Lately the commercial press has been pumping up the Pioneer and the Panasonic plasmas as having superior picture quality. I’ve seen them side by side with the latest LCD displays. In many ways the plasmas put out a nice picture but they have always lacked “punch or pop”.

The March Wide Screen Review magazine of the 2008 Pioneer Kuro Elite plasma tells us why.
Take a white square which varies in size from 10% of the screen to 100%. In a perfect display all would measure the same brightness. But plasma's main weakness is clearly revealed:

Screen White Area vs. Brightness
--------------------------------
10% 51 foot lamberts brightness
50% 26 foot lamberts brightness
100% 17 foot lamberts brightness

This measurements reveal why plasma demos don’t display outdoor scenes with the normally ‘bright’ sky as there is a three-to-one variation in the brightness of whites!

Personally I’ve never liked plasmas since own a top rated Panasonic plasma a few years ago as the display was just not “hard hitting’. Its whites were grey or dirt-tan color as the panels circuitry limits brightness. This is because to much power to any pixel will increase the likelihood of burning the phosphors coatings. My observations in the store and these measurements reveal that not much has changed.

yup I agree. Besides Pioneer, plasma tech has been in a complete stalemate.

Take a white square which varies in size from 10% of the screen to 100%. In a perfect display all would measure the same brightness. But plasma's main weakness is clearly revealed:So plasma is clearly the inferior choice if your viewing consists of 100% white screens.

Besides, many LCDs auto-dim too, and if you turn the test around and look at the uniformity of white, plasmas will do better.

Gee, how many scenes are shot outside? How many scenes include the sky?:confused:

Plasma's can have excellent blacks but the whimpie bright scenes (with the measurements to back up these claims), need to start being be discussed on this side of the pond. Its a question of establishing a balanced perspective to make an informed buying decision.

The plasma reviewers who don't comment on this life-sucking picture distortion are blind and doing their readers a disservice. The British press is commenting on it and its about time for the inexperienced Americans to play ketchup.

"An LCD's picture brightness is generated by a constant, extremely powerful backlight positioned behind the main LCD panel.
We've found that this approach delivers notably more dynamic and vibrant pictures than plasma."

What Plasma & LCD TV Magazine March 2008 pg.81

So plasma is clearly the inferior choice if your viewing consists of 100% white screens.

Besides, many LCDs auto-dim too, and if you turn the test around and look at the uniformity of white, plasmas will do better.

Auto Dim IMO is uselss and damn it takes a whole ten seconds to turn-off so the point is invalid. My Sharp has the OPC and I hate it and NEVER use it.

I, just as reincarnate owned a Panny - the 500U two yrs ago deemed king of the time by PDP threads and I totally agree with his assessment - as well as a useless POS in a sunny room, reflective as a mirror and those Tide commercial loser Whites or lack thereof. Man, if you ever get used to viewing LCD and then switch to plasma and those damn dirty whites it's irritating as hell and recently viewed the latest Panny and it had the same lousy whites, which aren't white at all.

If you've ever spent time skiing or along a clean ocean the snow and the soup is white and bright enough to need goggles or sun glasses not dirty gray or yellow as many plasmas depict white - after all what is the other half of great blacks in CR but WHITE yet plasma fans rarely discuss the whites. My issue with Kuro with in store viewing I haven't seen what the raves are about - the 71 and XBR4 have that pop and the Kuro looks Dim comparatively. To each his own and despite the fanbase I'll never follow it again - trust your own eyes not the herd consensus. :)

Why can't Plasma keep the whites at a constant high-level of brightness? Is it power-supply related or is it inherent in the plasma technology itself? I mean, is it like poor DC-restoration in CRT's and something that could be fixed with better design?

Lately the commercial press has been pumping up the Pioneer and the Panasonic plasmas as having superior picture quality. I’ve seen them side by side with the latest LCD displays. In many ways the plasmas put out a nice picture but they have always lacked “punch or pop”.

The March Wide Screen Review magazine of the 2008 Pioneer Kuro Elite plasma tells us why.
Take a white square which varies in size from 10% of the screen to 100%. In a perfect display all would measure the same brightness. But plasma's main weakness is clearly revealed:

Screen White Area vs. Brightness
--------------------------------
10% 51 foot lamberts brightness
50% 26 foot lamberts brightness
100% 17 foot lamberts brightness

This measurements reveal why plasma demos don’t display outdoor scenes with the normally ‘bright’ sky as there is a three-to-one variation in the brightness of whites!

Personally I’ve never liked plasmas since own a top rated Panasonic plasma a few years ago as the display was just not “hard hitting’. Its whites were grey or dirt-tan color as the panels circuitry limits brightness. This is because to much power to any pixel will increase the likelihood of burning the phosphors coatings. My observations in the store and these measurements reveal that not much has changed.

My visit to a BB ("Magnolia's) awhile back was all I needed to know why LCD is the superior technology.

Side by side a Samsung lnt-5281 and a Pioneer Kuro Elite 50" playing on a blu-ray the movie "Eight Below", filmed in the Artic Pole. The Pio just can't compete. The Sammy was so vibrant!

And the news that the extra lumens plasma needs not till 2009? Thats an enternity in the tech world.

As an owner of top tier TV's in both categories (sony xbr4 and pio 110fd) I would have to disagree with the "dull whites" statements made. It could just be the 110fd is an exception to the rule but the picture is every bit as vibrant as my xbr4. If I want to crank the xbr4 to absurd levels, sure its brighter and the whites are whiter, but then the rest of the picture looks like crap so what are you gaining by doing that? Some people prefer that vivid look and some don't. Makes my eyes hurt unless the sun is blasting into the room. I love both of these great sets, but seeing them together on a daily basis I give the nod to the pioneer.

Pioneer hands down.

I wouldn't say this is anything new, nor would I say it makes LCD superior to Plasma - it's certainly one area where they do better though. (overall I would say Plasmas still produce better images)

However this can be seen as both a good and a bad thing. Most people have their displays set too bright. With this cutting down the overall screen output the brighter the image gets, it means that a plasma in "torch mode" is a lot easier on the eyes than an LCD.

It also makes things a bit more contrasted without having the screen being blindingly bright. In a dark scene with small points of light, these points are brighter than they usually would be, improving contrast and the appearance of black. With an LCD, you would have to raise the backlight setting to get objects as bright which would raise black level, reducing contrast, and would make bright scenes too bright.


A properly calibrated display for a dimly lit room is in the 30-35fL range, so dropping to 17fL from that isn't nearly as dramatic. As I view in a completely dark room, I calibrate my displays to just under 24fL (the sRGB standard of 80cd/m2 works well in a dark room in my opinion) so while there is still a drop in brightness, it shouldn't be too dramatic.


With normal picture content, the average picture level is typically less than 50%, even with brighter scenes where you would probably expect it to be much higher.

I like underdogs, that's why I buy plasma. :)

larry

Side by side a Samsung lnt-5281 and a Pioneer Kuro Elite 50" playing on a blu-ray the movie "Eight Below", filmed in the Artic Pole. The Pio just can't compete. The Sammy was so vibrant!



Well if you keep your viewing location lit up as bright as a Best Buys or enjoy torch mode so much, please keep a pair of sunglasses handy so you dont burn your retinas.
;)

Well if you keep your viewing location lit up as bright as a Best Buys or enjoy torch mode so much, please keep a pair of sunglasses handy so you dont burn your retinas.
;)Do I sense a hint of bias? I guess I'm not the ony one.:)

In many ways the plasmas put out a nice picture but they have always lacked “punch or pop”. In your opinion of course...... Fact is that the automatic brightness limiter increases static contrast by boosting whites with decreasing average picture level. To many people this effect along with very low black levels is a big component of "pop". But yes, high average picture level scenes will be surpressed. But the average picture level of media is well below 50%. Whether the ABL is an issue for you is a personal opinion not a ubiquitous defect like you suggest.

In a perfect display all would measure the same brightness. But plasma's main weakness is clearly revealed:And LCDs are perfect??? Please :rolleyes: I guess this is why LCD beat out CRT as well as they also use an ABL circuit. And as for the in store comparisons of blinding white LCDs vs dim PDPs, I wonder what percentage of LCD owners actually dial down the backlight brightness after purchase. The biggest advantage of having blinding whites is that you can use the display in a very bright room, which is not an issue for me.

Personally I’ve never liked plasmas Well that is obvious!

This is because to much power to any pixel will increase the likelihood of burning the phosphors coatings. Wrong, it is because of the power on demand nature of PDP (or CRT or OLED or SED/FED). The more pixels that are activated the more power is used. The brightness limiter is used to stabalize power consumption.

My observations in the store and these measurements reveal that not much has changed.In fact a lot has changed for the worse. The brightness limiting effect has been enhanced due to the use of higher pixel counts (1080p) and darker front filters. This is why it is becoming more obvious to consumers when in store viewing.

As for eliminating the effect? I would not want them to. In a couple years when high efficiency PDPs hit the market I hope the ABL circuit is still used as it will provide plenty bright full screen whites but also increase static contrast even more in reduced APL scenes all the while using less power.

2 words for you...

CONTRAST RATIO.

LCD's don't do well anywhere but with overall brightness.
Plasma does well with viewing angle, color, blacks, motion.

Plasma wins 5 to 1.

We can post LCD vs plasma until we are blue in the face but it all boils down to individual preferences:

Some people cannot stand the plasma dirty and relatively dim whites, and I cannot stand the LCD bluish blacks. The greyish whites of plasma don't bother me at all.

So sue me.

What about deinterlacing and especially Motion Resolution:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1107hook2/index.html

Read it and weep LCD trolls.

Lately the commercial press has been pumping up the Pioneer and the Panasonic plasmas as having superior picture quality. I’ve seen them side by side with the latest LCD displays. In many ways the plasmas put out a nice picture but they have always lacked “punch or pop”.

The March Wide Screen Review magazine of the 2008 Pioneer Kuro Elite plasma tells us why.
Take a white square which varies in size from 10% of the screen to 100%. In a perfect display all would measure the same brightness. But plasma's main weakness is clearly revealed:

Screen White Area vs. Brightness
--------------------------------
10% 51 foot lamberts brightness
50% 26 foot lamberts brightness
100% 17 foot lamberts brightness

This measurements reveal why plasma demos don’t display outdoor scenes with the normally ‘bright’ sky as there is a three-to-one variation in the brightness of whites!

Personally I’ve never liked plasmas since own a top rated Panasonic plasma a few years ago as the display was just not “hard hitting’. Its whites were grey or dirt-tan color as the panels circuitry limits brightness. This is because to much power to any pixel will increase the likelihood of burning the phosphors coatings. My observations in the store and these measurements reveal that not much has changed.


I'm glad you posted this. I've been like a voice crying in the wilderness on this issue. I've told people in this forum about the problems with plasma tv, yes, including the Kuro. The above cited problems with this technology is proof why PDP is not the display technology future.

I have often complained about the dirty whites I noticed on all plasma TV's, including the Kuro. The Kuro is not immuned from this problem!

We can post LCD vs plasma until we are blue in the face but it all boils down to individual preferences:

Some people cannot stand the plasma dirty and relatively dim whites, and I cannot stand the LCD bluish blacks. The greyish whites of plasma don't bother me at all.

So sue me.

I agree with you. That is why we need a new technology that doesn't have any of those flaws. How long will you accept bluish blacks or dirty whites with your display? Why would you be happy with any of those imperfections.

Shouldn't this thread be titled "New Measurement Reveals One Aspect in Which LCDs May Be Considered Superior to Plasma"?

As I posted months ago, mine is anecdotal evidence and personal opinion vs. ubiquitous defect. I have seen gray snow and dark blue sky on a Kuro in a dimly lit shop not quite as bright as my family TV room in the evening. Beside it, an LCD rendered the same scene realistically the way snow and sky should look.

If plasmas "eliminate the effect", surely Auditor55 would become a plasma enthusiast. Surely new plasma owners would claim a huge breakthrough the way Kuro owners now do about blacks.

Until Kuro, grayish blacks were acknowledged but minimized as a plasma impediment. Now grayish blacks are a showstopper for many. Grayish whites will become a showstopper when plasma can match LCDs whites. Until then they will be minimized by current plasma owners.

Or just title it: Another useless checkbox on the LCD buyers specsheet. ;)
I gotta just LOL for the LCD pushers who continue to post outright lies about plasma yet fail to back up the comments with actual examples.
There are some techheads at AVS who put those feet to the fire now and again though. :D

better blacks, motion, color, viewing angles>better full screen whites

better blacks, motion, color, viewing angles>better full screen whites

+1. Amen.

--Mav

Why does anyone care. Buy and enjoy which ever type of display you prefer. All this display proselytizing make people comes across more like religious fanatics trying to peddle their particular Icons, instead of contented video consumers.

Watch what you prefer, and let others do the same. LCD owners: Enjoy them. Plasma owners: Enjoy them. Now everybody; STFU:D

All this display proselytizing make people comes across more like religious fanatics trying to peddle their particular Icons, instead of contented video consumers.

Was it the "Amen"?

Let's be honest here, BOTH LCD and plasmas have issues.

Plasma's aren't bright enough and whites aren't pure and LCDs need some BIG improvements in black levels! The Samsung 65, 71, and 81s are the only LCDs I would even consider. Just like people have a problem with glare on plasmas I have just as much of a problem with matte screens on LCDs. The picture at times on many of todays LCDs reminds me of a very bright microdisplay. One thing disheartening about LCD this year is that from what I've heard from CES this year it doesn't sound much like LCD has really made any strides with black levels.

So the big question is will LCD get perfect blacks first or will plasmas get brighter? It sounds like plasmas may get there with both perfect blacks and a bright picture with 10 lumen technology and possibly in 2009. Where's Samsungs successor to the 81s?

The smugness of you Kuro owners remind me of the nauseating sony fanboys. Sony products are good as are Kuro's. But, the Kuro only looks good in a very controlled environment. How dare some humans prefer a tv that can actually be viewed in a family room type environment with (gasp!) windows during the day that require a bright picture that does not act like a mirror. If I had a dedicated dark room, I would buy a projector though and OLED's will replace both LCD and Plasma soon enough anyway. Enjoy whatever technology you are viewing.

Why does anyone care. Buy and enjoy which ever type of display you prefer. All this display proselytizing make people comes across more like religious fanatics trying to peddle their particular Icons, instead of contented video consumers.

Watch what you prefer, and let others do the same. LCD owners: Enjoy them. Plasma owners: Enjoy them. Now everybody; STFU:D

I bought both but should we here at AVS just let BS go unanswered all the time?
You can clearly see who is starting the jihad on this thread and it should not be allowed to stand without a challenge.
I enjoy all my displays and would also expect to get feedback from others if I were to post such obvious trash like these LCD pushers do.
Now go have a Guinness ya Irish...uh...hehe ;)

Plasma's aren't bright enough and whites aren't pure and LCDs need some BIG improvements in black levels! The Samsung 65, 71, and 81s are the only LCDs I would even consider. Just like people have a problem with glare on plasmas I have just as much of a problem with matte screens on LCDs. The picture at times on many of todays LCDs reminds me of a very bright microdisplay. One thing disheartening about LCD this year is that from what I've heard from CES this year it doesn't sound much like LCD has really made any strides with black levels.

So the big question is will LCD get perfect blacks first or will plasmas get brighter? It sounds like plasmas may get there with both perfect blacks and a bright picture with 10 lumen technology and possibly in 2009. Where's Samsungs successor to the 81s?
What makes you say that the whites aren't pure? Now, admittedly I have not owned many older plasmas, but have had a couple of the more recent ones (Panasonic & Pioneer) and perfect D65 whites were easily achievable on both. In fact, greyscale was generally more accurate/neutral on the Plasmas than the LCDs I've had, where it generally gets quite bad below 30-40 IRE even when calibrated.

As LCD is a technology designed around blocking light, rather than Plasmas which create light, it is going to be increasingly difficult to improve black levels with them without resorting to "trickery." Eg auto-dimming backlights / local-area dimming with LEDs. Auto-dimming backlights not only lower black levels, they also lower the brightness of bright objects, so contrast does not improve at all, the whole image just gets dull. LED backlighting has potential, but can never be done on a per-pixel basis so it will not do much to improve contrast with actual picture content, though it will measure well in tests.

On the other hand, Plasmas are well on the way to improving brightness, power consumption and black levels. I believe Panasonic's plasmas this year are now twice as bright as last year when using the same amount of power, or can use half the amount of power when at the same brightness as before. (note: I may be wrong and could be confusing it with another display they had at CES - I have no intention of purchasing one, so I've not been keeping up to date on every bit of info with them)

In 2009, Pioneer should have achieved "perfect" blacks (they already have a prototype display using this technology) and we should start to see high efficiency models which will boost light output significantly.

When Plasmas hit 10lm/W (which could be 2009) they will be around 4x brighter than they are currently - making them capable of going brighter than any LCD. Not only that, but the increased efficiency / light output will allow them to use different screen types which will allow them to look as good, if not better than, an LCD in a bright room.

The smugness of you Kuro owners remind me of the nauseating sony fanboys. Sony products are good as are Kuro's. But, the Kuro only looks good in a very controlled environment. How dare some humans prefer a tv that can actually be viewed in a family room type environment with (gasp!) windows during the day that require a bright picture that does not act like a mirror. If I had a dedicated dark room, I would buy a projector though and OLED's will replace both LCD and Plasma soon enough anyway. Enjoy whatever technology you are viewing.
It is laughable to say that Sony LCDs are comparable to Pioneer Plasmas. After having had several Sony LCDs in my home, and a 5080XD there's pretty much no contest. Yes, there are one or two aspects where the BRAVIAs are better, but overall image quality is significantly better with the Kuros.

It is a common misconception that Plasmas "act like mirrors" in a bright room. Actually, reflections are generally not much of a problem these days - if it is a situation where reflections are an issue, it is likely that it will be for LCDs as well. (yes, LCDs can also suffer in certain bright situations)

However, Plasmas suffer a lot once when there are high levels of ambient light. Not with reflections, but due to glare, which washes out the image completely.

The Kuros may have the best blacks out there right now for a flat panel, but they don't even look close to black in a bright room:

http://i32.tinypic.com/154ge8y.jpg

Notice how there are no harsh reflections on the screen, despite reflections on the piano black bezel.

The picture isn't really dull either, it's just that the blacks are washed out. (though it looks like a camera flash was used, which exaggerates the problem quite a bit - it's not going to be that bad in a bright room)


Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm not a Kuro "fanboy" or even a Plasma one. I completely agree that Plasmas do have issues (including some that aren't mentioned here) but I still think they're probably the best displays on the market right now. But being the "best" still isn't good enough for me - I'll wait until I can get a picture that is at least comparable to my CRT, or preferably one that surpasses it, but it looks like that's not going to happen for a while yet. Even if Pioneer were to release their "perfect black" displays tomorrow, there's a good chance I wouldn't buy one, as there are a lot of other issues that are inherent to digital displays and don't seem to be going away any time soon.

Shouldn't this thread be titled "New Measurement Reveals One Aspect in Which LCDs May Be Considered Superior to Plasma"?

But that would piss people off so much less...

The smugness of you Kuro owners remind me of the nauseating sony fanboys. Sony products are good as are Kuro's. But, the Kuro only looks good in a very controlled environment. How dare some humans prefer a tv that can actually be viewed in a family room type environment with (gasp!) windows during the day that require a bright picture that does not act like a mirror. If I had a dedicated dark room, I would buy a projector though and OLED's will replace both LCD and Plasma soon enough anyway. Enjoy whatever technology you are viewing.

How much experience do you have with a Kuro in a normally lit home?

What makes you say that the whites aren't pure?...

LCDs whites are much whiter. If you have say white text on the screen it's not really noticable. But when you have a fair amount of white on the screen you can tell the whites have a grayish tone to them (they also have an uneven look as well). I compared a Kuro in store (I do realize the drawbacks of in store comparisons) to a Sammy 71 and the Sammy was MUCH whiter and it also showed more details in white areas. I know my non-elite Kuro crushes whites to some degree.

The Kuro is a great TV! But it's not perfect either like every other set out there. Just as you said, I'm not a fanboy either and this is the first Pioneer I've ever owned and every other TV before that was practically a different brand so I have no owner loyalty. I'm a fan of PQ! And to my eyes the Kuro and Sammy 71 are the best I've seen(haven't seen the 81).

The lack of brightness in plasmas is almost as important to me as having those perfect blacks and the 10 lumen technology with the perfect blacks sounds amazing! And more specifically, brightness is a bigger issue in 60" screens than in 42 and 50" panels. I too am interested in seeing how brighter the Pannys are this year as well.

The smugness of you Kuro owners remind me of the nauseating sony fanboys. Sony products are good as are Kuro's. But, the Kuro only looks good in a very controlled environment. How dare some humans prefer a tv that can actually be viewed in a family room type environment with (gasp!) windows during the day that require a bright picture that does not act like a mirror. If I had a dedicated dark room, I would buy a projector though and OLED's will replace both LCD and Plasma soon enough anyway. Enjoy whatever technology you are viewing.

I agree that LCDs would be a better choice in a room with high to moderate lighting but in low lighting most LCDs just don't cut it for my taste due to inadequate black levels. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder :).

I haven't seen a projector that has the same pop and crispness to the image as an LCD or a plasma either. Yea, you get the size, but to my eyes the PQ isn't the same.

LCDs whites are much whiter. If you have say white text on the screen it's not really noticable. But when you have a fair amount of white on the screen you can tell the whites have a grayish tone to them (they also have an uneven look as well). I compared a Kuro in store (I do realize the drawbacks of in store comparisons) to a Sammy 71 and the Sammy was MUCH whiter and it also showed more details in white areas. I know my non-elite Kuro crushes whites to some degree.

The Kuro is a great TV! But it's not perfect either like every other set out there. Just as you said, I'm not a fanboy either and this is the first Pioneer I've ever owned and every other TV before that was practically a different brand so I have no owner loyalty. I'm a fan of PQ! And to my eyes the Kuro and Sammy 71 are the best I've seen(haven't seen the 81).

The lack of brightness in plasmas is almost as important to me as having those perfect blacks and the 10 lumen technology with the perfect blacks sounds amazing! And more specifically, brightness is a bigger issue in 60" screens than in 42 and 50" panels. I too am interested in seeing how brighter the Pannys are this year as well.
Huh, that's interesting. I agree that whites can't go as bright, but brightness is not the same thing as purity. If it were tinted, I'd say it wasn't pure.

I'm really surprised about the uneven comment though - plasma brightness doesn't change with horizontal viewing angle, unlike LCD, and the Kuro I had measured a variance of ~2-3cd/m2 across the screen which is almost imperceptible. The 52" Samsung LCD I had measured a difference of ~25cd/m2 across the screen and changed very obviously even just a few degrees off-axis.

How is this some new revelation?:confused: People who prefer super bright displays should get an lcd...those who value overall PQ get plasma. End of story/.

LCD owners were "BLINDED BY THE LIGHT"

...so I guess they couldn't see all the other picture problems.

Beat that.

Huh, that's interesting. I agree that whites can't go as bright, but brightness is not the same thing as purity. If it were tinted, I'd say it wasn't pure.

I'm really surprised about the uneven comment though - plasma brightness doesn't change with horizontal viewing angle, unlike LCD, and the Kuro I had measured a variance of ~2-3cd/m2 across the screen which is almost imperceptible. The 52" Samsung LCD I had measured a difference of ~25cd/m2 across the screen and changed very obviously even just a few degrees off-axis.

Yes, I also keep hearing this about plasma whites.
I notice some people sounding like they think that blue-like white is pure on some LCD's.
If there is a purity difference, I sure have not noticed it when going from my plasma to LCD and back.
I just notice the huge PQ difference. ;)

Yes, I also keep hearing this about plasma whites.
I notice some people sounding like they think that blue-like white is pure on some LCD's.
If there is a purity difference, I sure have not noticed it when going from my plasma to LCD and back.
I just notice the huge PQ difference. ;)

That's what I think it comes down to as well. It's not just the intensity of the white image (brightness- which is definitely a lower peak on plasma), is the hot whites that LCD CCFL backlights produce and people like a blue-white more often than not in my experience (maybe because it's less noticeable than a more dingy yellow?). Especially true if you haven't seen a D65 calibrated set before. To each their own preference and set of eyeballs.

What I don't like about my 7UY is low IRE dithering noise and posterization. And I'd love to have a 1080p native set, but that wasn't in the cards for PDP in 2004. It calibrates to d65 pretty well with relatively nice greyscale tracking so I don't have any real complaints with regard to color purity.

Huh, that's interesting. I agree that whites can't go as bright, but brightness is not the same thing as purity. If it were tinted, I'd say it wasn't pure.

I think the brightness is the reason the whites aren't as "pure" as a true white. When I think of pure whites I think of a glossy bright white sheet of paper. Whites levels look fine with small amounts of white on the screen but even still there is room for improvement :). I used to think the white levels were decent on the Panny 600U I had before the Pioneer. Not anymore. The whites are noticably whiter on Pioneer displays over Panasonics. And the same goes for better LCDs over plasma.


I'm really surprised about the uneven comment though - plasma brightness doesn't change with horizontal viewing angle, unlike LCD, and the Kuro I had measured a variance of ~2-3cd/m2 across the screen which is almost imperceptible. The 52" Samsung LCD I had measured a difference of ~25cd/m2 across the screen and changed very obviously even just a few degrees off-axis.

Maybe "uneven" wasn't the best choice of a word to describe what I meant. With an all white screen on a plasma whites just appear to have a grayish tone to them. IMO, I think the ;ack of brightness in plasmas is the reason the whites aren't as white.

I think the brightness is the reason the whites aren't as "pure" as a true white. When I think of pure whites I think of a glossy bright white sheet of paper. Whites levels look fine with small amounts of white on the screen but even still there is room for improvement :). I used to think the white levels were decent on the Panny 600U I had before the Pioneer. Not anymore. The whites are noticably whiter on Pioneer displays over Panasonics. And the same goes for better LCDs over plasma.


It makes me wonder how bright in terms of luminance a 'white' object (ie 100IRE in the analog world or a 235 Y' in the 8 bit digital video world) needs to be in order to appear 'white' to a person. There has to be some data on this. D65 should give you the right hue ('purity'), but the intensity of the signal and it's apparent contrast must affect how we perceive the color... anyone?

It makes me wonder how bright in terms of luminance a 'white' object (ie 100IRE in the analog world or a 235 Y' in the 8 bit digital video world) needs to be in order to appear 'white' to a person. There has to be some data on this. D65 should give you the right hue ('purity'), but the intensity of the signal and it's apparent contrast must affect how we perceive the color... anyone?
There is brightness, contrast and black level in this equation. Lets not forget the human eye too.

The SMPTE brightness for a movie theater is set at about 12-16 foot lamberts, with talk of raising it to 20fl for digital cinema. Displays used in environments with higher ambient light should be brighter.

With the 100IRE/235-255/peak white being fixed, it is the static contrast ratio which sets the black level. The great the contrast ratio (dynamic range) the lower the black level will be. Dynamic contrast ratios were developed by marketers to continue to sell products with no real improvements.

Our eyes pupil varies just like a camera f-stop. With high ambient light the pupil stays relatively constant (and stepped down) so the net result is our black level is raised. LCDs blacks look great here, while plasma's whites suffer.

As an experiment read from your notebook computer outside for a few minutes on a dark night. Then close the lid and see how little you are able to see. But wait a while and you will be able to see a lot better. Astronomers wait at least 30 minutes.

In a dark movie theater, the pupil is only affected (modulated) by the projectors light. So the absolute black level is becomes more important especially the longer darker scenes continue. The bottom line is given sufficient SMPTE brightness, high true static contrast solves all issues.

It makes me wonder how bright in terms of luminance a 'white' object (ie 100IRE in the analog world or a 235 Y' in the 8 bit digital video world) needs to be in order to appear 'white' to a person. There has to be some data on this.
Truelight: Technical Notes on Standard Color Spaces
*Note: for this url you my need to save target as..
http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/pdf/technicalnotes/FL-TL-TN-0139-StdColourSpaces.pdf
SMTPE (cinema standard white) = 16 Foot-Lamberts = 55 Candelas/sq.m

SMTPE (video standard white) = 30 Foot-Lamberts = 100 Candelas/sq.m
The SI unit of illumination is the lux. One lux is defined as an illumination of one lumen per square meter
from any angle. If the surface were perfectly white and Lambertian, it would reflect a brightness of 1/Pi
cd/m2.

http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/services_support/library
FilmLight Library

Truelight: Technical Notes on Standard Color Spaces
*Note: for this url you my need to save target as..
http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/pdf/technicalnotes/FL-TL-TN-0139-StdColourSpaces.pdf


http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/services_support/library
FilmLight Library

Thanks for the information! But this brightness level is at what ambient light conditions? And does a plasma calibrated to d65 hit that intensity (over the whole screen)? If so, why would someone classify that as 'dim' or 'not white'? Maybe that gets back to liking a hot blueish white...?

I read this authors opinion and some is great quite nice but some is outdated. For instance:
"Unfortunately, the screen gain must fall off rapidly with viewing angle, so the viewed image may be dull at the edges, and have a noticeable bright spot – often called a ‘hot spot’ – centred on the specular reflection of the projector."

This statement may have been true 20 years ago but is false today. The popular front projector retro-reflective screens DO NOT suffer from hot spotting or being dull at the edges. In fact higher gains screen make more efficient use of limited available light while simultaneously reducing the destructive interference of light bouncing of the walls and then into your eyes.

The human eye-brain system adapts to various brightness conditions. Go to the office store and look at the difference between the lowest brightness inkjet paper vs. the highest brightness. Which is the most pleasing to your eye?

The FilmLight document makes no reference to a specific (retro-reflective) technology. A high Power retro-reflective screen reflects the highest gain back toward the light source. You don't get something for nothing, once the light leaves the projector it's all about loss. How we control the loss is what is important. Hence why the FilmLight white paper reads...

“Real cinema screens are a compromise between brightness and flatness”

But this brightness level is at what ambient light conditions?Typical cinema low lighting is about 1 lux. If someone in the audience is wearing white, they will reflect a luminance of about 0.3 candelas/sq.cm. This is less than 1% of the film white"

Do I sense a hint of bias? I guess I'm not the ony one.:)

I'm kind of tired of hearing people on here use the term "bias" incorrectly. A preference is NOT "bias." Did he use hyperbole? Maybe. But not necessarily bias. I prefer blue spruce Christmas trees over Scots pine. Am I biased? No. Do I think one LOOKS better than the other? Yes.

PS. I'd be glad to have EITHER an XBR4/5 or a Kuro Pioneer in MY home.;)

Typical cinema low lighting is about 1 lux. If someone in the audience is wearing white, they will reflect a luminance of about 0.3 candelas/sq.cm. This is less than 1% of the film white"

So in order to meet the targeted dynamic range/contrast ratio at my house in a brightly lit room, my set would have to be pretty dang bright to seem just as white. Makes sense and I guess I can see why having limited peak brightness at the top end of the scale (ie when calibrated to d65 at 235 Y'/100 IRE) would make a 'correct' white seem dull by comparison. Thanks for the information.

LCD owners were "BLINDED BY THE LIGHT"

...so I guess they couldn't see all the other picture problems.

Beat that.

plasma owners were NOT "blinded by the light" ...in fact they couldn't even make whites look white without utterly destroying pq from a plasma.....so i guess they could see all the other picture problems...with the lights on. :D

seriously though, they are both great. anyone laying out the major dollars for a nice tv should go out and judge for themselves and take blanket statements of this is better.....etc, with a major grain of salt.

sure get all the info and advice you can but know your viewing habits and buy the one that's right for you.

of course that may still mean buying a plasma only to be returning it for an lcd :D i kid i kid, it could be the other way around too!

of course that may still mean buying a plasma only to be returning it for an lcd :D i kid i kid, it could be the other way around too!

AVS content suggests the latter. :D

I love my inferior Panasonic. It may not stand out in a showroom or during snow scenes and it reflects things during the day but it does not have motion blur, grey blacks, bright corners, mura, vertical banding, horizontal banding, POOR MOTION RESOLUTION, and small viewing angles either. I like watching HD not only for static images but during motion as well - cant do that with LCD.

I like LCD's hi-luma performance, just as the OP does. The fact that its levels don't shift with differences in brightness is great too.

AVS Technology Poll Results Comparison
--------------------------------------
1080 Plasma Owners : Can you see an increase in clarity of 1080i broadcasts vs. 720p?
Never 9 15.00%
Seldom 9 15.00%
Usually 12 20.00%
Every Time 12 20.00%
Only with the best quality 1080i broadcasts 10 16.67%
No, as 720p is superior to 1080i 8 13.33%

1080 LCD Owners: Can you see an increase in clarity of 1080i broadcasts vs. 720p?
Never 4 11.43%
Seldom 6 17.14%
Usually 9 25.71%
Every Time 8 22.86%
Only with the best quality 1080i broadcasts 5 14.29%
No, as 720p is superior to 1080i 3 8.57%

1080 FP Owners : Can you see an increase in clarity of 1080i broadcasts vs. 720p?
Never 0 0%
Seldom 2 7.69%
Usually 9 34.62%
Every Time 9 34.62%
Only with the best quality 1080i broadcasts 6 23.08%
No, as 720p is superior to 1080i 0 0%

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=960225
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=960223
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=960219

Maybe this is why the Commercial Magazines advise to just get 720p plasma and save your money over the 1080p plasmas. However more of the owners of the other two formats do notice the extra resolution. Go figure!

THX Best Viewing Distance Calculation for 1920*1080 Displays

best viewing distance(ft) = diagonal screen size(inches) /10

42" diagonal screen size... = 4.2ft best viewing distance
50" diagonal screen size... = 5.0ft
55" diagonal screen size... = 5.5ft
58" diagonal screen size = 5.8ft
60" diagonal screen size = 6.0ft
65" diagonal screen size = 6.5ft


As we see by examining the data, just take the diagonal display size (in inches) and divide by 10 to get the THX optimal viewing distance in feet. Anyone can do it. I personally think this might be the closest you want to be seated at but if you want the average viewer to see all the resolution then maybe its accurate.

http://www.thx.com/home/setup/display.html

I guess if you search really hard you might find a few movies that "fade to white".

Personally, I prefer the "fade to black" of plasmas over the "fade to grey" of LCDs. LOL

The FilmLight document makes no reference to a specific (retro-reflective) technology. A high Power retro-reflective screen reflects the highest gain back toward the light source. You don't get something for nothing, once the light leaves the projector it's all about loss. How we control the loss is what is important. Hence why the FilmLight white paper reads...

“Real cinema screens are a compromise between brightness and flatness”
That is because the document is outdated in this area. If anyone wants to see how retro-reflective screens at work, then view the superb excellent clarity of newer road signs at nighttime. Your car headlights are equivalent to the projector and you are still the captive viewer. Every state I've been to has switched over to these superior technology signs. The older ones sure are dull and drab, and thus much harder to read.
Practically designed, there are no compromises, just more efficient use of the precious and limited available light.

SMTPE video standard white == 30 fl
I could find no reference to 30fl for video sources using Google. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks! :)

That is because the document is outdated in this area.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

“The glass-beaded screen - This also has a higher gain. However the nature of construction resulted in a significant loss of viewing angles and a marked loss of resolution since glass beaded screens were retro reflective, that is, their reflection is directed back to the light source. Additionally, the glass beaded screen is physically unstable since the beads can shift, break or break off, resulting in noticeable dark spots”

"Retroreflective screens tend to have a high gain value (2+); they do tend to suffer from a narrow viewing angle and color shifting though. Some may exhibit hot spotting as well. Retroreflective screens generally have a smaller viewing angle than reflective screens"

I don't know about you reincarnate but the fact(s) above correlate with my definition of "compromise"

I could find no reference to 30fl for video sources using Google. Can you point me in the right direction?
http://myweb.accessus.net/~090/how2adj.html#3.5a
"The SMPTE standard for NTSC (US) displays is 30 Foot Lamberts measured from the center of the display in real time using a 100 IRE window pattern ("100 IRE Window" VEDVD-17/32, Frame VE-46647, AVS-50801) utilizing a photometer"

For more information on standards check: http://www.smpte.org/home


BTW that FilmLight white paper on "Standard" color spaces is probably the most succinct reference you’ll find anywhere. Have a nice day:)

I guess if you search really hard you might find a few movies that "fade to white".

Personally, I prefer the "fade to black" of plasmas over the "fade to grey" of LCDs. LOL

i suppose you mean top of the line plasmas that fade close to black vs top of the line lcd which actually fade to black and are better at blacks than 99% of plasmas on the market in black level performance

When I go into any Best Buy, they have their LCDs on a completely different wall than Plasmas.

In one particular BB (of the 4 in my area) you can see both walls at the same time from a distance of about 30ft, and in a non-darkened room. They included Pioneer, Hitachi and Panasonic. I was really surprised to see how well the Plasmas performed; while they were slightly less bright than the LCDs, the color and contrast of ALL plasmas were better than ANY LCD, although the samsung 71 came close.

I expected better contrast, smoothness and motion, but what's really surprising was the color. LCD panels claim extremely high gamut color (sometimes >100% ntsc), but often look unnatural. The plasmas surpassed LCD in this respect and still looked very natural. Again, some of the better LCDs seemed to come close, but were clearly not as good.

I think the reason for this is related to the contrast of plasmas. It's not only minimum brightness for black, it's also the minimum amount of white bleed washing out the colors.

As for the actual brightness, most plasmas these days claim 1000-1500 nits of brightness (LCDs are about 500 nits). Isn't this limitated by the available current, such that one pixel can be lit superbright, but all pixels cannot? So, can they fix this problem by increasing the current available to the whole panel?

I was at the Best Buy at E86th and Lexington avenue today. This is not a great store but they did have the plasmas stacked on top of similar size and spec'd LCDs and it was no contest, the plasmas did not fare well with this arrangement. They were dim and looked very unnatural next to the LCD with most of the clips. In fact I didn't see one clip that made me feel that the plasma tele was besting the LCD.

Good thread, this is why I like this forum because this is the first time I'm hearing about this issue and it is true. Like someone else posted it's time for the NA mags to acknowledge this plasma trait.

I was at the Best Buy at E86th and Lexington avenue today. This is not a great store but they did have the plasmas stacked on top of similar size and spec'd LCDs and it was no contest, the plasmas did not fare well with this arrangement. They were dim and looked very unnatural next to the LCD with most of the clips. In fact I didn't see one clip that made me feel that the plasma tele was besting the LCD.

Good thread, this is why I like this forum because this is the first time I'm hearing about this issue and it is true. Like someone else posted it's time for the NA mags to acknowledge this plasma trait.

Well it's been stated so many times, but the test that LCD won in your comparison was: "What display will perform best in an ambient lighting situation that almost nobody has at home?".

Isn't it wonderful that we have so many choices of AV manufacturers and technologies, enough to satisfy everyones tastes. Everyone wins.;)

http://myweb.accessus.net/~090/how2adj.html#3.5a
"The SMPTE standard for NTSC (US) displays is 30 Foot Lamberts measured from the center of the display in real time using a 100 IRE window pattern ("100 IRE Window" VEDVD-17/32, Frame VE-46647, AVS-50801) utilizing a photometer"

For more information on standards check: http://www.smpte.org/home
Have a nice day:)
As before these articles/web procedures are out dated. We are in the HD era now. I asked for a concrete link to real standards and all that is provided is a link back to square one:
"For more information on standards check SMPTE Homepage (Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers) - these are the people that set the standards." [Editor: stupid comment removed]

The video cinema listing 30 fl appears to be a reasonable level for normal household ambient light conditions - not a dark home theater. Only Crt's have focus bloom. These links smell of mildew.

As for high gain screens, glass beads are not used in home theaters ever. The Da-Lite HP retro screen (gain 2.8) has no hot spotting or color shift. The angles must however be respected. It works great for typical narrow home theaters rooms.

I cannot affort to waste any more time with old red-herring technical writings that are better off being laid to rest. Add to ignore list. :)

As before these articles/web procedures are out dated. We are in the HD era now. You simply do not know what you are talking about. I see you seem to think the FilmLight "reference" Libray lacks factual detail:p

The Datasheets and White Papers section of our website provides access to FilmLight's publicly available documentation.http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/services_support/library

http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/pdf/technicalnotes/FL-GN-TN-0060-DigitalCinema.pdfImplementing a 12 bit 4K post-production workflow is a challenge, and the purpose of this paper is to look at how those challenges can be met.

Northlight 2, the new version of the popular and proven Filmlight scanner, uses 8K CCD line arrays which are mathematically reduced to 4K resolution in the head electronics. While an 8K array may seem like over-engineering, it does provide a number of distinct advantages:Old school reincarnate?:)

Well it's been stated so many times, but the test that LCD won in your comparison was: "What display will perform best in an ambient lighting situation that almost nobody has at home?".

The section of this store where the TVs are stacked for comparison is very dimly lit and many would say very dark. The scene of a snowboarder coming down a mountain on a bright sunny day echoed the statements made in this thread. On the LCD the vibrant blue sky looked like it should and the snow looked like how snow would look on a bright sunshiny day. On the Plasma sets and there was a 60" Kuro in the mix, the same scene looked unnatural. The snow was not a vibrant white it looked very grey, the sky and vibrancy of the light was considerably reduced. No contest.

Whites are LCD's only advantage. We keep seeing these threads because of that, people trying to justify their purchases. Pioneer has every LCD beat in every other way, though the Samsung LCDs are very nice. Last week I checked out Samsung's LCD next to a 768p Pio Elite. The Elite was better (most gorgeous display I've ever seen tbh) but the Samsung was also a great picture.

Personally, I watch anything that I really care about in dimness or darkness. My Panasonic's whites are fine for my habits. Motion blur, gray blacks, loss of resolution during motion, these are deal breakers, on the other hand.

Also would like to add that CRTs didn't have LCD's blinding whites but that didn't stop them from beating the pants off of them. I know CRT is a dirty word anymore but I gotta say it.

TWO best TV's

Pionneer Elite
XBR 4/5

I own the XBR 5 (and the brightness is turned down) and my goal is to sell my Samsung LCD and purchase a Pioneer. The problem is I get nauseated from watching a plasma, but I'm hoping that I get used to it. That way, I get the best of both worlds and I don't ever have to worry about these arguments!!! :)

The section of this store where the TVs are stacked for comparison is very dimly lit and many would say very dark. The scene of a snowboarder coming down a mountain on a bright sunny day echoed the statements made in this thread. On the LCD the vibrant blue sky looked like it should and the snow looked like how snow would look on a bright sunshiny day. On the Plasma sets and there was a 60" Kuro in the mix, the same scene looked unnatural. The snow was not a vibrant white it looked very grey, the sky and vibrancy of the light was considerably reduced. No contest.


I do not doubt that the LCD was brighter, but to say to looked like "it should" is a judgement call. I doubt that "real life" looks as bright as some LCD's set make it look. It may well be that the Plasma actually looked more realistic, as if you were seeing the real life scene through a window, you just preferred the more un-naturally bright LCD.

Go to Best Buy sometime and check out where they show a calbrated TV next to an un-calibrated TV. Most people seem to prefer the brighter, blue-ish whites and the crushed black of the un-calibrated set. These people ask why should they get it calibrated since they like it better un-calibrated. The salesperson usually has to show a scene with more shadow detail that gets lost with the un-calibrated set, or they point out that you when you look at mountains in the distance in real life they are not that blue. Some people are then sold on the calibration, some people say they still like the "natural" un-calibrated look. That is fine, they are spending the money. But "natural" is the wrong word to describe what they are seeing. "Vibrant" maybe a word we could all agree on but then we would get into the better color accuracy of the plasma.:)

I like to watch movies and I like the dynamic range plasma gives me. I do not like blue-ish whites and I like to see detail in my shadow areas. If I had a brightly lit room and only used my TV to watch snowboarders come down a mountain, I might prefer the LCD.:)

As for the actual brightness, most plasmas these days claim 1000-1500 nits of brightness (LCDs are about 500 nits). Isn't this limitated by the available current, such that one pixel can be lit superbright, but all pixels cannot? So, can they fix this problem by increasing the current available to the whole panel?
Put the palm of your hand up (within 1") to several LCDs and plasma to get an indication of how much power they consume. They Pioneer Kuro's were the hottest to me. Heat shortens the life here.

Put the palm of your hand up (within 1") to several LCDs and plasma to get an indication of how much power they consume. They Pioneer Kuro's were the hottest to me. Heat shortens the life here.

Thats interesting since the KURO's consume less power.

Put the palm of your hand up (within 1") to several LCDs and plasma to get an indication of how much power they consume. They Pioneer Kuro's were the hottest to me. Heat shortens the life here.

They definitely are, on the surface of the screen, but LCDs tend to dump most of their heat out of the top of the unit (fans or convection). Both technologies are highly inefficient, though plasmas appear to consume about 50% more than LCD.

But these are very different technologies and different sets of components, so I'm not sure it's accurate to make any comparison about lifespan based on heat or anything else.

I do not doubt that the LCD was brighter, but to say to looked like "it should" is a judgement call. I doubt that "real life" looks as bright as some LCD's set make it look. It may well be that the Plasma actually looked more realistic, as if you were seeing the real life scene through a window, you just preferred the more un-naturally bright LCD.

Go to Best Buy sometime and check out where they show a calbrated TV next to an un-calibrated TV. Most people seem to prefer the brighter, blue-ish whites and the crushed black of the un-calibrated set. These people ask why should they get it calibrated since they like it better un-calibrated. The salesperson usually has to show a scene with more shadow detail that gets lost with the un-calibrated set, or they point out that you when you look at mountains in the distance in real life they are not that blue. Some people are then sold on the calibration, some people say they still like the "natural" un-calibrated look. That is fine, they are spending the money. But "natural" is the wrong word to describe what they are seeing. "Vibrant" maybe a word we could all agree on but then we would get into the better color accuracy of the plasma.:)

I like to watch movies and I like the dynamic range plasma gives me. I do not like blue-ish whites and I like to see detail in my shadow areas. If I had a brightly lit room and only used my TV to watch snowboarders come down a mountain, I might prefer the LCD.:)

Understood, and I'm for calibration as well. I know the difference. But what I saw on the plasma sets just did not look right. To each his own, it's just not for me.:)

Put the palm of your hand up (within 1") to several LCDs and plasma to get an indication of how much power they consume. They Pioneer Kuro's were the hottest to me. Heat shortens the life here.In PDPs there is a lot of IR generated during discharge. That is probably the radiant heat you feel from the screen. In an LCD any IR will probably be absorbed by the diffuser plate or LC.

As for Pioneer being the hottest vs power consumption? I think current Pioneer PDPs are the most efficient on the market. The reason you may feel more heat is they only use a single pane of glass while most other manufacturers have an air gap and a second pane of glass.

Understood, and I'm for calibration as well. I know the difference. But what I saw on the plasma sets just did not look right. To each his own, it's just not for me.:)


LCD's calibrated too hot are eye catching in a side-by-side comparison, and they will bias your perception.

Each rated individually in a normal home setting will give a different result to most.

Whites are LCD's only advantage. We keep seeing these threads because of that, people trying to justify their purchases.

whites yes, don't forget

brightness ----very important to fight of lights of any kind whether daylight or lamplight, ceiling lights etc.

matte screens---no reflections a big plus

sharpness----much sharper than plasma which tends to be on the soft side but the soft side of plasma some people like so take your pick

pop!----images pop off the screen on an lcd compared to plasma. side by side comparisons in the store reveals this.
bringing a plasma home to calibrate will probably be satisfactory to most people but i would keep thinking of that extra pop that i'm missing.

less power--not a real biggie but a point.

i personally like the picture of an lcd better than plasma overall. the darks and whites look more natural to me.

if anyone has to justify their purchase, i think the pioneer elite folks need to do it the most. what a price tag on that one.

matte screens---no reflections a big plus

Not all LCDs use matte screens, for one. I prefer glass screens, gives the image better depth no matter what the technology. Matte has its own problems with light becoming diffuse across the surface and washing out the image.

pop!----images pop off the screen on an lcd compared to plasma. side by side comparisons in the store reveals this.
bringing a plasma home to calibrate will probably be satisfactory to most people but i would keep thinking of that extra pop that i'm missing.

Of course this is a matter of personal taste but IMO nothing has the pop of Pioneer's new plasmas. Then again plasmas have always had the advantage here. "Looking through a window"... I remember the first plasma display I ever saw, a Panasonic EDTV, despite the screen door it still had that effect. LCDs haven't really achieved that, or maybe they have and plasmas continue to get better.

That shootout a few months back by unbiased professionals of the Elite versus the Sammy was spot-on IMO. Having seen both of those side-by-side, I'm not sure how anyone could think otherwise. Now if you mean by "pop" how they look under the brilliant fluorescents of your local Best Buy, then maybe you're right. And perhaps you like a similar effect in your own living room ;)

if anyone has to justify their purchase, i think the pioneer elite folks need to do it the most. what a price tag on that one.

Cost/inch on the Samsung 81s is not exactly economical either. The better LCDs are all expensive for their sizes. At least Pioneer offers the 768p panels are reasonable prices.

Having seen both of those side-by-side, I'm not sure how anyone could think otherwise.


i've seen it time and time again. kuros nexto to sony xbr and prefer the xbr every time. so i guess we just have different tastes. i'm baffled that anyone can choose a much more expensive set and settle for less at the same time. imo of course.

...The reason you may feel more heat is they only use a single pane of glass while most other manufacturers have an air gap and a second pane of glass.

That explains why in my old Panasonic if you got close to the screen off centered that you'd see a double-image I've seen in DLPs. That's not present on the Pioneer. Now I know why:).

i've seen it time and time again. kuros nexto to sony xbr and prefer the xbr every time. so i guess we just have different tastes. i'm baffled that anyone can choose a much more expensive set and settle for less at the same time. imo of course.My local BB has the same set-up with the Pio's next to the XBR's. PQ is same but the XBR has the extra "pop" of brightness.

Everytime I go looking for a new TV I come away thinking XBR.

Tru2way is what I'm waiting for to go with the XBR.

Not all LCDs use matte screens, for one. I prefer glass screens, gives the image better depth no matter what the technology. Matte has its own problems with light becoming diffuse across the surface and washing out the image...

I very much agree with you here. I've had matte screens on microdisplays and if someone has a lot of direct light on their TV then matte is the way to go. However, if direct light isn't hitting the screen the matte screen takes away contrast and flattens the image. This is on reason why the Samsung 65 & 71 series LCDs look good to me while I just don't care much for the Sony (despite what problems the Samsungs may have).

i've seen it time and time again. kuros nexto to sony xbr and prefer the xbr every time. so i guess we just have different tastes. i'm baffled that anyone can choose a much more expensive set and settle for less at the same time. imo of course.

Hehe yeah I guess preference is what it is. I can't think of a single quality of the XBR that I would consider superior, except if I wanted to display only still images I would prefer the Sony.

I thought the key metric for lcd/plasma was profit margin..sales people can makeup the rest...

To each his own but, when I look at an LCD TV I want to put my sunglasses on. They are so overly bright and harsh looking. It's like looking into a spotlight. Also, why does the LCD picture look so washed out when you step a few feet off center? Plasmas produces a much more natural looking picture as you would see in a real movie theatre. If I wanted just the bright cartoon look I would buy an LCD:D

What makes you say that the whites aren't pure? Now, admittedly I have not owned many older plasmas, but have had a couple of the more recent ones (Panasonic & Pioneer) and perfect D65 whites were easily achievable on both. In fact, greyscale was generally more accurate/neutral on the Plasmas than the LCDs I've had, where it generally gets quite bad below 30-40 IRE even when calibrated.

As LCD is a technology designed around blocking light, rather than Plasmas which create light, it is going to be increasingly difficult to improve black levels with them without resorting to "trickery." Eg auto-dimming backlights / local-area dimming with LEDs. Auto-dimming backlights not only lower black levels, they also lower the brightness of bright objects, so contrast does not improve at all, the whole image just gets dull. LED backlighting has potential, but can never be done on a per-pixel basis so it will not do much to improve contrast with actual picture content, though it will measure well in tests.

On the other hand, Plasmas are well on the way to improving brightness, power consumption and black levels. I believe Panasonic's plasmas this year are now twice as bright as last year when using the same amount of power, or can use half the amount of power when at the same brightness as before. (note: I may be wrong and could be confusing it with another display they had at CES - I have no intention of purchasing one, so I've not been keeping up to date on every bit of info with them)

In 2009, Pioneer should have achieved "perfect" blacks (they already have a prototype display using this technology) and we should start to see high efficiency models which will boost light output significantly.

When Plasmas hit 10lm/W (which could be 2009) they will be around 4x brighter than they are currently - making them capable of going brighter than any LCD. Not only that, but the increased efficiency / light output will allow them to use different screen types which will allow them to look as good, if not better than, an LCD in a bright room.


It is laughable to say that Sony LCDs are comparable to Pioneer Plasmas. After having had several Sony LCDs in my home, and a 5080XD there's pretty much no contest. Yes, there are one or two aspects where the BRAVIAs are better, but overall image quality is significantly better with the Kuros.

It is a common misconception that Plasmas "act like mirrors" in a bright room. Actually, reflections are generally not much of a problem these days - if it is a situation where reflections are an issue, it is likely that it will be for LCDs as well. (yes, LCDs can also suffer in certain bright situations)

However, Plasmas suffer a lot once when there are high levels of ambient light. Not with reflections, but due to glare, which washes out the image completely.

The Kuros may have the best blacks out there right now for a flat panel, but they don't even look close to black in a bright room:

http://i32.tinypic.com/154ge8y.jpg

Notice how there are no harsh reflections on the screen, despite reflections on the piano black bezel.

The picture isn't really dull either, it's just that the blacks are washed out. (though it looks like a camera flash was used, which exaggerates the problem quite a bit - it's not going to be that bad in a bright room)


Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm not a Kuro "fanboy" or even a Plasma one. I completely agree that Plasmas do have issues (including some that aren't mentioned here) but I still think they're probably the best displays on the market right now. But being the "best" still isn't good enough for me - I'll wait until I can get a picture that is at least comparable to my CRT, or preferably one that surpasses it, but it looks like that's not going to happen for a while yet. Even if Pioneer were to release their "perfect black" displays tomorrow, there's a good chance I wouldn't buy one, as there are a lot of other issues that are inherent to digital displays and don't seem to be going away any time soon.

Your picture clearly demonstrates why plasma isn't the technology of the future and why we need something new. What you see there is what I notice about all plasma and I find it most distasteful and unacceptable. That is why I would never pay new technology prices for something like a Kuro. If the Kuro was like MSRP $ 4,000 for a 60 inch, then it might be worth considering for the improved black levels.

i've seen it time and time again. kuros nexto to sony xbr and prefer the xbr every time. so i guess we just have different tastes. i'm baffled that anyone can choose a much more expensive set and settle for less at the same time. imo of course.
It's no surprised that an LCD looks better in a bright environment. When you get it home though, especially if you view in a dark room, the Pioneer should look a lot better.

To each his own but, when I look at an LCD TV I want to put my sunglasses on. They are so overly bright and harsh looking. It's like looking into a spotlight. Also, why does the LCD picture look so washed out when you step a few feet off center? Plasmas produces a much more natural looking picture as you would see in a real movie theatre. If I wanted just the bright cartoon look I would buy an LCD:D
Sounds like the LCDs you're seeing are in their ridiculously bright out of the box settings. Once calibrated they're no brighter than a calibrated Plasma or CRT.


Your picture clearly demonstrates why plasma isn't the technology of the future and why we need something new. What you see there is what I notice about all plasma and I find it most distasteful and unacceptable. That is why I would never pay new technology prices for something like a Kuro. If the Kuro was like MSRP $ 4,000 for a 60 inch, then it might be worth considering for the improved black levels.
They should have completely eliminated that problem in a year or so once they hit 10lm/W, and I believe Panasonic's new models this year are reducing it quite a bit. (and presumably Pioneer's as well)

The only thing keeping me from getting a Kuro is the phosphor lag. Get rid of that and I'm sold. Until then, I'll be watching my laggy LCD.

Your picture clearly demonstrates why plasma isn't the technology of the future and why we need something new. What you see there is what I notice about all plasma and I find it most distasteful and unacceptable. That is why I would never pay new technology prices for something like a Kuro. If the Kuro was like MSRP $ 4,000 for a 60 inch, then it might be worth considering for the improved black levels.

Tell us more. What does that picture demonstrate??:confused:
Looks pretty good to me for a photo. This whole arguement kills me. LCD looks brighter......fine. That's pleasing to the eye. OK,I get it. My Kuro looks pretty good to me too. Reminds me of what I see in a theater. My whites are very white. Just watched "30 Days of Night" and there was plenty of white, and gray, and jet black, and it all looked very real to me.
Listen, if you prefer LCD and you're having fun, and you think it's the best picture in the world then you bought the right display.
That's how I feel about my plasma and I'm certain I bought the right display.

Tell us more. What does that picture demonstrate??:confused:
Looks pretty good to me for a photo. This whole arguement kills me. LCD looks brighter......fine. That's pleasing to the eye. OK,I get it. My Kuro looks pretty good to me too. Reminds me of what I see in a theater. My whites are very white. Just watched "30 Days of Night" and there was plenty of white, and gray, and jet black, and it all looked very real to me.
Listen, if you prefer LCD and you're having fun, and you think it's the best picture in the world then you bought the right display.
That's how I feel about my plasma and I'm certain I bought the right display.
http://i32.tinypic.com/25kmzyx.jpg

Plasma black levels wash out completely, even without that much light in the room.

They may be capable of the best black levels, but only in a completely darkened room. In the same conditions, a good LCD would have really good blacks. (but they look rubbish in a dark room)

Ideally, it would look something like this quick mockup I did in photoshop:
http://i31.tinypic.com/212epzp.jpg

In a bright room, an LCD would look far closer to that than any Plasma. In a dark room, the opposite is true.

http://i32.tinypic.com/25kmzyx.jpg

Plasma black levels wash out completely, even without that much light in the room.

They may be capable of the best black levels, but only in a completely darkened room. In the same conditions, a good LCD would have really good blacks. (but they look rubbish in a dark room)

Ideally, it would look something like this quick mockup I did in photoshop:
http://i31.tinypic.com/212epzp.jpg

In a bright room, an LCD would look far closer to that than any Plasma. In a dark room, the opposite is true.

Ah! Thanks for the post and the clarification. Actually, I have a pro-calibrated Pio and as I look at the top and bottom pic's, neither looks as it should to me. The bottom looks too dark and the top looks too dull. Comparing photo's like this is bad business but I understand the argument.
I am a huge fan of professional calibration and all I can say is if you can afford calibration...do it, and all these issues become moot.

Gee, how many scenes are shot outside? How many scenes include the sky?:confused:

Plasma's can have excellent blacks but the whimpie bright scenes (with the measurements to back up these claims), need to start being be discussed on this side of the pond. Its a question of establishing a balanced perspective to make an informed buying decision.

The plasma reviewers who don't comment on this life-sucking picture distortion are blind and doing their readers a disservice. The British press is commenting on it and its about time for the inexperienced Americans to play ketchup.

"An LCD's picture brightness is generated by a constant, extremely powerful backlight positioned behind the main LCD panel.
We've found that this approach delivers notably more dynamic and vibrant pictures than plasma."

What Plasma & LCD TV Magazine March 2008 pg.81



Big caveat is that most who actually calibrate their backlit LCD, turn the backlight down quite a bit.
Superior, lol.

This British quote is a correct in offering a balanced approach.

Sound and Vision Magazine Plasma vs. LCD Round II:
--------------------------------------------------
"For our comparison, test gear was used to match both panels to a post-calibration brightness of 35 ftL, a comfortable setting for viewing in a dark room. It's worth noting that the Samsung LCD had the edge here in its inherent ability to pump out a bright image, though Al kept it reigned in to make things fair."
Why were the tests only conducted in a dark room? Do most consumers watch TV only at nighttime? :) Why was the LCD purposely "reigned in"?
To be really fair why not compare the displays in a normal every day lite room too? :)

I mean I've go a 120" real front projector home theater for dark room dedicated viewing.
The British have more common sense and a sense of fair play here than us shallow biased inexperienced Americans. Man it shows :o

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/779/plasma-vs-lcd-round-ii-what-the-experts-think-page5.html

Sound and Vision Magazine Plasma vs. LCD Round II:
--------------------------------------------------
"For our comparison, test gear was used to match both panels to a post-calibration brightness of 35 ftL, a comfortable setting for viewing in a dark room. It's worth noting that the Samsung LCD had the edge here in its inherent ability to pump out a bright image, though Al kept it reigned in to make things fair."
Why were the tests only conducted in a dark room? Do most consumers watch TV only at nighttime? :) Why was the LCD purposely "reigned in"?
To be really fair why not compare the displays in a normal every day lite room too? :)

I mean I've go a 120" real front projector home theater for dark room dedicated viewing.
The British have more common sense and a sense of fair play here than us shallow biased inexperienced Americans. Man it shows :o

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/779/plasma-vs-lcd-round-ii-what-the-experts-think-page5.html

yeah. i thought the same thing too after reading that article and just wrote them off as biased toward the plasma. that whole test was only one third completed. the other two thirds would have been done in brighter lighting conditions. moderate lighting and bright.

the samsung would have beat the pioneer kuros plasma in both those categories especially if they don't "reign in" the features of the samsung lcd.

in bright conditions the kuros would be utterly destroyed.

Lets examine some recent Home Theater Magazine plasma reviews and the waffling exhibited by its reviewers:

Fujitsu Plasmavision
-------------------
"Loopy Luminance
During calibration, the set behaves nominally, with one important exception: The IRE white-window measurements in the upper luminance ranges are somewhat loopy, providing up and down values:o as the white values increase.”

This is obviously the power clipping circuitry at work.

"Highlights
• Looks great turned off, pretty good when turned on"

One of the most vicious slaps in the face ever published.:eek:
http://hometheatermag.com/plasmadisplays/208fuj65ft/

Pioneer KURO PDP-6010FD
-------------------------
Contrast Drops by Half
“With a window pattern, I measured a peak contrast ratio of 9,295:1 (37.18 foot-Lamberts peak white, 0.004fL video black). With a full field peak white image (brighter than most images you're ever likely to see on-screen, and therefore less representative of the visible peak contrast ratio than the window pattern) the peak contrast ratio dropped to a still striking 4,795:1 (19.18fL peak white, 0.004fL video black). (As the average picture level increases, all plasmas reduce their output, and therefore dim their image, to remain within the capabilities of their power supplies).”

So the contrast drops by half and into LCD panel territory. You don't say?
The reviewer is being too generous. The plasma display is compressing the picture in bright scenes, like those including the planet Earths sky:) Everyone is seeing these dull pictures in the stores to as its all too obvious, even for a novice. :o

"Resolution
The set's high frequency video response, at all resolutions (480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i) was excellent to 18.5MHz but clearly rolled off."

Which explains why plasma owners were the least able to see the difference between 720 and 1080 broadcasts.”
http://hometheatermag.com/plasmadisplays/1107piokuro6010/index5.html

Pioneer Elite KURO PRO-110FD
-----------------------------
“After calibration, and using a full-field 100-IRE white (16.08 foot-lamberts) and a full-field 0-IRE black (0.004 ft-L), the full-on/full-off contrast ratio was 4,020:1. Using a 16-box checkerboard pattern (ANSI contrast), the contrast ratio was 3,239:1. With a 100-IRE window the PRO-110FD was able to produce 42.58 ft-L, for a "real world" contrast ratio of 10,645:1. (It is normal for a plasma to have lower light output on a full white field versus a white window).-GM”

If normal means limitation of plasma technology then please be more accurate!

Again contrast ratio varies by at least two to one depending on the area of the screen which is bright. (The truth according to to WSR magazine is it varies by 3:1). The claim that measuring just a small screen patch is "real world". This is pure BS as real world scenes outside can be very bright over large areas of the screen. This lack of objectivity raises eyebrows. It is typically and traditionally due to advertising pressure. Someone needs to count the number of pages plasma manufactures are paying for in these magazines.
http://hometheatermag.com/plasmadisplays/907kuro/index3.html

Man I sure am tired of pointing out the lack of objectivity, writing skills and bias of reviewers.

I'm pretty sure "sound & vision" and "home theater magazine" and "perfect vision" are pretty much dedicated to Home theater. Not general TV viewing.

Complaining they review Home theater displays in semi dark rooms is sort of silly. If you want to talk about how your home theater display does in a well lite room watching football, maybe a sports magazine or sport webboard with a TV section would be more to your liking?

I'm pretty sure "sound & vision" and "home theater magazine" and "perfect vision" are pretty much dedicated to Home theater. Not general TV viewing.

Complaining they review Home theater displays in semi dark rooms is sort of silly. If you want to talk about how your home theater display does in a well lite room watching football, maybe a sports magazine or sport webboard with a TV section would be more to your liking?
Following your logic should plasma only be purchased for a darkened, dedicated home theater rooms? Would plasma manufactures agree your point of view?

It is only a home theater if it is dark...otherwise it is your family room/living room/den/bedroom.
I hope that every reviewer does their tests in a dark room.
I also have read about the LED LCD from Sammy(81 series) that has the great blacks because all the led's shut off....but once there is even white text the blacks raise significantly.

To each their own.

Following your logic should plasma only be purchased for a darkened, dedicated home theater rooms? Would plasma manufactures agree your point of view?

You are picking apart reviews that target a home theater environment. How hard is that to understand?

And they basically said what you wanted them to, but you are looking for stronger words to line up with your agenda.

When I view an LCD in my home I find it hard on my eyes and end up with the backlight at 2 or 3. So why in the world would I care about a plasma not blinding me? I have absolutely never needed anything brighter than my plasma, and it absolutely does not look dull. Fortunately I don't live in the Best Buy showroom. I went to plasma from RP CRT and I now use both displays. Not once have I found either display lacking, except for the occasional internal reflection on the RP. I tried hard to love a top end LCD in between but I found it harsh, along with some other issues.

All of the various technologies have their various flaws. I found ones I could live with.

You are picking apart reviews that target a home theater environment. How hard is that to understand?

And they basically said what you wanted them to, but you are looking for stronger words to line up with your agenda.

All of the various technologies have their various flaws. I found ones I could live with.
Reviewers are supposed to offer a balanced and scientific perspective based upon their accurate measurements. They should be testing under normal household viewing conditions. Its obvious they are not!
Plasma and LCDs are too small (<60") to be used in dedicated home theaters. Today's flat panels are designed for the family room with both day and nighttime viewing. That is how they should be tested and evaluated.
Again the British Magazines have the common sense to do this. We Americans have gone off on a tangent by rationalizing measurements and not testing under common everyday viewing conditions. For example where are the front panel contrast reducing/reflection/glare observations which daytime viewing reveals?
Could it be because the testing facility is located in a commercial building (in a bat cave room) with no outside windows? Who lives in a house with no windows? Do we need to take a poll here?

Its ironic when the average consumer can compare many panels simultaneously (side by side) at lowly Best Buy/Sams/Costco/Circuit City and notice obvious performance limitations that confound the reviewers :o

http://i32.tinypic.com/25kmzyx.jpg

Plasma black levels wash out completely, even without that much light in the room.

They may be capable of the best black levels, but only in a completely darkened room. In the same conditions, a good LCD would have really good blacks. (but they look rubbish in a dark room)

Ideally, it would look something like this quick mockup I did in photoshop:
http://i31.tinypic.com/212epzp.jpg

In a bright room, an LCD would look far closer to that than any Plasma. In a dark room, the opposite is true.

Great post!!

http://i32.tinypic.com/25kmzyx.jpg

Plasma black levels wash out completely, even without that much light in the room.

They may be capable of the best black levels, but only in a completely darkened room. In the same conditions, a good LCD would have really good blacks. (but they look rubbish in a dark room)

Ideally, it would look something like this quick mockup I did in photoshop:
http://i31.tinypic.com/212epzp.jpg

In a bright room, an LCD would look far closer to that than any Plasma. In a dark room, the opposite is true.

Your response is only partially true. In reality plasma's look better in a night type setting with some lighting. My Kuro's black levels look best in my theater room with the lights on. And with the lights on at night I'm certain you see an obvious glow on LCDs as I can even see a slight "glow" to my Kuro with the lights on. There's not a TV out yet that looks better with the lights off! :)

I agree that it would be more helpful with reviews that consider your environment. It's a never ending battle on this board with which technology is better LCD or plasma? And some of it really depends on what type of lighting is in your viewing environment and what type of picture settings you like.

Also, those of you plasma lovers need to keep in mind that if you own a 42" or 50" screen that they are noticably brighter than 60" screens so keep that in mind when we say things like "plasmas" are bright enough. 58" and 60" screens are really in need of more brightness.

Both technologies need to see improvements. Plasmas need more brightness, better whites, better motion handling (no phosphor lag), and perfect blacks;).

LCDs need better motion handling, perfect blacks, and better color saturation.

http://i32.tinypic.com/25kmzyx.jpg

Plasma black levels wash out completely, even without that much light in the room.

They may be capable of the best black levels, but only in a completely darkened room. In the same conditions, a good LCD would have really good blacks. (but they look rubbish in a dark room)

Ideally, it would look something like this quick mockup I did in photoshop:
http://i31.tinypic.com/212epzp.jpg

In a bright room, an LCD would look far closer to that than any Plasma. In a dark room, the opposite is true.

The next get Pioneers will be much closer to that black level. You "perfect" picture is way off though. Granted you upped the black level in photoshop, however you also managed to push every other color as well. The rest of the coloring was pretty good on that picture, should have left the blues and greens alone. You also effectively lowered the contrast (see the mountains) as the detail there dropped.

I see what you are getting at, but if you goto the trouble of using photoshop to make a point then do it right.

I own an LCD, Plasma looks better and is more accurate. Whoever is saying that plasma "washes out with direct light" clearly has not seen an LCD in a bright sunlit room. They wash out FAR more than plasma.

The next get Pioneers will be much closer to that black level. You "perfect" picture is way off though. Granted you upped the black level in photoshop, however you also managed to push every other color as well. The rest of the coloring was pretty good on that picture, should have left the blues and greens alone. You also effectively lowered the contrast (see the mountains) as the detail there dropped.

I see what you are getting at, but if you goto the trouble of using photoshop to make a point then do it right.

I own an LCD, Plasma looks better and is more accurate. Whoever is saying that plasma "washes out with direct light" clearly has not seen an LCD in a bright sunlit room. They wash out FAR more than plasma.
Ok, here's the image with the same changes as before, but this time I've set it to only affect the luminance channel, happy?

http://i29.tinypic.com/2vmaxc3.jpg

I literally spent about 15 seconds on that mockup though, you probably spent longer typing up your post to criticise it. All I did was a quick 4 point selection around the screen and brought in the levels until the top-right area was mostly black, then brought in white until something other than blue was being clipped.

All I was trying to show was that the large black area on the right was supposed to look black, and that the white parts should look white. I wasn't saying that's exactly how a perfect image would be, just that it should be roughly like that rather than having grey blacks and dull whites.

I've had many LCDs and Plasmas. No TV looks good with direct light shining on it. However, if you're in a room with a lot of ambient light, the Plasma image washes out, the LCD does not. (to a point)

I've had many LCDs and Plasmas. No TV looks good with direct light shining on it. However, if you're in a room with a lot of ambient light, the Plasma image washes out, the LCD does not. (to a point)
I've only owned one plasma (returned) and one LCD (in use). Both hung in the same room and position. Seating position has a window directly behind the couch, with southern window exposure so the sunlight through the blinds is most intense in early afternoon. LCD (matte) is watchable where the plasma was not.

When I had a plasma I had to black out the window. When I brought home the LCD I could take the black outs down. There is a huge difference.

So what you're saying is lcd is brighter? That's not exactly news. I'll take accurate over bright any day of the week.

pulease, plasmas still own lcds

pulease, plasmas still own lcds

thanks for the insightful post. i guess the proper response to that is "lcd pwns plasma".


So what you're saying is lcd is brighter? That's not exactly news. I'll take accurate over bright any day of the week.

even according to the biased reviews in sound and vision they gave the samsung lcd really high marks compared to the top tier pioneer plasma kuros.

i personally think that sony has better color than samsung and has a matte screen to boot.

on top of that, lcd's are more versatile for different lighting conditions and are brighter as well as sharper.

plasmas handles poor signals better and perform best in very very low light to no light rooms.

pioneer has recently stated that they will no longer be making their own panels (plasma). i think the same news included that they will begin looking into developing lcd with sharp.

Plasmas are nosier too. Similar to DLP dither. At the stores its harder to tell as there house source is typically full of artifacts which is worse.
Sony and Pioneer purchase space and play carefully chosen material on dedicated Blu-ray discs to give their products the advantage.
To be fair stores pulled a similar bright colorful animations practice with LCDs in years past.
Whatever it takes to make a sale...

if plasmas where better than LCD why would pioneer a leading plasmas manufacture give up on plasmas. If pioneer has given up and admit LCD are superior are you blind enough to still argue the fact..

if plasmas where better than LCD why would pioneer a leading plasmas manufacture give up on plasmas. If pioneer has given up and admit LCD are superior are you blind enough to still argue the fact..
This is a complete misstatement of fact. They haven't "given up", they've decided that they need to outsource the production of the panels in order to be more competitive/profitable. You'll note the frequent stories about Sony, Samsung, Sharp and others getting into cooperative agreements where they buy and sell components from each other.

And they certianly didn't "admit LCD are superior". You just made that up.

jeff

if plasmas where better than LCD why would pioneer a leading plasmas manufacture give up on plasmas. If pioneer has given up and admit LCD are superior are you blind enough to still argue the fact..yet pioneer hasnt given up on plasma. They also said, "The kuro PLASMAs would be a good living room TV, while out LCDs would be a good budget bedroom TV." Or something of the sort.

Why does anyone care. Buy and enjoy which ever type of display you prefer. All this display proselytizing make people comes across more like religious fanatics trying to peddle their particular Icons, instead of contented video consumers.

Watch what you prefer, and let others do the same. LCD owners: Enjoy them. Plasma owners: Enjoy them. Now everybody; STFU:D

+1000

I will never understand why certain people put all their energy and self-worth into finding faults with one piece of technology over another.

Find a woman. Or hang out with a friend. If you can't do that, get a dog....something, anything.

I was watching a snoboarding scene on all the displays, and not only were the Kuros beaten by good LCDs, they were even beaten handily by Insignias and Westinghouse LCDs. That's where you really see the difference between a CRT and a Plasma. CRTs can do both pure black and pure white hence the infinate dynamic contrast ratio, while the best plasmas can only do close to pure black, but never pure 100 IRE white when most of the screen is white such as on a snow covered mountain on a sunny day.



Lately the commercial press has been pumping up the Pioneer and the Panasonic plasmas as having superior picture quality. I’ve seen them side by side with the latest LCD displays. In many ways the plasmas put out a nice picture but they have always lacked “punch or pop”.

The March Wide Screen Review magazine of the 2008 Pioneer Kuro Elite plasma tells us why.
Take a white square which varies in size from 10% of the screen to 100%. In a perfect display all would measure the same brightness. But plasma's main weakness is clearly revealed:

Screen White Area vs. Brightness
--------------------------------
10% 51 foot lamberts brightness
50% 26 foot lamberts brightness
100% 17 foot lamberts brightness

This measurements reveal why plasma demos don’t display outdoor scenes with the normally ‘bright’ sky as there is a three-to-one variation in the brightness of whites!

Personally I’ve never liked plasmas since own a top rated Panasonic plasma a few years ago as the display was just not “hard hitting’. Its whites were grey or dirt-tan color as the panels circuitry limits brightness. This is because to much power to any pixel will increase the likelihood of burning the phosphors coatings. My observations in the store and these measurements reveal that not much has changed.

if plasmas where better than LCD why would pioneer a leading plasmas manufacture give up on plasmas. If pioneer has given up and admit LCD are superior are you blind enough to still argue the fact..

You are taking a very uninformed angle on the announcement. You should probably at least read the details before you misspeak about it.

It's hard to believe but there were actually displays that didn't have low motion resolution, motion blur, green/yellow phosphor trails, dirty whites, low contrast ratio, horrible viewing angles, grayish and bluish blacks, etc.
They were called CRTs, but people decided to go with style over substance so now people will have to wait till OLED, Lasertv, or SED to just get back to CRT quality. This is the WORST CRT I could find in the basement an 80 dollar CRT displaying 720P natively(a display that can do many different resolutions natively, imagine that). Even this $80 display does snow covered mountains better than any Plasma, and outer space better than any LCD.
Don't try this particular frame from The Fast and the Furious on any 2007 or 2008 Plasma or LCD as you'll either get dirty sparks/flames, or grayish/bluish blacks, the 11" OLED is proably the only flat panel that will do it better than even this 80" display from years ago.
100 IRE and 5(or 0) IRE on the same screen at the same time done right, imagine that.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/Sal29/RGB/DSCF0642.jpg


What makes you say that the whites aren't pure? Now, admittedly I have not owned many older plasmas, but have had a couple of the more recent ones (Panasonic & Pioneer) and perfect D65 whites were easily achievable on both. In fact, greyscale was generally more accurate/neutral on the Plasmas than the LCDs I've had, where it generally gets quite bad below 30-40 IRE even when calibrated.

As LCD is a technology designed around blocking light, rather than Plasmas which create light, it is going to be increasingly difficult to improve black levels with them without resorting to "trickery." Eg auto-dimming backlights / local-area dimming with LEDs. Auto-dimming backlights not only lower black levels, they also lower the brightness of bright objects, so contrast does not improve at all, the whole image just gets dull. LED backlighting has potential, but can never be done on a per-pixel basis so it will not do much to improve contrast with actual picture content, though it will measure well in tests.

On the other hand, Plasmas are well on the way to improving brightness, power consumption and black levels. I believe Panasonic's plasmas this year are now twice as bright as last year when using the same amount of power, or can use half the amount of power when at the same brightness as before. (note: I may be wrong and could be confusing it with another display they had at CES - I have no intention of purchasing one, so I've not been keeping up to date on every bit of info with them)

In 2009, Pioneer should have achieved "perfect" blacks (they already have a prototype display using this technology) and we should start to see high efficiency models which will boost light output significantly.

When Plasmas hit 10lm/W (which could be 2009) they will be around 4x brighter than they are currently - making them capable of going brighter than any LCD. Not only that, but the increased efficiency / light output will allow them to use different screen types which will allow them to look as good, if not better than, an LCD in a bright room.


It is laughable to say that Sony LCDs are comparable to Pioneer Plasmas. After having had several Sony LCDs in my home, and a 5080XD there's pretty much no contest. Yes, there are one or two aspects where the BRAVIAs are better, but overall image quality is significantly better with the Kuros.

It is a common misconception that Plasmas "act like mirrors" in a bright room. Actually, reflections are generally not much of a problem these days - if it is a situation where reflections are an issue, it is likely that it will be for LCDs as well. (yes, LCDs can also suffer in certain bright situations)

However, Plasmas suffer a lot once when there are high levels of ambient light. Not with reflections, but due to glare, which washes out the image completely.

The Kuros may have the best blacks out there right now for a flat panel, but they don't even look close to black in a bright room:

http://i32.tinypic.com/154ge8y.jpg

Notice how there are no harsh reflections on the screen, despite reflections on the piano black bezel.

The picture isn't really dull either, it's just that the blacks are washed out. (though it looks like a camera flash was used, which exaggerates the problem quite a bit - it's not going to be that bad in a bright room)


Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm not a Kuro "fanboy" or even a Plasma one. I completely agree that Plasmas do have issues (including some that aren't mentioned here) but I still think they're probably the best displays on the market right now. But being the "best" still isn't good enough for me - I'll wait until I can get a picture that is at least comparable to my CRT, or preferably one that surpasses it, but it looks like that's not going to happen for a while yet. Even if Pioneer were to release their "perfect black" displays tomorrow, there's a good chance I wouldn't buy one, as there are a lot of other issues that are inherent to digital displays and don't seem to be going away any time soon.

Yawn..

Everyone knows that Plasmas and LCDs excel over the other for different purposes.

LCDs for computer work and video games.
Plasmas for movies.

LCDs can function as movie/fast action screens but not as well overall as plasmas.
Plasmas can serve for videogaming and computer work - but not as well as LCDs.

And to put it yet a 3rd way,
LCDs are bought by folks who need a multi functional screen.
Plasmas are bought by people who typically intend to use it as just a TV.

Neither are perfect as a do-all solution, so pick your preference of use, then live with your poison.

Both will be obsolete in 3 years anyway to make way for better technologies that are better for multi-convergences, so these types of arguments although entertaining are irrelevant.

If arguments are entertaining why do you yawn???

If arguments are entertaining why do you yawn???

Because, I had my freak on.. all night long.

FYI, if it don't fit, don't force it.....

And, because there are too many pages of this useless argument.

1st couple grooved along, but now.....ZZzzzz

Besides the only Plasma worth it's salt is the Pio..which can give the best LCD a run for it's money for an overall sound investment and enjoyment

The Pany is a decent alternative albeit a bit short on component quality, but the rest are nasty and overtaken by most LCDs easily, for overall customer satisfaction.

This is the trend, that the manufacturers are watching, so the general consensus is to phase out expensive Plasma production to maintain margins while becoming more competitive. This is exactly what Sony did, (and retuning) and what Pioneer seems to be doing.

Speaking about Pioneer, contrary to popular belief, their outsourced panels are going to be LCDs from Sharp.

Sharp is the leader of LCD tech and their newest panels from their yet to be built 11th generation plant will deliver plasma busting goods from LCD technology at cost reduction prices <-- and this is what the likes of the financially ailing top tiers Sony, Pioneer and quality 3rd tiers like Olevia...... want.

Alas, all this could change in a blink of an eye if OLED becomes more cost effective then LCD (possible) and delivers equal or greater quality.

Now all this typing about these techs bored me, so you must have been royally tortured reading it.

....so let us all pray, smoke a fat-ass jay, then go to sleep.

I was watching a snoboarding scene on all the displays, and not only were the Kuros beaten by good LCDs, they were even beaten handily by Insignias and Westinghouse LCDs. That's where you really see the difference between a CRT and a Plasma. CRTs can do both pure black and pure white hence the infinate dynamic contrast ratio, while the best plasmas can only do close to pure black, but never pure 100 IRE white when most of the screen is white such as on a snow covered mountain on a sunny day.
The majority of CRTs also have brightness affected by average picture level, just like plasmas.

The majority of CRTs also have brightness affected by average picture level, just like plasmas.

CRTs didn't server well in a bright room either. And IMO they had as many flaws as LCD and plasma have. Unfortunately LCD and plasma have taken a long time to reach acceptable contrast. Hopefully in a few years this will be a non-issue and we can let CRT go from our memories :).

I am just entering the plasma world, moving from front projector, I also own a samsung 32inch LNT3253H. I can make the samsung very bright and I love it, one of the reasons that got me to leave my projector, but I was drawn to the plasma's as I found they had more pop. Colors are my first criteria and the panasonic and pioneer plasmas I seen had colors unmatched that just popped off the screen. So now the projector is going and the 65 750 panasonic is coming.

I am just entering the plasma world, moving from front projector, I also own a samsung 32inch LNT3253H. I can make the samsung very bright and I love it, one of the reasons that got me to leave my projector, but I was drawn to the plasma's as I found they had more pop. Colors are my first criteria and the panasonic and pioneer plasmas I seen had colors unmatched that just popped off the screen. So now the projector is going and the 65 750 panasonic is coming.

Your reasons are why I didn't go with a front projector. I really want a larger TV than a 60", but from the projectors I've seen the just don't look the same as a plasma or an LCD.

The JVC RS1 or RS2 have a true static contrast ratio of 15,000 to 30,000:1. Use it with a Da-Lite High Power 120-130" diagonal screen for the best PQ available. Under $5K for the RS1 from AVS...

The JVC RS1 or RS2 have a true static contrast ratio of 15,000 to 30,000:1. Use it with a Da-Lite High Power 120-130" diagonal screen for the best PQ available. Under $5K for the RS1 from AVS...


I could be wrong but I still can't imagine a projector having the same pop as a plasma or LCD. Even if it did you still have the bulb issues with limited life span and the bulb dimming early. This would be a concern for me as my theater room is used for movies, games, and TV.

i don't think it would be fair to compare tv vs projectors.

a tv is definitely bright and punchy, you can watch all day in just about any lighting situation (except direct sunlight on screen) no worries of burning/replacing bulbs either so it doesn't matter if you watch frivolous material or play video games. lamplife 60k hours plus.

a projector can provide 100" wide or 150" wide picture and usually is best viewed at night or completely light controlled evironment. the pq of a quality projector is unlike any tv. the light isn't shooting out of the wall/set and beaming into your eyes like a tv but rather it is reflected off of a screen or wall. the effect is dimmer by comparison but there is a very relaxing quality to viewing "reflected" images not to mention the size advantage. it is completely immersive in a way tv, even a 65" tv, isn't.

tv (plasma/lcd) is great, love it but when i want complete immersion i'm gonna fire up my trusty jvc dila for a 146" wide experience.

I picked up a 46" xbr4 a few months ago and it lasted a week before I returned it...not because it was a bad TV. Color exploded off that tv even in movie mode. Great all around tv/tech and as someone mentioned earlier LCDs could be characterized as pretty multipurpose.

What doomed me from keeping that tv is that I just couldn't get past the grey/blacks in night scenes, the motion blur with sports and how the picture flatened/worsened as one viewed it off center. Also I almost always watch movies/tv at night and the room the TV is in has no prob with much ambient lighting as there is only one outside window. So ultimately for my eyes and tastes plasma strengths are just more important to me. Not trying to bash LCDs though... Hell I know my parents would love how bright LCDs and would do well in their TV room which as much ambient lighting from windows.

Was this a mistake?
"Vizio's upcoming premium line of plasma HDTVs will feature HQV video processing.

Due to greater light output, these 1080P Plasma HDTVs, boast a high contrast ratio of 30,000:1. It also takes deep color avail through the HDMI 1.3 connection (4 HDMI inputs) and processes it at 10 bits.

The 50- and 60-inch models will be available in June 2008, with an estimated MSRP of $1699 and $2899, respectively. "

This may be real competition for LCD and explains why Pioneer reduced its plasma exposure as they had foreknowledge of this major coming increase of performance.
http://www.hqv.com/products.cfm

Yeah, now you have OLED, which really spits out black levels to the Nth degree, but whether or not it has the light output to back up that contrast, that's gonna be something that needs to be addressed... For now, it'll take at least 5 - 10 years before OLED will get the same respect that LCD does.

Was this a mistake?
"Vizio's upcoming premium line of plasma HDTVs will feature HQV video processing.

Due to greater light output, these 1080P Plasma HDTVs, boast a high contrast ratio of 30,000:1. It also takes deep color avail through the HDMI 1.3 connection (4 HDMI inputs) and processes it at 10 bits.

The 50- and 60-inch models will be available in June 2008, with an estimated MSRP of $1699 and $2899, respectively. "

This may be real competition for LCD and explains why Pioneer reduced its plasma exposure as they had foreknowledge of this major coming increase of performance.
http://www.hqv.com/products.cfm


It is not a mistake. They will contain LG's new 30,000 to 1 contrast ratio panels.

Hello all,
I have a fairly "light" room and was convinced LCD was the way to go. My initial thoughts were that I like the 52" Sony XBR4 but read about smearing problems when playing Xbox/PS 3. I did some additional research and like the new Samsung LCD 650 series LN52A650 (LCD). About to pull the trigger on it and I see that my neighbor got the Panasonic TH-58PZ700U (Plasma). Picture looks good on it, but I only got to see it for a few minutes. I am looking for some honest feedback from Plasma users that switched to LCD and vice versa LCS users that went to Plasma. Overall thoughts? Burn in, power savings, glare, weight, brightness,no glare, all have me leaning to LCD. Blacks look awesome on the Sammy (from what I can tell). With all of these comparisons (Plasma vs LCD) have the Plasma's been tested against the latest and greatest from Samsung. 50K to 1 contrast ratio and 4 ms response time? Finger off the trigger for now.... I know the Samsung 650 series was only released a couple weeks ago (3/8/08) are the "Plasma guys" hearing this tv may give Plasma a run for it's money? I would rather not get into the my tv is better than yours debate, just honest opinions, as 3K + is a lot of money for me. Need input..Thx

here are a number a letter and a word... 9g kuros no one will make a better set.........

Believe it or not, I believe that there are some LCDs that are pushing the barrier between plasma PQ and black levels. Samsung and Sharp were the two companies that come to mind that have mastered this art, imho. I mean, you can take a 40" Samsung LCD, and put that side by side with a Panasonic 42" plasma in a dark room, and you will probably notice that the black levels are really top notch on both. For right now, if you go LCD, I'd definitely recommend Sammy-boy or Sharp, imho.

Ok broadcast mixer. Perhaps you would like to tell us why the broadcast industry degrades its video and audio signal quality so frequently? Is it to compress and fit more channels and make for a higher profit? Why is so much SD crap still being broadcast? How many years has HD broadcasting been in effect? If you are able to answer this question technically I'm all ears.

Second why are we still broadcasting crap interlaced signals which reduces resolution greatly on almost all high definition displays especially during motion scenes? Is 1920*1080 resolution actually broadcast or is the effective rate much lower?

Third what does the HD in HD Radio stand for? Does it imply High Definition?

There will be more on commerical reviewers, but we can start closer to home.