|View Poll Results: Do You Prefer Plasma or LED-LCD TVs?|
|Voters: 701. You may not vote on this poll|
Despite the recent news that Panasonic might halt research and development of plasma technology—and the fact that plasma TVs represent only about 10 percent of the flat-panel market—this remains the perennial question for all TV shoppers. Both types of flat panels have their pros and cons, so you must decide which pros and cons are important to you.
Which type of flat-panel TV do you prefer: plasma with its sharper motion detail, often better blacks, and superior off-axis performance, or LED-LCD with its brighter image, often less-reflective screen, and more economical power consumption?
Given some of the nasty comments in recent threads about plasma TVs, I'd like to remind you that all opinions are welcome, but comments designed to incite others will not be allowed. Please be respectful of those who disagree with you.
Panasonic stopping plasma production sure is sad. But once OLEDs are out and have dropped down to real world prices I will not be so glum. Im holding on to my Kuro plasma in my living room with a death grip though.
JBL Pro Cinema
GO MANCHESTER UNITED!!
Spending a lot of time on Forums such as AVS means you will be confronted with lots of ''Plasma is superior'' and ''LCd sucks''. I don't know about that. When PQ is good enough its good enough. For me the X4500 was good enough to replace my CRT...
If i had to buy a TV now it probably would be a Local Dimming because i know what to expect. I am basically neutral in the Plasma/LCd ''debate'' so if i had the money i would buy a top Local Dimming and a top Plasma and enjoy them both. Since i am not in a hurry to upgrade i hope my TV will be ok till OLED is affordable.
btw a lot of things can happen and eventually we might all be forced to buy a 4K Edge Lit Dimming
Klipsch RF-7 II's, RC-64II, RS-52 II's
SVS PB13 Ultra
Samsung PN64F8500 with Ideal-Lume Panelight
Panasonic 65VT30 (Master Bedroom)
If you have a nice dark man cave, or any other room with controlled lighting, then a Plasma! Great blacks and color accuracy
If you have a bright room with uncontrolled lighting, like lots of windows, french doors or glass patio sliding doors, then a LED. For the most part they're brighter and less reflective than plasmas. And, in that kind of room the (more marginal every year) difference in color accuracy can't really be seen.
I just recently downgraded screen sizes from a 70" Sharp LE847U (Their flagship 2012 model) to a 2013 Panasonic 60ST60. I have owned both plasma and LCD and nothing can compare to the pop of colors and shadow detail of a plasma. While it does have its drawbacks, I feel that the trade offs of going with plasma do not outweigh the drawbacks of an LCD.
Before the Sharp I owned a Samsung PN50C8000 plasma display which I loved dearly, and before that I owned a samsung D550 and Panasonic G25 for a short time, before then a few different LCD's and rear projection HDTV's.
The two biggest complaints of Plasma displays seems to be luminance and image retention. I personally do not find luminance to be that much of an issue even in a realitivly bright room. Even without the screen filter of lower end displays, while black do not look black, the picture is certainly bright enough to look good. Some shadow detail does get crushed, but not many people do their critical viewing during the day, or while their room is lit up like the 4th of july. Image retention is a non issue, burning in a plasma display these days is nearly impossible, while it can be done and im sure has been done, someone would really have to neglect their TV, leave a screen on for days for this to happen..
The drawbacks of an LCD? Bad screen uniformity, less shadow detail, lighter blacks, colors not as accurate, less depth to picture etc..
All the LCD's ive seen have one thing in common, this includes Samsungs 8000 series, the Sharp elite etc, they all lack the depth and sharpness and plasma naturally has. They all lack the screen uniformity a plasma has, and while some higher end displays do get close to the black levles, that comes with drawbacks of its own (Flash lighting, Haloing etc)
LCD's use less power, they don't get image retention and they can get bright enough to burn out your retnas.. Higher end LCD pictures look great, but side by side to even a low end plasma and you can see how much they lack. I loved my Sharp 847u, it was a great TV, gave me close to a home theater experiance at hom being so big.. but having had a high end plasma for 2 years previously.. after 3 months I just couldent take it anymore, I craved that natural depth and picture sharpness the plasma offers and went to a new ST60.. oh and did I mention the black levels? Oh lord the black levels.. first time ever I enjoyed turning every light off in my room because the black bars looked black with the ST60, and all for 1400 bucks? Yes please. you'd have to spend 2-3x that much to get this kind of performance out of an LCD of the same size.
I tell everyone I know looking for a new TV to give plasma's a shot, pointing out all the deficiencies of both plasma's and LCD sets. One friend disregarded my advice and got a LED-LCD anyway. He thought it looked so much better in the store than the plasmas did. Once he got it home and started watching it his eyes were opened. 2 days later he took it back and bought a Panasonic plasma. Happy camper ever since.
I think the reports that Panasonic is halting the production of plasma TVs was a bit premature. The company has even come out and denied that it was true. I think they would probably like to get out of plasma production but I think they are kicking down the road a bit. The collaboration of Sony and Panasonic producing OLEDs together has been the best news for TV technology in recent years. At least maybe they won't stop production until we have something comparable that is at least as good.
They have not said they are stopping plasma production, only R&D.
I feel.as though the plasma television as an entity in.the HDTV race, has peaked itself out technologically years ago, aside from all the other universal flat-panel enhancements technology has to offer to keep the plasma television concept refreshing to the consumer. This doesnt change the fact that plasma is still superior in picture clarity.
And a good plasma can get plenty bright enough for daytime viewing. My KRP-500m can put out 50+ fl of light while maintaining a perfect grayscale and gamma. But even during the day that is too bright for me, so I keep it at 42 fl, and 33 fl for night.
The ONLY reason I see for LCDs to even exist is for very low priced tvs (under $1000) where quality is not important or they need to be viewed in an extremely bright area. And for computer monitors, since Plasma tech cannot handle regular computer work due to burn in.
I really see no reason for high end displays to use LCD or LED technology. Why are so few companies developing plasma displays? Given the relative parity of prices and the obvious superiority of black levels, viewing angle, color accuracy and motion handling, why would anyone spend $2000 or more on a display that is based on LCD technology?
It really doesn't make much sense to me at all. I think Pioneer proved that plasma tech can be developed to be nearly on the level of OLED and that plasma can be the basis of amazing image quality if only companies would put the effort into development of the technology. Instead, virtually every company except Panasonic are screwing around with LCD and LED tech which has so many inherent flaws that no amount of research and development can overcome.
And if it is true that the ZT60 is the last Panasonic plasma, I feel that would be a travesty as well. The last company making quality plasma screens abandons the technology.
I understand the desire to move towards OLED tech, but honestly how long do you think it will be until we can buy a 50 or 60" OLED display that blows away the Kuro (or the ZT60) for $3000 to $4000? I would say it will be a good four or five years at least.
I would like to see plasma tech continue to be developed, taking the baton from Pioneer, and see plasma as a lower cost (but relatively comparable) display technology that can coexist with OLED and be supported and developed until OLED is ubiquitous and cheap and clearly performing better than any plasma display.
And I would love to see LCD tech die off for good.
That is my 2 cents on this subject.
Browsing AVS in the living room
blu-ray playback over network
hd dvd on the Mits DLP
Sony 51 inch from 2001- check the reflection of my dining room. That's why I went with a screen with a matte finish. Look at all of those remotes!
I find that having a pc connected to the television is sometimes more efficient than having a "smart TV"
Originally Posted by jrodefeld:
"I own a KRP-500m which I have calibrated with an Eye One Pro meter. I absolutely HATE lcds. I think it is a travesty that average consumers have been misled and "sold" on lcd technology when, for most people, there is NO benefit over obviously superior plasma displays. I understand the average consumer is not that bright and generally is sold on "screen size" and little else, but if you honestly sat down any person looking to buy a new TV with a quality plasma versus an LCD and they were both being sold for about the same price, I think 99% of people would choose the plasma. Unfortunately, when you walk into Best Buy, something like 95% of the tvs on display are LCDs. Plasma displays aren't pushed by sales representatives and consumers aren't educated about their benefits."
Part of the problem in shopping for a new television is the lack of training of store staff. Coming a retail training background, I found that the average consumer wants to be educated about the technology, and your average store rep (in some but not all cases) just wants to make the sale without asking the right questions. I do disagree that the average customer is not that bright, and sold on screen size, and little else. It is very difficult to evaluate a television in the retail space. If you had a plasma panel and lcd/led that were calibrated next to each other in a lighting controlled area, with good demo content, the plasma would win. I'd always tell my customers that their set will look better in their home than it does under these ungodly bright lights - especially with my plasma customers. On the other hand, there are no reasonably priced plasma displays in the 70 to 80 inch class - so Sharp and Vizio have that game locked in for the moment.
Shoppers today sometimes are pre-sold on LCD and have heard myths about plasma:
"I heard that they don't last."
"They need to be recharged."
"They burn in."
"My electric bill is gonna go up. They use a lot of power, don't they?"
When was the last time you saw an television ad for a plasma panel from Panasonic, Samsung or LG? Consumers do research before shopping, and they are much brighter than you assume. Just my 2.5 cents.
|Plasma Vs Led , Plasma Hdtv , Led Hdtv , Lcd Hdtv , Polls|