This is why I ask here...So i use the Xbox forums daily, and people over there are trying to tell me that the newer LCD's have better blacks and whites then plasmas. I was always under the assumption that Plasmas had the better blacks and whites.

So which is it???

Reason i ask because everyone over there that says whites are grey and blacks are not true black on plasmas, I question, because I have the 42pz77u, yes alot of people dont like the blacks on it, but my blacks look pretty black and my whites are not grey. Am I missing something???

Plasmas emit no light on black. LCDs have to block the backlight with liquid crystals and polarizers. They tend to leak light. So, in an entirely black room, plasma's black will be superior.

However, the internal structure of a plasma will REFLECT more light than a LCD in a lit room. The stronger the ambient light, the higher the reflection. Relfection will dilute the black level AND the all the colors. In this case, LCDs will have better color saturation.

kool..thanks for the response

Plasmas emit no light on black. LCDs have to block the backlight with liquid crystals and polarizers. They tend to leak light. So, in an entirely black room, plasma's black will be superior.

However, the internal structure of a plasma will REFLECT more light than a LCD in a lit room. The stronger the ambient light, the higher the reflection. Relfection will dilute the black level AND the all the colors. In this case, LCDs will have better color saturation.

It's not true that plasmas emit no light on black. They need to keep the pixels in a semi charged state at all times to improve response times, so black is not absolute black. Even the new Kuro, widely considered to have the best black level of any flat panel (except perhaps the samsung 81 LCDs) doesn't have totally black blacks.

In general it's probably still true that plasmas have better blacks than LCDs, but newer LCDs have made gigantic strides in this area. For example, my pretty low end Vizio plasma's blacks are far inferior to my parents' Samsung 71 LCD. That's not exactly an apples to apples comparison, since the 71 series is pretty high end.

I should add that I think plasmas still have better overall picture quality, especially for video games. Virtually no motion blur, perfect off axis viewing, and a great natural picture.

The Sharp LCDs, Samsung LCDs, as well as the Sony can muster blacker blacks than most plasmas. Times are changing!

The new-age LCDs can get darker than my previous Pioneer 5070, although not a drastic difference on real world viewing. Its really cool. Remember the days when the best LCDs black level resembled more 'white' than actual black. Now they're beating plasmas... insane!

Viewing angles, motion resolution are a different story though. LCD is still lagging behind in those categories.

LCDs can have better blacks than plasmas for sure, but in general I would say they are about equal, with the new Pioneer Kuro plasmas having the very best black performance in general. Some LCDs can actually go deeper, but only with dynamic tricks that aren't perfect.

My comment plasmas emitting no light as black was a way to balance the playing field. Plasma emit PRACTICALLY no light as "black". LCDs still have to block the backlight. They leak light and polarizer do not block 100% of the light. And please do not start with the "dynamic" CR crap. Any game used to make LCD CR better by using marketing tricks like "dynamic ratios" is plain stupid.

Try looking at a LCD in totally dark room and tell me that there is no light leak. In a totally dark room, LCDs will be lighter than plasmas. Now, turn on the lights and watch TV in normal lighting. The story is completely different. LCDs will win (to most people) because of the reflections of ambient light which is worse on a plasma.

DBLASS' explanation is spot on! Just head to a big box store with a large display of panels and see how different each can be. The Vizio 50" plasma has gray bars at best, and the Samsung LCD 71 series has blacks to match the surrounding bezel. These are just two examples of how panels will differ, and there's no real answer to the original question. Several years ago, you could easily say that plasmas had superior blacks, but now it's a matter of what you like in terms of seeing those items that are just off-black and just off-white.

My comment plasmas emitting no light as black was a way to balance the playing field. Plasma emit PRACTICALLY no light as "black". LCDs still have to block the backlight. They leak light and polarizer do not block 100% of the light. And please do not start with the "dynamic" CR crap. Any game used to make LCD CR better by using marketing tricks like "dynamic ratios" is plain stupid.

Try looking at a LCD in totally dark room and tell me that there is no light leak. In a totally dark room, LCDs will be lighter than plasmas. Now, turn on the lights and watch TV in normal lighting. The story is completely different. LCDs will win (to most people) because of the reflections of ambient light which is worse on a plasma.

The "light leak" that you refer to is less than the light given off by plasmas on some LCDs, and dynamic cr is no marketing gimmick, the techniques used actually produce better picture quality and much darker blacks than what would have otherwise been possible without using dynamic backlighting. The Samsung LCDs are capable of complete black. No light emission at all.

My 25 years in displays and 16 years in TFT tell me other wise. If you have a LCD, run it in an absolute dark room. Now, tell me if the screen emits even a slight glow. I assure you, it will be glowing a'plenty.

Dynamic CR is crap, assuming you understand that dynamic CR is a testing parameter and NOT a driving technique. If you are referring to the LED back method of lighting up areas of the screen while leaving other off, that is NOT dynamic CR (10000:1 ratings), it is dynamic backlighting technology owned by Dolby. It may work but the technology (LED driver) and the LED backlight will not be cheap (quite the contrary) and very few sets use it (costs are too high).

Why focus so much on Blacks only. Isn't the real test; does a panel not have severe floating blacks issues, and how well does it display shadow details? Solid screen areas of total black, are not that hard to achieve, but avoiding having them float, in order to display some shadow details, is the real challenge.

My comment plasmas emitting no light as black was a way to balance the playing field. Plasma emit PRACTICALLY no light as "black". LCDs still have to block the backlight. They leak light and polarizer do not block 100% of the light. And please do not start with the "dynamic" CR crap. Any game used to make LCD CR better by using marketing tricks like "dynamic ratios" is plain stupid.

Try looking at a LCD in totally dark room and tell me that there is no light leak. In a totally dark room, LCDs will be lighter than plasmas. Now, turn on the lights and watch TV in normal lighting. The story is completely different. LCDs will win (to most people) because of the reflections of ambient light which is worse on a plasma.

Well I guess so. But I say to you, even putting Pioneer's Kuro in a totally black room, you'll see the minimum luminance glow from the panel as well. Sure its darker than any LCD besides maybe one.

Plasmas have prominent glows when the screen is completely black. They may not need to block light, but they sure can't look 'off' unless there's enough bright spots on the screen to make it look that way.

My comment plasmas emitting no light as black was a way to balance the playing field. Plasma emit PRACTICALLY no light as "black". LCDs still have to block the backlight. They leak light and polarizer do not block 100% of the light. And please do not start with the "dynamic" CR crap. Any game used to make LCD CR better by using marketing tricks like "dynamic ratios" is plain stupid.

Try looking at a LCD in totally dark room and tell me that there is no light leak. In a totally dark room, LCDs will be lighter than plasmas. Now, turn on the lights and watch TV in normal lighting. The story is completely different. LCDs will win (to most people) because of the reflections of ambient light which is worse on a plasma.

So...you're lying to balance lies that LCD proponents supposedly tell?

Current high end LCDs have black levels that are extremely competitive with current high end plasmas. I agree to an extent that LCD blacks look "weird" due to the polarizers, lack of screen uniformity, etc. But it's still pretty damn black.

My 25 years in displays and 16 years in TFT tell me other wise. If you have a LCD, run it in an absolute dark room. Now, tell me if the screen emits even a slight glow. I assure you, it will be glowing a'plenty.


Haha. You're killing me. You say that they glow a'plenty, yet plasmas emit no light. The best lcds emit the same amount of light that plasmas do, and in some cases better, it's a fact, not up for debate. Your 25 years of display experience are completely irrelevent. I'm pretty sure you've never seen a modern LCD (sony xbr4, samsung 81, etc) in a dark room.

Why focus so much on Blacks only. Isn't the real test; does a panel not have severe floating blacks issues, and how well does it display shadow details? Solid screen areas of total black, are not that hard to achieve, but avoiding having them float, in order to display some shadow details, is the real challenge.

greenland is right! Proper shadow detail while maintaining dark blacks is what's really important. Glowing blacks are very annoying, but so are black areas of an image with crushed details.
I went with a plasma for this reason since the LCDs I had experience with before were pretty crappy in this area. I'm sure the high end LCD sets out now are miles better, though. Still, they suck with motion:p

greenland is right! Proper shadow detail while maintaining dark blacks is what's really important. Glowing blacks are very annoying, but so are black areas of an image with crushed details.
I went with a plasma for this reason since the LCDs I had experience with before were pretty crappy in this area. I'm sure the high end LCD sets out now are miles better, though. Still, they suck with motion:p

well of course, i mean, that's why people say "except MAYBE the 81" when saying Kuros are the blackest...because the 81's blacks only are truly benefited when most of the screen is black, otherwise it's not that much different from a normal current gen LCD, it cant really do mixed blacks at all with its LED's, and does float blacks....then again so do Pioneers, but they've been able to fix that over time or so i hear.

don't forget the other end of the spectrum. yes there is heavy competition for who has better black level performance, i personally don't watch tv all the time in a room dark enough for plasma strengths to shine, let's talk about white performance.

compare a plasma to an lcd in white level and you will see plasma is positively grey which also affect the contrast of the entire image.

to get plasmas to achieve higher contrast you really have to lower the light level in the room and not have an lcd beside it.

well of course, i mean, that's why people say "except MAYBE the 81" when saying Kuros are the blackest...because the 81's blacks only are truly benefited when most of the screen is black, otherwise it's not that much different from a normal current gen LCD, it cant really do mixed blacks at all with its LED's, and does float blacks....then again so do Pioneers, but they've been able to fix that over time or so i hear.

Pioneer black doesn't float. Some plasmas float. Pioneer blacks, at least with the last 3 gens never float.

don't forget the other end of the spectrum. yes there is heavy competition for who has better black level performance, i personally don't watch tv all the time in a room dark enough for plasma strengths to shine, let's talk about white performance.

compare a plasma to an lcd in white level and you will see plasma is positively grey which also affect the contrast of the entire image.

to get plasmas to achieve higher contrast you really have to lower the light level in the room and not have an lcd beside it.

If your room is very very bright, then yes this may be an issue. For those with dedicated home theaters and even normally lit rooms its a non-issue. Thing about black level is you don't need another TV sitting by it to see if its a problem or not. You will have reference of how black is ALWAYS.

To compare white levels you need two TVs in the same room at the same time. And even then, when plasmas whites peak 40 ftl easily w/ alot of viewing material it makes the arguement even more hazy.

Yes, if your room is extremely bright, LCD is the better choice because you can run it 100 ftl plus, there's a jet black matte screen. But if your room is that bright, its not inviting to an accurate image anyway. It's like trying to judge a sound systems quality while letting some kid smack a trash can lid right next to you.

LCD may do better w/ alot of light... but they still struggle vs light. Best images (most accurate) regardless of display will always be achieved when the room is dimmer. That's why the better LCDs always have good black performance. That's why most people who own LCD displays lower the backlight on their displays.. darker blacks at the sacrifice of really bright whites.

Not much of a sacrifice in my opinion.

This is a great thread. I'm picking up a set for the Living room either for Christmas or by super bowl and have it narrowed down to the following:

LCD
Sony KDL-46S3000
Samsung LNT4661

Plasma
Samsung HP-T5064
Panasonic TH50PX75U

I have fairly good light control, but have a lot of windows. Mainly for watching HD and SD TV, SD and HD DVD's and Wii play (for the kids).

This is not my main set up as I have a dedicated theater room, but trying to do something decent for the living room while not taking over the room.

Suggestions?

plasma do tend to reflect light more (unelss you have one of those ultra glossy samsungs), but i'm starting to feel like even then it handles light better in lighter rooms (maybe not sunlight, but regular lights).

the matte screen of an LCD absorbs it, whereas with a plasma, it almost has an unintentional vivid effect.

this may sound crazy but i almost enjoy my plasma more with the lights on (again, not sunlight/daytime, just inside lights).

In the past, this would have been easy to answer..."plasma all the way". These days however, you must judge different models on an individual basis...lcd technology has gotten to a point where I've seen certain high end Samsung/Sony models that appear to have slightly better black levels than lower end plasmas from Vizio/LG. Of course, nothing touches the Pioneer Kuro for black levels with Panasonic coming in second place.

edit- In any case, it is hard to judge from looking at a store showroom....too bad we can't see every model calibrated and in a home setting.

DBLASS' explanation is spot on! Just head to a big box store with a large display of panels and see how different each can be. The Vizio 50" plasma has gray bars at best, and the Samsung LCD 71 series has blacks to match the surrounding bezel. These are just two examples of how panels will differ, and there's no real answer to the original question. Several years ago, you could easily say that plasmas had superior blacks, but now it's a matter of what you like in terms of seeing those items that are just off-black and just off-white.

Not sure if that's a fair comparison as you're taking a lower tier plasma and comparing it to a an upper tier LCD.

The 9G Pioneer Kuro plasmas hold the top spot for black levels AND shadow detail. LCDs hold the top spot for brightest whites. But we'll see if LCDs can take the top spot for black levels when people have had a chance to review the new Sony XBR8s. They have a ridiculous price tag associated with them, so they better do something REALLY good. But as for now, 9G Pioneer Kuro plasmas (not just any plasmas) are number one for black levels.

I find it ammusing when people use plasma white levels as a con, just they like they say that plasmas aren't as energy efficient. Is it really that hard to find cons that apply to real world viewing on plasmas, that this is what they resort to?

If you like an extremely bright image, then there is no other choice but an LCD for you. If you are a stickler for performance, that you are more than likely looking for an accurate image (director intended), which conforms to the REC709 standard, which is going to put both plasma and lcd at the same exact peak luminence level, which is right around 35fl. Also, have an accurate grayscale, than the whites on both displays are going to look pretty darn similar.

Well I guess so. But I say to you, even putting Pioneer's Kuro in a totally black room, you'll see the minimum luminance glow from the panel as well. Sure its darker than any LCD besides maybe one.

Plasmas have prominent glows when the screen is completely black. They may not need to block light, but they sure can't look 'off' unless there's enough bright spots on the screen to make it look that way.

The light level of the 9G is very little in a totally dark room.
When the screen is all black and your eyes have adjusted to the darkness, You can see a small amount of luminance.
But as soon as you watch content this changes drastically. With a good image with regular contrast, It is extremely hard to tell where the black bars end and the bezel begins on widescreen movies.
With regular movie content and a small amount of ambient light, I cannot tell where the bezel begins and the black bars start or vice versa.

Keep in mind that some of the newest LCD with the Blackest Blacks actually have MORE reflective screens than the newest plasmas. The new Samsungs are downright mirror like.

The new Samsung 950 has a 2million:1 contrast ratio. That should answer the OP's question.

I find it ammusing when people use plasma white levels as a con.

whites on both displays are going to look pretty darn similar.
Sure like in the movie "Eight Below".

The new Samsung 950 has a 2million:1 contrast ratio. That should answer the OP's question.
Cband, I know the 950 is a LED set, but is the contrast quote based on a static ANSI testing or some kind of "Dynamic" test that is privy only to Samsung?

You know what I mean, remember when the CR was always based on static testing? Then if you remember correctly Samsung couldn't keep up by just quoting the static number and invented "Dynamic" testing.

Marketing gimmick and we all knew it, but allot of people bought into it, literally.

The static contrast for the 950 will range from x00:1 up to x0,000:1 depending on what pattern/position you measure on the screen. This variable static contrast is a problem IMO. Of course the x,000,000:1 ratio is a dynamic (LEDs all off vs all on) type measurement.

Cband, I know the 950 is a LED set, but is the contrast quote based on a static ANSI testing or some kind of "Dynamic" test that is privy only to Samsung?

You know what I mean, remember when the CR was always based on static testing? Then if you remember correctly Samsung couldn't keep up by just quoting the static number and invented "Dynamic" testing.

Marketing gimmick and we all knew it, but allot of people bought into it, literally.
I agree I'm sure its dynamic. But your eyeballs will tell the story. When I compared the Pio against the 81 series the contrast is something. Now with even a larger contrast ratio (wish it was ansi measured) the blacks have to be in LCD's court.

Go to a BB and compare the 950 and a Elite and have them play "Eight Below" on bluray and you'll see what I mean. With this movie and comparing a Pio Elite and a Samsung 950 I don't know why anyone would buy the Pioneer. And its because of the black levels of the 950 not the white.

The new Samsung 950 has a 2million:1 contrast ratio. That should answer the OP's question.

Lol, huh?

Lol, huh?

I guess they think the 950 is actually better than a 9g Elite :rolleyes: From what I've read in the user thread they have quite a few problems. The 950 is not LCD's savior no matter how hard some people try to convince themselves and others. Wait for the reviews(not best buy viewings..), with problems like blooming and still notoriously bad viewing angles I think it's obvious what display will win.The XBR8 might have a fighting chance if they can fix the 950s problems.

Go to a BB and compare the 950 and a Elite and have them play "Eight Below" on bluray and you'll see what I mean. With this movie and comparing a Pio Elite and a Samsung 950 I don't know why anyone would buy the Pioneer. And its because of the black levels of the 950 not the white.

You LCD fans love to bring up that movie, do you leave it looped on your set 24/7 :rolleyes: How about Batman Begins, Master and Commander? Try those in a dark room on a 950 and get back to us. I think you're knowledgeable enough to know the BB floor isn't a fair comparison, you only make yourself look foolish by comparing TVs that way

You LCD fans love to bring up that movie, do you leave it looped on your set 24/7 :rolleyes: How about Batman Begins, Master and Commander? Try those in a dark room on a 950 and get back to us. I think you're knowledgeable enough to know the BB floor isn't a fair comparison, you only make yourself look foolish by comparing TVs that way

LOL. Don't stop, I love you guys.

He makes a reference to a what would be considered a "bright" movie to show that LCD is better, and you are all over it. Then in the same breath you bring up the same thing by recommending a "dark" movie.

Two sides of the same coin.

But you are correct, BB is not a good place to see the sets, plasma or LCD, at their best. However unless we go out and buy the sets and return them, for most of us it is about the only thing that we can do.

Yeah but he comments on the blacks, everyone knows a plasma washes blacks out in a bright room, if you want to see how it performs go see it in a dark room or at a friend's. If you think Pioneers are trash because of what you see in Best Buy well fine, but you have no idea what you're missing.

But you are correct, BB is not a good place to see the sets, plasma or LCD, at their best. However unless we go out and buy the sets and return them, for most of us it is about the only thing that we can do.

It's a much better place to judge an LCD than it is a plasma, plasma are at a disadvantage to LCDs in retail stores.

It's a much better place to judge an LCD than it is a plasma, plasma are at a disadvantage to LCDs in retail sotres.

It is OK if you can get your hands on the remote for the set and display your own picked material. Problem is most of the sales people there wont allow you to do that at a BB.

I bought my set by doing that at a Magnolia (a real Magnolia, not the BB version). I took some DVD's in and ran them on the sets I wanted to check. Played with the settings, got an idea of how they would react and how easy the menus are to manuver in.

Yeah I agree, no display set to torch mode is a fair. Then again they only give the public (not AVS Forum:mad:) what they want

I guess they think the 950 is actually better than a 9g Elite.

Yes it is. I bought the 550 Samsung and the black levels are very good for a 1.6K TV.

I own 3 LCD's now and a 2005 Sharp model pales in compare. LCD is the new sheriff in town. Get used to it. 2nd generation LED LCD its all down hill for Pioneer now, unless Pioneer can pull a rabbit out if its hat. And I believe Pioneer took a step backwards with not making the panels anymore.

Now will hear the plasma folks say black levels aren't everything.:p

BTW: using Eight Below is a way to see what contrast really is.

I'm not going to bash the Samsung LCDs because they are excellent displays (but not for me) but I still don't think you can make such a bold statement without something to back it up. People who have owned it and at the same time seen an elite 9g before said it might be better in a bright room but not a dark room. Now that's nothing conclusive but I'd rather wait for a review than you saying it's the best because you saw it on an endcap at best buy

BTW: using Eight Below is a way to see what contrast really is.

You can't compare contrast in a bright room.. with LCD or plasma. Any contrast measurement is done in a completely dark room. Your eyes can't perceive the full contrast of your display with any added ambient light especially with a plasma. That 30,000:1 contrast ratio might look more like 1000:1 in Best Buy under fluorescent lights.

^^^
Prepare yourself for flat panel LED LCD the sunami is about to hit.

Sharp, Sony, LG and maybe Pioneer will have a set out soon.

:rolleyes: cband you crack me up. If they're better then great I'm asking you to prove it. Anyone that doesn't want displays to advance whether they are LCD or Plasma has something wrong with them. Aren't you excited about the new Panasonic NeoPDPs or the 10g Kuros too, or are they on your black list because they are plasmas? Trust me read about those NeoPDPs and you will see plasma isn't going anywhere.

:rolleyes: cband you crack me up. If they're better then great I'm asking you to prove it. Anyone that doesn't want displays to advance whether they are LCD or Plasma has something wrong with them. Aren't you excited about the new Panasonic NeoPDPs or the 10g Kuros too, or are they on your black list because they are plasmas? Trust me read about those NeoPDPs and you will see plasma isn't going anywhere.
Pioneer I'd take a look at, but like I said they took a step backwards IMO.

I don't know about a step backwards, Panasonic has much better facilities for the glass and they will have bigger sizes available to them too. Pioneer will still be one step ahead of Panasonic with ECC and will still make all the electronics and processing. Time will tell if the sets will be of the same quality but I have a good feeling about a partnership with Panasonic. That and 5 lumen tech will put plasma on par with LCD for power consumption (or better?) and should put the whites issue to rest.

The new Samsung 950 has a 2million:1 contrast ratio. That should answer the OP's question.
Not to bash the 950, I'm sure its a good TV, but until they can get the backlight LEDs down to a tiny size, it's just more dynamic contrast tricks. For a perfectly black screen, the 950 wins. Put a bright starfield on screen, and then your black levels are all over the place. I think i'd find that more distracting than beneficial.

Also, anyone ever compare the Samsung 650 to the Panny 800U series? I'm not sure if I should switch over to plasma, since my LCD's black levels are a bit disappointing.
Comparing Kuros to top-end LED backlit LCDs is one thing, but what about the $1000-$2000 range?

Also, anyone ever compare the Samsung 650 to the Panny 800U series? I'm not sure if I should switch over to plasma, since my LCD's black levels are a bit disappointing.
Comparing Kuros to top-end LED backlit LCDs is one thing, but what about the $1000-$2000 range?

If you are disappointed with the 650 blacks the 800U won't give you much more, I'd only switch over if the viewing angles, "flashlights", or motion are problems. If blacks are the only problem you have with the 650 then it isn't worth it.

The new Samsung 950 has a 2million:1 contrast ratio. That should answer the OP's question.

I always laugh when I see contrast claims like this.
they really need to create a standard way to measure contrast ratios.
Whats next, 700billion:1 ?

Yes it is. I bought the 550 Samsung and the black levels are very good for a 1.6K TV.

I own 3 LCD's now and a 2005 Sharp model pales in compare. LCD is the new sheriff in town. Get used to it. 2nd generation LED LCD its all down hill for Pioneer now, unless Pioneer can pull a rabbit out if its hat. And I believe Pioneer took a step backwards with not making the panels anymore.

Now will hear the plasma folks say black levels aren't everything.:p

BTW: using Eight Below is a way to see what contrast really is.

In your opinion, not any bench test.
And their black levels aren't to 9g standards...not even really 8g because 8g stays at its' .004 across the screen with images on the screen....and that's just one thing.
How about sample and hol which creats a blurry mess....is that completely eliminated?

Whats next, 700billion:1 ?

In business the goal is to put out the best product at the best price.

With Samsung on top this CR is possible.:)

I always laugh when I see contrast claims like this.
they really need to create a standard way to measure contrast ratios.
Whats next, 700billion:1 ?
As I always laugh at your posts

I always laugh when I see contrast claims like this.
they really need to create a standard way to measure contrast ratios.
Whats next, 700billion:1 ?

what's next?, Pioneer 10G. infinite contrast!, true zero luminance.

what's next?, Pioneer 10G. infinite contrast!, true zero luminance.Better watch out or he will report you to the mods so there is nothing negative said

Wow, it didn't take long for the personal attacks to come out... how old are we?

To the original poster, the LCDs like the Samsungs 81 and 91 series or the Sony XBR8 will have a better black in SOME cases than a Kuro. It will be better with an absolute black screen because of its ability to turn off the LEDs. Where it will not be able to touch it is with mixed contrast images. You will have to deal with zone-lighting overspill which will screw up a lot of the ANSI (or mixed) contrast.

LCD is the new sheriff in town. Get used to it. 2nd generation LED LCD its all down hill for Pioneer now, unless Pioneer can pull a rabbit out if its hat. And I believe Pioneer took a step backwards with not making the panels anymore.

Now will hear the plasma folks say black levels aren't everything.:p

If you've read up on up and coming plasma technology I wouldn't say they are dead yet. If 5 lumen technology delivers next year from what I've read it will handle brightness much more efficiently than current plasma technology. It may actually come close or compete with LCDs in brightness and won't have the "zone" issues that come along with local dimming.

LCD has come a long way and if I were watching in BB I'd get an LCD also. But IMO it still depends on the person's environment and viewing habits as to which display is the right one. It's funny when threads like these come up. It's the same thing every time. LCD'ers come in and say it's all about white levels/brightness. Then the plasma guys come in and say it's all about a darkened room and black levels. But in reality I think most of us want both whether we admit it or not. :D

I for one don't like the brightness limited on plasmas which is the main reason the whites look aren't as vivid on a movie like Eight Below. I guarantee you that if 5 lumen technology comes out next year and the whites are brighter on the 10Gs that you won't hear plasma guys complaining about it.

Yes it is. I bought the 550 Samsung and the black levels are very good for a 1.6K TV.

I own 3 LCD's now and a 2005 Sharp model pales in compare. LCD is the new sheriff in town. Get used to it. 2nd generation LED LCD its all down hill for Pioneer now, unless Pioneer can pull a rabbit out if its hat. And I believe Pioneer took a step backwards with not making the panels anymore.

Now will hear the plasma folks say black levels aren't everything.:p

BTW: using Eight Below is a way to see what contrast really is.
:rolleyes: "LCD is the new sheriff in town," lol. I think people that make general statements like this just have a bad case of sour grapes. As a person that recommended a Samsung LN52A650 and LNT5271F to friends and family, I can tell you Pioneer Elites are truly much better sets. If I thought the Samsungs looked and performed better, I would have bought them instead. Hell, for the price I'm paying for my Pioneer 141, I could have almost gotten 2 Samsung 55" 950s. The only display IMO that will give the 9G Elites a run for their money is Sony's new XBR8s. However, the one thing that I believe will be left unresolved is the motion issues that are inherent to all LCDs (120Hz or 60Hz). Maybe with the new 240Hz sets Sony will be releasing, it will take care of this problem. But until then, the Elites are the best sets, at least in my eyes.

And look at these whites (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=920011&page=76). Truly awful looking. :rolleyes:

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-ln-46a950/4505-6482_7-33182079.html?tag=mncol;lst

snippet:
Black level: Black levels on this display are superb, lending the image more pop and contrast than with any LCD we've tested. In dark scenes the Samsung LN46A950 approached the depth of black delivered by the current black-level champion, Pioneer's PDP-5020FD plasma, and beat the other displays in the room to a greater or lesser extent. At the 33:36 mark in the film, for example, showing a suburban lane lit by a couple of streetlights, the A950's letterbox bars, along with the black shadows of an unlit house and the side of a tree, all appeared darker than the other displays aside from the Pioneer, although they were just barely better than the Panasonic plasma. During the brief times when the screen faded entirely to black, the Samsung's LEDs turned off completely and its screen was darker than the Pioneer's. In other extremely dark shots, such as 55:40 and 57:35 into the film, the Samsung also briefly appeared darker than the Pioneer.

snippet2:
Color accuracy: According to our measurements the Samsung LN46A950 has the best all-around color of any TV, LCD or plasma, we can remember testing. Observations of Transformers backed up the measurements quite well. Primary and secondary colors, like the red of Prime's hood and the blue of his helmet, as well as the cyan of Lake Mead in the sunlight and the yellow of the dust kicked up by the helicopters, all looked as true or more-so than any of the displays in our comparison, including the superb Panasonic plasma and the other Samsung displays. The grayscale from light to dark areas stayed linear, which showed up in the natural skin tones of Maggie both under the interrogation lights and lit by the rising sun in the helicopter. Colors also appeared rich and extremely well-saturated, owing to the Samsung's excellent black levels and spot-on color decoding. Finally, unlike many other LCDs, the A950 didn't discolor noticeably in black or very dark areas, maintaining as neutral of a grayscale as either of the two excellent plasmas.


read the whole review, it's really interesting now for lcd.
you can probably walk away with the opinion that the 950 beat the kuro elite or the kuro elite beat the 950. it really depends on what you prefer.

can't wait to see how the rest of the led backlit lcd's perform later this year.

read the whole review, it's really interesting now for lcd.
you can probably walk away with the opinion that the 950 beat the kuro elite or the kuro elite beat the 950. it really depends on what you prefer.

can't wait to see how the rest of the led backlit lcd's perform later this year.

They're talking about the 5020 not the elite, if anything they say it doesn't beat it black levels, motion or processing. Doesn't sound like it came close to beating anything to me especially not an elite. If that's the case it's pretty sad Samsung's top TV can barely compete with Pioneer's cheapest. In dark scenes the Samsung LN46A950 approached the depth of black delivered by the current black-level champion, Pioneer's PDP-5020FD plasma not quite there yet.. and that's with eyes not numbers. At other times, however, the A950 appeared slightly less impactful and high-contrast than a couple of the other displays. As we mentioned, the LED backlights can be dimmed or turned off completely, but since they don't correspond precisely to the number of pixels on the display, sometimes they don't turn off enough, especially when a bright area is displayed right next to a dark area. We saw numerous examples of this kind of "blooming" effect during the film Hmm, doesn't seem like the top display to me.. and It's worth mentioning here that black level performance fell off precipitously when we moved off-angle by just one seat cushion on our test couch. Check out Uniformity for the full scoop. I think the Elites are still king, no worries ;)

Lets see? We have comparable black levels with LCD now?

And I believe LCD has the white levels in its court?

What should I buy? Hmmmm

Whatever you want, just don't try to sell me one :p You can have all the Samsung LCDs you want, at least more than 2 people can watch my tv!

see, i told you you can skew the comments any which way. i could spend time to rebut but it's useless to try and sway a mind already made. have fun with your plasma.

everyone gets what they want. isn't that really the point?

Lets see? We have comparable black levels with LCD now?

And I believe LCD has the white levels in its court?

What should I buy? Hmmmm

not just comparable black levels. comparable black levels in the evironment best suited for plasmas/movies. this is one of the last significant strongholds of plasma tech imo.

in moderate to bright conditions lcd's blacks and whites are much better. the 950 samsung has just widened the gap to a ridiculous degree.

not to mention motion resolution. plasma had the advantage. no longer.

too bad that samsung is getting greedy though. they have raised the msrp almost 1k bringing the 950 55 inch to 5k. sony is going to be even more expensive.

hopefully like every other electronics the prices will come down.

the bb near me is still trying to sell the 5281 series for 4k used. :p

I was killing some time last night waiting for a plane to head home.

Just off of the Portland OR airport there is a brand new shopping area and a new BB that is the largest one I have seen. Great way to kill an hour.

In the higher end area that has a lower light level than the rest of the store I found something intersting. There was a 46" Sharp 92U set up next to one of the new Panasonics (50XX80XX ?). Both running the same ESPN feed in HD (Baseball). To my suprise the Panasonic was brighter than the Sharp LCD.

Except for the brightness levels I could not find any fault with either set, no motion blurring, blacks and black detail were about the same, color is a preference and I thought the LCD was a little better, but the brightness just blew me away.

Is this the typical torch mode I seen or just a newer more bright plasma?

see, i told you you can skew the comments any which way. i could spend time to rebut but it's useless to try and sway a mind already made. have fun with your plasma.

everyone gets what they want. isn't that really the point?

It is, don't worry I am having fun with my plasma (not sure what that's supposed to mean). I really don't care what you buy this is just a discussion but if you don't want to participate that's fine.

I was killing some time last night waiting for a plane to head home.

Just off of the Portland OR airport there is a brand new shopping area and a new BB that is the largest one I have seen. Great way to kill an hour.

In the higher end area that has a lower light level than the rest of the store I found something intersting. There was a 46" Sharp 92U set up next to one of the new Panasonics (50XX80XX ?). Both running the same ESPN feed in HD (Baseball). To my suprise the Panasonic was brighter than the Sharp LCD.

Except for the brightness levels I could not find any fault with either set, no motion blurring, blacks and black detail were about the same, color is a preference and I thought the LCD was a little better, but the brightness just blew me away.

Is this the typical torch mode I seen or just a newer more bright plasma?

Must be torch mode, the Panasonic plasmas are brighter than before but not THAT bright. I'd be surprised if they could best any LCD that's come out in the past 3 years in terms of brightness (pioneer included)

Must be torch mode, the Panasonic plasmas are brighter than before but not THAT bright. I'd be surprised if they could best any LCD that's come out in the past 3 years in terms of brightness (pioneer included)That was my thought as well.

I was surprised to see the Sharp 92U series there still being sold as new.

IMO this series set the pinnacle for all LCD's when it came to black detail. I like these sets allot. I really thought that Sharp was on the right track when they came out with these. Unfortunately the next next models 94 series did not have nearly the same level of black detail.

My opinion is that LCD's can beat plasmas in black and black detail, but at what price? I have been to Japan and seen the Sharp professional monitors that cost equivalent of $10K+ and the PQ was amazing, but alas it seems that this level of quality will never show up in the common consume grade sets.

LCDs are on track with black levels but viewing angles, uniformity and blooming are holding back even the best sets. Plasmas have problems too, full white screens are dim, less bright. In my opinion plasmas are still ahead until the new XBR comes out, that will probably be LCD's last big gun this year. Next year is up in the air with lots of new technology coming to plasma those faults I listed before might not exist anymore. If they can fix the LCD problems next year too it might just come down to buying which display has better color accuracy and processing regardless of display technology used in the set.

LCDs are on track with black levels but viewing angles, uniformity and blooming are holding back even the best sets. Plasmas have problems too, full white screens are dim, less bright. In my opinion plasmas are still ahead until the new XBR comes out, that will probably be LCD's last big gun this year. Next year is up in the air with lots of new technology coming to plasma those faults I listed before might not exist anymore. If they can fix the LCD problems next year too it might just come down to buying which display has better color accuracy and processing regardless of display technology used in the set.

I agree. I wonder how much different plasma will be viewed next year if 5 lumen tech is out with plasmas as bright as LCDs and handling power better. I still like the fact that the upper end LCDs can remove judder that's in the source. However, LED LCD still has a premium price tag on it and (at least for me) the biggest issue is that anything over 52" in LCD is too small. Until I can at least find a 60" TV that under $5k street, all I can do is pass by it in store. 52" LCDs have come way down in price, LCD now needs to move into bigger ground (and 55" inches isn't much bigger;)).

I always laugh when I see contrast claims like this.
they really need to create a standard way to measure contrast ratios.
Whats next, 700billion:1 ?
You should laugh, even at the published CR numbers for your beloved plasma.

Unless you have been living under a rock for some time, as most of us know there is a standard ANSI test for contrast.

The real problem is that all of the big name brands no longer use this because they know that under this test they probably will not measure up. They all come up with names like "Dynamic" or other scientific sounding crap, but the tests are all created in a way to make their display specs sound better.

It is not just LCD makers who do this, plasma makers do it as well. All of the numbers out there really don't mean a thing because you have no idea how the testing was done, and comparison of different brands stated CR is apples to oranges because of this.

For some time Sharp used just the ANSI numbers for CR and when Samsung started using their own "Dynamic" numbers, based on who knows what, they had to follow suit. If you go to the Sharp web site and look up the details they still give you the static testing results, but that is not the number they use for marketing anymore.

I liked it better when it was all one standard.

Like manufacuters are going to use ANSI contrast. Most of todays displays don't even do 500:1, lol.

You should laugh, even at the published CR numbers for your beloved plasma.


Why even say stuff like this? He likes plasma, you like something else (or not).Continuing a vicious circle like this just messes up the thread.

LCDs are on track with black levels but viewing angles, uniformity and blooming are holding back even the best sets. Plasmas have problems too, full white screens are dim, less bright. In my opinion plasmas are still ahead until the new XBR comes out, that will probably be LCD's last big gun this year. Next year is up in the air with lots of new technology coming to plasma those faults I listed before might not exist anymore. If they can fix the LCD problems next year too it might just come down to buying which display has better color accuracy and processing regardless of display technology used in the set.

well said

Why even say stuff like this? He likes plasma, you like something else (or not).Continuing a vicious circle like this just messes up the thread.Just stating the obvious.

I saw in a thread where some lab had tested CR (ANSI Standard) on a number of sets, LCD and plasma. They were all pretty pitiful, including the Pioneers. Some of the LCDs scored higher some scored lower, same for the plasma, but overall there wasn't a ratio there over 1900:1.

This brought home to me just how ridiculous the whole debate over plasma/LCD is, really nether one is better than the other. It really just depends on your preferences, setting and type of use.

I bought a LCD. Why? I still watch a majority of SD material and although I know that allot of people who will use some type of stretch mode for this, I can't stand it. I also remember the reflections from my CRT at a mere 25", can you imagine what it would be off of a 50" or 52"? Lots of reasons for a person to choose a plasma as well and just as valid.

There are several people here that are just plain obvious in their preference and have no hesitation about demeaning anybody who didn't buy a Kuro or other plasma. We all know who they are and they prowl the pages never adding to the conversation here, just the same old rant time after time.

The same people show up on a very regular basis in the LCD forum as well spouting the same crap over and over. Personally I can't remember the last time I looked at the Plasma Forum, have no interest in going there since I don't own one at the moment.

well if it's color accuracy you want

what do you think of this statement from the cnet review?


http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-ln-46a950/4505-6482_7-33182079.html?tag=mncol;lst

"Color accuracy: According to our measurements the Samsung LN46A950 has the best all-around color of any TV, LCD or plasma, we can remember testing. Observations of Transformers backed up the measurements quite well. "

the 950 from samsung is being compared to the better plasmas for black levels. that's big step for lcd. the kick in the head to plasmas is the white level difference. i think that may be why the color accuracy comment about the 950 lcd being more accurate than any set yet tested, including plasmas.
also i just can't get past the side by side comparisons of images from both lcd/plasma. you can just see
how the brightness/sharpness/black level and now color accuracy goes to lcd.

now in a completely light controlled near pitch black room the small advantage from the best plasma is found. if that's all you need then great.

lcd's are fast becoming the best sets for the biggest variety of environments. i haven't seen one plasma that can hold up to a well lit environment. pq goes right out the window.
especially when it comes to black level.

motion resolution is now in the lcd court as well.

waiting for this years xbr8 and sharps to round out the best
led sets. exciting times. :)

Color on LCD or plasma seems to be ALLOT different than on the good old CRT's.

When I bought my set it became very apparent to me that the CRT that I was viewing was masking the differences in the broadcasts from the various channels that I was watching.

Suddenly from station to station (especially on live stuff like the local news) the color of peoples skin would change from completely natural to looking like they had put on to much liquid tan. Some stations lacked color overall and the next would be so bright and vibrant that you had to turn down the brightness.

I do not think that the material that we watch on our sets has caught up with the technology of the sets themselves. Have you ever noticed that the sexy female new anchor on the local channel who used to look great on the CRT, now has allot of flaws that make her less attractive? HD is great for those kinds of things.

You should laugh, even at the published CR numbers for your beloved plasmaPioneer doesn't publish contrast numbers... Either way, they would measure it for after the pixel shutoff of ~20 seconds so it would be infinite (because they are like every other MFR and publish numbers that are questionable). On the 9G Pioneers (unless you have a light meter that measures to .0001) it is pretty impossible to accurately measure the CR. Most decent Light meters measure to 0.001 FL, which will not measure an accurate CR, as the black levels are lower than that so it is whatever the brightness is (27.8FL is a 27,800:1 CR, 40FL is 40,000:1). In these calibration reports, the CR is simply ridiculous, but most likely inaccurate. If you look at all of these Calibration reports, they say 0.000 in the luminance of Y (not x or y, Y). In the control cal calibration it says it right below the gamma (luminance) and the little contrast ratio box on the left side on the first page. On UMR's calibration report, it is on page 4 at the top where it says Post calibration results. It is on the Y, FL column where it says 0.000.

motion resolution is now in the lcd court as well.

:)


You mean motion Blurr ? :)

The new Samsung 950 has a 2million:1 contrast ratio. That should answer the OP's question.

Yeah? Take a DVE disc and watch that thing get put through its paces.

Better yet, take the Kuro test disc, and pop it on the 950, lets see what it's true contrast is.

Oh wait, an even better one, walk into a Magnolia, where the lighting is relatively controlled, and when the Pionner commercial comes up that displays a plaid (however it is spelled) black and white pattern, look at how what is supposed to be black, turns into grey.

You mean motion Blurr ? :)




Are you sure you meant to say motion resolution?

You mean motion Blurr ? :)


quote from cnet article

"In terms of motion blur, the LN46A950 is capable of performing as well as the best plasma displays we've tested"

here is the quote for motion resolution, you know they are different right? ;)

"We checked out the FPD Benchmark's motion resolution test and found that with both dejudder (in any strength) and LED Smart Motion engaged, the display resolved around 1,000 lines, which is about the same as we saw on the best plasma we've tested so far in this department, the Pioneer PDP-5020FD. LED Smart Motion is a setting that makes the TV's backlight cycle on and off extremely quickly, scanning much like a CRT, which helps eliminate motion blur"

quote from cnet article

"In terms of motion blur, the LN46A950 is capable of performing as well as the best plasma displays we've tested"

here is the quote for motion resolution, you know they are different right? ;)

"We checked out the FPD Benchmark's motion resolution test and found that with both dejudder (in any strength) and LED Smart Motion engaged, the display resolved around 1,000 lines, which is about the same as we saw on the best plasma we've tested so far in this department, the Pioneer PDP-5020FD. LED Smart Motion is a setting that makes the TV's backlight cycle on and off extremely quickly, scanning much like a CRT, which helps eliminate motion blur"


Thats only if you are willing to engage the AMP and cause your movies to look like a soap opera or a home video. With the dejudder disengaged, the motion blurr starts to rear its ugly head again.

In that article. the conclusion states:

"Disengaging either of these settings on the LN46A950 dropped motion resolution considerably".

"We were curious how the TV would do without dejudder, so we turned it off but left LED Smart Motion on. Counting lines didn't help much since the Samsung seemed to only resolve three of the four lines in the test pattern at higher resolutions, although the image still appeared a bit less blurry than on the standard Sony and Samsung LCDs with dejudder disengaged. With test material, the LED display also appeared marginally sharper, although it introduced a strange doubling effect at times--when the letters on license plates passed close to the camera, for example. Nonetheless we preferred leaving LED Smart Motion turned on, as the doubling appeared very rarely in most program material. The plasma, for its part, looked considerably sharper, and so remains our pick for best motion resolution if you don't want to engage that videolike dejudder.
."

With Plasmas, The motion naturally looks great.
With my 71F, I left the AMP off because it destroyed film content. but then came the blurr. No thanks.

LCDs can have better blacks than plasmas for sure, but in general I would say they are about equal, with the new Pioneer Kuro plasmas having the very best black performance in general. Some LCDs can actually go deeper, but only with dynamic tricks that aren't perfect.

Lcd's cannot have better blacks than plasma.
Next year Plasma goes absolute black. 10G kuro will be zero Idle Luminance.
So that means plasma will be able to go absolute black at a single pixel level. This is something LCD cannot do. LCD can only go absolute black per LED backlight zone (which is over a wide area of pixels).
Blooming is why the LED backlit LCD's can't do very good with blacks during content.
The 81/950 may be able to go to absolute black while the screen is totally black but what good is that? What matters is how it does with content. And the 81f/950 will not compare to a high end plasma.

Lcd's cannot have better blacks than plasma.
Next year Plasma goes absolute black. 10G kuro will be zero Idle Luminance.
So that means plama will be able to go absolute black at a single pixel level. This is something LCD cannot do. LCD can only go absolute black per LED backlight zone (which is over a wide area of pixels).
Blooming is why the LED backlit LCD's can't do very good with blacks during content.
The 81/950 may be able to go to absolute black while the screen is totally black but what good is that? What matters is how it does with content. And the 81f/950 will not compare to a high end plasma.

Chadmak09,

Do you know if 10G KURO will be an even better performer at motion handling than this years KURO?

I'd like to know if motion rrsolution will improve on future plasmas or if the level we have now is about as far as the technology can go.

The same people show up on a very regular basis in the LCD forum as well spouting the same crap over and over. Personally I can't remember the last time I looked at the Plasma Forum, have no interest in going there since I don't own one at the moment.

If you're referring to me I've never posted on the LCD forum, other than once because I was interested in a smaller TV. I do read them however because I keep myself current on both sides. I also read the projector threads and the RPTV threads because I'm interested in displays in general, limiting yourself to one area seems a bit close minded.

Whatever you want, just don't try to sell me one :p You can have all the Samsung LCDs you want, at least more than 2 people can watch my tv!
This post isn't very open minded.

Two people or more watch my Samsung LCD all the time.

When did Eight Below become a reference disc? ;)

^^^
If you want to see what contrast is really about, watch "Eight Below" on a Samsung 5281 or 950.

I'd say its a reference disc.

If you're referring to me I've never posted on the LCD forum, other than once because I was interested in a smaller TV. I do read them however because I keep myself current on both sides. I also read the projector threads and the RPTV threads because I'm interested in displays in general, limiting yourself to one area seems a bit close minded.

No not referring to you. IMO you are one of the few here that doesn't seem to push one side or the other relentlessly.

I have many interests and this is just one. For some people by the time they have been on this forum and the number of posts, I find it hard to believe that they do anything else. Some of these people are here just to push an agenda it seems. They will quote just what will support their personal bias from a review, and the fans from the other camp will quote the what supports their bias from it as well. Somewhere the discussion of what the original OP wanted is lost in the bickering.

I would like to spend more time looking at the Plasma side of the aile, but the posters who visit this section of AVS who are plasma supporters have really turned me off about even going there. Kinda like going to a political rally where everybody is chanting "PLASMA, PLASMA" or "KURO, KURO". From the way they talk about them I picture them every night praying to them.

I don't think the industry agrees, I haven't seen many publications using Eight Below when reviewing a TV.

This post isn't very open minded.

Two people or more watch my Samsung LCD all the time.

I was making a joke since you seemed to imply plasmas were headed for the junker :rolleyes: I was referring to the 950 anyways which the reviewer commented on being especially bad. I wasn't talking about your TV, which I actually DID say was a good display earlier. I don't think the 950 is worth it with such critical problems.

No not referring to you. IMO you are one of the few here that doesn't seem to push one side or the other relentlessly.


But Patrick does.

The real Cband could care less what folks buy. But when you've been attacked like Patrick did to me you'd fire back too. He's called me on, and called me a troll. Patrick what he's said to me is the worst of them all.

He's a plasma fan.

If I remember correctly you were asked to stop posting in that thread.. :rolleyes: and you were trolling, you like picking fights. Search my post history for LCD forum posts cband see how many you find. I would like to add that I AM a plasma fan, however LCD have traits that would make them desirable IF they were perfected. You on the other hand see the world through blinders, the thread you were referring to was talking about a defect on a 2008 Panasonic TV. You came in trying to "help" owners by telling them you had the same problem 3 years ago and it was an inherent problem with plasmas. I'm sorry you were pretty much coming into the plasma forum and telling people to go and get LCDs. I remember me and many others called you on it and I don't regret it for a minute.

I don't think the industry agrees, I haven't seen many publications using Eight Below when reviewing a TV.
Somewhere in a stack of DVD's that I have yet to file away or watch, I have this movie. I think I will dig it out this weekend and check it out.

On movies that reviewers use to test, we all have favorite flicks and the reviewers are no different. If I were doing this for a living, I think it would only make sense to use the same movie on every test. That way each set gets the same material and as you watch it over and over, you know where it is likely that a set will slip up in a number of catagories.

Patrick
If members like you can't handle the truth about an on hands experience with a problem like Pansonic flicker then what good is this forum. If I remember it was you that asked me to stop posting.

You are a fan of plasma, but theres nothing wrong with that. But to claim you're open mined. Give me and everyone a break.

But to claim you're open mined. Give me and everyone a break.

Are you? You don't know me I like what is best, I'm a gadget freak , I think plasma is best right now(for me). If LCD was better tomorrow I'd want one and end up buying one sooner or later. Oh btw, I got rid of the Panasonic because the red push got to me, friend owns it.. still no flicker

You should laugh, even at the published CR numbers for your beloved plasma.

Unless you have been living under a rock for some time, as most of us know there is a standard ANSI test for contrast.

The real problem is that all of the big name brands no longer use this because they know that under this test they probably will not measure up. They all come up with names like "Dynamic" or other scientific sounding crap, but the tests are all created in a way to make their display specs sound better.

It is not just LCD makers who do this, plasma makers do it as well. All of the numbers out there really don't mean a thing because you have no idea how the testing was done, and comparison of different brands stated CR is apples to oranges because of this.

For some time Sharp used just the ANSI numbers for CR and when Samsung started using their own "Dynamic" numbers, based on who knows what, they had to follow suit. If you go to the Sharp web site and look up the details they still give you the static testing results, but that is not the number they use for marketing anymore.

I liked it better when it was all one standard.


I guess some just like to argue.

Did I say I laugh when LCD televisions make contrast claims like 2million:1???

I laugh when Panasonic does it also on thier plasmas.

If pioneer did it I would laugh at them too.

most everyone hates seeing these trumped up contrast numbers.
Its not a plasma vs LCD thing.

I guess some just like to argue.

Did I say I laugh when LCD televisions make contrast claims like 2million:1???

I laugh when Panasonic does it also on thier plasmas.

If pioneer did it I would laugh at them too.

most everyone hates seeing these trumped up contrast numbers.
Its not a plasma vs LCD thing.
I would pray that all manufactures go with the standard ANSI test, at least then we would have a real number to go on.

At some point there is a departure from how black can black get. When black is at a point on all sets where the normal person can't tell the difference without special equipment, then it comes down to the opposite side which is the whites or how bright can it get and how does it affect a black pixel right next to it. We are at that point with plasma I think. LCD still has some work.

Also in the marketing hype is pixel response time. Something else that there is a standard ANSI test for, but no one uses it, so we wonder how they arrive at 2ms or 4ms.

^^^
If you want to see what contrast is really about, watch "Eight Below" on a Samsung 5281 or 950.

I'd say its a reference disc.

I have.

And it looked terrific on the 151.

And while the 950 or my XBR4 or 71F would have been a little brighter and had a little more pop on the white side, I still preferr the more accurate picture of an elite plasma. thats just my preference.
I don't like it when a TV over exaggerates whites. I want it to look like it would in real life. And in real life the snow is not glowing white and it does not look like a light source.

The bad thing is that so many judge performance on what they see in BB.

On one hand you have an LCD in torch mode to where the whites look so loud they are almost blue.
and on the other hand, you have a plasma that looks great on the black end, but looks a little dull compared to the LCD right beside it.

Instead of buying into the torch factor like the manufacturers want you to, people need to be thinking "which one will look more realistic and better in my home environment?"

If you will be putting the TV in say your sunroom, then the LCD may be the better choice.
If you are putting the TV in a regular viewing environment like a living room or den, then the plasma may be the better choice.

Its all about where the TV is going and what you consider important.
And contrary to some of you guys comments in the LCD forum, you do not have to live in a cave to own a plasma. Comments like that are uneducated and false.

I have a sliding glass door about 8 feet from my elite and only have isssues at one time of the day (when the sun is banging from the east and the blinds are completly open), and I had the same issues with my XBR4 and 71F when they were sitting there.

I would pray that all manufactures go with the standard ANSI test, at least then we would have a real number to go on.

At some point there is a departure from how black can black get. When black is at a point on all sets where the normal person can't tell the difference without special equipment, then it comes down to the opposite side which is the whites or how bright can it get and how does it affect a black pixel right next to it. We are at that point with plasma I think. LCD still has some work.

Also in the marketing hype is pixel response time. Something else that there is a standard ANSI test for, but no one uses it, so we wonder how they arrive at 2ms or 4ms.

I think its a great day for both plasma and LCD.

Both are doing better in dark and light than ever before.

Like you said, we are close to the end of the black level end of the spectrum.

Plasma will have to start focusing on other things like the bright end and eliminating phosphor lag that some see.

Plasma will have to start focusing on other things like the bright end and eliminating phosphor lag that some see.
I was in a BB last week on a business trip (killing time, waiting for a plane) and seen a newer Panasonic (TH-50PZ800U) I think. It was next to a Sharp 46" 92U. As I have said before I was always impressed with the black level on this model of Sharp, but what blew me away was that the brightness on the Panny was better than the Sharp. Torch Mode? Sure, but a couple of years ago you couldn't have gotten that much out of the current Panasonic.

Things are getting better. Can't wait for the new models to make it out.

Things are getting better. Can't wait for the new models to make it out.

Yep, The future looks bright for LCD and plasma. I cant wait until OLED comes out in bigger sizes.
Also, I am interested in how these new lazer TV's are going to do.
I am not real crazy about rear projection but they sound promising.

Also, the new Panasonic TH-65VX1000 ( here: TH-65VX1000 Review (http://www.hdtvguru.com/) )that comes out in early 2009 sounds pretty good too. HD guru's Gary M. thinks it is the best flat panel ever but I think most are waiting for some real data before they buy that. He said that he thought the shadow detail was slightly better on the Panny than the Kuro but this is most likely due to them increasing the low end gamma on the panny, which increase shadow detail but causes inaccuracys. Most like a flat gamma.
I for think like the fact that the panny is 65 inches. That alone mean alot to me and almost pushes me toward it.

can't wait till next also.

...I would like to spend more time looking at the Plasma side of the aile, but the posters who visit this section of AVS who are plasma supporters have really turned me off about even going there. Kinda like going to a political rally where everybody is chanting "PLASMA, PLASMA" or "KURO, KURO". From the way they talk about them I picture them every night praying to them.

Don't let all those comments sway you from enjoying technology. LCD is pretty much out for me until Something similar to Samsung's 950 can hit the 60" range but I still don't let comments from the all-plasma crowd keep me from looking on both sides. The good thing is that plasma black level perfection has filtered over on the LCD side while LCD brightness is starting to penetrate the plasma side. Next year should be a very interesting year as plasma's with 5 lumen technology finally "brighten" things up while LCDs improve as well.

It seems to me that the blinking LED thing to try to get to better black values just gives another layer of new technology to stay away from. Brighter whites in plasma is probably easier and more reliable to obtain as the technology matures than the across the board LED backlighting of LCDs.

Are you? You don't know me I like what is best, I'm a gadget freak , I think plasma is best right now(for me). If LCD was better tomorrow I'd want one and end up buying one sooner or later. Oh btw, I got rid of the Panasonic because the red push got to me, friend owns it.. still no flicker

You still don't get it, and nobody is going to get it through to you.

From day one I found the AVS theres still two issues talked about here:
Panasonic flicker.

Pioneer buzz.

From the first day I found the AVS I knew my flicker issue I wasn't alone.

Now is LCD better? No it has its issue also, but there issues are not as annoying. Bad viewing angles not the most horrible issue I've read about. It was always about bad black levels with LCD well those days are gone. Like I said I don't care what others buy.

Some issues you can live with like glare/reflections. Buzzing and flicker are very annoying. Now do all Pioneer buzz? No but the buzz poll says 63% here buzz somewhat. Everyone have Panasonic flicker? No but if you do its awful.

Thats why when SED or OLED become affoardable in large sizes it will be a godsend.

For the most part, all of these "issues" are overblown. The only real issue I have with my Panasonic is the red push, which has nothing to do with plasma technology. I know many people that are happy with their LCDs.

Reading through here you would think that both technologies are unwatchable. This is simply not the case. They both make for pretty darn good TVs overall, each with different strengths and weaknesses. The amount of problems reported with both LCD and plasmas is very low and sales of both are doing very well. They may not be the pinnacle of HDTV development, but they are light years ahead of what was available just 4 years ago.

It was always about bad black levels with LCD well those days are gone.

Until they can control the light output at the pixel level those days are NOT gone. The black level rises dramtically with mixed content. This whole zone thing is a mess in my opinion.

I want a TV with perfect blacks (without playing tricks), bright whites and the abilitly to be calibrated to perfection. Right now there is no such TV. I am hoping the Pioneer 10G will have all those qualities. We already know it will have absolutely perfect blacks, the question is will 5 lumen tech bump up the brightness dramtically?

As I always laugh at your posts

there he goes with his personal attacks.
Please stay on topic and attack the info not the poster.

Until they can control the light output at the pixel level those days are NOT gone.

I wouldn't say they are gone, but they are much much much better.
Personally I can't believe how much LCD has improved over the last few years alone.

You still don't get it, and nobody is going to get it through to you.

From day one I found the AVS theres still two issues talked about here:
Panasonic flicker.

Pioneer buzz.

From the first day I found the AVS I knew my flicker issue I wasn't alone.

Now is LCD better? No it has its issue also, but there issues are not as annoying. Bad viewing angles not the most horrible issue I've read about. It was always about bad black levels with LCD well those days are gone. Like I said I don't care what others buy.

Some issues you can live with like glare/reflections. Buzzing and flicker are very annoying. Now do all Pioneer buzz? No but the buzz poll says 63% here buzz somewhat. Everyone have Panasonic flicker? No but if you do its awful.

Thats why when SED or OLED become affoardable in large sizes it will be a godsend.

Pioneer buzz is a little more widespread than Panasonic flicker, mine does buzz by the way but even in a dead quiet house it doesn't bother me much. Cband, I've got no problem with you and I do agree with a lot of what you say. I'm glad you admitted at least it's a possibly not all people had the issue. One day you never know we might be on the same "side" or even own the same TV :)
At least we can both agree today's TVs aren't perfect and lots of good things are in store for the future.

Thats only if you are willing to engage the AMP and cause your movies to look like a soap opera or a home video. With the dejudder disengaged, the motion blurr starts to rear its ugly head again.

In that article. the conclusion states:

"Disengaging either of these settings on the LN46A950 dropped motion resolution considerably".

"We were curious how the TV would do without dejudder, so we turned it off but left LED Smart Motion on. Counting lines didn't help much since the Samsung seemed to only resolve three of the four lines in the test pattern at higher resolutions, although the image still appeared a bit less blurry than on the standard Sony and Samsung LCDs with dejudder disengaged. With test material, the LED display also appeared marginally sharper, although it introduced a strange doubling effect at times--when the letters on license plates passed close to the camera, for example. Nonetheless we preferred leaving LED Smart Motion turned on, as the doubling appeared very rarely in most program material. The plasma, for its part, looked considerably sharper, and so remains our pick for best motion resolution if you don't want to engage that videolike dejudder.
."

With Plasmas, The motion naturally looks great.
With my 71F, I left the AMP off because it destroyed film content. but then came the blurr. No thanks.

here's a the bit from the review you didn't point out

"In terms of motion blur, the LN46A950 is capable of performing as well as the best plasma displays we've tested, as long as you're willing to engage its dejudder processing. We checked out the FPD Benchmark's motion resolution test and found that with both dejudder (in any strength) and LED Smart Motion engaged, the display resolved around 1,000 lines, which is about the same as we saw on the best plasma we've tested so far in this department, the Pioneer PDP-5020FD. LED Smart Motion is a setting that makes the TV's backlight cycle on and off extremely quickly, scanning much like a CRT, which helps eliminate motion blur, according to Samsung's reps."


many people have noted that the 950 with those features "set on high" makes the image looks like video, but with the settings on med and low the picture is very acceptable.

i would probably opt to go for the low setting. now for material where content would benefit the most, like sports, a setting of high would not be a problem at all but in fact would enhance the material considerably. also heard that this function is great on games.

as for the comment from the article that noted the plasma being sharper. that is with the ALL the features turned off.

why would somebody buy the latest and greatest set only to take it home and turn off all its features? seems pointless to me.

also i've never seen an lcd look less sharp than a plasma.

here's a the bit from the review you didn't point out

"In terms of motion blur, the LN46A950 is capable of performing as well as the best plasma displays we've tested, as long as you're willing to engage its dejudder processing. We checked out the FPD Benchmark's motion resolution test and found that with both dejudder (in any strength) and LED Smart Motion engaged, the display resolved around 1,000 lines, which is about the same as we saw on the best plasma we've tested so far in this department, the Pioneer PDP-5020FD. LED Smart Motion is a setting that makes the TV's backlight cycle on and off extremely quickly, scanning much like a CRT, which helps eliminate motion blur, according to Samsung's reps."


many people have noted that the 950 with those features "set on high" makes the image looks like video, but with the settings on med and low the picture is very acceptable.

i would probably opt to go for the low setting. now for material where content would benefit the most, like sports, a setting of high would not be a problem at all but in fact would enhance the material considerably. also heard that this function is great on games.

as for the comment from the article that noted the plasma being sharper. that is with the ALL the features turned off.

why would somebody buy the latest and greatest set only to take it home and turn off all its features? seems pointless to me.

also i've never seen an lcd look less sharp than a plasma.

You are corect, turning the amp down to its lowest setting will help out considerably to get rid of that "video" or "soap opera" feel. Which is a great thing.
But there will still be a slight "video" feel and you will still see some vapors probably since there is still some interpolation going on. I know I did when I turn the amp to its lowest setting on my 71F. but maybe the 950 is improved compared to the 71F. It was nowhere near as "Raw" as putting it on high thats for sure. To me it was about like using smooth mode on the kuro.

Will samsung be releasing any LED backlit LCD's with a matte screen? I have a buddy that is building onto his back porch and turning it into a "Sunroom".
there will be giant windows surrounding the entire room.
He is needing advise on what flatpanel to get for this room. I think a matte screen might be the best choice for this situation and he wants a samsung.

No not referring to you. IMO you are one of the few here that doesn't seem to push one side or the other relentlessly.

I have many interests and this is just one. For some people by the time they have been on this forum and the number of posts, I find it hard to believe that they do anything else. Some of these people are here just to push an agenda it seems. They will quote just what will support their personal bias from a review, and the fans from the other camp will quote the what supports their bias from it as well. Somewhere the discussion of what the original OP wanted is lost in the bickering.

I would like to spend more time looking at the Plasma side of the aile, but the posters who visit this section of AVS who are plasma supporters have really turned me off about even going there. Kinda like going to a political rally where everybody is chanting "PLASMA, PLASMA" or "KURO, KURO". From the way they talk about them I picture them every night praying to them.

well said, kept me away from the Kuros to.

I know plasmas and i know the drawbacks they have and don't like those drawbacks. I've had a plasma in the living room for 6 yrs now. So last year when shopping for a new TV for the bedroom i only evaluated LCD's and bought one. When viewed objectivly at home i regret not having bought a plasma instead. As much as i hate PWM noise and solarisation, the LCD's drawback of bleeding backlights in a dimly lit room is much worse. So i wound up buying the oh so holy Kuro and.... the PQ is fantastic. Am glad i bought it.

well said, kept me away from the Kuros to.

I know plasmas and i know the drawbacks they have and don't like those drawbacks. I've had a plasma in the living room for 6 yrs now. So last year when shopping for a new TV for the bedroom i only evaluated LCD's and bought one. When viewed objectivly at home i regret not having bought a plasma instead. As much as i hate PWM noise and solarisation, the LCD's drawback of bleeding backlights in a dimly lit room is much worse. So i wound up buying the oh so holy Kuro and.... the PQ is fantastic. Am glad i bought it.
At some point I will consider a panel. I am not going to start off on a spec hunt like I did last time though. Looking at things like the CR, Response/Decay time etc... can only get you so far. Next time maybe a plasma, maybe whatever else is out there. Right now the WAF just is not there for anything larger than a 37" for the bedroom.

As to the OP's question, I think blacks are overstated by many here. If you are watching a LCD or Plasma in a brightly lit room, chances are that blacks really are going to be washed out by the ambiant light anyway. Great PQ will only matter where you have the setting and source to take advantage of it.

As Chad09 has pointed out there is only so far down the black scale that you can go before it makes no difference anymore. Plasma IMO is there (or the technology is there on some models). LCD is not, but is working on it.

LCD has great bright whites, and is great in this respect, plasma still needs some work, but hs greatly improved in just the last 2 years.

IMO the rise of LCD is responsible for the Kuro. For to many years plasma makers kinda sat on the technology, never really making it much better, because they didn't need to. Why improve when you had the market already cornered. Then along comes the upstart LCD and suddenly you are loosing sales, time to get some of the old customers back and improve the technology. I look forward to see what companies like panasonic and Pioneer can pull out of their hat if OLED really does show up as anything more than an 11" novelty TV.

Choose your poison.

Choose your poison.
Exactly.

But whats even worse then current techs is the broadcasting. As PQ gets better you get more spoiled and broadcasting isn't helping any of us.

Even with a 52" OLED with the current broadcasting we have, it still would be garbage in garbage out.

Exactly.

But whats even worse then current techs is the broadcasting. As PQ gets better you get more spoiled and broadcasting isn't helping any of us.

Even with a 52" OLED with the current broadcasting we have, it still would be garbage in garbage out.
I have said this before but for all out there that have a decent FPD plasma, LCD did you ever notice that the color on the broadcasts changes according to what station you are watching? The nightly newscasts on the local channels in HD is really amusing to me because of the variation in just the skin tones that are presented from channel to channel.

The TV is showing all of the flaws in the broadcasts.

I have said this before but for all out there that have a decent FPD plasma, LCD did you ever notice that the color on the broadcasts changes according to what station you are watching? The nightly newscasts on the local channels in HD is really amusing to me because of the variation in just the skin tones that are presented from channel to channel.

The TV is showing all of the flaws in the broadcasts.

IMO a lot of that comes not from the broadcasters but from the errant color decoders most flat panels have. For me the effect mostly went away as soon as i activated and calibrated the isf modi on my Kuro. The US elite version have 'pure' mode which should also clear up a lot of those effects.

just my 2 cents.

I find it funny that so many LCD fans are jumping all over the 950 and other LED displays. Something that most people don't realize with these locally dimming sets is that the unevenly age when this feature is enabled. Normal LCD with it's always on backlight never had an issue with this, but with the advent of LED and lock dim tech, we have a new issue to worry about on LCD, burn-in from black bars and a break-in period. (something LCD fans always bring up as a major issue with plasma) LED bulbs age faster in the first 150 hours just like a plasma screen does, now what happens when someone watches a lot of black bar content during those first hours... you have unevenly aged the backlight and sped yourself along to uneven wear in the future. With most LED displays claiming 50,000 hours to half life (most plasma sets these days are 100,000 hours till halflife) uneven wear will start to show up much sooner then it will on current plasma displays like Panasonic's pz8 series for example. (more on par with the old px5 series from a few years back)

Now I am not bashing LCD tech (I plan on getting a 52 inch Sony LCD soon as I watch a lot of black bar movies that just don't agree with my current Panasonic 42px75 and I am tired of zooming in a lot of my movies) but this is a side effect of the LED local dim tech that everyone needs to be aware of. At least plasma has IR to warn you of a potential issue down the road, something that LCD doesn't do and you won't know that it is a potential problem until a few years down the road when you notice that the black bar area is brighter than the rest of the screen during a movie or a ball game.

I am sure that LCD fans will attack me for this (they have done so with everyone that has brought this up so far) but this is a genuine issue that people need to be aware of and needs to be discussed.

IMO a lot of that comes not from the broadcasters but from the errant color decoders most flat panels have. For me the effect mostly went away as soon as i activated and calibrated the isf modi on my Kuro. The US elite version have 'pure' mode which should also clear up a lot of those effects.

just my 2 cents.

I agree. On my Panasonic skin tones change constantly from red to good to green not just from channel to channel, but camera to camera. It is very noticeable and distracting.

I didn't have this problem with my old Hitachi RPCRT with the same channels. If it was a problem, it wasn't ever bad enough to notice.

intresting ~ this thread drifted away from the OP question rather it went to dicussion about dawbacks and lcd tech and so fourth.

to be on point and answer plasma produce better blacks, as far as it would dim or "wash out" during ambient light is another thing, BUT it also happens with today's LCD because of the "GLOSSY SCREEN".

so pretty much once again plasma has better blacks then lcd ~ op Question answerd.

I went to the store to get a plasma last week, but left with a 52" Samsung 750 LCD. The picture was glorious in the brightly lit store, but I have a little remorse due to off-angle viewing and black level in a dark room.

If the question is about black level when viewing in a dark room, plasma is the clear winner. In a moderately lit room, the 750's blacks are quite acceptable head-on, but get off angle 45 degrees or more, and blacks fade to unacceptable levels to my eyes.

lol here we go again a comparison based on store.... natrualy the lcd is going to be brighter then the plasma but is not nessary good..... jpco you know the super bright pop is torch mode? vivid as in inaccurate super bright whites that are close to blues and so fourth?


I went to the store to get a plasma last week, but left with a 52" Samsung 750 LCD. The picture was glorious in the brightly lit store, but I have a little remorse due to off-angle viewing and black level in a dark room.

If the question is about black level when viewing in a dark room, plasma is the clear winner. In a moderately lit room, the 750's blacks are quite acceptable head-on, but get off angle 45 degrees or more, and blacks fade to unacceptable levels to my eyes.

I went to the store to get a plasma last week, but left with a 52" Samsung 750 LCD. The picture was glorious in the brightly lit store, but I have a little remorse due to off-angle viewing and black level in a dark room.

If the question is about black level when viewing in a dark room, plasma is the clear winner. In a moderately lit room, the 750's blacks are quite acceptable head-on, but get off angle 45 degrees or more, and blacks fade to unacceptable levels to my eyes.The 750 is a beautiful display. It really is the sharpest, most vibrant, best looking picture in the retail setting. But as you say, it is not perfect. On an angle, even in the retail setting, I can see a bright blue cast on a black screen. The vertical viewing angle is down right awful from above. Luckily, no one mounts a TV below thier eye level :)

I'm interested to see the XBR8 and 950 but have some reservations about the LD artifacts.

Cheers

I find it funny that so many LCD fans are jumping all over the 950 and other LED displays. Something that most people don't realize with these locally dimming sets is that the unevenly age when this feature is enabled.

LED bulbs age faster in the first 150 hours just like a plasma screen does, now what happens when someone watches a lot of black bar content during those first hours... you have unevenly aged the backlight and sped yourself along to uneven wear in the future. With most LED displays claiming 50,000 hours to half life (most plasma sets these days are 100,000 hours till halflife) uneven wear will start to show up much sooner then it will on current plasma displays like Panasonic's pz8 series for example. (more on par with the old px5 series from a few years back)

Now I am not bashing LCD tech (I plan on getting a 52 inch Sony LCD soon as I watch a lot of black bar movies that just don't agree with my current Panasonic 42px75 and I am tired of zooming in a lot of my movies) but this is a side effect of the LED local dim tech that everyone needs to be aware of. At least plasma has IR to warn you of a potential issue down the road, something that LCD doesn't do and you won't know that it is a potential problem until a few years down the road when you notice that the black bar area is brighter than the rest of the screen during a movie or a ball game.


Just want to ask you about the first 150 hours comment, where does this come from?

I agree that uneven aging may be an issue, but even with only a 50Khr life or down to half brightness, do you really think that you will really notice this? After all that really is years of use for the average person. I think that the 100K of the newer plasmas is impressive, but after a certain point there really is no need to worry about it, you will never have it that long.

I am not sure about seeing the differences with the local dimming, time will tell. One of those things where I think that we should all sit back and let the pioneers take the arrows (no pun intended there to the Pio fans).

The 750 is a beautiful display. It really is the sharpest, most vibrant, best looking picture in the retail setting. But as you say, it is not perfect. On an angle, even in the retail setting, I can see a bright blue cast on a black screen. The vertical viewing angle is down right awful from above. Luckily, no one mounts a TV below thier eye level :)


Does the 750 have the gloss screen?

I would like to spend more time looking at the Plasma side of the aile, but the posters who visit this section of AVS who are plasma supporters have really turned me off about even going there. Kinda like going to a political rally where everybody is chanting "PLASMA, PLASMA" or "KURO, KURO". From the way they talk about them I picture them every night praying to them.

Why would you allow a small minority of people to keep you from checking out a quality technology and and a quality TV? If you are truly after what you think is best for your situation then by all means you owe it to yourself to check out plasmas and Kuros if they are in your price range. I've seen the same thing from Pany plasma owners, Samsung LCD and plasma owner's, Sony LCD owners etc. Not sure why you decided to single out one technology and one brand.

i guess his point is that those with local dimming and plasma "uneven wear" should be considerd the same at this point as far as issues therefore lcd can disgard the no BI/IR or uneven wear or bring an excuse to plasma because of this issue

Just want to ask you about the first 150 hours comment, where does this come from?

I agree that uneven aging may be an issue, but even with only a 50Khr life or down to half brightness, do you really think that you will really notice this? After all that really is years of use for the average person. I think that the 100K of the newer plasmas is impressive, but after a certain point there really is no need to worry about it, you will never have it that long.

I am not sure about seeing the differences with the local dimming, time will tell. One of those things where I think that we should all sit back and let the pioneers take the arrows (no pun intended there to the Pio fans).

i guess his point is that those with local dimming and plasma "uneven wear" should be considerd the same at this point as far as issues therefore lcd can disgard the no BI/IR or uneven wear or bring an excuse to plasma because of this issue
Still waiting for an answer, maybe PENDRAGON can answer the question that was specifically for him. May be you missed that.

If you don't have a real question or information, don't post.

Does the 750 have the gloss screen?

Yes.
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/untitled-3.jpg?t=1221625570

lol here we go again a comparison based on store.... natrualy the lcd is going to be brighter then the plasma but is not nessary good..... jpco you know the super bright pop is torch mode? vivid as in inaccurate super bright whites that are close to blues and so fourth?

Did not make the comparison based on store. Read reviews, these forums, and also tried to make honest evaluation in the store.

The 750 is a beautiful display. It really is the sharpest, most vibrant, best looking picture in the retail setting. But as you say, it is not perfect. On an angle, even in the retail setting, I can see a bright blue cast on a black screen. The vertical viewing angle is down right awful from above. Luckily, no one mounts a TV below thier eye level :)

I'm interested to see the XBR8 and 950 but have some reservations about the LD artifacts.

Cheers

Just returned the 750 for a Panasonic 50" 850. Blacks in a dark room are not really much different from the Samsung straight on. The difference is the uniformity of the blackest blacks on the screen and the off angle viewing.

LCD is getting close with black level to the non-KURO plasmas. There are issues with each type of set, but for my needs, the plasma is more of a fit.

Did not make the comparison based on store. Read reviews, these forums, and also tried to make honest evaluation in the store.



Just returned the 750 for a Panasonic 50" 850. Blacks in a dark room are not really much different from the Samsung straight on. The difference is the uniformity of the blackest blacks on the screen and the off angle viewing.

LCD is getting close with black level to the non-KURO plasmas. There are issues with each type of set, but for my needs, the plasma is more of a fit.Both are excellent displays IMO. I'm going with the 141 as my preference is Plasma. But I have to admit the 750/850 are catching my eye recently and the XBR8/950 is catching my interest.

And I agree about the uniformity issue.

Cheers

Both are excellent displays IMO. I'm going with the 141 as my preference is Plasma. But I have to admit the 750/850 are catching my eye recently and the XBR8/950 is catching my interest.

And I agree about the uniformity issue.

Cheers

You know, I hear so much talk about how much better LCD looks in stores, but Even in the stores I am still drawn more toward the Kuros and pannys than any of the LCD's. The LCD's have a nice picture dont get me wrong, but when I see them so bright like that it really does not look good to me.
I guess its just my taste or having been an LCD owner for so long and making the switch to plasma.
That "POP" and "eightbelow" effect does not catch my eye anymore.
I guess that initial WOW effect that all that brightness gives wears off after a while.

Both are excellent displays IMO. I'm going with the 141 as my preference is Plasma. But I have to admit the 750/850 are catching my eye recently and the XBR8/950 is catching my interest.

And I agree about the uniformity issue.

Cheers

So you are going with the 141, I am suprised you didn't hold out for a 10g (just 12 more months :) ).

Yes.
Thanks Chad.

I have seen the 650 up close and yes I was impressed by the blacks and the black detail. This looks like more of the same.

Let me explain my viewing area. It is roughly 15 feet wide and it is about 12-15 feet to the couch where normally me and the wife will watch. Directly behind the couch we have a semi dining area with the kitchen behind that. In the kitchen there are flouresent lights and allot of bright white tile.

We both do most of our viewing after work so the kitchen lights are on and things ar happening. With my old CRT there were horrible reflections from the lights in the kitchen. A gloss screen just wont do it. I am willing to put up with allot of things from the set that you guys would see as non-starters, but the highly reflective, I am distracted from what I am watching because someone turned on the lights in the kitchen, I can't take.

Intersestingly, along the wall to the left of the set, I have 4 big windows that face South and the light from there seldom if ever bothers me.

...to be on point and answer plasma produce better blacks...so pretty much once again plasma has better blacks then lcd ~ op Question answerd.

Well that's kinda true. The Samsung LCDs and Pioneer plasmas are the exception. It depends on the model of LCD and plasmas we are talking about as well as the amount of ambient lighting in the room.

In a darkened room the Pioneers are the King. However with some ambient lighting the Samsung LCDs have better blacks due to the black coating on the screens. Also, it has been said that the Samsung 650/750 series are near Pioneer 8G type blacks whereas the Panasonics haven't quite reached that yet.

You know, I hear so much talk about how much better LCD looks in stores, but Even in the stores I am still drawn more toward the Kuros and pannys than any of the LCD's. The LCD's have a nice picture dont get me wrong, but when I see them so bright like that it really does not look good to me.
I guess its just my taste or having been an LCD owner for so long and making the switch to plasma.
That "POP" and "eightbelow" effect does not catch my eye anymore.
I guess that initial WOW effect that all that brightness gives wears off after a while.

It probably depends on the store type setting you are viewing in as well and how much light is in the room. They Sammy LCDs are eye catching in stores like BB whereas the Kuros just look dim. Yes, the contrast on the LCDs are too much but you can see the Kuro's just don't have enough umph in the brightness areas to compete in high lighting environments. However if the lighting is more tame then it's down to personal choice. I didn't get to see a Sammy 81 until my vacation to Hilton Head, SC in the spring and I was disappointed in what I saw as the 8G 768p Elites had a much better overall PQ to my eyes.

Still waiting for an answer, maybe PENDRAG0ON can answer the question that was specifically for him. May be you missed that.

If you don't have a real question or information, don't post.

No need, gus738 pretty much nailed it, with LCD now having to worry about uneven wear from black bars (the only form of burn-in I still consider a legitimate issue these days) that is one less bullet point that can really be brought up in LCDs favor, same thing for the non reflective screens, almost every top LCD either uses a semi-gloss (close to a Panasonic's AG screen in reflectiveness) or a pure gloss screen (more reflective then your average plasma)

As for the break in bit, someone who works with LEDs for a living brought this up in the 950 thread and mentioned a break-in period (which consisted of nothing more than waiting to use the local dim function for 150 hours or so) but he was promptly attacked by several LCD fans and I don't think that he went back, I had already figured on uneven wear being an issue, but a possible break in period was news to me, so I did a bit more digging into LED tech. As I understand it, most LED bulbs use a phosphor coating right now, and as everyone knows, phosphors dim as they are used. (as does just about any light source) so with LED local dim enabled, and not knowing that this new LED tech can unevenly wear over time, what will the result in a few years be when this forum is flooded by people with unevenly aged LED displays?

LED local dim does raise the interesting issue with these new LED LCD displays, as LCD becomes more plasma like, will people begin to accept more of plasma's weaknesses as a trade off?



[side note]
I plan on my next set being an LCD (A Sony 52SL140 costco model with a semi-gloss screen) as black bars have given me issues with my current Panasonic, and I would rather not have to worry about this as over half of the movies I enjoy watching are scope aspect ratio, and I am tired of either getting IR (and adding to the uneven wear on the screen) or zooming in the picture. I won't touch a LED display for this very reason, they throw away too many LCD strengths to get a slightly better picture and deep black bars.

No need, gus738 pretty much nailed it, with LCD now having to worry about uneven wear from black bars (the only form of burn-in I still consider a legitimate issue these days) that is one less bullet point that can really be brought up in LCDs favor,

A tiny percentage of LCD buyers are buying the type of LCD where that is a problem/concern.

A tiny percentage of LCD buyers are buying the type of LCD where that is a problem/concern.

But moving forward it will be a problem, LED looks to be the future of LCD tech and more and more models will start to use it. By the time this issue starts to become well known and owners start to report it, LED could very well be the most common LCD type on the market.

Samsung reports that OLED is the future and very soon 2010. Report also stated that Blu Ray will be dead in 5 years.

Thats why I bought a budget set this time when I've always bought the best.

And this is why everyone should too.

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/20465/1103/

Its alot easier to ditch a 1500.00 set in a couple years, than a 4k plasma or LED LCD.

Samsung reports that OLED is the future and very soon 2010. Report also stated that Blu Ray will be dead in 5 years.

Thats why I bought a budget set this time when I've always bought the best.

And this is why everyone should too.

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/20465/1103/

Its alot easier to ditch a 1500.00 set in a couple years, than a 4k plasma or LED LCD.

Laser TV was touted to be out already and be a plasma and LCD killer and be as cheap as current RPTVs. However, it's still not out yet and the 65" model will only be available at select Diamond retailers for an MSRP of $7k and no one yet knows how it will compare to plasma and LCD. On the same note, a 52" LCD is the largest size out there. Yes, there are a few over that but the price is very high and the quality is not as good either.

Point is, I'm not holding my breath for OLED or any other technology. I'm not getting any younger and year after year you hear how next year will be the year. Somehow I just can't see a 60" OLED in 2010 for under $5k let alone a 52" model when a $2000 19" set is all that's available here late in 2008 which apparently has lifespan issues.

Thank you pendragoon very well said, this should be referenced very useful, not to attack lcd buyers but more to let them be aware that uneven wear with led is already an issue that plasma withhold.

The more i think about it the more worse in terms of flaws and issues LCD is making, sure its producing a better PQ improvements but at what cost? uneven wear glossy screens ~ reflection fake look of 120hz/motion response/resolution... among other issues

Also Oled is expected to be future so we have to compare what is currently out like plasma and lcd.

No need, gus738 pretty much nailed it, with LCD now having to worry about uneven wear from black bars (the only form of burn-in I still consider a legitimate issue these days) that is one less bullet point that can really be brought up in LCDs favor, same thing for the non reflective screens, almost every top LCD either uses a semi-gloss (close to a Panasonic's AG screen in reflectiveness) or a pure gloss screen (more reflective then your average plasma)

As for the break in bit, someone who works with LEDs for a living brought this up in the 950 thread and mentioned a break-in period (which consisted of nothing more than waiting to use the local dim function for 150 hours or so) but he was promptly attacked by several LCD fans and I don't think that he went back, I had already figured on uneven wear being an issue, but a possible break in period was news to me, so I did a bit more digging into LED tech. As I understand it, most LED bulbs use a phosphor coating right now, and as everyone knows, phosphors dim as they are used. (as does just about any light source) so with LED local dim enabled, and not knowing that this new LED tech can unevenly wear over time, what will the result in a few years be when this forum is flooded by people with unevenly aged LED displays?

LED local dim does raise the interesting issue with these new LED LCD displays, as LCD becomes more plasma like, will people begin to accept more of plasma's weaknesses as a trade off?



[side note]
I plan on my next set being an LCD (A Sony 52SL140 costco model with a semi-gloss screen) as black bars have given me issues with my current Panasonic, and I would rather not have to worry about this as over half of the movies I enjoy watching are scope aspect ratio, and I am tired of either getting IR (and adding to the uneven wear on the screen) or zooming in the picture. I won't touch a LED display for this very reason, they throw away too many LCD strengths to get a slightly better picture and deep black bars.

same thing for the non reflective screens, almost every top LCD either uses a semi-gloss (close to a Panasonic's AG screen in reflectiveness) or a pure gloss screen (more reflective then your average plasma)

As I understand it, most LED bulbs use a phosphor coating right now, and as everyone knows, phosphors dim as they are used. (as does just about any light source) so with LED local dim enabled, and not knowing that this new LED tech can unevenly wear over time, what will the result in a few years be when this forum is flooded by people with unevenly aged LED displays?

LED local dim does raise the interesting issue with these new LED LCD displays, as LCD becomes more plasma like, will people begin to accept more of plasma's weaknesses as a trade off?



[side note]
I plan on my next set being an LCD (A Sony 52SL140 costco model with a semi-gloss screen) as black bars have given me issues with my current Panasonic, and I would rather not have to worry about this as over half of the movies I enjoy watching are scope aspect ratio, and I am tired of either getting IR (and adding to the uneven wear on the screen) or zooming in the picture. I won't touch a LED display for this very reason, they throw away too many LCD strengths to get a slightly better picture and deep black bars.
Phosphors on LED's says that they are using some kind of "white light" LED?

I can't see why they shouldn't use RGB. I have seen in several trade publications LED's intended for use in LCD backlights both whith light and RGB. The white light type do have kind of a diffuse look to them, UV with a phosphor coating?

I don't see LED backlighting being subject to Burn In after someone comes up with a good RGB setup with no Phosphors. After that your biggest worry is having one or more go out.

As I sit here the set is off and I can see the diffuse glow off the screen from the lights in the kitchen. This is the same spot that my CRT used to give me a very clear and sharp image of everything that was going on behind me and it was only a 25". I can't imagine what it would be like with a 50"+.

Also I don't like the idea of having to zoom or strech the image. I feel if I was going to own a plasma it I would need to take proper care of it and lets face it, I'm lazy.

Point is, I'm not holding my breath for OLED or any other technology. I'm not getting any younger and year after year you hear how next year will be the year. Somehow I just can't see a 60" OLED in 2010 for under $5k let alone a 52" model when a $2000 19" set is all that's available here late in 2008 which apparently has lifespan issues.
OLED (I have seen a couple of them) has the most awesome PQ I have ever seen.

That being said, OLED is an organic substance that emits light when current is passed through it. A normal LED is typically made on silicon, saphire or GaS and the substrate has certain elements implanted into them with a acctual semiconductor juction. The term LED in OLED IMO is missleading.

OLED is subject to aging that is very similar to what a plasma goes though, but while the plasma phosphors tend to wear evenly, the blue, red and green OLED doesn't. This means that over time the color will shift and you probably wont notice until you see a set that is color correct. This is much worse than plasma burn in.

On the other hand OLED has great blacks.

What size OLEDs did you see, TNG? At the current size, I find it hard to be very impressed.

so oled issue is that you cant see how much you wear out one color over the other until its dead?:confused:

OLED is subject to aging that is very similar to what a plasma goes though, but while the plasma phosphors tend to wear evenly, the blue, red and green OLED doesn't. This means that over time the color will shift and you probably wont notice until you see a set that is color correct. This is much worse than plasma burn in.

so this being one of the major issues oled has?

OLED is subject to aging that is very similar to what a plasma goes though, but while the plasma phosphors tend to wear evenly, the blue, red and green OLED doesn't. This means that over time the color will shift and you probably wont notice until you see a set that is color correct. This is much worse than plasma burn in.


So basically the colors will get worse and worse and then after a few years either you or a buddy gets a new set and notice that the OLED color blue is off because of uneven aging.

how much is the given life span so far? if its 60k then we are ok just like plasma but 30k and oouch theirs a problem

how much is the given life span so far? if its 60k then we are ok just like plasma but 30k and oouch theirs a problem

Last I heard I believe that the blue OLED was around 10k hours total lifespan.... but then again, I haven't kept up with OLED since it is still a ways off.

Plasma phosphors also age differently but not to the extent of OLED. Compensation is not difficult either. The tv can monitor the post gamma signal and adjust current to the pixels to compensate.

However, using white OLEDs is the problem. No compensation is possible and your display will slowly shift to yellow over time.

Plasma phosphors also age differently but not to the extent of OLED. Compensation is not difficult either. The tv can monitor the post gamma signal and adjust current to the pixels to compensate.

However, using white OLEDs is the problem. No compensation is possible and your display will slowly shift to yellow over time.

Aren't they using white OLED until they get this blue lifespan issue solved? That can't be a good thing.

So basically the colors will get worse and worse and then after a few years either you or a buddy gets a new set and notice that the OLED color blue is off because of uneven aging.
As time goes by you really don't notice the shift in the color until it reaches a certain point. I can see this happening with people who really don't watch allot of TV themselves, but the wife and the kids watch during the day. The shift is slow and gradual so you don't notice.

In answer to what OLED sets have I seen the latest is of course the little Sony set. That one is small even by the standards of 20 years ago, but the fact that they put it out there means that they are probably serious.

The other was a un-named brand I saw in Japan that was 23". This was a unit that was at a major chemical company involved in the business. I was there for training and this was just a "Hey you have to see this" kind of thing.

Sets are out there and the PQ is great. I think it is coming, but it will have its own drawbacks just like every other tech.

Aren't they using white OLED until they get this blue lifespan issue solved? That can't be a good thing.Sorry, you are right. I have it backwards. RBG has more color shift that white. My mind is scrambled today.

Cheers

very interesting about the aging of led.
since no one posted a link i did a search and found this

http://www2.electronicproducts.com/LED_lighting_needs_smarts_to_be_competitive-article-fa-microchip-energyi-apr2007-html.aspx

excerpt:
"The long life of the LED
The solution presented in Fig. 1 has many applications�but one important drawbacks is low efficiency. It's a linear solution, and power is dissipated in the ballast resistors. Additionally, more problems could arise over the life of the application.

One of the main advantages of the LED technology�their extremely long operating life�causes an important issue: color drift. LEDs can operate for 50,000 hours or more and their luminous output will decline gradually to 70% of its nominal value (compared to 1,500 hours to sudden death for an incandescent lamp).

Unfortunately, during those 50,000 hours the CCT of a white LED will change�drifting toward the higher temperatures (toward blue) as the phosphors age. An RGB LED solution will suffer a similar malady, as the three-color emitters age at a different rate along different curves.

Using a microcontroller, we can imagine several techniques that could be used to compensate for the aging of the components, either with predictive algorithms or closed-loop control systems. Color photosensors are available from several manufacturers and, while they add to cost, when combined with a simple PID algorithm they can solve the color drift problem once and for all.

Since the change is extremely slow, there is no need for high computational performance and even the lowest-cost 8-bit microcontroller can be used. This mechanism provides not only compensation for the aging of the LEDs, but also for the aging of the driver circuitry."

the question is do the tv manufacturers who make these premium sets care to solve this problem?

i would like to assume they know about it and can only hope that they have addressed it given the cost of these new sets.

anyone care to pursue the answer?

Very good find bonsg, so I was pretty spot on with my theory, and it is good that it is easily combated (well the color drift is, uneven aging in local dim displays might be a bit tougher to combat with those kind of luminance drop off levels over time.

LEDs can operate for 50,000 hours or more and their luminous output will decline gradually to 70% of its nominal value

This is even worse than I thought it would be, if this is the case, then uneven wear is going to be a big problem going into the future of LED LCD. (even with some compensation circuits in place, this is a very large drop off over time, and I don't know if they can compensate for it withough killing the light output of the set)

really, i always thought it was widely accepted that plasmas have a life expectancy way below lcd's.

if these led lcd's operate for 50k hours and only go to 70% of nominal value that seems to still fare much better than plasma

here's another article but this time about plasma:

http://www.mountainviewtvcenter.com/plasma.htm



excerpt:
" But the phosphors that make the color dissipate over time and that dissipation begins the moment you turn the set on. After 1000 hours, it is reported the picture brightness is reduced to 94%, which, really, is barely noticeable. Over time, though, this increases. At about 15,000 hours you get a picture quality brightness of about 65%."


so led lcd 50k hours = 70%
plasma 15k hours = 65%


given the nature of lcd's being crazy(or fantastically) bright to begin with, 70% doesn't even seem
to be much of a hit at 50k hours. which translates to 8hrs a day for 9years.

the plasma numbers i would worry about.

The plasma numbers you would worry about because a television that is reduced to 'possibly' 65% brightness in 15,000 hours translates to 5.13 years, if the television was used for 8 hours a day, 365 days a year. Now, realistically... I think this point is moot. Any normal consumer can and probably will be content with WHATEVER they buy for 5-10 years regardless of the product's rated shelf life (judging that it doesn't have some mishap and die before the rated shelf life).

Truthfully, NEITHER are in trouble and are technologies you have to worry about.

really, i always thought it was widely accepted that plasmas have a life expectancy way below lcd's.

if these led lcd's operate for 50k hours and only go to 70% of nominal value that seems to still fare much better than plasma

here's another article but this time about plasma:

http://www.mountainviewtvcenter.com/plasma.htm



excerpt:
" But the phosphors that make the color dissipate over time and that dissipation begins the moment you turn the set on. After 1000 hours, it is reported the picture brightness is reduced to 94%, which, really, is barely noticeable. Over time, though, this increases. At about 15,000 hours you get a picture quality brightness of about 65%."


so led lcd 50k hours = 70%
plasma 15k hours = 65%


given the nature of lcd's being crazy(or fantastically) bright to begin with, 70% doesn't even seem
to be much of a hit at 50k hours. which translates to 8hrs a day for 9years.

the plasma numbers i would worry about.

That article seems old, they quote a 30, 000 half life for plasmas. All sets in 2008 are rated at 100, 000.

That article seems old, they quote a 30, 000 half life for plasmas. All sets in 2008 are rated at 100, 000.


Agreed old article with out of date info.

That article seems old, they quote a 30, 000 half life for plasmas. All sets in 2008 are rated at 100, 000.

How long has it been since a decent plasma had a half life of 30k? So if that article is applied to current plasma sets, then even after 50k hours a current plasma still out does a LED display by about 5%. (and I am willing to bet that advances have been made on the brightness drop off end of the problem with plasma so even that number will be off)

Remember that 50k number with LED isn't half-life, it is total life. (correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to see that number quoted as a half life on any LED display) So plasma can theoretically last up to 200k hours before the panel goes (and odds are the power supply or some other critical component will go before then)

How long has it been since a decent plasma had a half life of 30k? So if that article is applied to current plasma sets, then even after 50k hours a current plasma still out does a LED display by about 5%. (and I am willing to bet that advances have been made on the brightness drop off end of the problem with plasma so even that number will be off)

Remember that 50k number with LED isn't half-life, it is total life. (correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to see that number quoted as a half life on any LED display) So plasma can theoretically last up to 200k hours before the panel goes (and odds are the power supply or some other critical component will go before then)

Yep, the plasma info is outdated.

But we have to remember that LED is much brighter to begin with. So the brightness of LED shouldn't be an issue in the real world. The color may be.

Also the burn-in risk is different than plasma. With a plasma, uneven wear is more noticable because it can happen on a pixel-by-pixel basis, where the LEDs cover a larger zone. So any uneven wear will be diffused, making it not nearly as noticeable as, for example, the well-defined 4:3 bars on my old RPCRT.

who would like to do a brightness measurement of the 950 samsung?
i think that the brightness of that set is more than 200% of a kuro and even at 50k hours when it is down to 70% brightness that would still be brighter than a brand new kuro.

so what's the issue? i suppose for those who bought it for it's top performance in the brightness category wouldn't be enthusiastic. they would be the ones who push the brightness envelope on an lcd and i think there aren't too many who do that. i could be wrong.

http://www.*******************.com/plasmatv/plasmatv-lifespan.html



ok here are some updated numbers

excerpt:

"Panasonic: States in new specifications that new plasma TVs and monitors are good to 60,000 to half life.

Sony:Now out of the plasma market. Does not list a figure for LCD lineup.

Samsung: Lists 60,000 hours for plasma lineup.

Pioneer: States 60,000 hours of use in their 2008 models.

Sharp LCD panels: States 60,000 hour life. "

maybe these guys are wrong? it's what came up in a search.

got a better one?

http://www.*******************.com/plasmatv/plasmatv-lifespan.html



ok here are some updated numbers

excerpt:

"Panasonic: States in new specifications that new plasma TVs and monitors are good to 60,000 to half life.

Sony:Now out of the plasma market. Does not list a figure for LCD lineup.

Samsung: Lists 60,000 hours for plasma lineup.

Pioneer: States 60,000 hours of use in their 2008 models.

Sharp LCD panels: States 60,000 hour life. "

maybe these guys are wrong? it's what came up in a search.

got a better one?

Every Panasonic ad lists a 100,000 half-life on their plasma sets. (every site that sells them lists it at some point as well)

I remember reading at several places that the new LED displays have a lifespan of 50,000 hours. But finding information on this is not easy at all... I found one cnet bulletpoint that mentions a 100k lifespan (so 50k halflife, still less than most current displays), this was the only place that I saw the 100k lifespan, I'll keep an eye out for any other information. (not even Samsung's website lists lifespan on their LED displays.....)

http://www.cnet.com/4520-10602_1-5618617-1.html

The box my pz80 came in states a 100K half life.

I swear Panasonic prominantly advertised a 100K half life when I was looking a couple months ago. Now it's not on on their website that I can see. Interesting...