb features including LED light source,

146% wide colour gamut and industry leading contrast ratio (10,000:1). The new 40" with LED light source realises far richer colour reproduction.

http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/images/l_led_full_tvs.jpg

Don't wider than normal color gamuts not matter until there is a format that supports them? For example, I thought setting the color gamut to "wide" on the XBR2s and XBR3s distorted the image because cable, dvd, hddvd, and br don't support wider than the ntsc standards.

LEDs have far superior color purity than any phosphor; they are almost perfectly monochromatic due to quantum emission. Phosphor-based technologies are CRT direct view, CRT rear projection, plasma, and SED.

The image below is excerpted from p.3 of an interesting paper (http://www.necdisplay.com/corpus/S/6/LCD2180WG-LEDTechPaper_121605.pdf) (PDF) by NEC on their LED-backlit LCD2180WG LCD:

http://isochroma.com/Testfiles/Misc/AVS/LOaCG.800x530.png

Comparing CCFL to phosphor output spectra, we next turn to Colorimetric Characterization of Three Computer Displays (LCD and CRT) (http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/research/PDFs/GibsonFairchild.pdf#search=%22Colorimetric%20Characterizatio n%20of%20Three%20Computer%20Displays%22) (PDF). This valuable paper is one of the only (online) to provide graphic phosphor spectra; the main subject is a comparison of the various characteristics of three displays: an SGI 1600SW LCD, IBM 'prototype' LCD and a Sony GDM-F500 CRT.

Remember, the following graphs are normalized spectra, so look only at the dark dotted line, not the solid, light dotted or light dashed lines.

First, let's look at the red channel:

http://isochroma.com/Testfiles/Misc/AVS/GDM-F500-Red.png

Sony GDM-F500 CRT Red Emission Spectrum

http://isochroma.com/Testfiles/Misc/AVS/SGI-1600SW-Red.png

SGI-1600SW LCD Red Emission Spectrum

Both CRT and CCFL emitters do well with good purity. The CCFL emitter is slightly orange compared to phosphor. Phosphor wastes energy with a spurious emission band in the near-infrared.

On to green:

http://isochroma.com/Testfiles/Misc/AVS/GDM-F500-Green.png

Sony GDM-F500 CRT Green Emission Spectrum

http://isochroma.com/Testfiles/Misc/AVS/SGI-1600SW-Green.png

SGI-1600SW LCD Green Emission Spectrum

This is where phosphor and CCFL emitters part company. The phosphor emitter shows characteristic awful purity, with a huge hill-shaped emission band whose peak is centered on 'green'. The visible yellow-greenish color of CRT phosphor is due to the slowly-decaying slope to the right, persisting long into the yellow and even including some orange. In contrast, the CCFL emitter maintains a consistently narrow output.

Finally, the blue:

http://isochroma.com/Testfiles/Misc/AVS/GDM-F500-Blue.png

Sony GDM-F500 CRT Blue Emission Spectrum

http://isochroma.com/Testfiles/Misc/AVS/SGI-1600SW-Blue.png

SGI-1600SW LCD Blue Emission Spectrum

Again the CRT blue is a disaster, only slightly less than its green. CCFL blue has significant broadband emissions in the blue-aqua region, with a sharp band in the aqua. Of the three primaries, CCFL phosphor's color purity is worst for blue, and very good for red and green.

Comparing CRT to CCFL emission spectra, the CRT loses worst in green, not so badly in blue, and produces a significantly deeper and also purer red than CCFL.

Both plasma and Cold Cathode Flurorescent LCD backlights use UV (ultraviolet) excited phosphors to produce light. It might be expected that plasma will have similar output spectra and purity to CCFL, but then again the formulations may be different.

Finally, comparing LED to CRT and CCFL phosphor spectra, LED clearly wins.

Spectral purity is achieved by making the three primary emission lines as narrow as possible, and locating them in the correct three frequencies. This allows colors to be as pure and saturated as possible. So red should have an infinitely thin line between 650-670nm (user preference), green at 550nm and blue at 425-440nm.

...oriented to Plasmas, as they have a better color reproduction than LCD, especially with dark colors...

Coming from a high end CRT, it's appalling what's suppose to pass for a good contrast ratio these days in flat panel tech. Or good dark scene reproduction, in LCD anyway...

I'd guess Plasma still for overall PQ vs. LCD...

Also LCOS is certainly worth checking out, if rear projection is an option...

146% wide colour gamut and industry leading contrast ratio (10,000:1). The new 40" with LED light source realises far richer colour reproduction[/I].[/INDENT]


I thought I read that these statistics on color gamut were comparing the 146% to an old standard that isn't used anymore? Anyone?

Justin

Coming from a high end CRT, it's appalling what's suppose to pass for a good contrast ratio these days in flat panel tech. Or good dark scene reproduction, in LCD anyway...

I'd guess Plasma still for overall PQ vs. LCD...

...

I suppose you are correct but the gap is fairly narrow.

"Contrast ratio is the most important aspect of screen quality, according to research by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. Although plasma can produce more contrast than LCD, it does not always do so. Sony's LCD showed better contrast than a 42-inch Hitachi 42HDS69 plasma in the lab. And a plasma's contrast advantage fades away - literally - in bright rooms, where the ambient light overpowers dark tones.

After contrast, color saturation and accuracy are the next most important quality factors. Though plasma panels used to beat LCDs on these measures, the technologies are now about equal." http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/13/business/ptbasic14.php

"I suppose you are correct but the gap is fairly narrow...."

Actually, it's huge. A CRT's contrast ratio (GDM-F520) has been measured as high as 15,000:1. I think the highest LCD I've heard of is 2000:1.

This press release is in line with what I've seen elsewhere:

http://www.digitimes.com/print/a20060928A6032.html

(Referring to real, on/off, contrast, not the "dynamic contrast ratio" that some advertise.)

It was a big deal when the Sony Bravia sets came out, featuring an improved contrast ratio of 1300 to 1 or thereabouts. And it was a noticeable improvement. But what a small fish tank we've been forced to swim in these last few years...

(To their credit, I think Sony tried to keep selling CRTs...)

I totally agree with you. My comment was meant to address the contrast ratio between plasma and LCDs. "I'd guess Plasma still for overall PQ vs. LCD..." If you reread my post you should see that it discusses plasma and LCD. Sorry for the confusion.

"I suppose you are correct but the gap is fairly narrow...."

Actually, it's huge. A CRT's contrast ratio (GDM-F520) has been measured as high as 15,000:1. I think the highest LCD I've heard of is 2000:1.


Well, the new LED-LCDs from Samsung and JVC have 10K:1 and 12K:1 contrast ratios respectively, so that gap is shrinking fast.

I totally agree with you. My comment was meant to address the contrast ratio between plasma and LCDs. "I'd guess Plasma still for overall PQ vs. LCD..." If you reread my post you should see that it discusses plasma and LCD. Sorry for the confusion.

Oh...well, yes, I guess that has become a tighter race... :)

(I think some plasma manufacturers have made some strides in the contrast department. Panasonic maybe...something about more effectively being able to prevent light bleed through between adjacent cells...)

The contrast ratios those companies are giving you are total BS. Real world contrast ratios are never given in those salesmen contrast numbers.

A "3000" contrast plasma will out perform a 10,000 contrast on many occasion.

Also those contrast numbers are usually a Dynamic measurement. Full on/off isn't as useful as an ANSI contrast ratio... which is a much more accurate representation of what you're seeing on screen.

Well, the new LED-LCDs from Samsung and JVC have 10K:1 and 12K:1 contrast ratios respectively, so that gap is shrinking fast.

You're referring to dynamic contrast ratio? (I was referring to real, on/off, contrast ratio, where the gap remains a depressing chasm...)

...Full on/off isn't as useful as an ANSI contrast ratio...

I think many would say the opposite. LCD is actually superior to CRT in an ANSI test pattern, because of a CRT's internal reflections. It's the on/off or limited overall range where LCD struggles and that makes a huge difference...

(Maybe because so much of programming involves darker scenes and such, where flat panel tech shows its weaknesses. But then you show a bright scene where the flat panel is most likely to shine, but the CRT still looks great too, even with the weaker ANSI contrast...)

I'd put my 3 year-old CRT against most LCD's.

I haven't kept up with the recent improvements to Plasma sets. What are the major drawbacks to a Plasma set? I have heard the sets don't last near as long as LCD's or CRT's. I might be looking for a bigger model a year from now.

I think many would say the opposite. LCD is actually superior to CRT in an ANSI test pattern, because of a CRT's internal reflections. It's the on/off or limited overall range where LCD struggles and that makes a huge difference...

(Maybe because so much of programming involves darker scenes and such, where flat panel tech shows its weaknesses. But then you show a bright scene where the flat panel is most likely to shine, but the CRT still looks great too, even with the weaker ANSI contrast...)

True that ANSI contrast is only one measurement of contrast of course. But I am just saying contrast ratios that are measured with both light and dark are more accurate... from flat panel to flat panel mostly.

We all know CRTs have a contrast ratio that is unbeatable in the dark.

You're referring to dynamic contrast ratio? (I was referring to real, on/off, contrast ratio, where the gap remains a depressing chasm...)

Probably. So you mean that when I see 10K:1 on LCD it is different than 10K:1 on plasma? I'm confused.

Probably. So you mean that when I see 10K:1 on LCD it is different than 10K:1 on plasma? I'm confused.

I believe in the case of LCD, "dynamic contrast" refers to dynamic adjustment of the backlight, but there's only so much one can do with that approach...

Plasma 10K:1? Is that the real deal based on improvements Panasonic made in achieving a better black or what have you...I'm not sure....

I'd put my 3 year-old CRT against most LCD's.

I haven't kept up with the recent improvements to Plasma sets. What are the major drawbacks to a Plasma set? I have heard the sets don't last near as long as LCD's or CRT's. I might be looking for a bigger model a year from now.

You could put your CRT up against most plasma and LCD for SD and black level display.

Although there are many many many plasma vs lcd threads on this forum, the truth is that both technologies are maturing and are enjoyed by their respective owners. Plasma owners bash LCDs and LCD owners bash plasmas. Go figure. LOL! Both technologies have pluses and both have minus. Some are actual, some are perceived. Which is better for you really depends upon your viewing habits, environment, bank account, and most importantly your own eyes!

Display 'life' should not be an issue with either plasma or LCDs. Both technologies are claiming 60,000 plus. Of course only time will tell if these numbers hold.

Probably. So you mean that when I see 10K:1 on LCD it is different than 10K:1 on plasma? I'm confused.

A contrast ratio “is a mostly useless statistic, but manufacturers were (and still are) getting so outrageous with their contrast-ratio claims . . . The more useful numbers are the actual black level and light output numbers.” http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/206gear/index.html

Contrast ratio when accurate isn't a useless statistic. Its when manufacturers in an attempt to outspec the compitition start making up their own numbers, that we have problems.

Today it really is a useless spec. Each manufacture wants to outdo the other so they create new ways to measure, new methods of reporting, etc. etc. You can not compare one set with another because you do not always know how that sets numbers were achieved.

"A high contrast ratio is a good thing but alone tells you nothing. A display with a 4,000:1 contrast ratio but with a black level of 0.099 ft-L may not look as good in a dark room as a display with a 3,000:1 contrast ratio but a black level of 0.010 ft-L. " http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/206gear/index.html

"Unfortunately, we've reached the point of ridiculousness. It has no real-world application. (I never watch all white or all black screens, do you?) And it doesn't account for light leakage across the picture or outside the device. Far worse, however, many manufacturers now use electronic tricks to accentuate contrast ratio by forcing “black levels.” But that's where this quest for marketing advantage has really become hurtful to true image quality."

"And there is more to contrast ratio than literally meets the eye at any given instant. But leave it to marketers to rip the subtlety out of any positive concept and hammer away until it is nearly meaningless. Alas, that's what is happening with contrast ratio." http://www.svconline.com/mag/avinstall_corrupted_contrast/

Today it really is a useless spec. Each manufacture wants to outdo the other so they create new ways to measure, new methods of reporting, etc. etc. You can not compare one set with another because you do not always know how that sets numbers were achieved.


True, comparing contrast number specs between manufacturers isn't terribly useful. But we should make sure not to confuse people that "contrast ratio" is a useless metric. As long as it is measured competently and consistently, contrast ratio numbers are revealing of pq performance. (For instance the contrast ratio measurements from some magazines can be quite useful).

Agree

You could put your CRT up against most plasma and LCD for SD and black level display.

Although there are many many many plasma vs lcd threads on this forum, the truth is that both technologies are maturing and are enjoyed by their respective owners. Plasma owners bash LCDs and LCD owners bash plasmas. Go figure. LOL! Both technologies have pluses and both have minus. Some are actual, some are perceived. Which is better for you really depends upon your viewing habits, environment, bank account, and most importantly your own eyes!

Display 'life' should not be an issue with either plasma or LCDs. Both technologies are claiming 60,000 plus. Of course only time will tell if these numbers hold.


Perfectly Stated!!!!! It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Contrast ratio’s and black levels are not directly related.
A very bright display can have a good contrast ratio but poor black level, where as a display with great black level, that is not very bright, can have a relatively poor contrast ratio.
Black level is THE most important spec, and it is never quoted.

Contrast ratio’s and black levels are not directly related.
A very bright display can have a good contrast ratio but poor black level, where as a display with great black level, that is not very bright, can have a relatively poor contrast ratio.
Black level is THE most important spec, and it is never quoted.

I believe that you made conflicting statements. First, you wrote that contrast ratios and black levels are not directly related. Then, in your following statement you identified a direct relationship between contrast ratios and black levels. "A very bright display can have a good contrast ratio but poor black level, where as a display with great black level, that is not very bright, can have a relatively poor contrast ratio."

The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers disagree with your statement on black levels and identify contrast as the MOST important aspect of screen quality. After contrast, color saturation and accuracy are the next most important quality factors. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/13/business/ptbasic14.php

Black level specs are seldom "quoted" because they are not the most important aspect to picture quality.

BTW I am not speaking about a vendor's reported contrast levels - not sure I believe those - but the actual level you experience when viewing.

Nmlogo,

I think he's talking about absolute blacks. With a bright set, you can have a good contrast ratio but absolute black can still be too light.

The Society's statement about contrast is correct presuming that you also factor in their peak brightness specification. When you do that, then a good contrast ratio would also have good blacks.

At least with regard to computer monitor reviews, sites such as ExtremeTech list black levels in their results. Definitely, one heck of a differentiator if one can get the data...

Just a guess but it could be that computer monitors are designed primarily for viewing text, graphics editing, etc. while TV sets are designed for motion pitctures. So a site that evaluates computer monitors would have different standards than motion picture and television engineers.

I think Tom's hardware also quotes black levels when evaluating TV's.

Anyhow, are you seriously saying "black level" isn't important? Certainly if one can control the ambient light, it is absolutely crucial to getting the best PQ, especially for video...

(And I think those motion picture and television engineers still have plenty of CRTs where black is not a problem. Unfortunately, the consumer is not in such a nice position and needs the best data available to get the best he can of what's out there...)

. . . Anyhow, are you seriously saying "black level" isn't important? Certainly if one can control the ambient light, it is absolutely crucial to getting the best PQ, especially for video...

(And I think those motion picture and television engineers still have plenty of CRTs where black is not a problem. Unfortunately, the consumer is not in such a nice position and needs the best data available to get the best he can of what's out there...)

I am not saying that at all. Remember, black levels are a portion of a contrast ratio. This is from THX: "Settings for contrast (white levels) and brightness (black levels) are critical to the proper viewing of a picture on a video monitor or television. The blacker the blacks and the whiter the whites the better the contrast ratio. If misadjusted, the picture looks too washed out or bright objects smear or bloom. The best balance is achieved by careful analysis of your monitor's performance by providing controlled signals representing the "whitest white" and "blackest black". http://www.thx.com/mod/products/dvd/contrast.html

Here is another article that was published in Nov 05 in Display Watch : "Black level is very important for low ambient light and not very important for high ambient light. Brightness and black level determine the contrast ratio. " http://www.forthdd.com/LCOS.pdf

I don't believe the Motion Picture and Television Engineer group was talking about any specific technology. These are the folks that make, display, broadcast these films. They are making a statement as to how they believe 'their work' should be viewed. They also were not talking about the hyped contrast ratios provided by manufacturers. It really is the differences between the blacks and whites that make a picture 'snap'.

Well, black levels should be a portion of the contrast ratio. But it's ultimately just the range between the brightest white and the darkest "black" that a set can produce. And unfortunately, today's sets, particularly LCDs, don't necessarily include any real black in that calculation at all.

In a bright room, this may not matter so much, as you say...

(Some manufacturers' tendency to have extremely bright sets to stand out in the showroom, can be a problem when folks bring the things back home to their bedroom. That being an example of where having an actual minimum black measurement available would be very useful.)

Here is a quote from an article that you may find interesting. “LCD TV manufacturers have made great improvements in black levels and in many cases have managed to match the contrast ratio of plasma displays. However, Plasma displays still maintain a clear advantage in this category due to fading blacks when viewing LCDs from off axis.” http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv-plasmavslcd.shtml

I think SED will put at end to all of these issues. SED will produce ''deep outerspace blacks" and still have contrast ratio that as we all know is going destroy everything. Stuff like LED lcd's is pretty sounds like oversaturated colors and poor blacks, the same old story in the current digital display world.

As for the importance of black level, I quote again, Dr. Raymond Soneira:

"Black-level should be the single most important spec after screen size if you’re working in multimedia, imaging, photography, home theater, or in any environment with controlled or subdued lighting"

Does an entire society outrank one PHD? In my mind they do.

The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers identify contrast as the MOST important aspect of screen quality. After contrast, color saturation and accuracy are the next most important quality factors.

Black levels are 'normally' computed in a dark/dim environment and change as the environment changes- more light introduced. My family doesn't watch TV in a dark room. I don't want to have to adjust my viewing habits for a set......the set should adjust to mine.

When I buy a set I look at black, white, color, tint etc. etc. Getting hung up on one piece of the puzzle could lead you down the road of dissatisfaction.

I am sure every person 'here' could find an expert to support their postion(s).

As I wrote earlier, I do not believe all the numbers posted by marketing types. I don't believe 'experts' paid by a particular tecnology. Our 'experts' have presented their opinion. But the ONLY opinion that really matters that of the VIEWER - you and me. Are you happy with your set? Great!! I'm happy with mine. This should be all that matters.

I think you may need to go review the Color Gamut of the new 40" Samsung LED LCD - i don't think a plasma even approaches it's numbers - perhaps an Elite may?

September 6, 2006 Samsung used the backdrop of the IFA show to announced a 40" LCD TV with high powered LED Backlight technology. The new technology has already received the prestigious "Innovation Award" from the EISA (European Image and Sound Association) for its superb features including LED light source,

146% wide colour gamut and industry leading contrast ratio (10,000:1). The new 40" with LED light source realises far richer colour reproduction.
When will see this TV?
What other sizes will be available?

One side effect of raising contrast ratios, assuming a digital 8-bit input, is banding. This is not the requantization banding, or Panasonic sharpener banding, but unavoidable 256-level banding.

Digital video (at least the stuff on DVDs, and anything played back through a HTPC), is decoded to 8-bit RGB, which means only 256 levels per channel. In contrast, CD audio is 16bpc, which means 65,536 levels.

When those levels are stretched over a wider contrast range, the delineations between them become increasingly apparent. Future high-contrast displays will require a higher bit-depth source to avoid obvious contouring, or dithering (which will introduce spacial or temporal noise, depending on implementation).

The only ideal solution is deep color, EXR and other HDR formats, adapted to video. I am currently in the process of researching the state of this art, and will build a thread for this fascinating topic in the near future.

Does an entire society outrank one PHD? In my mind they do.

The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers identify contrast as the MOST important aspect of screen quality. After contrast, color saturation and accuracy are the next most important quality factors.

Black levels are 'normally' computed in a dark/dim environment and change as the environment changes- more light introduced. My family doesn't watch TV in a dark room. I don't want to have to adjust my viewing habits for a set......the set should adjust to mine.

When I buy a set I look at black, white, color, tint etc. etc. Getting hung up on one piece of the puzzle could lead you down the road of dissatisfaction.

I am sure every person 'here' could find an expert to support their postion(s).

As I wrote earlier, I do not believe all the numbers posted by marketing types. I don't believe 'experts' paid by a particular tecnology. Our 'experts' have presented their opinion. But the ONLY opinion that really matters that of the VIEWER - you and me. Are you happy with your set? Great!! I'm happy with mine. This should be all that matters.

I have an old DLP with a crummy black level. But it's still quite gorgeous with brighter scenes and it's big and wide and it's paid for. The black level thing still sucks though and it's kind of silly to pretend otherwise. But do I still overall like the TV -- yes. (I also have a wonderful GDM-FW900 CRT in the bedroom, but it's small...)

Someone shopping today though should factor in the black level as a major differentiator between competing sets -- because it is. (And even a room brilliantly lit in the day will still be darker at night.)

BTW: those Panasonic plasmas' advertising 10K:1 contrast ratio. I'd definitely be searching the rest of this site, Google, etc., and checking that out...(I don't know if that rating is real or some trick...)

Below are some quotes from http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/contrast-ratio.html . Although the article is written for projection systems many of their comments apply to flat panels as well.

An imaging device ability to display subtle detail arises out of its ability to display various levels of gray i.e. its gray-scale performance rather than out of a higher contrast ratio.

a higher contrast ratio implies a device has greater ability to display black as 'black' instead of dark gray.

To better understand the impact of the presence of light in a room on the contrast ratio performance of an imaging device, it is sufficient to realize that with the light emitted by just one candle in a room - that's just one LUX - there would not be any difference between a 500:1 and a 5000 or even a 10,000:1 contrast ratio!

Increase the level of light in the room to just 30 LUX - that's equivalent to a dimly lit room - and contrast ratio figures above 50:1 would turn out to be simply academic

It is therefore clear that unless you watch your moves in a completely darkened environment, it would be useless to stress too much and pay more for a device with a higher contrast ratio!

Do not get carried away with big contrast numbers - the eye dynamic response is the limiting factor.

When will see this TV?
What other sizes will be available?
It's in Europe and should be here soon - is 100Hz to match the Euro standard better but I would guess it may be 120Hz when it gets US release.

Does anyone doubt as 2007 arrives and SED is on the horizon that Sharp will fail to migrate it's one million to one CR Media Panel Technology which has been around for at least a year - I would expect to see everyone bumping up CR as SED draws nearer late next year.

http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/PressRelease.asp?seq=20060901_0000284318#

http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/images/l_led_full_tvs.jpg

Below are some quotes from http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/contrast-ratio.html . Although the article is written for projection systems many of their comments apply to flat panels as well.

An imaging device ability to display subtle detail arises out of its ability to display various levels of gray i.e. its gray-scale performance rather than out of a higher contrast ratio.

a higher contrast ratio implies a device has greater ability to display black as 'black' instead of dark gray.

To better understand the impact of the presence of light in a room on the contrast ratio performance of an imaging device, it is sufficient to realize that with the light emitted by just one candle in a room - that's just one LUX - there would not be any difference between a 500:1 and a 5000 or even a 10,000:1 contrast ratio!

Increase the level of light in the room to just 30 LUX - that's equivalent to a dimly lit room - and contrast ratio figures above 50:1 would turn out to be simply academic

It is therefore clear that unless you watch your moves in a completely darkened environment, it would be useless to stress too much and pay more for a device with a higher contrast ratio!

Do not get carried away with big contrast numbers - the eye dynamic response is the limiting factor.

Some of that article you referenced is definitely an opinion piece, however, from that article: "...Similarly, this applies also to direct-view systems such as plasmas and LCD TVs - most often, black is nothing more than dark gray!"

I agree and that's why in my opinion they're crummy that way. And I'm not being theoretical, from the two sets I've mentioned, plus a nice LCD set I also had, plus the many sets I've seen in the store, that's my personal experience of flat panels. But flat panels have gotten better, and some are much better than others. Hence, in making a choice on a new set between LCD and plasma and among the various models of each -- how close a set can get to true black, would be a factor at the top of my list.

Now, I admit, to some black level is not a big deal. A lot of people even have their wonderfully black capable CRTs showing more of a gray than a black. But it's huge to me and to many (most?) who post on these boards. That's one reason there's a lot of hope placed on next gen tech like SED, OLED, why some of us are still very fond of CRT, etc...

(As to that article's comments on ambient light -- way overstated. There are things such as anti-glare coatings, positioning lights that don't shine directly on the screen and such that can be done...)

i think if you were to actually put yourself in a room with the best LCD,plasma, and projection tv of your choice you would actually see how big a role the black level plays in the making a choice on the tv you like.

i mean you without an outline there's no art, you wouldn' t use a white pencil to write on your white sheet of paper would you? the outline gives you your details and what better shade to use to represent your outline other than black.

you said when it all boils down to it it's the human eye that make the call, yet your response has been over all other peoples quote's and thoughts " what about yours?" you also stated that people who owned lcd's diss plasma and people who owed plasma's diss lcd, so maybe its the same for the people who quote you use as a arguement.

all i'm saying is black levels are the key to detail also and most people i sale a tv to seems to agree. circuitcity.....ENT..... visit it someday

I will give you a break since you are a newbe but why did you respond to an old thread when there are at least two current threads related to this topic? You should look through current posts before replying to one that is five months old. Read this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=418113 and this one: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=814530 These should give you a starting point.

Actually, it is contrast ratio that is the most important attribute of a good display. Black level is an oxymoron, there is only one level of black - zero luminance. The problem with reported CRs is that they are computed in an unrealistic environment and people try to use them to compare one set/technology with another.

"Back level" is important but only if there is proper gray scale tracking. It is a proper gray scale tracking that allows you to see detail.

Looking at sets, side by side, in a show room 'may' provide a clue but unless each is properly adjusted/calibrated and displaying identical scenes all this viewing would provide would be 'gee whiz'. You need to see a set in your home before you can make an accurate assessment.

I have a 42" Panny 720p plasma that is about 5 years old -- and I love it.

Now I'm looking to buy a new 1080p flat panel tv, 50" or larger -- and I can see that LCD's have come a long way in the last several years. But I'm not sure that LCD's have yet reached the "3D" viewing experience that the best plasmas offer.

The specs (contrast ratio, etc.) are important, but I'm more interested in *real world viewing impression*. What are the differences, pros and cons of plasma vs. LCD that you folks notice, enjoy or find irritating on a day to day basis?

Thanks,
TMG

But I'm not sure that LCD's have yet reached the "3D" viewing experience that the best plasmas offer.
The specs (contrast ratio, etc.) are important, but I'm more interested in *real world viewing impression*. What are the differences, pros and cons of plasma vs. LCD that you folks notice, enjoy or find irritating on a day to day basis?


If your aim is to entice such a debate having in mind buying a new set, its better to postpone it to Q4 this year when the crop of LCDs with significantly improved tech will be released. They may offer qualitative jump in LCD PQ - but this still remains to be seen and proved.

I have a 42" Panny 720p plasma that is about 5 years old




This thread is nearly as old as your panny....

Luckily it hasn't suffered burn-in, but it may have caused some on innumerable CRT monitors, as well as unfortunate retinas.

This thread should have been left to die...

When I buy a set I look at black, white, color, tint etc. etc. Getting hung up on one piece of the puzzle could lead you down the road of dissatisfaction

No TV set in the world offers all of these picture quality in their finest form. Not even the elite kuro.

thanks for sharing to us. Very helpful...:):)

Plasmas contrast ratio is up to 100,000:1
10,000:1 with the Samsung led is not even close.
Check out LG..

Contrast Ratio = White + reflection divided by Black + reflection

500 nits divided by .005 nits = 100,000:1 CR
Now, turns the lights on in the room and do the math.

I'm going to buy a new HDTV in the next months, and I was initially oriented to Plasmas, as they have a better color reproduction than LCD, especially with dark colors.

But I recently read about the new LED lcds, that seem to have finally obtained a good color range (like the Samsung LE40M91).

My question is then: are the colors better in Plasma TV o LED lcd TV?

Thanks in advance.

You have to decide what is more pleasing to your eyes. I prefer LED LCD. However, half the people like plasmas. That is like asking what's better a Snickers or Milky Way. Do not trust the specs as there are things that either form of display fails at that might bother you more. Watch several high end sets in both areas and spend some real time with them.

Do not let anyone on this forum tell you you are wrong will whatever you like best.

9/24/06

9/24/06
?

just wait I'm working on a LEDSMA tv that will have pure blacks, whitest whites,perfect motion,100% accurate colors and saturation,zero artifacts,infinite contrast,THX certified sound and video, perfect viewing angles of 180 degrees and it will actually feed power back into the grid
I should have it ready by next week at a projected cost of $199

I think you may need to go review the Color Gamut of the new 40" Samsung LED LCD - i don't think a plasma even approaches it's numbers - perhaps an Elite may?

September 6, 2006 Samsung used the backdrop of the IFA show to announced a 40" LCD TV with high powered LED Backlight technology. The new technology has already received the prestigious "Innovation Award" from the EISA (European Image and Sound Association) for its superb features including LED light source,

146% wide colour gamut and industry leading contrast ratio (10,000:1). The new 40" with LED light source realises far richer colour reproduction.

http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/images/l_led_full_tvs.jpg


LCDs have crazy motion blur and 99% of all LCD HDTVs ever made are only HD for STILL photos, and SD for motion since they have less motion resolution than Analog CRT SDTVs. The other thing about LEDs is that unless each individual pixel has leds independent of other LEDs, it will never be as good as a plasma. There will NEVER EVER be an LCD as good as the Pioneer Kuro Elites. Only future SED or OLED as well as Pro 1080P Post Production 24p CRT monitors and SGI CRT 1440P computer monitors can surpass the KURO.

^This is the painful, but obvious truth. I went through many lcds from the top manufacturers before I finally was able to pick up a 5020FD at a great price. I'm sad to see Pioneer take a leave from the business, but it's the only way I was able to afford one.

I'm not saying Kuro is perfect by any means. DSE is slightly bothersome, buzzing is annoying, and Pioneer plasmas do have a higher level of noise at a very close distance than other panels. But the PQ advantage achieved by having near absolute blacks AT THE PIXEL LEVEL is impossible to overestimate. LED lcds do look considerably better than the best CCFL has to offer, but the there is still a performance gap. I agree with the above post in that LED lcds can never surpass Kuro Elites. They may be able to go brighter, but overall contrast in difficult scenes will always be considerably weaker. Kuros also have impecable grayscale, gamma, color, motion resolution, etc...

For that reason I don't think anything will trully pass 9g kuros until a superior technology (OLED probably) comes into its own (I doubt first gen models will be better overall). It seems that most people that really appreciate superior quality displays and pinpoint image accuracy will continue to have this opinion. Perhaps Panasonic could surprise everyone next year with a revolutionary, rather than their typical evolutionary, amount of progress.

just wait I'm working on a LEDSMA tv that will have pure blacks, whitest whites,perfect motion,100% accurate colors and saturation,zero artifacts,infinite contrast,THX certified sound and video, perfect viewing angles of 180 degrees and it will actually feed power back into the grid
I should have it ready by next week at a projected cost of $199

That's waaaaay too expensive! No more than $100 and I'm game!

;)
Benny42

I can't believe this thread is two-and-a-half years old. I didn't think LED LCD's were even on the horizon yet at that point.

With all this talk of how important black levels are but how it's never mentioned, how about some actual measurements for today's edge-lit LED backlit displays vs plasmas? Based on this thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=418113) I see that the Pioneer Kuro Elite 110FD has a black level of .004 foot lamberts, while my 2007 Samsung 71F has a much higher black level of 0.012 foot lamberts.

Are the new LED backlit Samsung's significantly better, after you've disabled dynamic contrast, back tone, and gotten the backlit to stop fluctuating?

FYI, the 110 is last year's model and its black level is noticeably higher than that of the 9G Pioneers, which frequently measure .001ftL.

FYI, the 110 is last year's model and its black level is noticeably higher than that of the 9G Pioneers, which frequently measure .001ftL.
Good to know. Now if only someone had a measurement for the black level of Samsung's 6000/7000 LED backlit series, this thread would finally have an answer after 2-and-a-half years ;)

(I realize it's not going to match or defeat .001 ftL, but I do want to know if highend LCD's have made significant gains in black level or just made their brights brighter)

I can't believe this thread is two-and-a-half years old. I didn't think LED LCD's were even on the horizon yet at that point.

Well, Sony introduced its "Qualia" model in 2005, which featured "Triluminos" LED matrix backlighting - but AFAIK no local dimming.

bye
Benny42

Good to know. Now if only someone had a measurement for the black level of Samsung's 6000/7000 LED backlit series, this thread would finally have an answer after 2-and-a-half years ;)

(I realize it's not going to match or defeat .001 ftL, but I do want to know if highend LCD's have made significant gains in black level or just made their brights brighter)

see here -> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16340891#post16340891

see here -> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16340891#post16340891
Sorry, what am I looking for? He says he has no measurement for the blacks because the room was too bright.

Sorry,

i forgot that. I only looked at the data :(
on his report he deos have a reading of 0.014 ft/L at 0 IRE, but i guess he deosn't consider it 'valid'.

on his report he deos have a reading of 0.014 ft/L at 0 IRE, but i guess he deosn't consider it 'valid'.
I should hope not, considering my 2007 Samsung 71F series has a black level of .012 ft/L.

Here's a good article for the current state of LED LCD, PDP, and dare I say SED...

http://displaydaily.com/2009/04/27/nab-2009-the-season-of-their-discontent/%20-%20thanks%20Daan

Indeed, I had numerous impromptu conversations with colorists, editors, and chief engineers who expressed more resignation than enthusiasm about purchasing LCD monitors to replace their venerated, but now "out to pasture" Sony BVM and PVM-series CRT monitors. The consensus was that LCD technology, even equipped with LED backlights, still comes up way short in terms of black levels, viewing angles, and motion blurring.

I was asked on more than one occasion about the chances of Canon’s SED making a comeback, something I would not have bet money on after the Nano Technologies licensing debacle. However, a source within Canon told me at the show that the SED is still very much alive as a pro monitor technology. Indeed, a Canon SED engineer from Japan was quietly making the rounds in the Las Vegas Convention Center to scope out the competition.

The best for last (don't get too upset people):
The lack of an evaluation-grade plasma monitor also provided fodder for discussions. There are numerous facilities that are already purchasing and installing 42-inch and 50-inch industrial plasma monitors for post-production and monitoring applications, most notably Warner Brothers, NBC Universal, and Modern Video.

seriously................you can argue black levels,colors,and contrast all you want but the real deal breaker for me as far as LCD goes is the motion handling,they are just not good at it everything they do to improve it only makes it worse to my eyes

seriously................you can argue black levels,colors,and contrast all you want but the real deal breaker for me as far as LCD goes is the motion handling,they are just not good at it everything they do to improve it only makes it worse to my eyes

Don't forget that there are "deal breakers" for both PDP and LCD, depending upon the individual! :)

After seeing the title of this thread, I'm shocked it's still opened! :)

"I was asked on more than one occasion about the chances of Canon’s SED making a comeback, something I would not have bet money on after the Nano Technologies licensing debacle. However, a source within Canon told me at the show that the SED is still very much alive as a pro monitor technology. Indeed, a Canon SED engineer from Japan was quietly making the rounds in the Las Vegas Convention Center to scope out the competition."


That guy wasn't from Canon, it was auditor55. :D

that guy wasn't from canon, it was auditor55. :d


lol.... :)

Don't wider than normal color gamuts not matter until there is a format that supports them? For example, I thought setting the color gamut to "wide" on the XBR2s and XBR3s distorted the image because cable, dvd, hddvd, and br don't support wider than the ntsc standards.

That's true. Wide Color means nothing now. Buying a TV because of is is like falling victim to Monster's hype of buying an ungodly-expensive cable because of its capability of handling the "bandwidth of tomorrow".

Pointless.

so the Samsung's 6000 LED backlit series is nothing more then a regular lcd just with leds on the edge of the glass rather then normal method for lcd? so then even a pioneer non elite is better without a doubt?

so the Samsung's 6000 LED backlit series is nothing more then a regular lcd just with leds on the edge of the glass rather then normal method for lcd?
Not exactly. For one, they're incredibly thin. Secondly, LED backlighting is supposed to allow for a broader range of contrast, and looking at them in the store that seems to be the case.

Not exactly. For one, they're incredibly thin. Secondly, LED backlighting is supposed to allow for a broader range of contrast, and looking at them in the store that seems to be the case.

Don't fall for the marketing hype. There's no tv on the market that has a "broader range of contrast" than the Pioneer 9gs. LED local dimmed sets are superior in that respect as well.

Indeed, the new Samsung models are pretty to look at, but lets not get ahead of ourselves here...

so then i was right its just a style tv for that much money might as well go with pioneer.

Don't fall for the marketing hype. There's no tv on the market that has a "broader range of contrast" than the Pioneer 9gs. LED local dimmed sets are superior in that respect as well.

Indeed, the new Samsung models are pretty to look at, but lets not get ahead of ourselves here...

Don't fall for the marketing hype. There's no tv on the market that has a "broader range of contrast" than the Pioneer 9gs. LED local dimmed sets are superior in that respect as well.
We were talking about LED-backlit LCDs vs standard LCDs. While the numbers are obviously exaggerated, there has to be something there that allows Samsung to label one of it's televisions as 50,000:1 contrast and another 2,000,000:1 contrast.

We were talking about LED-backlit LCDs vs standard LCDs. While the numbers are obviously exaggerated, there has to be something there that allows Samsung to label one of it's televisions as 50,000:1 contrast and another 2,000,000:1 contrast.LEDs used as a light source for LCD displays, whether edge-lit or backlit, are capable of much wider control than CCFL backlights. LEDs can be dimmed or turned completely off with much greater control. This control is speculated as the source of the high "dynamic" numbers as the backlight can essentially be turned off on 0 APL scenes.

Well, I'm new to the forum and have found this discussion very interesting and informative. I want to get a good HDTV, but I must confess my lack of knowledge about the various formats. From what I've seen though, I do prefer the warmth of plasma pictures. My concern relates to purchasing something that I can reasonably expect about 5-10 years of use out of. Am I dreaming to think a Kuro would provide that?

Any help, or directing to other threads, greatly appreciated!

TIA

A kuro would most definitely hold you 10yrs, in general most tvs can live 60k hrs til half brightness but its usualy the reliable parts that you want to last too. a pioneer will do just that.

fail rates are extreamly low for pioneers then panasonic then last samsung, definitly stick with plasma.

so then i was right its just a style tv for that much money might as well go with pioneer.

Yes, the Pioneer will certainly deliver superior performance for the price (actually, the 9g Elites are the best, regardless of price). That's not to say that the new Samsungs are underperformers, they're definetely no slouches, particularly when compared to a Pioneer-less marketspace. Samsung chose to continue their stylistic approach that began with the touch of color and they certainly have taken it to a different level this year. The edge lit lcd models are undeniably eye catching and slick.

We were talking about LED-backlit LCDs vs standard LCDs. While the numbers are obviously exaggerated, there has to be something there that allows Samsung to label one of it's televisions as 50,000:1 contrast and another 2,000,000:1 contrast.

Well, I was specifically talking about the edge lit models such as the newish luxia line. It's pretty well known that led backlit models that utilize local dimming can fade to complete black when given such a signal (even my old 81F, now nearly 2 generations old, could do this and sported a 500,000:1 contrast ratio). The practical application of local dimming, while still a marked improvement over traditional CCFL backlighting, is less impactful than seeing (or not seeing, I guess?) no light coming from the tv in a dark room. Overall, the contrast ratios that can be reached by these models are impressive. Until recently, they compared favorably with all other models on the market regardless of tech, excluding Pioneer Kuros (which still hold a significant contrast advantage over all competition). Panasonic's latest lineup however, the NeoPDPs, have demonstrated that more than one plasma manufacturer can produce sets with utterly impressive contrast, reclaiming the position of next best. The newer, thinner edge lit models from Samsung still post great numbers, just not quite of the same quality as their higher performing local dimmed cousins.

Well, I'm new to the forum and have found this discussion very interesting and informative. I want to get a good HDTV, but I must confess my lack of knowledge about the various formats. From what I've seen though, I do prefer the warmth of plasma pictures. My concern relates to purchasing something that I can reasonably expect about 5-10 years of use out of. Am I dreaming to think a Kuro would provide that?

Any help, or directing to other threads, greatly appreciated!

TIA

You've definetely come to the right place! You're already on the right track if you are considering picking up a Kuro. I went through a lot of lcds before I eventually got my Pioneer. It's not that I didn't recognize the superior quality of the Kuros, the prices were just too high until recent events in the market transpired. Now that I have one, I am absolutely positive that it was worth every penny that I paid for it. In fact, I was so blown away by just how much better Pioneers are than everything else that I can totally justify paying MSRP for any kuro. They really are of superior quality, and I have no doubt that you will get A LOT of use out of it in the next 5-10 years. I would normally say that you'd be buying a new tv long before it even starts to reach its half-way point, but the kuro is so good that you might not feel the need to purchase anything else...ever again.

I agree 100% i would pay msrp for the kuro as its so amazing good, but also i dont think i will replace my pioneer elite UNTIL something better for same or less cash is out, so thats going to have to be oled...

Gus/Viper. Thanks so much for your inputs. Any ideas how much longer these sets will be available?

(Sorry for the dumb questions--typical noobee stuff I suppose!)

.....fail rates are extreamly low for pioneers then panasonic then last samsung, definitly stick with plasma.

I assume this relates to how much picture quality diminishes (fall rate) over its life? Best, Pioneer, next best Panasonic, then the Samsung?

Thanks, "Grasshopper"

no picture quality is not the reason but rather the reliablity of hardware issues that involve the tv out of comission.

its not the picture but the actual componets that fail rate is best pioneer then panasonic and samsung.

I assume this relates to how much picture quality diminishes (fall rate) over its life? Best, Pioneer, next best Panasonic, then the Samsung?

Thanks, "Grasshopper"

production for pioneers ends this month then its a hit or miss if you find a pioneer tv. if you can get an elite get it

Gus/Viper. Thanks so much for your inputs. Any ideas how much longer these sets will be available?

(Sorry for the dumb questions--typical noobee stuff I suppose!)

You've definetely come to the right place! You're already on the right track if you are considering picking up a Kuro. I went through a lot of lcds before I eventually got my Pioneer. It's not that I didn't recognize the superior quality of the Kuros, the prices were just too high until recent events in the market transpired. Now that I have one, I am absolutely positive that it was worth every penny that I paid for it. In fact, I was so blown away by just how much better Pioneers are than everything else that I can totally justify paying MSRP for any kuro. They really are of superior quality, and I have no doubt that you will get A LOT of use out of it in the next 5-10 years. I would normally say that you'd be buying a new tv long before it even starts to reach its half-way point, but the kuro is so good that you might not feel the need to purchase anything else...ever again.

no picture quality is not the reason but rather the reliablity of hardware issues that involve the tv out of comission.

its not the picture but the actual componets that fail rate is best pioneer then panasonic and samsung.

production for pioneers ends this month then its a hit or miss if you find a pioneer tv. if you can get an elite get it

Many thanks, Gus! Guess I'd better hustle off to the TV store and look for a Pioneer, if none available will check out the Samsung.

Greatly appreciate the tips!

check in with mutiple magnolia or bestbuy stores and the warehouse so they can order one, if not try out forum member sponsers

check in with mutiple magnolia or bestbuy stores and the warehouse so they can order one, if not try out forum member sponsers

Thank you, Gus! Definitely appreciate the kind welcome to the forum and the helpful information.

I'm on some other forums too and I know it can some times be irritating for senior forum members when a "noob" shows up and asks what might be a considered a very searchable question.

I'm trying to ease myself back in to the "audiophile" world (I've got lots of catching up to do after many years of being away from nice stereo gear) and get smart on the various flat panel displays available too.

i've yet to see an lcd that can match the pq of a calibrated lcos sxrd with a properly operating ob, a big qualifier as most owners are painfully aware.
superb pq with better blacks and motion handling than any lcd currently
available. my ob went bad, so i thought i'd better grab something to keep me happy given the high standards to which i've become accustomed.

got a pio kuro 5020 for 2K before they disappearred and it is clearly superior
to the best sxrd. no way any lcd touches this. argue all you want, but
the objective measurements do not lie, not do the opinions of well respected
calibrators.

LCD TV has gained some great strive forward when it comes to improvements in black levels and sometime its head to head with plasma displays. But, the fact remains same; Plasma displays still maintain their main spot.
LCD consumes less power than plasmas, because it utilizes florescent backlighting for image reproduction.
Plasmas give us better performance when it comes to the high transitioning images.
Considering the sizes of both the TVs; LCD screens offers higher resolution than plasma. Accordingly, prices go up for the LCDs.

Hey guys. I'm sorry I'm a newbie but seems like you guys know what you're talking about. I'm trying to decide between the new 55" Vizio 551XVT LED backlit unit due out in a couple months and the 58" samsung plasma at Sams. Model is PN58B540. both are close in price.......My budget is around 2 grand. thanks in advance!

Considering the sizes of both the TVs; LCD screens offers higher resolution than plasma. Accordingly, prices go up for the LCDs.


Huh?

Hey guys. I'm sorry I'm a newbie but seems like you guys know what you're talking about. I'm trying to decide between the new 55" Vizio 551XVT LED backlit unit due out in a couple months and the 58" samsung plasma at Sams. Model is PN58B540. both are close in price.......My budget is around 2 grand. thanks in advance!

I would go with the Samsung. It's the better of the two. You wont have any regrets.;)

Hey guys. I'm sorry I'm a newbie but seems like you guys know what you're talking about. I'm trying to decide between the new 55" Vizio 551XVT LED backlit unit due out in a couple months and the 58" samsung plasma at Sams. Model is PN58B540. both are close in price.......My budget is around 2 grand. thanks in advance!


Samsung all the way. if you are even considering and LED back lit set you need to do some serious reading. And, to be honest, Vizio is nowhere near the same league as Samsung or Panasonic. Again, do some reading.

Plasma still due to superior motion. LED LCD will get "Samsung is the key" there better motion at the end of it's life cycle when OLED is about to come out and in mass. :D

Well, the new LED-LCDs from Samsung and JVC have 10K:1 and 12K:1 contrast ratios respectively, so that gap is shrinking fast.

LCDs = motion blurrrr. No ifs. No buts. No maybes. Too much latency.

LED back lighting on LCDs does not help one iota.

LCD consumes less power than plasmas, because it utilizes florescent backlighting for image reproduction.
Plasmas give us better performance when it comes to the high transitioning images.
Considering the sizes of both the TVs; LCD screens offers higher resolution than plasma. Accordingly, prices go up for the LCDs.
I would like to know what you are smoking.

Non-led LCDs do not consume less power than Plasmas. My 2008 50" Panny plasma uses 200-300W (varies with picture brightness) as measured by me. In night mode, this TV uses <200W. My brother's 2008 Sony LCD actually uses more power, and is a constant power consumer !!

Don't believe the hype.

LCDs have significantly less apparent resolution during motion due to latency. LED back lighting cannot cure this. Such is the nature of LCD.

I would like to know what you are smoking.

Non-led LCDs do not consume less power than Plasmas. My 2008 50" Panny plasma uses 200-300W (varies with picture brightness) as measured by me. In night mode, this TV uses <200W. My brother's 2008 Sony LCD actually uses more power, and is a constant power consumer !!

Don't believe the hype.

LCDs have significantly less apparent resolution during motion due to latency. LED back lighting cannot cure this. Such is the nature of LCD.

well unless your brothers lcd was put in torch mode.the reality is lcds do consume less power for the same given brightness.there are tons of reviews and article that says lcds are more efficient.

newer lcds do offer the same motion resolution as premium plasma,again not all plasma cah show full motion resolution.

newer lcds do offer the same motion resolution as premium plasma,again not all plasma cah show full motion resolution.

The only way an LCD can have equal motion resolution to Plasma is by letting the software add non-existing frames to the content (interpolation).

This may be a flashy trick at first, but soapy motion is not true motion performance. this process adds unwanted artifacts, and removes the film look from movies.

Any TV (plasma or LCD) can implement motion interpolation. But LCD is the only tech that really needs it to measure a high number.

well unless your brothers lcd was put in torch mode.the reality is lcds do consume less power for the same given brightness.there are tons of reviews and article that says lcds are more efficient.

newer lcds do offer the same motion resolution as premium plasma,again not all plasma cah show full motion resolution.

For LCD's, it does not matter whether you are in "torch" mode or "normal" mode as they use constant power. However, for Plasma Displays the power usage will vary considerably between light and dark scenes, or particular modes that crank up the brightness. The difference in power usage between the 2 types of displays is so negligible that it is a moot issue altogether. But this false argument regarding power usage is often used by LCD marketeers & sales people to dupe uninformed buyers like yourself.

ujz you're welcome any more questions let me know.

Thank you, Gus! Definitely appreciate the kind welcome to the forum and the helpful information.

I'm on some other forums too and I know it can some times be irritating for senior forum members when a "noob" shows up and asks what might be a considered a very searchable question.

I'm trying to ease myself back in to the "audiophile" world (I've got lots of catching up to do after many years of being away from nice stereo gear) and get smart on the various flat panel displays available too.

greenwave its simple the samsung panasonic as others have said, not only is the vizio pos but its also an lcd, too easy of a question!.

Hey guys. I'm sorry I'm a newbie but seems like you guys know what you're talking about. I'm trying to decide between the new 55" Vizio 551XVT LED backlit unit due out in a couple months and the 58" samsung plasma at Sams. Model is PN58B540. both are close in price.......My budget is around 2 grand. thanks in advance!


virp lcd has improved true and lcd can still waste more power for example if you watch movies with dark scenes plasma will generate LESS power.
as far as resolution lcd does NOT offer more then plasma if you have 2 flat screens at same size 50" (lcd and plasma) they will both have the same resolution same specs if they are the same numbers like 1080p, Lcd doesn't offer more.

LCD TV has gained some great strive forward when it comes to improvements in black levels and sometime its head to head with plasma displays. But, the fact remains same; Plasma displays still maintain their main spot.
LCD consumes less power than plasmas, because it utilizes florescent backlighting for image reproduction.
Plasmas give us better performance when it comes to the high transitioning images.
Considering the sizes of both the TVs; LCD screens offers higher resolution than plasma. Accordingly, prices go up for the LCDs.

Thank you! lcd doesn't waste more but pepster your panasonic Peaks out at 300 watts but i've never seen one use all that amount I would like to know what you are smoking.

Non-led LCDs do not consume less power than Plasmas. My 2008 50" Panny plasma uses 200-300W (varies with picture brightness) as measured by me. In night mode, this TV uses <200W. My brother's 2008 Sony LCD actually uses more power, and is a constant power consumer !!

Don't believe the hype.

LCDs have significantly less apparent resolution during motion due to latency. LED back lighting cannot cure this. Such is the nature of LCD.

ujz you're welcome any more questions let me know.



greenwave its simple the samsung panasonic as others have said, not only is the vizio pos but its also an lcd, too easy of a question!.




virp lcd has improved true and lcd can still waste more power for example if you watch movies with dark scenes plasma will generate LESS power.
as far as resolution lcd does NOT offer more then plasma if you have 2 flat screens at same size 50" (lcd and plasma) they will both have the same resolution same specs if they are the same numbers like 1080p, Lcd doesn't offer more.



Thank you! lcd doesn't waste more but pepster your panasonic Peaks out at 300 watts but i've never seen one use all that amount

That motion resolution crap is getting old quick. The test itself tests something you cant see in real would video or film watching.

Perhaps there is slight and I mean slight advantage for a plasma in this regard but you better have a keen eye and be looking for it.

You can look for it while while I will still be able to tell you what the movie was about or the score of the current game.

The problem with motion resolution is that when motion gets that fast your eye percieves it as blur anyway. So if you could actually see that resolution it would look unrealistic.

I would like to know what you are smoking.

Non-led LCDs do not consume less power than Plasmas. My 2008 50" Panny plasma uses 200-300W (varies with picture brightness) as measured by me. In night mode, this TV uses <200W. My brother's 2008 Sony LCD actually uses more power, and is a constant power consumer !!

Don't believe the hype.

LCDs have significantly less apparent resolution during motion due to latency. LED back lighting cannot cure this. Such is the nature of LCD.

Ok, I picked up a Kill a Watt meter, and on a simple test... LCD uses less power.

Vizio VO47L FHDTV30A
1080p, 10-bit panel
vs
Panasonic TC-42PX14
720p, 600hz subfield

Using the custom setting on the Panasonic, I set the Contrast to 65 and the Brightness to 61. It sucks between 180 to 225 watts, depending on the content.

On the Vzio, I punched the backlight up to 80, Contrast 58, Brightness 48. It sits at a steady 177 watts. Now, that being said, I usually keep the backlight at 50 or lower. At 50, it only uses 155 watts. If I want to watch a movie in the dark, I'd drop the backlight down to about 10, and I would guess the lcd would probably use about 135 watts.

So, my lcd with 5 extra inches of screen space and 1080p is more energy efficient than a 42" plasma at 720p. Also, keep in mind that a plasma displaying 1080p will use more power than a 720p panel.

BTW, I've viewed much content on these two sets, and the only time I can notice motion blur is on some occasional text scroll. Most broadcast channels these days have changed the way the text scrolls, so that's usually not an issue anymore. It's also highly dependent on the source feed. Playing Rockband 2 on the Wii with a Composite cable, the lyrics blur pretty bad. Changing the cables to Component and the Wii to 480p cleans it up quite a bit. Not perfect but a definite improvement. Now I need to test it on a 360 with hdmi to see how the lyrics do. I've switched back and forth between the Vizio and the Panasonic with different games looking for a difference in blur, and aside form the the lyrics in Rockband, I just haven't found it (or can't perceive it). Long gone are the days of ghosting mouse trails on LCD. Probably when LCDs started dropping to sub 8ms response levels. I think people need to let go of what they've heard and base their opinions on real life experience. New LCDs have made great improvements in performance. Just the same as image retention on Plasmas is not really much of an issue any more, and energy use has improved.

Point being (on the LCD motion issue), if I'm spending all my time trying to see what's near impossible to perceive with the human eye, I'm not enjoying the content.

One final thing. Vizios aren't 'pos'. That's purely subjective and based off someone's perception of quality. They just hit a different price point demo than some people prefer. I, for one, didn't have $1500 to spend on a 47" lcd. I did however, pick the Vizio up at Costco well under $1000. The same size/features from a Samsung or Sony would have cost me another $500+. People are willing to make sacrifices in what their tv can do if they can save a bundle. From a value proposition, I think Vizio offers quite a bit.

Now, if you value the qualities of a Plasma over an LCD, take the 3 extra inches and go for the Samsung, especially if they're the same price point. But if you're dealing with a lot of ambient light in the room, you will see reflections and direct lights will reflect ... directly. I, for one, will be very interested to see how Vizio does with their first LED backlit tv.

well unless your brothers lcd was put in torch mode.the reality is lcds do consume less power for the same given brightness.there are tons of reviews and article that says lcds are more efficient.

newer lcds do offer the same motion resolution as premium plasma,again not all plasma cah show full motion resolution.

The measurement of motion resolution manufacturers put on the box is not a predictor of how well the picture will hold together when fast motion is happening on the screen.

Period.

;16828242']The measurement of motion resolution manufacturers put on the box is not a predictor of how well the picture will hold together when fast motion is happening on the screen.

Period.

well i haven't seen manufactures putting any info on the box about the motion resolution.i am saying measurements done by pro review sites and even they say that human eye can't differentiate b/w a tv that shows around 600 lines to a tv that shows 1080lines of motion resolution.

about power consumption well the fact is lcds still have the edge in power efficiency with tons of reports/test/reviews confirming the same.
unfortunately in here there are lot of plasma fan boys that continue to defend without proof:rolleyes:.

^This is the painful, but obvious truth. I went through many lcds from the top manufacturers before I finally was able to pick up a 5020FD at a great price. I'm sad to see Pioneer take a leave from the business, but it's the only way I was able to afford one.

I'm not saying Kuro is perfect by any means. DSE is slightly bothersome, buzzing is annoying, and Pioneer plasmas do have a higher level of noise at a very close distance than other panels. But the PQ advantage achieved by having near absolute blacks AT THE PIXEL LEVEL is impossible to overestimate. LED lcds do look considerably better than the best CCFL has to offer, but the there is still a performance gap. I agree with the above post in that LED lcds can never surpass Kuro Elites. They may be able to go brighter, but overall contrast in difficult scenes will always be considerably weaker. Kuros also have impecable grayscale, gamma, color, motion resolution, etc...

For that reason I don't think anything will trully pass 9g kuros until a superior technology (OLED probably) comes into its own (I doubt first gen models will be better overall). It seems that most people that really appreciate superior quality displays and pinpoint image accuracy will continue to have this opinion. Perhaps Panasonic could surprise everyone next year with a revolutionary, rather than their typical evolutionary, amount of progress.

IMHO A good CRT is the superior display and can surpass the Kuro in many aspects however never in the oh so important thinness race:D .

Ok, I picked up a Kill a Watt meter, and on a simple test... LCD uses less power.

Vizio VO47L FHDTV30A
1080p, 10-bit panel
vs
Panasonic TC-42PX14
720p, 600hz subfield

Using the custom setting on the Panasonic, I set the Contrast to 65 and the Brightness to 61. It sucks between 180 to 225 watts, depending on the content.

On the Vzio, I punched the backlight up to 80, Contrast 58, Brightness 48. It sits at a steady 177 watts. Now, that being said, I usually keep the backlight at 50 or lower. At 50, it only uses 155 watts. If I want to watch a movie in the dark, I'd drop the backlight down to about 10, and I would guess the lcd would probably use about 135 watts.

So, my lcd with 5 extra inches of screen space and 1080p is more energy efficient than a 42" plasma at 720p. Also, keep in mind that a plasma displaying 1080p will use more power than a 720p panel.


I have a new 50" Panasonic plasma and 3 year old 37" Westinghouse LCD and the LCD gets much hotter than the plasma. Maybe the plasma uses more power, but it must use the power more efficiently.

I've read that the new line of Plasma's from Panasonic and Samsung use much less power than earlier models. The savings in energy costs are negligible between the new plasma's and LCD's.

I find a few things funny here at the forums.

1. People seem to drinking the coolaid on power use. If you buy a 1500+ TV and are worried about the difference of 10 dollars ish a year for power you shouldnt be buying a 1500+ dollar tv.

2. If the heat any of these sets are giving off is to much for you then you have bought a set to big by 2 fold for your room.

Now as far as CRT beating Flat panel. There is important area where the flat panel rules and this area trumps all other probable losses. Size size size. The larges tube HD widescreen set is 34.

Now I love Love Love the darkest blacks you can have. IMO it sets everything else up in line for the set. Proper color shading. shadow details contrast etc etc etc.

However if my choice is 34 or 52 with todays quality on the 50+ inch flat panel technologies LCD included as that is what I have. I will take the FP everytime. 34 inches would require me to sit 3 feeet from the screen to enjoy it.

Hell my PC monitor is 32 inches now lol.

well i haven't seen manufactures putting any info on the box about the motion resolution.i am saying measurements done by pro review sites and even they say that human eye can't differentiate b/w a tv that shows around 600 lines to a tv that shows 1080lines of motion resolution.

about power consumption well the fact is lcds still have the edge in power efficiency with tons of reports/test/reviews confirming the same.
unfortunately in here there are lot of plasma fan boys that continue to defend without proof:rolleyes:.

Samsung and Panasonic put it on their new plasma boxes.

My advice would be to research the best calibration settings of the two sets u are considering, print them out, go to the store have them play a blu-ray movie like batman or transformers with those settings and you will be able to make the best decision that way.,,,plus any sales person who wants to make a commission would not mind,,, Its like choosing speakers if you can't the tell difference from Bose to B&W speakers why spend the extra money.
With that being said, you’re probably going to like the plasma.

My advice would be to research the best calibration settings of the two sets u are considering, print them out, go to the store have them play a blu-ray movie like batman or transformers with those settings and you will be able to make the best decision that way.,,,plus any sales person who wants to make a commission would not mind,,, Its like choosing speakers if you can't the tell difference from Bose to B&W speakers why spend the extra money.
With that being said, you’re probably going to like the plasma.

This is excellent advise.

People who prefer Plasma tend to be those that want to eek out the last bit of detail in dark scenes. Plasma does this. The Batman reference above will give you plenty of dark scenes to compare with.

LCD does better with whites, in my opinion. Plasma gives you whites, LCD gives you whites - with bleach.

People will argue endlessly about which is more technically correct, but if one technology generates whites that look better to you than the other, that is the best one for you.

Other issues are personal also. Plasma has a wider viewing angle. If this is important to you in your environment, it is a factor in your decision. If not, I would not buy Plasma for a feature I don't need.

LCD is better with reflective environments. If you control light in your viewing area, great. Even so, Plasma tends to reflect even your image watching the set in dimly lit rooms, so test this out.

Burn in is real with Plasmas. If you are a gamer, or, tend to put on a channel with a set logo for long periods of time I'd opt for LCD. No image retention or burn in worries. Burn in is like cutting your hair - once it's done, it's done.

With regular viewing of TV and movies, I would not worry about burn-in, unless you tend to use the set as noted above.

Both technologies have their fans. Unfortunately, this tends to blind those fans to the benefits of the opposing technology.

In the marketplace, LCD is currently king and plasma is not the price leader, but trailing in sales.

This thread is just what I was looking for. Thanks for all of your opinions and the information you've shared. It's really helping me make an informed decision as to what type of TV I want to consider purchasing.

The masses have spoken,LCD has crushed and killed the now obsolete plasma screen.

Newer LED LCD model will unbury the plasma and make sure it's deader than dead.

When you see a post that so totally blasts one technology in favor of another, disregard that post.

I have a plasma and I like it. I have an LCD, and I like it. Each has its own plusses and minuses.

Ranagill gave sound advice. Read the forum here to get a general feel for things and then test out those sets you have in mind yourself. You're the one who will be living with your decision, not those over the top "experts".

Mike

When you see a post that so totally blasts one technology in favor of another, disregard that post.



Exactly. Whenever you see something like this, it simply reveals that the person lacks the ability for maintaining complicated, nuanced thought, as if their brain might explode if they did. Either that, or they're just intellectually and emotionally insecure and blanket dismissiveness makes them feel good about themselves for a little while.


Sad, either way.

Exactly. Whenever you see something like this, it simply reveals that the person lacks the ability for maintaining complicated, nuanced thought, as if their brain might explode if they did. Either that, or they're just intellectually and emotionally insecure and blanket dismissiveness makes them feel good about themselves for a little while.


Sad, either way.

And ignorant as well, if you ask me. Could be a troll. :)

Well, people blast technologies in different ways - some subtile some overt.

Those who blindly support plasma blatently ignore the heat, weight, reliability and burn in issues inherent in that technology.

Those in the LCD camp overlook motion blur, off angle viewing, and crushed blacks.

In the end, like with most things, different people put different priorities on these things and tend to go for the one whose limitations bother them (or are not even noticed by them) the least.

One key difference in the technologies is that they excel at opposite ends of the visual spectrum. Plasma excels at deriving detail in dark and shadow. LCD excels at bringing white whites to the viewer in dynamic fashion.

If you are a shadow guy, plasma is your king. If you're more interested in bright colors that pop, LCD is hard to ignore.

The mass market appears to really like bright colors that pop.

The masses have spoken,LCD has crushed and killed the now obsolete plasma screen.

Newer LED LCD model will unbury the plasma and make sure it's deader than dead.

What are you a 12 year old? Do you think your comment means anything to anyone?

LCD "crushed" in the low end wal mart market where people don't care about quality, but in larger sizes they sell roughly equal. And in very large sizes plasma sell much more. Stick to fact you know something about.

What are you a 12 year old? Do you think your comment means anything to anyone?

LCD "crushed" in the low end wal mart market where people don't care about quality, but in larger sizes they sell roughly equal. And in very large sizes plasma sell much more. Stick to fact you know something about.The poster's comments apparently got your attention.

When you get to the "larger sizes" LCD pretty much caps out at 55". Plasma goes bigger, so if that is the size your referring to, plasma will be the default king of the hill.

The poster's comments apparently got your attention.

When you get to the "larger sizes" LCD pretty much caps out at 55". Plasma goes bigger, so if that is the size your referring to, plasma will be the default king of the hill.

Here's another "attention getter" for ya....you are spreading false, FUD & misleading information regarding Plasma Video Tech. I don't know if you've been working out of country on an oil platform for 3 years or what, but news is there has never been a reliability problem w/plasma displays, and the burn-in issue has been put to rest long ago...at least by well-informed professionals in this biz. Ditto, for the pop & sizzle if you are planning to add that to your "Mr. Wrong-Way" list of objections. With ISFccc, you can calibrate the plasma display in ISF Day Mode to put out about as much pop as you can stand it. As for "weight", I'll pass along a little tip. I quit using my displays as workout barbells many years ago, and found something much better to use.

What are you a 12 year old? Do you think your comment means anything to anyone?

LCD "crushed" in the low end wal mart market where people don't care about quality, but in larger sizes they sell roughly equal. And in very large sizes plasma sell much more. Stick to fact you know something about.

Do you have some number to back that up or are these special kinds of "facts"? I highly doubt in 55" and under the sales are even close to even.

Do you have some number to back that up or are these special kinds of "facts"? I highly doubt in 55" and under the sales are even close to even.

Use your "google" search function, I'm sure you'll find the info. I've read the same sales reports/statistics, and Plasma displays actually outsell LCD's in the 50+" screen size category.

Funny this says different http://www.azom.com/news.asp?NewsID=17580

Here's another "attention getter" for ya....you are spreading false, FUD & misleading information regarding Plasma Video Tech. I don't know if you've been working out of country on an oil platform for 3 years or what, but news is there has never been a reliability problem w/plasma displays, and the burn-in issue has been put to rest long ago...at least by well-informed professionals in this biz. Ditto, for the pop & sizzle if you are planning to add that to your "Mr. Wrong-Way" list of objections. With ISFccc, you can calibrate the plasma display in ISF Day Mode to put out about as much pop as you can stand it. As for "weight", I'll pass along a little tip. I quit using my displays as workout barbells many years ago, and found something much better to use.

Plasmas still burn in, my friend's 08 plasma is burned in from gaming.

There's no pop to plasmas not just because of brightness but because of the way the phosphors wash out due to the light hitting them. Not to mention a 50ftl plasma can't really do 50ftl because of the ABL system. Here's a nice quote from a G10 review that demonstrates that

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/HDTV-Samsung-Sony,review-1326-4.html

On the other hand, whites are pale, especially in bright images. The usual rule of thumb for a plasma is that the lighter the scene, the paler the whites.

This means that in our tests, where we displayed a small white square in the center of the screen--taking up 10% of the total pixels--it was a bright 180 cd/m², but when we measured the brightness of a totally white screen it was only 66 cd/m². The different values for whites has a knock-on effect on contrast, causing the ANSI ratio to fluctuate between 650:1 and 850:1. If you really stretch a point, you can get up to 2000:1 but only on test cards with very small white areas.

So in reality Panasonic's plasmas can barely even do 1000:1 ANSI, which is pretty sad.

Here's another "attention getter" for ya....you are spreading false, FUD & misleading information regarding Plasma Video Tech. I don't know if you've been working out of country on an oil platform for 3 years or what, but news is there has never been a reliability problem w/plasma displays, and the burn-in issue has been put to rest long ago...at least by well-informed professionals in this biz. Ditto, for the pop & sizzle if you are planning to add that to your "Mr. Wrong-Way" list of objections. With ISFccc, you can calibrate the plasma display in ISF Day Mode to put out about as much pop as you can stand it. As for "weight", I'll pass along a little tip. I quit using my displays as workout barbells many years ago, and found something much better to use.Sorry I couldn't respond you your note sooner but we had an oil leak on pump #3 here on the oil platform.

I have seen the light and regret spreading false witness. I now know that plasma sets never break; burn-in was just an "urban legend"; and plasma sets are light as a feather.

I'll have to check out one of these new fangled sets once my time is done here on the platform.

What are you a 12 year old? Do you think your comment means anything to anyone?

LCD "crushed" in the low end wal mart market where people don't care about quality, but in larger sizes they sell roughly equal. And in very large sizes plasma sell much more. Stick to fact you know something about.

well u must also understand there is a reason why lcds sell more ,one simple reason is people like it more. also lcds are more expensive then a similar sizes plasmas ,yet they have taken over the lead in sales and sony which by no means is cheap are no2 or no3 in sales world wide.
in 2007 even a good 32inch lcd used to cost more then a panasonic /samsung 42inch plasma.so now lcd have crushed both the low and high end.
samsung LED lcd which are way more expensive ,sell more and have hell of lot more ANSI contrast then their own plasmas,even conventional backlight samsung lcds have a higher contrast then their plasmas.
i believe the low contrast ratio of lcds where used effectively by the plasma camp in their marketing some 3 years ago.

Sorry I couldn't respond you your note sooner but we had an oil leak on pump #3 here on the oil platform.

I have seen the light and regret spreading false witness. I now know that plasma sets never break; burn-in was just an "urban legend"; and plasma sets are light as a feather.

I'll have to check out one of these new fangled sets once my time is done here on the platform.
LCDs have a comparable failure rate, which is negligible in both cases.

Burn in is a thing of the past, barring extreme conditions that are well outside the parameters of normal use. IR is something completely different, and is temporary, just as it is in LCDs. Yes, temporary IR is found in LCDs as well... go figure.

And, as has been cited, the weight difference is not significant.

LCDs have a comparable failure rate, which is negligible in both cases.

Burn in is a thing of the past, barring extreme conditions that are well outside the parameters of normal use. IR is something completely different, and is temporary, just as it is in LCDs. Yes, temporary IR is found in LCDs as well... go figure.

And, as has been cited, the weight difference is not significant.

well the IR in lcds are so rare,where as IR in plasma is quite common ,majority of review sites report IR in their test sample be it a panasonic or a samsung plasma.

Exactly. Whenever you see something like this, it simply reveals that the person lacks the ability for maintaining complicated, nuanced thought, as if their brain might explode if they did. Either that, or they're just intellectually and emotionally insecure and blanket dismissiveness makes them feel good about themselves for a little while.


Sad, either way.

Nope,just don't care that much.

What I have stated is the truth.

Sorry if it hurts.:)

What are you a 12 year old? Do you think your comment means anything to anyone?

LCD "crushed" in the low end wal mart market where people don't care about quality, but in larger sizes they sell roughly equal. And in very large sizes plasma sell much more. Stick to fact you know something about.


Sounds like it.......and why wouldn't it,it's nothing but the stark TRUTH.

Okay man plasma's sell more now.........feel better?

C'mon man.

Plasma or LCD; which is better? Whatever floats your own boat.

And on the subject of "truth". When statements using "truth" as some kind of a justification for ones own opinion without producing any kind of supporting documentation is given, it is just empty BULL.

Lets just end the "mine is bigger than yours" mentality, and just stick with accurate information, and then suggest that the buyer go see and test for themselves. Most businesses have a return policy so that if the customer is not happy with what they purchased, they can bring it back and try something else.

Mike
"Common Sense Is Not Necessarily Common Practice"

Read my post,I state LCD's sell more than Plasma's.

This is fact.

Some of you guys take this as a personal slam against plasma technology......don't.

Read your own post. That's not exactly what you said.

The masses have spoken,LCD has crushed and killed the now obsolete plasma screen.

"Outsold" and "obsolete" are two different things.

The fact that every respectful and non-bias home electronics magazine or website deems Plasma as the all around better performing Flat-panel, and most use a plasma as thier current reference flat-panel, should be enough to realize that plasma is far from "obsolete" as some of you guys say.

Also, ISF calibrators and those with experience will straight up tell you that Plasma provides the better picture. Its not a new story. This may be painful to hear for some, but its the truth.
For an obsolete tech, its sure getting alot of praise and selling alot.

And as far as sales goes, There is a detailed study that shows why LCD's are selling so well in electronics stores here: Mystery shopper LCD/Plasma study (http://www.tvpredictions.com/jdstudy072108.htm)

Quoting sales figures, panel weight(?), and stating over and over again that LCD might save you 2-3 bucks a month on your electric bill is not what most HD-lovers (like myself) care one bit about.
Its all about picture quality.
So maybe we should try and focus on things like contrast, color, blacks, motion, viewing angles,etc. (you know things that actually effect PQ).

And please don't shoot the messenger, but Plasma is on top in these categories.

Those who are interested in a Flat-panel with reference quality calibrated video with natural motion usually buy plasmas.

Just look at HT-waits calibration reviews list (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=712929).

Out of those who bought a flat-panel and had it Properly calibrated by an industry professional, 210 of them owned plasmas. Only 18 of them were LCD owners.
That speaks a great deal about the prioritys of those purchasing both displays.

And The truth about burn-in is an easy one figure out.
How many pictures have you seen posted here (or any other forum) of these burnt panels some speak of??
You would think if its "still an issue" with todays newer plasmas, that you would see at least one or two pictures of this "issue".
But no,
Its always the same. You'll hear some guy stating that his "buddy" or "relative" has a set with burn-in. And Its always here-say with nothing to back up the claim. And usually the ones complaining about "burn-in" are the ones who own LCD's. If its a plasma problem, then why is it that no plasma owners have the issue, only LCD owners?? kinda simple if you ask me.

Great post Chad.:)

The fact that every respectful and non-bias home electronics magazine or website deems Plasma as the all around better performing Flat-panel, and most use a plasma as thier current reference flat-panel, should be enough to realize that plasma is far from "obsolete" as some of you guys say.

Also, ISF calibrators and those with experience will straight up tell you that Plasma provides the better picture. Its not a new story. This may be painful to hear for some, but its the truth.
For an obsolete tech, its sure getting alot of praise and selling alot.

And as far as sales goes, There is a detailed study that shows why LCD's are selling so well in electronics stores here: Mystery shopper LCD/Plasma study (http://www.tvpredictions.com/jdstudy072108.htm)

Quoting sales figures, panel weight(?), and stating over and over again that LCD might save you 2-3 bucks a month on your electric bill is not what most HD-lovers (like myself) care one bit about.
Its all about picture quality.
So maybe we should try and focus on things like contrast, color, blacks, motion, viewing angles,etc. (you know things that actually effect PQ).

And please don't shoot the messenger, but Plasma is on top in these categories.

Those who are interested in a Flat-panel with reference quality calibrated video with natural motion usually buy plasmas.

Just look at HT-waits calibration reviews list (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=712929).

Out of those who bought a flat-panel and had it Properly calibrated by an industry professional, 210 of them owned plasmas. Only 18 of them were LCD owners.
That speaks a great deal about the prioritys of those purchasing both displays.

And The truth about burn-in is an easy one figure out.
How many pictures have you seen posted here (or any other forum) of these burnt panels some speak of??
You would think if its "still an issue" with todays newer plasmas, that you would see at least one or two pictures of this "issue".
But no,
Its always the same. You'll hear some guy stating that his "buddy" or "relative" has a set with burn-in. And Its always here-say with nothing to back up the claim. And usually the ones complaining about "burn-in" are the ones who own LCD's. If its a plasma problem, then why is it that no plasma owners have the issue, only LCD owners?? kinda simple if you ask me.

Videophiles who pay for calibration do seem to buy more plasmas however that will change too,it's only a matter of time.
Joe 6-pack's buying power speeds up LCD technology and gets it in our hand faster for less $$$.

Remember CRT's are well praised and rightfully so however they are pretty much considered obsolete now also,right or wrong.......

Joe 6-pack's wallet didn't want a Kuro,that's a fact.:D

Joe 6-pack can do whatever he wants. Who cares?

My concern for what TVs are purchased by the masses is equal to my concern for what music they buy. Look at the Top 40 charts. Do you see quality music topping the list? I don't. Such things don't dictate my buying habits.

Sales numbers mean little to me unless I have a stake in the profits. Whenever plasma (and LCD) leave the market, something better will take their place. OLED is already poised to dominate LCD in the world of small displays (cameras, PDAs, phones, etc) and it will eventually reach the large-display market at a competitive price. I'm not worried.

I own all three of these technologies, LCD, LED/LCD and Plasma. My favorite vewing machines are the 2009 Plasma then the 2008 LCD and finally the 2009 LED/LCD.

In regards to burn in or IR, I have yet to see it on any of my sets, but I am not a gamer or have children running around the house and really try to take care of my hard earned purchases.

And brightness, the Plasma is VERY bright, I had to tone it down quite a bit, just as bright in my book as the LED/LCD which actually is difficult to watch for long periods, can you say eye strain? The older 2008 LCD is a joy to watch for regular day to day tv, not so good on sports and some movies, but it is 60hz and very easy on the eyes.

If I had to pick one television to keep, it would be the plasma. It handles everything you can throw at it, sports, movies and regular old HD and SD sat/cable/OTA stuff and excels with BD software. An all around perfect set as far as getting the job done with all of the above media I have available in my household and is also very easy on the eyes, a pleasure to watch for extended periods.

Would I recommend a plasma to my friends and family, yes I would. But I would also not knock their decision to purchase an LCD or LED/LCD. Whatever floats their boat, it's a TV for God's sake.

Mike

Just look at HT-waits calibration reviews list (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=712929).

Out of those who bought a flat-panel and had it Properly calibrated by an industry professional, 210 of them owned plasmas. Only 18 of them were LCD owners.
That speaks a great deal about the prioritys of those purchasing both displays.

And The truth about burn-in is an easy one figure out.
How many pictures have you seen posted here (or any other forum) of these burnt panels some speak of??
You would think if its "still an issue" with todays newer plasmas, that you would see at least one or two pictures of this "issue".
But no,
Its always the same. You'll hear some guy stating that his "buddy" or "relative" has a set with burn-in. And Its always here-say with nothing to back up the claim. And usually the ones complaining about "burn-in" are the ones who own LCD's. If its a plasma problem, then why is it that no plasma owners have the issue, only LCD owners?? kinda simple if you ask me.


Well first of all htwaits hangs out in the plasma forum and reads plasma threads. Put 2 and 2 together

If you want pictures of my friend's plasma (Panasonic 85U) I'll be happy to provide them. If you think burn in doesn't exist why are there pixel orbiters? I own a plasma as you know and take especially good care of it and don't game so I have no burn in. My friend on the other hand didn't listen to me and used his plasma (broken in over 500hrs before he got it) as a gaming monitor more or less and a bit of TV on the side, now there is a HUD and ammo/health indicators burned into his plasma (NOT IR). No this isn't common use but it isn't exceptional and it BURNED IN. As for a burn in conspiracy.. well grow up, people have better things to do.

What about uneven wear is that a dream too? No one watches 4:3 with black bars on plasmas.. why not? Because they know they will have a dark spot in the middle of their TV.

As for the rest of the post.. well it's more sensationalism and opinions then actually anything with merit. As per usual.

No one watches 4:3 with black bars on plasmas

I do. I never stretch anything.

I also game frequently. I've yet to even see IR, nevermind burn-in. I don't use the orbiter, either.

Well first of all htwaits hangs out in the plasma forum and reads plasma threads. Put 2 and 2 together

If you want pictures of my friend's plasma (Panasonic 85U) I'll be happy to provide them. If you think burn in doesn't exist why are there pixel orbiters? I own a plasma as you know and take especially good care of it and don't game so I have no burn in. My friend on the other hand didn't listen to me and used his plasma (broken in over 500hrs before he got it) as a gaming monitor more or less and a bit of TV on the side, now there is a HUD and ammo/health indicators burned into his plasma (NOT IR). No this isn't common use but it isn't exceptional and it BURNED IN. As for a burn in conspiracy.. well grow up, people have better things to do.

What about uneven wear is that a dream too? No one watches 4:3 with black bars on plasmas.. why not? Because they know they will have a dark spot in the middle of their TV.

As for the rest of the post.. well it's more sensationalism and opinions then actually anything with merit. As per usual.

please provide the pictures.
By no means am I calling you dishonest, but your storys seem to change alot (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14711115#post14711115).

Oh, and HTwaits actually posted that in the calibration forum.
And its not about technolgy with him, he just posts people exeriences (that they have posted here on AVS) with ALL displays, be it Plasma, LCD, or RPTV, CRT, etc.

Oooh... looks like the Tom's Guide round up gave the XBR8 a 5 out of 5! LOL
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/HDTV-Samsung-Sony,review-1326-9.html

They even noticed the "color fringing" - phosphor trails - on the Panasonic X1 and G10... lol! :rolleyes: :p

Oooh... looks like the Tom's Guide round up gave the XBR8 a 5 out of 5! LOL
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/HDTV-Samsung-Sony,review-1326-9.html

They even noticed the "color fringing" - phosphor trails - on the Panasonic X1 and G10... lol! :rolleyes: :p

Tom's Guide? To quote Rodney(The cheater)Harrison "Never heard of him". Besides it looks like they are trying to schelp an over priced tv by giving it a high rating. :eek::rolleyes:;)

Oooh... looks like the Tom's Guide round up gave the XBR8 a 5 out of 5! LOL
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/HDTV-Samsung-Sony,review-1326-9.html

They even noticed the "color fringing" - phosphor trails - on the Panasonic X1 and G10... lol! :rolleyes: :p

ROFL

sorry, Is Tom a member of geek squad??

I can't disagree too much with their review. The XBR8 is a nice TV.

But I'm not sure how they came up with the contenders. The XBR8 is Sony's flagship - and it shows in the price - while the other panels are upper mid-range at best and low-tier at worst.

please provide the pictures.
By no means am I calling you dishonest, but your storys seem to change alot (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14711115#post14711115).

Oh, and HTwaits actually posted that in the calibration forum.
And its not about technolgy with him, he just posts people exeriences (that they have posted here on AVS) with ALL displays, be it Plasma, LCD, or RPTV, CRT, etc.

Chad,
I'm sure your gonna be waiting a long while to see those pics of an 85u with burn in. :)

I do. I never stretch anything.

I also game frequently. I've yet to even see IR, nevermind burn-in. I don't use the orbiter, either.

Ditto, hate a stretched screen.

Mike

I can't disagree too much with their review. The XBR8 is a nice TV.

But I'm not sure how they came up with the contenders. The XBR8 is Sony's flagship - and it shows in the price - while the other panels are upper mid-range at best and low-tier at worst.

They are probably rated by profitability/markup.:)

please provide the pictures.
By no means am I calling you dishonest, but your storys seem to change alot (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14711115#post14711115).

Oh, and HTwaits actually posted that in the calibration forum.
And its not about technolgy with him, he just posts people exeriences (that they have posted here on AVS) with ALL displays, be it Plasma, LCD, or RPTV, CRT, etc.

That's a quote from the Kuro thread and I did mention that abuse can still burn in. Other plasma panels aren't so resistant and I will work on getting those pictures for you if you are actually interested.

BTW how long did it take you to find that post, lol someone has some free time on their hands :) . I can barely find 20 mins a day for this forum.

ROFL

sorry, Is Tom a member of geek squad??

Tom's is the name of the website, the comparison comes from http://www.lesnumeriques.com/ A well known european site that is well respected.

I've been reading them in french for quite some time now, and Tom's has been around since the early internet days (pre 2000) and specializes in computers.

ROFL

sorry, Is Tom a member of geek squad??

Ha! :p

It's a related spin off of Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/us/

Tom's Hardware is one of the notable computer news sites that's been around for quite a while (around a decade or so???).

Either way, a friend of mine spent some time watching TV on a LG plasma yesterday and thought his eye's were acting funny... then he remembered about the yellow/blue phosphor effect on plasma... another person who realizes that the pros of PDPs can easily be negated! ;) As he won't even consider purchasing a PDP now! The "burn-in" "myth" will continue to plague PDPs for as long as they continue to be mfg'ed... despite the attempts of edumecation. (yes the incorrect spelling was intended)

Ha! :p

It's a related spin off of Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/us/

Tom's Hardware is one of the notable computer news sites that's been around for quite a while (around a decade or so???).

Either way, a friend of mine spent some time watching TV on a LG plasma yesterday and thought his eye's were acting funny... then he remembered about the yellow/blue phosphor effect on plasma... another person who realizes that the pros of PDPs can easily be negated! ;) As he won't even consider purchasing a PDP now! The "burn-in" "myth" will continue to plague PDPs for as long as they continue to be mfg'ed... despite the attempts of edumecation. (yes the incorrect spelling was intended)

well, I would rather hear calibrator and profesional Video feedback than from a computer site.
And as usual, you are right, we all are being dishonest and have burn-in on our plasmas.
We also see yellow /blue phosphor flashes when we watch them but decide its better to spend huge amounts of money on plasmas while we secretly dont enjoy watching them because of the burn-in and phospor trails.

Please, give the A/V community a break.
Give the calibrators/reviewers at least a little credit.

Are we to pay no mind to countless comparisons, calibration reports, and the tons of people who say they see no trails and have never seen burn-in, Or are we to listen to you and go against all that is logical.

For the last time,
There is an extremely small group of people whos vision allows them to detect different the differnt decay times of different colored phosphors of CRT and plasmas. this group is extememly small. this is why most people say "what trails"??...
These people should remove plasma from thier flat-panel options.
Take into account the amount of material that would exibit this effect and the amount of people who can actually detect it, the problem is extremely small and most shoppers should just look at a plasma in the store and if they don't see the different phosphor decay times, then they should not worry about it. end of story.


Please read this article and call me in the morning.

http://hdtvtest_Phosphor trails (http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/plasma-phosphor-trail-2007040133.htm)

You may learn that phosphor trails are only an issue for a super small amount of people and most people wont see them.
Either that or you'll say the article is rigged and continue to go against reasoning and evidence.

People seeing phoshor trails from my understanding is not like seeing a rainbow on a DLP (I never see them). I've browsed the plasma forums for quite some time and it's not very common to hear people complain about phospor trails. On the other hand, rainbows on DLPs were mentioned somewhat often.

You may learn that phosphor trails are only an issue for a super small amount of people and most people wont see them.
Either that or you'll say the article is rigged and continue to go against reasoning and evidence.

"The good news is that 99% of plasma TV owners do not see the problem 99% of the time."

"Just bring a copy of “Sin City” (a predominantly black-and-white film with fast pans that is notorious for bringing out the worst of phosphor trails) to demo on one of your friend’s plasma TV with the lights down… if you don’t see trails then you should be fine."

"But worse still “Plasma trails”. Me, my brother, a friend and my wife all can see them (mostly in high contrast scenes on DVD such as a white bar or highlight on black going across the screen(Sin City) It actually starts to give you eye strain."

All from that linked article.

I've watched the Sin City Blu-Ray and didn't see any phospher trails. I must be amongst those who do not see the problem 100% of the time.

I did see rainbows from my old DLP on occassion, but they never really bothered me.

:"The good news is that 99% of plasma TV owners do not see the problem 99% of the time."

"Just bring a copy of “Sin City” (a predominantly black-and-white film with fast pans that is notorious for bringing out the worst of phosphor trails) to demo on one of your friend’s plasma TV with the lights down… if you don’t see trails then you should be fine."

"But worse still “Plasma trails”. Me, my brother, a friend and my wife all can see them (mostly in high contrast scenes on DVD such as a white bar or highlight on black going across the screen(Sin City) It actually starts to give you eye strain."

All from that linked article.

that statement was not from that article.
It was from the comment section, where anyone can add a comment whether its true or not.
I would take that statement with a grain of salt. The possibilty that all those people immediatly noticed phosphor trails is like finding a needle in a haystack.

plasma for tv, but led is the bomb for car tail lights. My new ride has led, and lcd built into it...no plasma to be seen. Come to think of it, all my tools use lcd. The home entertainment is the only place in my life with a plasma. I wouldn't change a thing. If you are a car to get from a to b type, or perhaps a, watch tv to get information about the weather, or the news............lcd is the right choice.

plasma for tv, but led is the bomb for car tail lights. My new ride has led, and lcd built into it...no plasma to be seen. Come to think of it, all my tools use lcd. The home entertainment is the only place in my life with a plasma. I wouldn't change a thing. If you are a car to get from a to b type, or perhaps a, watch tv to get information about the weather, or the news............lcd is the right choice.But tail lights are most prominent in the dark, where plasma excels.

I'm sure you'll get agreement that led tail lights are great, but that plasma on the tail would show more shadow detail, and thus be better.

:

that statement was not from that article.
It was from the comment section, where anyone can add a comment whether its true or not.
I would take that statement with a grain of salt. The possibilty that all those people immediatly noticed phosphor trails is like finding a needle in a haystack.

So, can you explain to us why you get extremely defensive when people mention phosphor artifacts on plasmas? I know you've stated that you don't see them personally, but why get all up in arms when others mention seeing them??? I know you like to down play the number of people out in the wild that notice the issue... but you react like it's a crime to let others know that they might notice the issue and be unhappy with their purchase!

So, why the defense for an artifact with plasma tech that you don't personally notice? It's like a blind man saying the sun is too bright for his eyes! :rolleyes: :D

But tail lights are most prominent in the dark, where plasma excels.

I'm sure you'll get agreement that led tail lights are great, but that plasma on the tail would show more shadow detail, and thus be better.

I actually agree with you guys 1000%.

LCD is a wonderful technology and there are hundreds of uses for it.
When it comes to very small screen for car visors, handheld devices (phones,etc), and computer screens, LCD simply has no competition. Its the best for these things and will remain the best until oled goes mainsteam.

I just happen to think Plasma does a better job at 50+inches.

So, can you explain to us why you get extremely defensive when people mention phosphor artifacts on plasmas? I know you've stated that you don't see them personally, but why get all up in arms when others mention seeing them??? I know you like to down play the number of people out in the wild that notice the issue... but you react like it's a crime to let others know that they might notice the issue and be unhappy with their purchase!

So, why the defense for an artifact with plasma tech that you don't personally notice? It's like a blind man saying the sun is too bright for his eyes! :rolleyes: :D

Probably similar to those that claim they see no difference with off angle viewing of LCDs. The difference is, not everyone does see phosphour trails (in fact I would venture a guess that the percentage is extremley low) but anyone that denies that there is a loss of picture detail with off angle viewing definitely is either a fan boy or lives in denial. Whether it bothers you or not is a different subject matter. :D:D:D

The new Neo-PDP has defiantly reduced visible PR, but it's also a common issue with LCD with CCFL backlight.

The new Neo-PDP has defiantly reduced visible PR, but it's also a common issue with LCD with CCFL backlight.

PR? (P)hosphor (R)???

Yeah, the neoPDPs and the Samsung PNxxB8xx PDPs have reduced phosphor artifacts than '08 models... including all of the Kuros... So, if trends continue, PTs should be a thing of the past with the high end PDPs for '10... not holding my breath though. :o

So, can you explain to us why you get extremely defensive when people mention phosphor artifacts on plasmas? I know you've stated that you don't see them personally, but why get all up in arms when others mention seeing them??? I know you like to down play the number of people out in the wild that notice the issue... but you react like it's a crime to let others know that they might notice the issue and be unhappy with their purchase!

So, why the defense for an artifact with plasma tech that you don't personally notice? It's like a blind man saying the sun is too bright for his eyes! :rolleyes: :D

Because your posts sound like phosphor trails are some defect that are obvious and that a large amount of people see, and thats simply not the case.

People who are in the market for a television may hear your words and write off plasma when they wont be able to see trails.
Phosphor trails are not like other defects. They are only visible to a very small group of people who are sensitive to diferent phosphor decay times.

I read an article and one comment said "If you have good vision, then don't buy a plasma because you will see phosphor trails". thats such bull.
My vision is better than 20/20 per my eye doc., yet I cant see them.
And that goes for everyone I know.
Thats not saying some dont see them.

Probably similar to those that claim they see no difference with off angle viewing of LCDs. The difference is, not everyone does see phosphour trails (in fact I would venture a guess that the percentage is extremley low) but anyone that denies that there is a loss of picture detail with off angle viewing definitely is either a fan boy or lives in denial. Whether it bothers you or not is a different subject matter. :D:D:D

Well... unfortunately I notice issues with both LCDs and PDPs... but my question was why Chad cares so much!?

I know that he really enjoy's his 151... that's great, but why does it matter if others can see an issue with his display and others of the same tech? LCD viewing angle restrictions have nothing to do with phosphor artifacts with PDPs! :p :D

Probably similar to those that claim they see no difference with off angle viewing of LCDs. The difference is, not everyone does see phosphour trails (in fact I would venture a guess that the percentage is extremley low) but anyone that denies that there is a loss of picture detail with off angle viewing definitely is either a fan boy or lives in denial. Whether it bothers you or not is a different subject matter. :D:D:D

good post.
This is where some get confused.
They think that most see the phosphor decay time differences, but in reality most people simply cannot physically see them whatsoever. Its not that it doesnt "bother" them, Its that they simply dont exist for most people.

There is science to it. Which is why linked the above article.
If they would take the time to read it, they might get a better grasp of whats going on and why so many peoples eyes cannot defect the different phosphor color decay times.

Because your posts sound like phosphor trails are some defect that are obvious and that a large amount of people see, and thats simply not the case.

People who are in the market for a television may hear your words and write off plasma when they wont be able to see trails.
Phosphor trails are not like other defects. They are only visible to a very small group of people who are sensitive to diferent phosphor decay times.

I read an article and one comment said "If you have good vision, then don't buy a plasma because you will see phosphor trails". thats such bull.
My vision is better than 20/20 per my eye doc., yet I cant see them.
And that goes for everyone I know.
Thats not saying some dont see them.

Ahh... so you are concerned that I might cause a few consumers to write off plasma... awesome!

Well... my take is that I'm just confirming what others might have noticed by themselves!

Well... unfortunately I notice issues with both LCDs and PDPs... but my question was why Chad cares so much!?

I know that he really enjoy's his 151... that's great, but why does it matter if others can see an issue with his display and others of the same tech? LCD viewing angle restrictions have nothing to do with phosphor artifacts with PDPs! :p :D

Maybe the question should be why does Rgb constantly bring up phosphor (especially with the kuros) when he has no interest in PDP tech?

Maybe the question should be why does Rgb constantly bring up phosphor (especially with the kuros) when he has no interest in PDP tech?

Oh, I do have an interest in PDP tech, and hoped that the issue would have been eliminated by now... unfortunately not quite yet (if ever)!

The level of PR has improved considerably over the years. It is getting close to negligible.

Also, the level of PR improves as the pixel continue to age.


In the end, if you compare all the issues with LCD to PDP, PDP will win without a doubt.

Oh, I do have an interest in PDP tech, and hoped that the issue would have been eliminated by now... unfortunately not quite yet (if ever)!

there's no reason to argue about it

At the end, it all depends on the user. Some like CCFL and some like LED. It's the same for PDP vs LCD.

Well... my take is that I'm just confirming what others might have noticed by themselves!

thats exactly my point, you keep making out like everyone sees them when they dont.
As if they need you to confirm something that they cant see.

Im done debating with you about it. Its pointless. All I can say is go read the article above until you can better understand.

talking with you about this is like scratching my back with a cheese grader.
Slightly amusing, but utterly painful.

Well... unfortunately I notice issues with both LCDs and PDPs... but my question was why Chad cares so much!?

I know that he really enjoy's his 151... that's great, but why does it matter if others can see an issue with his display and others of the same tech? LCD viewing angle restrictions have nothing to do with phosphor artifacts with PDPs! :p :D

You obviously missed my point so I'll just leave it at that. :)

You obviously missed my point so I'll just leave it at that. :)

That's all good and fine that in theory more people can notice viewing angle limitations on LCDs than PTs or other PDP artifacts, but I wasn't talking about LCD viewing angle limitation... so you just confuse the issue. PTs on LCDs do not exist, so you're not making any sort of direct comparision... like comparing the cons of an apple and an orange! :rolleyes: I see what you're getting at, but I'd take viewing angle restrictions over phosphor trails... as phosphor trails can be seen from any viewable angle! ha!

That's all good and fine that in theory more people can notice viewing angle limitations on LCDs than PTs or other PDP artifacts, but I wasn't talking about LCD viewing angle limitation... so you just confuse the issue. PTs on LCDs do not exist, so you're not making any sort of direct comparision... like comparing the cons of an apple and an orange! :rolleyes: I see what you're getting at, but I'd take viewing angle restrictions over phosphor trails... as phosphor trails can be seen from any viewable angle! ha!

again, you missed the point. :D

People didn't seem to get as defensive when the issue of DLP rainbows was discussed. Some people clearly saw these, others not.

After reading about the issue, I did a quick check at my local retailers and found that neither my wife or I saw any rainbows with any of the DLP sets we viewed.

That didn't mean that the person next to us didn't see them, or that the subject should be banned from discussion based on my personal experience.

Fear that others may not adopt a particular technology because of a display characteristic is pure fanboy paranoia. If you know about the issue, a few minutes looking at a set would tell you if you see anything undesirable in the picture.

The real competition is how a set looks when compared with others. Here is where plasma is having competitive problems in the marketplace. They just don't look as sharp and bright as LCD.

The sharp and bright LCD factor is the less accurate picture, but it does draw attention and has a certain "wow, that's what I want" factor. Kind of like listening to Klipsch speakers and hearing what appears to be more detail in music than anything else you've heard.

With Klipsch, you'll likely have a headache after an hour of listening. Same with LCD in your home, cranked up to torch mode.

Neither plasma nor lcd technology is perfect, but the imperfections in each technology differ enough to attract different types of buyers, who perceive images differently.

You make some good points, but there seems to be a rabid group here who will pounce on ANY perceived flaw in plasma and shout it anywhere and everywhere. I have no idea why. Perhaps it's because they are immature and feel the need to validate their buying decision. Whatever the reason it is tiring. Problem is too many people looking for info take their comments as fact, when any of us with a bit of knowledge and a brain know it to be false. In this case, while the issue may affect only a very small portion of the population, close to 1 or 2 %, the LCD fanboys will take it and run with it. The point is to make it known that it exists, but is rare.

My desire is to promote and encourage a technology that I feel is superior. The LCD crowd seems to want to run roughshod over all of us in the attempt to impose their technology on all of us. Plasma needs very vocal supporters to counter this group. While neither technology is perfect in my experience owning both I feel plasma is much superior.

People didn't seem to get as defensive when the issue of DLP rainbows was discussed. Some people clearly saw these, others not.

After reading about the issue, I did a quick check at my local retailers and found that neither my wife or I saw any rainbows with any of the DLP sets we viewed.

That didn't mean that the person next to us didn't see them, or that the subject should be banned from discussion based on my personal experience.

Fear that others may not adopt a particular technology because of a display characteristic is pure fanboy paranoia. If you know about the issue, a few minutes looking at a set would tell you if you see anything undesirable in the picture.

The real competition is how a set looks when compared with others. Here is where plasma is having competitive problems in the marketplace. They just don't look as sharp and bright as LCD.

The sharp and bright LCD factor is the less accurate picture, but it does draw attention and has a certain "wow, that's what I want" factor. Kind of like listening to Klipsch speakers and hearing what appears to be more detail in music than anything else you've heard.

With Klipsch, you'll likely have a headache after an hour of listening. Same with LCD in your home, cranked up to torch mode.

Neither plasma nor lcd technology is perfect, but the imperfections in each technology differ enough to attract different types of buyers, who perceive images differently.

+1. Wow! You sum up the recent posts so well! :)

You make some good points, but there seems to be a rabid group here who will pounce on ANY perceived flaw in plasma and shout it anywhere and everywhere. I have no idea why. Perhaps it's because they are immature and feel the need to validate their buying decision. Whatever the reason it is tiring. Problem is too many people looking for info take their comments as fact, when any of us with a bit of knowledge and a brain know it to be false. In this case, while the issue may affect only a very small portion of the population, close to 1 or 2 %, the LCD fanboys will take it and run with it. The point is to make it known that it exists, but is rare.

My desire is to promote and encourage a technology that I feel is superior. The LCD crowd seems to want to run roughshod over all of us in the attempt to impose their technology on all of us. Plasma needs very vocal supporters to counter this group. While neither technology is perfect in my experience owning both I feel plasma is much superior.

More of the fanboy paranoia! :p :rolleyes:

Selecting a set should be based on pq, not how that pq was delivered,

If you pick your top three sets and they all use the same technology to deliver the image, your eyes and brain have a preference for a particular type image. That is perfectly fine, regardless of the technology.

If you can only pick a favorite set if you know the technology, you're letting your preconcieved technology bias make the decision for you, not your eyes. This is still ok, if it makes you happy with your purchase.

It does not mean that you have picked a technically superior set, that all others should buy.

selecting a set should be based on pq, not how that pq was delivered,

if you pick your top three sets and they all use the same technology to deliver the image, your eyes and brain have a preference for a particular type image. That is perfectly fine, regardless of the technology.

If you can only pick a favorite set if you know the technology, you're letting your preconcieved technology bias make the decision for you, not your eyes. This is still ok, if it makes you happy with your purchase.

It does not mean that you have picked a technically superior set, that all others should buy.

Agreed. Thank you for stating this.

Selecting a set should be based on pq, not how that pq was delivered,

If you pick your top three sets and they all use the same technology to deliver the image, your eyes and brain have a preference for a particular type image. That is perfectly fine, regardless of the technology.

If you can only pick a favorite set if you know the technology, you're letting your preconcieved technology bias make the decision for you, not your eyes. This is still ok, if it makes you happy with your purchase.

It does not mean that you have picked a technically superior set, that all others should buy.

It's about time someone started showing reason around here, good posts!

While we're on the topic of which panel has more issues (as if it were new around here :rolleyes:), I recently had the opportunity to view Sonys' Z panel. My buddy was playing "Bugs Life" on BD, and while he had it in Torch mode with MF cranked to the gills, what I noticed was that the angles seemed to be pretty good. It seemed to be much better than Sonys other offerings.

Can anyone tell me what type of panel Sony is using in their Z series?

I'm considering a 55" or so panel. Currently have a 52" Vizio LCD and it gives off a lot of ambient light when room is dark. Am considering plasma or led lcd panel. With plasma prices now down to level of LCD, what are advantages of LED LCD over plasma?

xenophonite by the sounds of things you are assuming lcd is better? a plasma is better in Picture Quality then a lcd, just about any entry level panasonic / samsung plasma is better.

whats your budget? im assuming its a reasonable amount if you considerd LED. the G or V series panasonic plasma are nice. plasma is still king of PQ and has less visable flaws then lcd even LED isnt so great (especially for the cost of LED compared to its plasma counterpart.

LED is the same thing just lcd with leds on the edge its able to produce more contrast but it clips shadow detail and whites. get plasma
I'm considering a 55" or so panel. Currently have a 52" Vizio LCD and it gives off a lot of ambient light when room is dark. Am considering plasma or led lcd panel. With plasma prices now down to level of LCD, what are advantages of LED LCD over plasma?

I'm looking to spend under $2K for >55". Costco has a 58" Panasonic plasma w/in budget. Does plasma (entry level) still have a lower half life or has that been resolved? I guess it doesn't matter since I upgrade fairly often, but still curious. Haven't looked seriously at plasma until the prices started to come down.

xenophonite you will never ever ever reach even HALF brightness. lets say you watch tv 12 hrs a day x 365 = 4,380 hrs a year x 10 yrs = 43,800

you will replace the tv if anything sooner, and thats watching tv 12 hrs a day!.

need i say more?

I'm looking to spend under $2K for >55". Costco has a 58" Panasonic plasma w/in budget. Does plasma (entry level) still have a lower half life or has that been resolved? I guess it doesn't matter since I upgrade fairly often, but still curious. Haven't looked seriously at plasma until the prices started to come down.

100,000 hours,

The operating hours is one of the most useless specs (along with response time).

IMO, the lifetime should reflect the component, which has the shortest operating hours at room temp

My Sony Flat Trinitron Wega CRT has better blacks than any Panasonic plasma
and the Loewe Aconda CRT has better blacks and grey scale than a Kuro

So go for a LED , OLED...cause Plasma is finished !

Remember the Neopdp name is just a name...nothing better than a 3 year old Kuro Pioneer
in fact the G10 has a native 40.000...the Pioneer Kuro krp-500A has 100.000 right now!!
i bet this is the last Panasonic plasma generation...wait for the sales rate !

My Sony Flat Trinitron Wega CRT has better blacks than any Panasonic plasma
and the Loewe Aconda CRT has better blacks and grey scale than a Kuro

So go for a LED , OLED...cause Plasma is finished !

Remember the Neopdp name is just a name...nothing better than a 3 year old Kuro Pioneer
in fact the G10 has a native 40.000...the Pioneer Kuro krp-500A has 100.000 right now!!
i bet this is the last Panasonic plasma generation...wait for the sales rate !


Why would you recommend going with an inferior (to this day IMO) technology? But hey, LCD's sure are bright and flashy on the showroom floor. OLED? When can I buy one without also having robbed Fort Knox? Like you, I still prefer CRT, but for me, LCD is an unacceptable replacement. Plasma is the only suitable alternative.

My Sony Flat Trinitron Wega CRT has better blacks than any Panasonic plasma
and the Loewe Aconda CRT has better blacks and grey scale than a Kuro

So go for a LED , OLED...cause Plasma is finished !

Remember the Neopdp name is just a name...nothing better than a 3 year old Kuro Pioneer
in fact the G10 has a native 40.000...the Pioneer Kuro krp-500A has 100.000 right now!!
i bet this is the last Panasonic plasma generation...wait for the sales rate !

What the heck are you talking about?

If you believe CRT is better than current LCD/PDP, more power to you. But don't wrap it up as facts.

PS: CRT has way more issues than LCD and PDP combined. Also, the G10 doesn't have 40,000:1 DR

Why would you recommend going with an inferior (to this day IMO) technology? But hey, LCD's sure are bright and flashy on the showroom floor. OLED? When can I buy one without also having robbed Fort Knox? Like you, I still prefer CRT, but for me, LCD is an unacceptable replacement. Plasma is the only suitable alternative.

Well, people blast technologies in different ways - some subtile some overt.

Those who blindly support plasma blatently ignore the heat, weight, reliability and burn in issues inherent in that technology.

Those in the LCD camp overlook motion blur, off angle viewing, and crushed blacks.

In the end, like with most things, different people put different priorities on these things and tend to go for the one whose limitations bother them (or are not even noticed by them) the least.

One key difference in the technologies is that they excel at opposite ends of the visual spectrum. Plasma excels at deriving detail in dark and shadow. LCD excels at bringing white whites to the viewer in dynamic fashion.

If you are a shadow guy, plasma is your king. If you're more interested in bright colors that pop, LCD is hard to ignore.

The mass market appears to really like bright colors that pop.

well, to me that sums it pretty much. I for one came from an XBr CRT of yester years and was pretty much reading every post I can read here.
purchasing both Plasma and LCD, the final decision was my very own set of eyes and the current conditions of my humble home theater. at a viewing distance of 8 feet max, i settled for a 42 inch.
after everything said and done, my eyes settled for a G10 as the Kuro was pretty much out of my budget. I also tried to see if the LED_Lcd was a possibilty BUT, after watching a movie (say 2 hours maybe) our eyes would hurt a bit. lowering the brightness / contrast makes the overall picture really bad. and yes, i got most of the settings posted here in forum from respected members but as I said, your eyes are the final say

My Sony Flat Trinitron Wega CRT has better blacks than any Panasonic plasma
and the Loewe Aconda CRT has better blacks and grey scale than a Kuro

So go for a LED , OLED...cause Plasma is finished !

Remember the Neopdp name is just a name...nothing better than a 3 year old Kuro Pioneer
in fact the G10 has a native 40.000...the Pioneer Kuro krp-500A has 100.000 right now!!
i bet this is the last Panasonic plasma generation...wait for the sales rate !

An old member with a new name, what else is new?

Also, if you are going to troll, at least be good at it. Even the information that you provide in an attempt of being objective is completely false.

You may as well pick up a "Glimpse" magazine from your local BB, as it has more information that you have to share, so it'll be a nice starting point for you.

hey! im not an old member with new name! im a real new one

No , im not recomending inferior technology, do you think a Sony Edge Led is inferior
to a LG plasma?? well...if i would have the money i ll go for the Sony

if you talk about money..yes the G10 is a good one...but we re not talking about money
but technologies...and the krp-500A is the top; the red,blue,green LEDS of Sony
are already above the G10 imho.

if you have only 200 bucks buy a Sony Wega CRT with component input

Sony is returning to the "organic panels" (CRT) with OLED.

Don't worry this is a war.. there are spies everywhere.. don't leave the house without your tin hat :)

Don't worry this is a war.. there are spies everywhere.. don't leave the house without your tin hat :)

Hehehe..

¿ Plasma is better than Led ? ¿ in visuals ?

yes it is....but remember that anything behind the 3000 euro Pioneer Kuro Plasma is a cheap thing in plasma ....so what will you do ???

i think is a fact that the Pioneer LCD krl-32v (680) has better blacks than any
LG plasma!!

720p plasmas are much better for mpeg2 TDT and Divx than lcd
SD process of the Panasonic plasmas is worst than LG:D

for movies you can buy a G10 or a Samsung Led

It has more value a DVD-9 in your hands than hundreds of mkv's downloading;)

I agree lcd is unacceptable i would take plasma.

Why would you recommend going with an inferior (to this day IMO) technology? But hey, LCD's sure are bright and flashy on the showroom floor. OLED? When can I buy one without also having robbed Fort Knox? Like you, I still prefer CRT, but for me, LCD is an unacceptable replacement. Plasma is the only suitable alternative.

I agree lcd is unacceptable i would take plasma.

! Depends ! my LG32PG6000 Plasma "solarisation" problem is unacceptable for me

Do you think the last Leds are unacceptable ?

i think is a fact that the Pioneer LCD krl-32v (680) has better blacks than any
LG plasma!!


OO you've got one of the Pioneer LCDs :) How are those anyways? We've never seen them over here.

take a look ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD668olTerY

its basics are a Sharp panel and box with a Pioneer Black contrast filter and improved
circuitry, some say vivid colors look plasma-like...not the level of a Kuro plasma
of course (0.0031 cd blacks vs 0.04 cd/m2) but this is one of the best if not the best lcd
in its day..now is surpassed by Samsung Leds !

not that good for SD !! some reported Banding and clouding problems!!

If it's a Sharp banding is always included it seems :) .004 cd/m2 is a very impressive black level, from what I've seen from reviews that pretty much actually matches the LED sets and the B750 when it comes to black levels (without autodimming)

Kinda off topic, but...

For those interested in picking up a small LED LCD monitor, Samsung will be shipping their new XL2370 monitor next month! I believe the XL2370 will replace the announced, but not released P2370L. The Syncmaster XL2370 is a 23" monitor with a native resolution of 1920x1080, DVI-I and HDMI inputs, and analog and optical audio outputs (for HDMI audio data). It should be under 4 bills! :D :D :D

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/06/samsung-debuts-the-eco-friendly-finger-slim-xl2370-led-hd-monitor/

If it's a Sharp banding is always included it seems :) .004 cd/m2 is a very impressive black level, from what I've seen from reviews that pretty much actually matches the LED sets and the B750 when it comes to black levels (without autodimming)

I bet my life that 0.04 was achieved with the help of dynamic backlight.

rgb32 thanks for the info man ! that Samsung monitor looks terrific !

Nielo TM...yeah for sure....but it is not bad

The new Samsung LE32B450 (no LED) calibrated reachs the same 0.04
for sure with auto dimming or something like that..
Samsung was a cheap low quality brand for me...but..something is changing

For the comparison freaks (like me:D) ; (Pioneer euro model names)

Panasonic TX-P42V10 Plasma : 0.03 out of the box
Panasonic TX-P42G10 Plasma : 0.03 calibrated
Pioneer PDP-4280XD 8G Kuro plasma : 0.03 calibrated

Samsung Leds : 0.03 to 0.01 auto dimming

Pioneer PDP-LX5090 9G Kuro plasma : 0.0031 amazing
Pioneer PDP-KRP-500A Kuro plasma : 0.0025 reference (more than 7 billion colors)
with the biggest grey scale in the market too !

Plasma can't display billions of colors naively (the same applies to consumer grade LCDs)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1046426

i ve read it in a pro-magazine so i supossed its true..it says krp-500A 7 billion vertical colors

Even if it was true, the Pioneer still wouldn't be able to display those 7 billion colors at the same time.

Dont you think the best plasma right now could be owned in one year ??

Other different question is the nature of the image shown, where CRT and Plasma
true lights and palpable textures are in another dimension..only "organic leds" aka Sony
will lead this.

Read your own post. That's not exactly what you said.



"Outsold" and "obsolete" are two different things.

Your right, "obsolete" was a poor choice of words.

There are still plenty of good plasmas to be had and me just buying one with a June 09 mfg date proves me pretty wrong:o.

After hours of watching multiple different types of video on two Samsung units (55" 7100 Series LED and 50" 850 Series Plasma), I found that the most appealing point of the LED unit was the brightness of the colors. The blacks were not as deep as the plasma, but the pros far outweighed the one con I saw. I watch a great deal of HD movies and HD sports on TV. The LED was incredible from the moment I unpacked it and turned it on. I have never regretted the decision, even though I paid a little more for the LED unit over the price of the plasma.

Hehehe..

¿ Plasma is better than Led ? ¿ in visuals ?

yes it is....but remember that anything behind the 3000 euro Pioneer Kuro Plasma is a cheap thing in plasma ....so what will you do ???

i think is a fact that the Pioneer LCD krl-32v (680) has better blacks than any
LG plasma!!

720p plasmas are much better for mpeg2 TDT and Divx than lcd
SD process of the Panasonic plasmas is worst than LG:D

for movies you can buy a G10 or a Samsung Led

It has more value a DVD-9 in your hands than hundreds of mkv's downloading;)
You can get Kuro 500m for $1600-2k in the States. so what would you choose?

You can get Kuro 500m for $1600-2k in the States. so what would you choose?That's a no brainer. I'd choose to get the set for the $1600:).

Plasma TV's require way too much upkeep. I'm sick of having to "monitor" what I'm watching for the fear of burn in. I will most likely never buy a plasma TV again.

Hmmm... And I guess you also worry about when it's refill time an how careful you have to be when filling the set with plasma, you sure don't want to spill any of that stuff!

But seriously, unless you plasma is 3 or 4 years old you have no worries. Older sets could get burned in, but it's rare and very infrequent today. Unless you keep your set in torch mode with blazing colors and blinding brightness, I know some people do that, you won't burn in a current generation plasma.

The conventional wisdom that plasma PQ is better seems to have stuck in the videophile world, but that is now up for debate. Having had the opportunity to tweak and compare an XBR8 and one of the top rated plasmas currently on the market, a few things stand out (IMO):

-XBR8 is much more tweakable. It's capable of reproducing any setting from so-called "director's intent" to subdued to insane--nearly anything the viewer prefers.
-XBR8 detail/crispness is in another league, whereas plasma has "soft" PQ. To use an analogy, the difference in detail/crispness is similar to the difference between BR and DVD. In fact, plasma's detail/crispness appears somewhere in-between DLP and LCD.
-XBR8 is capable of reproducing colors that are clearly deeper, richer and more vibrant--not just brighter.
-XBR8's black levels and shadows are so close to plasma that the difference is likely negligible to most viewers, and the whites are just superb compared to plasma.
-XBR8's MC/ME capability (MotionFlow) produces an almost 3D effect that plasmas simply cannot. Depending on the content, the difference can be phenomenal.

Sadly, LCD still suffers from two very prevalent and significant issues that may give plasma the edge: clouding and flashlights.


Too bad almost none of that is true and all professional comparisons still put the XBR8 (and anything else LCD has to offer) a step behind the best plasmas. Keep dreaming buddy. Soft? Show me a single FACTUAL account that demonstrates this. That's right, you can't because they don't exist

From normal viewing distances, I do not find LCDs to be inherently sharper or more detailed than a comparable plasma once edge enhancement, etc is defeated/optimized.

I spent a good amount of time with an XBR8 (in a high-end AV store, not Best Buy/Magnolia) and after adjusting the settings down to a reasonable level I did not find it noticeably sharper than anything else I had looked at there.

However, LCDs will typically maintain their sharpness as you approach to within short distances, as dithering will become apparent on a plasma as you get near the screen.

I have both technologies in my house, and once I'm outside of the "dithering range" of the plasma - which for me is about 7' - it's no less sharp or less detailed than my LCDs are.

There are many settings that will affect sharpness and detail. Those need to be equalized between displays before making comparisons.

Yes, soft. Compare any high-end plasma to an XBR8 (side-by-side) and you will see details on the XBR8 that are simply not visible on the plasma. It is immediately obvious, even a priori. The difference surprised me as well.

BTW: Professional reviews are not always what they're cracked up to be. Even "professionals" (especially professionals) become victims of their own "conventional wisdom."

So what plasma did you compare it to? BTW Why are we talking about the XBR8 when the XBR9 has been out for quite a while already?;)

Probably because the XBR8 eats the XBR9 for lunch.

Yes, soft. Compare any high-end plasma to an XBR8 (side-by-side) and you will see details on the XBR8 that are simply not visible on the plasma. It is immediately obvious, even a priori. The difference surprised me as well.

BTW: Professional reviews are not always what they're cracked up to be. Even "professionals" (especially professionals) become victims of their own "conventional wisdom."


Confusing edge enhancement with sharpness really is an epidemic

Again, I've seen the difference, and it's present only when you approach within close distances of the screen. It holds its sharpness extremely well as you get close, where plasmas will start to fall apart.

But when seated at roughly 7' away, there was no night and day difference in that area between it and any other high-end panel that I auditioned.

The simple answer is that some, perhaps many, people prefer a fake looking picture. This group like overly exaggerated detail and neon colors. That is what attracts them to LCD, the previous posts show that. Call it what you will, "Deep Colors", "Rich Colors" it all boils down to "Inaccurate Colors".

There is little sense in arguing with them, they will not change their preference and I certainly won't change my preference for an accurate picture regardless of what is displaying it. My LCD now mimics the accurate image of my pro calibrated plasma, but it can't mimic the smooth motion and the viewing angle - LCDs big weaknesses.

Unless you're sitting directly in front of an LCD in a bright lit room they're worthless.

Anyone who has friends over and those friends have to view an LCD from an angle--all they'll see is trash!

The reason LCD has so many defenders here is pure and simple--the video display manufacturers can make more money per unit selling them.

When that much money is available--forum marketing manipulation is as important as advertising.

Unless you're sitting directly in front of an LCD in a bright lit room they're worthless.

Anyone who has friends over and those friends have to view an LCD from an angle--all they'll see is trash!

The reason LCD has so many defenders here is pure and simple--the video display manufacturers can make more money per unit selling them.

When that much money is available--forum marketing manipulation is as important as advertising.

Take off the the tinfoil hat and go get some fresh air.

Some people on this site need professional help. Psychologists would have a field day here ;)

Unless you're sitting directly in front of an LCD in a bright lit room they're worthless.

Anyone who has friends over and those friends have to view an LCD from an angle--all they'll see is trash!

The reason LCD has so many defenders here is pure and simple--the video display manufacturers can make more money per unit selling them.

When that much money is available--forum marketing manipulation is as important as advertising.

RIIIIIIIGHT.

Because plasma is a perfect technology, right? It has perfect blacks and whites (not dirty), dithering doesn't exist ever, they look awesome in bright rooms compared to LCDs, they don't give off any heat, use any power, they are lightweight, and NEVER suffer IR or burn-in. Oh and no phosphor trails.

Face it, different people have different needs. I tried plasma, i really did. Great TVs for the price, but i couldn't stand the dithering or crappy daytime viewing, and i had some very bad IR after only a couple of hours of gaming for several days at a time (yes i did break it in too), which is worrying as i lived in a house with two buddies who love their Call of Duty. IMO picture looks so much sharper on an LCD and thats the look that i enjoy. and BTW offangle is definately exaggerated on both the 950 and xbr8, it's really not bad at all. It is definately one limitation of current LCDs, but that is an issue i can deal with... the IR and dithering weren't doing it for me.

Different strokes for different folks. As long as you are happy with what you are looking at, it's all good.

For me, it's obvious flaws vs. subtle flaws. LCD/LED flat out and proven everywhere have a poor viewing angle. You can hem and haw all you want but it's simple, verifiable, and documented. Same with motion on these sets. Manufactures can try all they want with 120 or 240hz designs that introduce a whole 'nother way of looking at films - the video effect - but all it's doing is masking a flaw in the design.

Again for me, plasma's flaws are subtle. I flat out do not see plasma trails - the same as 98% of the population. If you see them, get an LCD and deal with it's faults. The brightness issue is a canard.

Is there a perfect display? No, but there are some that are better performers than others, plasma wins that argument hands down.

Take off the the tinfoil hat and go get some fresh air.

Some people on this site need professional help. Psychologists would have a field day here ;)

I'm a plama fan, and I don't need professional help. You on the other hand are offensive.

RIIIIIIIGHT.

Because plasma is a perfect technology, right? It has perfect blacks and whites (not dirty), dithering doesn't exist ever, they look awesome in bright rooms compared to LCDs, they don't give off any heat, use any power, they are lightweight, and NEVER suffer IR or burn-in. Oh and no phosphor trails.


These are some myths...

My Panny is ok during daytime lighting. It doesn't give off much heat, which surprised even me. I have only seen temporary IR, and I've played a ton of Halo. The motion is way better than the LCD I got rid of for the plasma. And the picture is rich and even. Unlike LCD where the picture depends on the backlight and viewing angle. Oh, and my 42" weighs about 60 lbs, which is really not that bad.


Plasma has come a long way, I think you didn't even own one. What one did you have?

These are some myths...

My Panny is ok during daytime lighting. It doesn't give off much heat, which surprised even me. I have only seen temporary IR, and I've played a ton of Halo. The motion is way better than the LCD I got rid of for the plasma. And the picture is rich and even. Unlike LCD where the picture depends on the backlight and viewing angle. Oh, and my 42" weighs about 60 lbs, which is really not that bad.


Plasma has come a long way, I think you didn't even own one. What one did you have?

:rolleyes: don't believe me?
Panny PZ80u in a 50". Dithering was bad (visible during regular viewing), and PQ didn't look nearly as sharp as any of the new lcds. I had IR from a 3 hour Call of Duty session for 3 weeks, and could still see certain things months later (ammo count, etc). I'm not making this stuff up, i tried the plasma out, but didn't like it.

oh, and i did do the 100 hour break-in and still got some bad IR.

:rolleyes: don't believe me?
Panny PZ80u in a 50". Dithering was bad (visible during regular viewing), and PQ didn't look nearly as sharp as any of the new lcds. I had IR from a 3 hour Call of Duty session for 3 weeks, and could still see certain things months later (ammo count, etc). I'm not making this stuff up, i tried the plasma out, but didn't like it.

oh, and i did do the 100 hour break-in and still got some bad IR.

Ah, to each his own. But you can't say the tech is bad off of a bad experience. I actually did the opposite of you, LCD to Plasma.

Sure I get minor IR which is only noticeable switching input, and it has always gone away. You can't really see it unless you have your nose right on the screen. And the sharpness is better on LCDs when the picture is not in motion. I'll agree there.

RIIIIIIIGHT.

Because plasma is a perfect technology, right? It has perfect blacks and whites (not dirty), dithering doesn't exist ever, they look awesome in bright rooms compared to LCDs, they don't give off any heat, use any power, they are lightweight, and NEVER suffer IR or burn-in. Oh and no phosphor trails.

Face it, different people have different needs. I tried plasma, i really did. Great TVs for the price, but i couldn't stand the dithering or crappy daytime viewing, and i had some very bad IR after only a couple of hours of gaming for several days at a time (yes i did break it in too), which is worrying as i lived in a house with two buddies who love their Call of Duty. IMO picture looks so much sharper on an LCD and thats the look that i enjoy. and BTW offangle is definately exaggerated on both the 950 and xbr8, it's really not bad at all. It is definately one limitation of current LCDs, but that is an issue i can deal with... the IR and dithering weren't doing it for me.

Different strokes for different folks. As long as you are happy with what you are looking at, it's all good.

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with this statement. I spent countless hours looking at the Samy 950 and the colors wash out to a completely intolerable degree at even the slightest off axis viewing. I did prefer the whites on the XBR8 and 950 over the Pro151 and Pany 850 but after plenty of settings adjustments and plenty of bluray material I am familiar with I ended up with the Pany 850 and could not be happier. Blacks are excellent, colors are vibrant and rich, depth and detail are exceptional and I've failed at all unintentional attempts to get IR to stick. Even after falling asleep on the couch on several different occasions with a static menu image on the screen all night it was nothing that could be seen from a 7' viewing distance on a blank input and nothing that was not erased at a 1" viewing distance with some standard cable or movie watching.

After owning a XBR3 that was taken back after 2 years on an extended warranty for clouding and flashlights, having 2 other family members with issues on theirs, and knowing several friends that complain of flashlights and clouds on their Samy or Sony I am done with LCD until they iron out those issues and the off axis viewing/poor blacks as they are far more distracting imo than plasma issues (in my experience). And as far as daytime brightness goes most videophiles should have day and night viewing settings regardless of plasma or lcd imo.

Ah well, the LCDite's only see the flaws in the other type of display. Anyone with eyes can easily see the drop off in rendition if you move a little off center, but the LCDites are willing to accept this so they can avoid the non-existent burn in that they perceive plasma has.

Yes, plasma can have a bit of IR, but it goes away quickly, and yes it uses a tad more energy, but those are minor issues. A major issue is the fact that I can't sit in half the seating in my room with an LCD display and enjoy it. My LCD ended up in the bedroom where I only watch from my bed. LCds , the bedroom tv, I can see the ad campaign now...

Ah well, the LCDite's only see the flaws in the other type of display. Anyone with eyes can easily see the drop off in rendition if you move a little off center, but the LCDites are willing to accept this so they can avoid the non-existent burn in that they perceive plasma has.

Yes, plasma can have a bit of IR, but it goes away quickly, and yes it uses a tad more energy, but those are minor issues. A major issue is the fact that I can't sit in half the seating in my room with an LCD display and enjoy it. My LCD ended up in the bedroom where I only watch from my bed. LCds , the bedroom tv, I can see the ad campaign now...

Wrong, i did have severe IR and that did bother me, that i couldn't just put in a movie and watch it without worrying about the black bars. If IR/Burn in are such non-issues, why do all plasma manufacturers put warnings in the instruction books? Besides, i find LCDs (good ones, not cheap ones) give a nice razor sharp image that plasma just can't match IMO.

sorry, i just didn't like my plasma. I had some issues, just like some other people have issues with LCD. Personally, i don't mind viewing angle problems (especially since they have been blown out of proportion on the XBR8), but i don't like dithering or babying my tv. If you guys find you don't get IR/dithering, then awesome. But i did, and i sold the TV because of it. None of these techs are perfect, and they all suffer from their own inherent issues (although much less than a few years ago).

You are one of a handful of people who claim they see dithering and are bothered by it, you are certainly a VERY small minority on AVS. I in no way baby my plasmas. I watch what I want with out regard. I have no issues or problems. In fact, my 94 year old fater watches all kinds of stuff on his plasma, lots of old shows as well as HD sports, again no issues. Your "facts' just don't align with reality.

I have no idea what set you had and when you had it. If it was more that a couple of years ago you need to realize things have changed --a lot! If it was more recesnt, then you had either a bad display or you used off the wall settings.

If you are happy with your LCD, fine. I want to make a point to potential buyers that your experience is in no way typical and not let it scare anyone away from an excellent technology.

I have no idea what set you had and when you had it. If it was more that a couple of years ago you need to realize things have changed --a lot! If it was more recesnt, then you had either a bad display or you used off the wall settings.

He had a Panny PZ80u. This was only a year and a half ago, so things couldn't have changed that much :) Of course, he may just have gotten a bad set.

I had an ln46a650, and many blurays had this "on a set" look that really detracted from the films. I also noticed a lot a juttering on panning shots as well as in game motion. My pn58b550, which I paid roughly the same for $1700 USD shipped 3 months ago and has a night and day difference when it comes to motion handling. The IR is still problem, as occasionally you will see a USA or etc in the bottom of the screen for a few minutes. Gone also is the "On a set look". Off angle viewing is much better also. I am not happy that my ln46a650 got a cracked screen when I moved, ruining it forever... but I initially bought the plasma simply for the hard glass screen, I didn't know the other claims were very true.

I have not done a direct comparison with LED, but as with most newer technologies, it will not come into its own for several years. I would have to recommend a good plasma for the time being. My next AV purchase will be a projector however, but I see myself still enjoying my plasma for years to come.

As a happy plasma owner for 5 years with my Pioneer 433cmx I have been looking for an upgrade but nothing has turned my head until reading that D Nice has praise for the upcoming Samsung 8500 led.Yes its expensive but if it equals the Kuro for black levels,has no buzz which Leds do not and the colors pop and the 240 motion control keeps it in check this might be the new flat panel to rise to the top of the heap.

As a happy plasma owner for 5 years with my Pioneer 433cmx I have been looking for an upgrade but nothing has turned my head until reading that D Nice has praise for the upcoming Samsung 8500 led.Yes its expensive but if it equals the Kuro for black levels,has no buzz which Leds do not and the colors pop and the 240 motion control keeps it in check this might be the new flat panel to rise to the top of the heap.That would be nice but unfortunately a glossy screen is likely to kill it as a choice for many people. It really would be nice if Samsung offered matte and glossy screen options. Having a matte screen option could bring in sales that would otherwise be lost to Sony.

As a happy plasma owner for 5 years with my Pioneer 433cmx I have been looking for an upgrade but nothing has turned my head until reading that D Nice has praise for the upcoming Samsung 8500 led.Yes its expensive but if it equals the Kuro for black levels,has no buzz which Leds do not and the colors pop and the 240 motion control keeps it in check this might be the new flat panel to rise to the top of the heap.

OK, I guess I will finally weigh in on plasma. I have owned (early on, of course) CRT's and loved 'em. Then I owned various LCD's (primarily Sony, followed by Toshiba) until deciding to "try" the latest Panasonic v-10 series plasma...si don't pronounce me a "fanboy" of anything in particular !;)
I decided to try Panny and the plasma primarily due to the "different and difficult" seating positions we acquired in a new home (a second home). We have a need to sit at 45 degree angles off from the face of the tv unfortunately. Unlike ANY of the LCD's, we get a magnificently crisp view ANYWHERE. But more important, pay attention to numerous test studies done on motion blur w/ LCD's. The Panny plasma is almost rock solid-same with motion. So that razor-sharp LCD that I enjoyed static, becomes VERY reduced in lines of resolution discernable with motion of say hockey. football, etc.
Bottom line...PLASMA easily gets my unbiased vote (at least the Panny V-19 series. :cool:

I understand your position but this 8500 is suppose to be something completely different.Im going to definitely have to view and spend a lot of time with this model and read as many reviews before i buy.I just want to get the wow factor back into my viewing as happen when I bought my 433 plasma

I don't know about "completely" different. It seems that it's essentially a thinner A950 with significantly more LED zones (a very good thing!) but it's certainly too early to declare it a revolutionary panel rather than an evolutionary one. It remains to be seen how it performs under scrutiny with regard to viewing angles, motion handling, picture uniformity, and dark room-viewing; amongst other things.

It appears that the 8500s have started to ship already, so we should be hearing and seeing a lot more soon.

I saw the new Sharp (7000?), and it has a shiny plastic screen (just like a plasma). The contrast was pretty impressive with what appeared to be excellent viewing angles (minimal degradation of contrast off-axis). Blooming seemed to be relatively under control, but shadow detail seemed to be a problem.

No matter what they do the 8500 is still and LCD unit with all it's baggage. The back lighting was never a real issue as far as I was concerned, it's just the easiest thing to hype up and distract from the real issues LCDs have.

No matter what they do the 8500 is still and LCD unit with all it's baggage. The back lighting was never a real issue as far as I was concerned, it's just the easiest thing to hype up and distract from the real issues LCDs have.

except that local dimming LED sets improve contrast to plasma levels (or very near) and the scanning backlight that the sets use improve motion resolution to 1080 lines. The biggest fault of LCD is the viewing angles and price, but this doesn't bug me as i don't have seats 90 degrees off center anyway, and i could afford it. And i find the "bad" viewing angle on the xbr8 over exaggerated. Colors do fall off, but not until the screen is obscured by the angle itself. On the a950, however, viewing angle does fall off quickly. Apparently the 8500 may have improved viewing angles from the use of more LEDs, but only time will tell. In very dark scenes, blooming is sometimes witnessed on the A950, but i've never seen it on the xbr8.

BTW last year the A950 and XBR8 were both rated as equal or greater than every plasma other than the pioneers in PQ. Despite what you say, the local dimming technology is improving lcds picture quality by quite a bit.

Here's a great read on the subject....

http://www.techradar.com/news/television/hdtv/led-tvs-10-things-you-need-to-know-637079