Panasonic Plasma Ad 11/22/06 USA TODAY - How Much Truth? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 45 Old 11-23-2006, 04:31 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
faceoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: King of Prussia PA
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
All - the r5eason I'm posting this is more out of curiosity than me pushing Panasonic Plasmas - I'm not - though this could lead to some interesting discussion. Anything in brackets are my comments.

It's a full page ad.

Panasonic Plasma vs. LCD TV

six facts
you need to know
before you buy a large flat panel TV

1) Panasonic Plasmas produce deep, rich blacks for exceptional contrast and striking image quality. With most large-screen LCD TVs, blacks look gray with less detail - definitely not what you want in your family room!

2) Our HD Plasma TVs give you crisp, smooth action in high-speed scenes. Very important for sports and movies.
Most large-screen LCDs - not so good for fast motion, they often look blurry.

3) Panasonic Plasmas reproduce the full range of colors specified in HDTV Broadcast Standards. [HUH?
Most LCD TVs cannot.

4) Panasonic Plasmas look great from every angle. Invite the whole neighborhood.
Most LCD TVs suffer from picture fade when you look at them from an angle.

5) Panasonic Plasma panels are environmentally friendly. No lead. No Mercury.
Most LCD TVs have mercury.

6) Panasonic Plasmas have durable [reflective?] glass screens that are much more resistant to impact than typical LCD screens, so then stand up to life in your family room.
Most LCD TV screens are quite delicate.

Panasonic makes both LCD and Plasma TVs - so we have no ax to grind. We just want you to know the facts. [I'm sure someone here can come up with 6 or more "facts" justifying LCD over plasma. I'd also bet that these points could be used for any plasma - not just Panasonic].

Today's small screen LCD TVs are fine for kitchens, small bedrooms and home offices. But the larger the LCD screen size (like 37" and above) the worse their problems. . . . . . . .


There was a bit more - not relevant. Situation that we're in - which is whey I'm looking for some good discussion, is that we're looking for our home office. Looking at either 32" or 37". Have been looking exclusively at LCDs - should be look at plasmas?

Flame retardant suit on - go for it. . .

faceoff
faceoff is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 45 Old 11-23-2006, 04:49 PM
Member
 
ArthurJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Technically all these points are correct, although you have to allow for some marketing hyperbole as usual.

It's true that many LCDs cannot reproduce the full HD color gamut, but that's a relatively minor fault.

Panasonic has recently made a big deal out of the fact that they've eliminated the need for leaded glass in their 2006 panels. LCD panels with flourescent backlights use some mercury, just as all flourescent lamps do.

I think they're stretching a bit to call the plasma glass more durable. True, it's thicker and heavier, and can probably withstand more of an impact. But if you knock it over, the weight will cause it to hit harder and probably shatter more readily than the lighter LCD glass.
ArthurJ is offline  
post #3 of 45 Old 11-23-2006, 05:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
snidely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, Ca. & Aventura (Miami), Fl.
Posts: 1,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I would say it the ad is definitely true. While LCD has improved in the past few years, it still doesn't come anywhere near plasma as far as PQ is concerned. The only people I would rec. LCD to are those users who display static images for long periods of time and those who use the display to play video games a lot.
For regular program/movie watching, plasma is the only way to go.

...mike
snidely is online now  
post #4 of 45 Old 11-23-2006, 05:28 PM
Newbie
 
rbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
makes panasonic appear desperate vs LCDs.

Are people buying LCDs and being told scare stories by sales people, or can the buyers not see the difference in the showrooms?
rbot is offline  
post #5 of 45 Old 11-23-2006, 05:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bwclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Redwood Empire
Posts: 1,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Yeah, some truth in the plasma vs LCD, but only slight edge most likely.
We could probably write up some of the same for the LCD vs Plasma:

1. LCDs consume less power than comparable size plasma..... true;
2. LCDs don't have burn in potential that plasma has..... true;

well, you get the picture.......... tell it the way you like, they both work fine.......
whatever floats your boat..... ;)
bwclark is offline  
post #6 of 45 Old 11-23-2006, 05:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Let's not let these 6 facts get in the way of a good LCD purchase. :p

My HT

In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #7 of 45 Old 11-23-2006, 05:54 PM
Member
 
Jome20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbot
makes panasonic appear desperate vs LCDs.

Are people buying LCDs and being told scare stories by sales people, or can the buyers not see the difference in the showrooms?
I'm not sure about that. Panasonic is the #1 selling Plasma TV company. I think they're doing pretty well.

But people are right when they say they both have their pros and cons to them. There are pros and cons to all 4 major formats of Plasma, LCD, DLP, and CRT.

I've been trying to discover what's best for me for tomorrow's big shopping day. And I'm leaning towards Plasma.
Jome20 is offline  
post #8 of 45 Old 11-23-2006, 06:59 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
faceoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: King of Prussia PA
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm havind 2nd thoughts (thanks Panasonic) was decided on LCD (not sure which one). Going from 32"-37" - maybe we add plasma.

Oh well - make the decision even more difficult! lol
faceoff is offline  
post #9 of 45 Old 11-24-2006, 04:14 AM
Member
 
GlennMaples's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Panny Desperation --- NOT

Great sign that prices will continue to accelerate downward --YES. Also run full page in wsj.

=glenn
GlennMaples is offline  
post #10 of 45 Old 11-24-2006, 09:04 AM
"Don't PM Me Bro"
 
RandyWalters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: El Segundo, Calif
Posts: 17,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwclark
1. LCDs consume less power than comparable size plasma.....true;
I'm not so sure about this one - some months ago there was a thread where guys were hooking up their plasmas and LCDs to a watt-meter and posting their readings and it showed that LCDs wattage draw stayed fairly constant regardless of what was being displayed on the screen, while Plasma's draw dropped drastically on darker content, something like half the specified wattage in the specs, which was much less than the constant wattage draw of a similar sized LCD. This would indicate that over the course of a month, a 40"-42" LCD would actually draw more power than a similar sized plasma when viewing the same mix of content for the same amount of hours.

Subject to verification of course, but it is something to check into.

Also, my 26" LCD TV expels more heat than my 42" Plasma sitting 5 feet away along the same wall. With my IR heat sensing gun, i measured various spots along the top of the cabinets, the air rising from the vents, and the aluminum mini-blinds behind the units and all temps were higher on the smaller LCD. I didn't expect that at all.

Randy
TC-P55ST60, TC-P50GT50, TC-P46G10, TH-42PZ700U, TH-42PX50U, HP LC2600N, TiVo Series3, TWC Cisco 8742HDC DVR, Onkyo TX-SR605, URC R40 Remote.
Pic of My A/V setup - http://cdn.avsforum.com/f/f1/900x900..._Img_4867.jpeg
Gallery - http://www.avsforum.com/g/a/2082686/randywalter...
RandyWalters is offline  
post #11 of 45 Old 11-24-2006, 09:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
amesdp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 19
That could be true about LCD vs plasma power consumption.

I've measured my 42" plasma, and it draws an average 150 watts in normal viewing in my living room with low ambient light and moderate brightness. Rises to about 200 watts if I turn up the brightness to medium to match brighter room ambient light, or about 250 watts for very bright daytime viewing. That's compared to a specified max of 400 watts.

LCDs with flourescent backlights do tend to draw a constant amount of power. A Sony 40" XBR LCD is specified to use 227 watts, although it probably depends on the backlight level adjustment, which they don't specify.
amesdp is offline  
post #12 of 45 Old 11-24-2006, 09:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You have to understand that since there are not a lot of negative things to say about the better plasmas that the LCD crowd needs to find something and it usually is 'power consumption' at the top of that list.
It doesn't seem to matter that it has been proven outright false.
That is what you call desperation. ;)

My HT

In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #13 of 45 Old 11-24-2006, 10:17 AM
 
optivity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,907
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennMaples
Panny Desperation --- NOT

Great sign that prices will continue to accelerate downward --YES. Also run full page in wsj.

=glenn
I find it interesting to see the "street price" for the PRO-FHD1 has declined to approximately 60% of it's original MSRP, while the TH-65PX600U, TH-65PF9UK and TH-50PF9UK are already 25% below MSRP.

It looks as if PDP makers are going to have to discount their 1080p PDPs to retain market share and remain competitive with 1080p LCDs.
optivity is offline  
post #14 of 45 Old 11-24-2006, 10:18 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
faceoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: King of Prussia PA
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
OK - up until I started this silly thread (LOL) I had absolutely no interest in plasma. Now - it's like "Hmmmmmmm".

The "contenders" are the Vizio VX37L, The Costco version of the Sharp 37D40U, or (now) the Panasonic 37" plasma - as Panasonic is the only one that makes 37" plasmas.

The Panasonic is about 1.5 times the cost of the Vizio - the Sharp is between the two. The other "disadvantage" of the plasma is that I would not be able to get it at Costco.

The set is going to be use in a well lit room (home office - converted bedroom) with less than perfect viewing angles. Should I be giving serious considerition to the plasma?

TIA!
faceoff is offline  
post #15 of 45 Old 11-24-2006, 10:23 AM
Senior Member
 
ridetheducati's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bowie, MD
Posts: 204
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just got home with the Panny. Very nice. I got in line at 3am and there was at least 600 people in front in me, had to go to the warehouse to claim product.

Quad Core Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Abit IP35-E
2x1GB G.Skill PC800
Geforce 7800GT
ridetheducati is offline  
post #16 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 12:46 PM
Member
 
Craig234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I prefer the Sceptre 42" LCD picture I bought quality to the competition, including Plasma.

Just one opinion, based on subjective picture quality, vivid colors, sharpness, lack of screendoor/pixelation (a pet peeve of mine with plasma, maybe I sit too close).
Craig234 is offline  
post #17 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 12:54 PM
Senior Member
 
GnatGoSplat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Does anyone have a "Kill-A-Watt" type device and can verify the power consumption difference between plasma and LCD? It does make sense, a backlight consumes the same amount of power no matter what's on the screen. A plasma illuminates only the phosphers it needs, and to the brightness it needs. I'm very curious, because I've decided on a TH-50PH9UK as my Christmas present to myself, but its 460W power consumption rating looks kind of scary compared to the 280W of a typical 52" LCD.

The LCD at an angle thing definitely bothers me. They're better than 2yrs ago, but it's still annoying.

Interesting that Panasonic advertises plasma glass as being more durable. I really consider all flat panels to be more fragile tha CRT, but one argument LCD fans make is that LCD is somehow more durable than plasma. In fact, I believe I've even read professionally written articles that say that.

Something else LCD fans always claim as a benefit is the glare issue. Most LCDs have a satin finish while plasmas are almost always glossy.

People always mention the burn-in issue too, but when Panasonic claimed CRT-level burn-in resistance on their 7th gen panels, I think they were right. I have a 7UY plasma, on 9hrs/day minimum for 2yrs, about 90% pillarboxed with black pillarboxes, all pixel-shifting and other safety features turned off, yet there is no visible burn-in to speak of. Burn-in is one of those things I think is a bit exaggerated.

Probably what I've heard LCD fans mention the most, is resolution. Some people go so far as to say, "plasma is obsolete because it can't display 1080p". 1080p this, 1080p that. From 8-10ft away, can your eyes really resolve the difference between 1080p native vs. 1080i/p scaled down to 768p? I look forward to 1080p plasmas (the Panny PF series currently too expensive for me), but I've never seen it as a deal killer.

Shawn
GnatGoSplat is offline  
post #18 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 02:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
greenland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Panasonic ad is actually saying that no one should buy the LCDs that they make. Then stop making them Panasonic. I bet retailers who carry the Panny LCDs are overjoyed to have the manufacturer running full page ads around the country telling potential customers that Panasonic says their own LCD products are inferior, and not worth buying.
greenland is offline  
post #19 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland
Panasonic ad is actually saying that no one should buy the LCDs that they make. Then stop making them Panasonic. I bet retailers who carry the Panny LCDs are overjoyed to have the manufacturer running full page ads around the country telling potential customers that Panasonic says their own LCD products are inferior, and not worth buying.
I am sure Panasonic is a huge beast with many divisions. Maybe the Plasma division just got tired of the BS with LCD. ;)

My HT

In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #20 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 02:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
Isochroma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Regarding point 5 in the first post, LCD technology per se. does not use mercury. Rather, fluorescent backlights use mercury. LED backlighting is mercury-free, and is projected to take over from CCFL. Below I will include the entire article as indexed in the LCD TVs: Technology Advancement Thread:

----------

LED backlighting for TVs coming faster than anticipated, says Insight Media
26 May 2006




Conventional wisdom sees LED based backlights not making significant inroads into large screen LCD TVs until 2009 or so. But based on analysis done by Insight Media, LED backlighting will be adopted much faster than previously thought.

Driving this conclusion are several factors. First, development of high-brightness LEDs is occurring even faster than earlier aggressive forecasts. These developments promise brighter, more compact LEDs. This will in turn, enable the use of edge-illuminated backlight methods – even for large area LCD TVs. Many developers are focused on direct LED backlights, which will become price-performance competitive any time soon. Edge-illuminated backlights require fewer LEDs, and if forecasts for performance improvements hold true, they will become cost competitive with CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent lamps) sooner rather than later.

A third factor is the groundswell of backlight innovation currently underway to replace films and other light management structures. The combination of these three factors is now likely to lead to cost-competitive LED backlight units by 2007 in 32-inch LCD TVs, with larger sizes competitive in the following years. Couple this with the possibility of a company making a strategic decision to convert to LED backlights, and the factors are all in place to enable a rapid transition away from CCFL to LED-based backlight units (BLUs) beginning in 2008.

Intelligent backlights, particularly dimmable versions, will also make faster in-roads than commonly expected. Additionally, industry growth and technology changes will create headaches for CCFL BLU makers. CCFL shortages are likely to develop in 2007 because CCFL makers will be reluctant to invest in capacity that won't be needed after the transition to LEDs.

The following graph shows the backlight shipments forecast for the 40-44-inch segment by backlight technology through 2010, with the expected penetration of LEDs into the market. While CCFL will continue to be an important and substantial backlight technology, the bulk of the growth after 2009 will be in LED based backlights.
Isochroma is offline  
post #21 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 02:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
greenland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elemental1
I am sure Panasonic is a huge beast with many divisions. Maybe the Plasma division just got tired of the BS with LCD. ;)

Advertising for all their HDTV products is handled by the same Marketing Division. In other words, they have a centralized BS operation. :)
greenland is offline  
post #22 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 02:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Plasma tech is not standing still, don't kid yourself. LCD still needs to close the performance gap and it won't happen for years.

My HT

In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #23 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 02:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland
Advertising for all their HDTV products is handled by the same Marketing Division. In other words, they have a centralized BS operation. :)
That's what happens when you actually listen the the LCD division. ;)

My HT

In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #24 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 02:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
Mike1117's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What Panny is trying to say in their ad is that plasma is the way to go for 37" & up whereas LCD is the way to go for 32" and smaller. Note that their largest LCD is 32" & their plasma line starts at 37". Frankly, I agree with that.
Mike1117 is offline  
post #25 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 02:50 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
faceoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: King of Prussia PA
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well - what stinks (for me) is that their 37" plasma would cost me more than the 42" plasma. Maybe I'll look at the 42" - depending on the size of the base. Problem is - wife really likes the 37" Vizio . . . .
faceoff is offline  
post #26 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 03:20 PM
Member
 
the3rdpower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hahaha... another stupid Plasma versus LCD post. Panasonic is doing what they can to cover their market. LCD is starting to catch up. The angle is not as bad on my Samsung 1080p...

Economics... BIG electronic players versus smaller players. Sure, plasma is better then LCD in a lot of areas. But the difference is minimal for the gains - LCD is more cost effective and will continue to go down in price while plasma stay expensive. Samsung and Sony are buddying up and helping to drive down the cost and technology more. It's almost like the VHS versus Beta Max battle... retarded. Both are good for their purposes. My 1080p LCD looks absolutely awesome and I didn't pay 1/2 of what the FHD1 cost.
the3rdpower is offline  
post #27 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 03:22 PM
Member
 
LXIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwclark
Yeah, some truth in the plasma vs LCD, but only slight edge most likely.
We could probably write up some of the same for the LCD vs Plasma:

1. LCDs consume less power than comparable size plasma..... true;
2. LCDs don't have burn in potential that plasma has..... true;

well, you get the picture.......... tell it the way you like, they both work fine.......
whatever floats your boat..... ;)
Where did you get your facts for these two points? Did you simply turn a display around and look at its peak current draw and say "well when each technology shows a white screen at maximum intensity the LCD draws less current so this must always be the case."

Do you not realize that LCD panels can in-fact experience image retention?

here are some links you may want to look at.

1. LCDs consume less power than comparable size plasma..... true;

http://hometheatermag.com/gearworks/106gear/

"What this tells us is that, if you watch a lot of movies, the plasma will generally cost you less each month. If you watch a lot of cartoons and sports, the LCD, even on full brightness, will cost you less. "

2. LCDs don't have burn in potential that plasma has..... true;

http://www.mitsubishi-presentations....ERSISTENCE.pdf

http://www.plasma-usa.com/screen%20b...enburn_NEC.pdf

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=88343

http://downloadcenter.samsung.com/co...-01001B-01.pdf
Read page 2 of this owners manual.
"Do not display a still image on the LCD panel for more than 2 hours as it can cause screen image retention.
This image retention is also known as "screen burn".
To avoid such image retention, reduce the degree of brightness and contrast of the screen when displaying a still image."

As you can see, the people that build and sell LCD displays would contradict your assertion that LCD panels are "Burn-Free"
LXIX is offline  
post #28 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 03:48 PM
Senior Member
 
fireballz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LXIX

2. LCDs don't have burn in potential that plasma has..... true;

http://www.mitsubishi-presentations....ERSISTENCE.pdf

http://www.plasma-usa.com/screen%20b...enburn_NEC.pdf

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=88343

http://downloadcenter.samsung.com/co...-01001B-01.pdf
Read page 2 of this owners manual.
"Do not display a still image on the LCD panel for more than 2 hours as it can cause screen image retention.
This image retention is also known as "screen burn".
To avoid such image retention, reduce the degree of brightness and contrast of the screen when displaying a still image."

As you can see, the people that build and sell LCD displays would contradict your assertion that LCD panels are "Burn-Free"
That is probably more of a legal precautionary thing if you ask me, rather than a fault of the technology. I've not once heard of an LCD having burn-in. If there has been a case, it was probably an EXTREMELY rare situation.
fireballz is offline  
post #29 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 03:57 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
cheridave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Orange County, Ca. USA
Posts: 3,268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Check the "Archives".

We have had more than one case of LCD Burn-in.

Mark R. (Mod) will be able to answer your questions.

Dave

"Appeasment only makes the Aggressor more Aggressive"
cheridave is offline  
post #30 of 45 Old 11-29-2006, 04:01 PM
Member
 
McCormick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Massachusets
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So my question is, why does my Plasma feel like its a heater for my living room while my same size LCD is cool? Heat and electronics dont mix well I would assume.

!I don't want a Sony
McCormick is offline  
Closed Thread Plasma Flat Panel Displays

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off