or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LED or Plasma? - Page 2

post #31 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by aim120 View Post

well 120hz tvs like sony xbr8 and other sony 240hz tvs achieve full 1080lines of motion resolution.

not even close


Black levels advantage PLASMA
off axis viewing advantage PLASMA
color saturation advantage PLASMA
motion resolution advantage PLASMA


by the way the new NeoPDP panels from Panasonic can get just as bright as a LCD so that no longer an advantage to LCD


but as a bonus with LCD you do get
flashlighting and uneven screen lighting issues
motion blur or soap opera effect take your pick....actually if you watch sports you get both
excellent viewing angles as long as everyone sits on your lap
post #32 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

I've owned high quality sets from both sides now, and Plasma quite simply smokes LCD in most areas.

I wouldn't go by your experiences, I've read to many posts where you condradict yourself.
post #33 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Too funny, my 1920:1080 52a630 even with AMP on high comes nowhere near the motion resolution of my 1024:768 Panasonic Plasma that is 2 years old. 120hz helps a bit, but nowhere near enough and 240hz isn't much better, maybe 480hz will finally fix it.

The only reason that LED local dim sets attain 1080 lines of picture resolution is because they combine the slight step up in motion that enhancers allow with a pulsing backlight which causes the screen to flicker JUST LIKE A PLASMA, most LCD fans turn this function off which brings the sets down to normal 120hz LCD levels. LCD TV makers are so quick to add so many plasma issues just to get a slight boost in performance that it isn't even funny anymore.

well i said specificaly sony models like XBR8 and other NON LED models with 240hz tech are able to dish out full 1080lines of motion resolution and not all plasma can show 1080lines of motion resolution ,even 1080p plasmas such as the premium panasonic TH-42PZ80U can only show 800lines of motion resolution out of 1080.so ur old 768p plasma wont even come close to 768lines,more like 576lines compared to ur samsung which is about 580lines.
post #34 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffs386 View Post

Black levels advantage PLASMA

...except that black level numbers are better for local dimming LCD than for plasmas. Then of course there is the fact that LCDs have better white levels than plasmas which crush the white end of the scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffs386 View Post

off axis viewing advantage PLASMA

Yep, that's right - it's just not a problem for most viewers who center the screen in front of their seating anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffs386 View Post

color saturation advantage PLASMA

Except that when you reach color saturation on a plasma it causes another problem with color accuracy, unless the plasma is the uber-expensive Pioneer which was individually calibrated before you got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffs386 View Post

motion resolution advantage PLASMA

This one is simply not true anymore unless it is one of the few plasmas with a 72Hz or 96Hz refresh mode for film. Second-generation frame interpolated LCDs surpassed plasma in 2007 IMHO, and based upon my preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffs386 View Post

by the way the new NeoPDP panels from Panasonic can get just as bright as a LCD so that no longer an advantage to LCD

That was actually a step backwards for Panasonic because they implemented a dynamic contrast circuit which has been rightly criticized on LCD. Kinda funny that they chose one of the most criticized LCD features and added it to plasma, in both cases it was only to enhance the specifications for Web sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffs386 View Post

but as a bonus with LCD you do get
flashlighting and uneven screen lighting issues
motion blur or soap opera effect take your pick....actually if you watch sports you get both
excellent viewing angles as long as everyone sits on your lap

Except that with the newfound popularity of 120Hz and 240Hz sets, the jury is finally in, and more people like frame interpolation than do not. The biggest group remaining is actually the non-critical viewer who goes for the 60Hz set because the 120/240Hz and frame interpolation makes no difference he's willing to pay for. The minority opinion now is that SOE is a problem not a benefit.

You appear to have lots of obsolete opinions that do not take into account the technological changes in the last two years. LCDs have made advances in motion resolution, contrast ratios, and black levels, while Plasmas are undergoing re-designs in an attempt to keep the technology viable under the new Energy Star 3.0 and California Tier 1 power efficiency standards. In many cases the newer more-power-efficient plasmas offer worse video quality than the older models, and no options to turn off the new power-saving features causing the problems. Spend some time in a local B&M store and get youir opinions re-calibrated with modern sets is my suggestion.

Because the major magazines and webzines are all now in agreement that there is at best a very minor overall quality difference between the two flat panel technologies and lots of room for personal preferences that are perfectly valid. It is fine to have preferences but in the interests of the factual accuracy we struggle to acheive at AVS, you should admit that that is what they are - personal preferences - instead of repeating obsolete criticisms based on older HDTV designs.
post #35 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffs386 View Post

not even close


Black levels advantage PLASMA
off axis viewing advantage PLASMA
color saturation advantage PLASMA
motion resolution advantage PLASMA


by the way the new NeoPDP panels from Panasonic can get just as bright as a LCD so that no longer an advantage to LCD


but as a bonus with LCD you do get
flashlighting and uneven screen lighting issues
motion blur or soap opera effect take your pick....actually if you watch sports you get both
excellent viewing angles as long as everyone sits on your lap

well black levels of EOL pioneer plasmas was good,but not todays plasma from panasonic or samsung etc,they cannot match lcds with local dimming LED backlight .for instance the new panasonic G10 neo PDP plasma have blacks levels of 0.03cd/m2 compared to convential CCFL backlight lcds such as samsung B650 which have black levels of 0.04cd/m2,now lcds with active LED baclight such as samsung 950 etc and XBR8 can show a black level of 0.0cd/m2.
off axis viewing well i agree that plasma have the advantage but where did i deny that,but only at extremely off axis viewing does lcds show some 10%contrast shift which is about 45 degree from centre for SPVA panel(40degree for local dim LED),AMVA based lcds and 65degrees for IPS based,anyway at those extreme angles u wont feel like watching the tv whether its a lcd,plasma or crt because that is extremely off angle.
color saturation and motion resolution are again debatable.
post #36 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

you should admit that that is what they are - personal preferences - instead of repeating obsolete criticisms based on older HDTV designs.

For some reason I find this line particularly funny while reading through your post of personal opinions, especially coming from a guy who claimed "California bans plasma TV's". I also enjoyed your reference to the uber expensive Kuro while totaly ignoring the I assume bargain priced Samsung 950 and Sony XBR8. But then again we all know that plasma people are constantly called "fanboys" in this forum by the LCD people. Nothing hypocritical about that at all.
post #37 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by aim120 View Post

well black levels of EOL pioneer plasmas was good,but not todays plasma from panasonic or samsung etc,they cannot match lcds with local dimming LED backlight .for instance the new panasonic G10 neo PDP plasma have blacks levels of 0.03cd/m2 compared to convential CCFL backlight lcds such as samsung B650 which have black levels of 0.04cd/m2,now lcds with active LED baclight such as samsung 950 etc and XBR8 can show a black level of 0.0cd/m2.
off axis viewing well i agree that plasma have the advantage but where did i deny that,but only at extremely off axis viewing does lcds show some 10%contrast shift which is about 45 degree from centre for SPVA panel(40degree for local dim LED),AMVA based lcds and 65degrees for IPS based,anyway at those extreme angles u wont feel like watching the tv whether its a lcd,plasma or crt because that is extremely off angle.
color saturation and motion resolution are again debatable.

So you're comparing a set that's available for around $1500-$1800 to a set that costs over $5000.00?
post #38 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxdog03 View Post

So you're comparing a set that's available for around $1500-$1800 to a set that costs over $5000.00?

well if u look at the thread title it say LED tvs and there is hardly any difference in new plasmas and CCFL backlight lcds in terms of black levels.
post #39 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldcband View Post

I wouldn't go by your experiences, I've read to many posts where you condradict yourself.

This place is really starting to remind me of Gamefaqs.... Fanboys agree with you and praise you when you say what they want to hear (like I was doing when I first got the 52a630 and liked the picture it gave under ideal conditions), but when confronted with facts or opinions that differ from what they want to hear and it quickly degrades to a flame war. (like when I started to notice all the serious flaws that this LCD had just hours after I got it) If I had kept my mouth shut about these flaws, half the people arguing with me would still be supporting me. What I find really funny, I was never attacked once for going to an LCD by a plasma fan, but as soon as I mention that I am going back to plasma, the LCD fans turn on me.


Something to realize, if we the consumers don't criticize these TV makers for sending out poorly made and defective products, they have no incentive to fix them and just keep sending them out with the same flaws year after year. (Kuro DSE and buzz, LCD flashlights and banding, Plasma Green Ghosting, Poor LCD motion Res....) I could go on with lists of problems on both sides of the tech, but we really need to let manufacturers know that we as the consumer won't stand for all these defects that they consider to be "within spec" If people had just kept sending back every LCD with even a hint of clouding, odds are we wouldn't still be having this problem, Pioneer knew about the buzz and DSE, but didn't fix it fast enough, look what happened to them, unfortunately, motion problems are purely subjective on both sides, so fixes won't be coming as quickly as they should. (higher HZ + frame interpolation is just a patchwork fix that masks the real problem, their 100% duty cycle, they need to add flicker if they want to trick the eye into seeing true high motion resolution. (hint: add a black frame instead of a fake frame, motion will improve much faster if they start with this and keep improving upon it, which is actually what these LED backlit sets with local dim do, add flicker by pulsing the backlight.) AMP has trouble with fine details, which is the whole point of good motion resolution, to keep those fine details visible. All AMP does is give the "Appearance" of good motion, when in fact it is barely better than a normal LCD with no enhancers. Panasonic has made an effort to fix the green ghosting with these new NEO sets, which is actually surprising considering how few of us actually can see them in the first place.

LCD is the future, I won't deny that. However, as it stands as a tech right now, there is no way they are ready to be the successor to CRT, right now that is Plasma. Looking forward, LCD has more room to improve, mainly because plasma has already fixed most of the issues with their tech where as LCD still has issues with almost everything that people have been complaining about since they first came out. Viewing angles have been greatly improved since my last LCD back in 2005, but the contrast still shifts when you move just one seat over on Sammy panels. (S-IPS is needed in hometheater sizes, they have this viewing angle problem all but licked, so more $$$ needs to go into the development of them) Flashlights and clouds are still problems, LED local dim is again, just a band-aid for the real problem, poor uniformity of the screen. (I'm not even going to touch how flawed these ultra slim edge lit LED sets are right now) Banding also falls into this area, but also brings up a companies poor Quality control, any set with obvious banding should never make it out of the factory. (might as well ship a plasma with burn-in right out of the box, same concept) And as for motion, I want to see real improvments, not false improvments designed to trick you into thinking that it is better. (not to mention how the 120hz adds input lag to the display, making many games near unplayable, and worse yet, Samsung made the lag WORSE with their new b series LCD sets.)

I'm a fanboy of performance, not display techs, which is the very reason I gave the 52a630 a fair shot. The 52a630 showed me just how far companies have come in regards to improving LCD, but also showed me how far they still have to go. I can see my next TV being an LCD if they keep improving them, but for now, I'm probably going back to plasma.
post #40 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

What I find really funny, I was never attacked once for going to an LCD by a plasma fan, but as soon as I mention that I am going back to plasma, the LCD fans turn on me.

Again you think that members here care what you buy.

What I was telling you, your comments are inconsistent.

Your words:
1) My new LCD has "mild banding".
Then in another post: "insane banding"

And theres more with plasma and LCD.
post #41 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldcband View Post

Again you think that members here care what you buy.

What I was telling you, your comments are inconsistent.

Your words:
1) My new LCD has "mild banding".
Then in another post: "insane banding"

And theres more with plasma and LCD.

Let's take that into context shall we?

That first line was when I just got the set and had only noticed a few mild bands, I thought that the rest were simply reflections as they lined up with what was behind the set, well I put up a dark grey screen and checked it for banding and then noticed that it wasn't a reflection, but absolutly insane banding that has actually been getting worse. (checked it last night and the dark bands are getting worse as are my pillars)

Care to bring up any other quotes that are out of context?

And you also missed the point of what you quoted, I never got any flak from any plasma fans for trying an LCD, but by returning the LCD for another plasma, suddenly all the known LCD trolls aren't very nice anymore. (not that I care, it's back to the way it was before I bought the LCD)
post #42 of 179
I don't have any problem at all with people preferring one technology over another. I'm a fan of smooth motion without the jerkiness or unevenness. The fact that the video display looks smoother than the film original - plus the fact that algorythmic video processing can eliminate a large portion of the camera blur in the film source, does not trouble me. I have been happy with my choice of a television and unhappy with the unfair treatment that a lot of plasma owners here dished out towards frame interpolation, which I consider the main enhancement to Home Theater in the last 10 years.

I still believe a lot of people dissed AMP and other inplementations of frame interpolation for no better reason than this new feature was practically unavailable on plasma except for the expensive Pioneer sets - and even on those, Pioneer had a poor first-generation implementation. In fact it is still the case that if you want good FI, you must either buy an LCD or one of the growing set of front projectors that offer the feature, from Panasonic, Epson, Sanyo, etc. Those who prefer plasma over LCD just don't get to play with FI - a serious problem and one that needs to be addressed.

60Hz displays locked to the powerline frequency have been around since the 1930's and the early days of NTSC. We can do so much better now. And if in the end the 24fps of film must be abandonned, I will be the first to say, it's about time.
post #43 of 179
As a sidebar note to all of this "mine is better than yours", this battle between plasma and LCD has been raging since the 1980's. LCDs have always been the runt to the litter. Plasma (red monochrome) which have been around A LONG TIME, have always had the advantage in size, brightness and switching speeds. Many of you may not remember but the first Compaq laptop was a plasma display. A soon as LCD caught up, plasma moved on. Plasma did color first and best, but LCD, especially with TFT in 1991, really caught up. So long as plasma could keep going up in size, it could stay ahead of the ever increasing performance benchmarks of LCD.

Regretfully in the last few years LCDs have caught up. Yes, I suppose plasmas could do a 100 inch+ display better and cheaper than LCD, but is the market wanting or needing this. In the world of home use of displays, LCDs meet the needs of the marketplace. It is good enough or "fit for use" as we call it. Both technologies can do the size, switching speeds are getting to the point that most of us can't see the difference and all the other features are "ok" to most people.

Honestly, we have all been looking at CRT TV for years and can anyone really say that they are the technological benchmark of performance? Plasma as a technology is going to be challenged now more than any other time in its rich long history. Why? ...not because of performance. To me, the reason is simple; money. Just read all the forums and you get a sense that all anyone wants to have is "what is the best set for the least amount of money". Plasma has an issue on this. But don't think LCD is off the hook. No one in the flat panel TV arena is making money and with diminishing profits, where is the money coming from for the new levels of technologies.
post #44 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I don't have any problem at all with people preferring one technology over another. I'm a fan of smooth motion without the jerkiness or unevenness. The fact that the video display looks smoother than the film original - plus the fact that algorythmic video processing can eliminate a large portion of the camera blur in the film source, does not trouble me. I have been happy with my choice of a television and unhappy with the unfair treatment that a lot of plasma owners here dished out towards frame interpolation, which I consider the main enhancement to Home Theater in the last 10 years.

I still believe a lot of people dissed AMP and other inplementations of frame interpolation for no better reason than this new feature was practically unavailable on plasma except for the expensive Pioneer sets - and even on those, Pioneer had a poor first-generation implementation. In fact it is still the case that if you want good FI, you must either buy an LCD or one of the growing set of front projectors that offer the feature, from Panasonic, Epson, Sanyo, etc. Those who prefer plasma over LCD just don't get to play with FI - a serious problem and one that needs to be addressed.

60Hz displays locked to the powerline frequency have been around since the 1930's and the early days of NTSC. We can do so much better now. And if in the end the 24fps of film must be abandonned, I will be the first to say, it's about time.

Read your words highlighted again carefully. You tout something you prefer and then chastise a group that doesn't prefer it. How is that not caring what one chooses as it appears you're still trying to convince others that your choice is the only right choice. I would have thought after umpteen posts of people telling you they don't care for your AMP that you get the idea that it's not for everyone. Even a poll started by another plasma hater in this forum showed that about half the people with amp available prefer it off and a few only use it for certain media. If you truly don't care then quit trying to convince everyone that what you like is the only acceptable way.

Oh, and for the record, I truly don't care what tech anyone buys and have numerous posts saying as much when someone asks for a recommendation as I even own both technologies. :-)
post #45 of 179
Neither type of set is perfect. Just deal with the flaws on the display you can live with. A lot of people seem to have problems with motion blur/interpolation/flashlights/viewing angles of lcds. Some have problems with low brightness, IR, dithering, and reflective plasma screens.

Personally, i love Amp/motionflow, and i couldn't stand the dithering/grainy pic of my pz80. But that's me. No technology is perfect (yet). If motionblur bugged me, i wouldn't have gotten an lcd.

Both types of TVs have their pros and cons, and either set in the high end models are sweet.
post #46 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post


Care to bring up any other quotes that are out of context?

But by returning the LCD for another plasma, suddenly all the known LCD trolls aren't very nice anymore.

Known LCD trolls?

Now your down to name calling?

Why do you think anyone cares what others are buying here?
post #47 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldcband View Post

Known LCD trolls?

Now you down to name calling?

Why do you think anyone cares what others are buying here?

Again, thanks for gutting my post to make it seem worse than it is.

Quote:


And you also missed the point of what you quoted, I never got any flak from any plasma fans for trying an LCD, but by returning the LCD for another plasma, suddenly all the known LCD trolls aren't very nice anymore. (not that I care, it's back to the way it was before I bought the LCD)

I didn't name names or point fingers at anyone with that post. I'll leave it at that.
post #48 of 179
Quote:


Those who prefer plasma over LCD just don't get to play with FI - a serious problem and one that needs to be addressed.

There are many LCD owners here with frame interpolation that don't like it and don't use it. I actually find that it works pretty well on the Kuro in Smooth mode, but there are inconsistent artifacts generated by the processs (LCD has its own artifacts). I simply do not like how it looks for film content.
post #49 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

...except that black level numbers are better for local dimming LCD than for plasmas. Then of course there is the fact that LCDs have better white levels than plasmas which crush the white end of the scale.

Yep, that's right - it's just not a problem for most viewers who center the screen in front of their seating anyway.

Except that when you reach color saturation on a plasma it causes another problem with color accuracy, unless the plasma is the uber-expensive Pioneer which was individually calibrated before you got it.

This one is simply not true anymore unless it is one of the few plasmas with a 72Hz or 96Hz refresh mode for film. Second-generation frame interpolated LCDs surpassed plasma in 2007 IMHO, and based upon my preferences.

That was actually a step backwards for Panasonic because they implemented a dynamic contrast circuit which has been rightly criticized on LCD. Kinda funny that they chose one of the most criticized LCD features and added it to plasma, in both cases it was only to enhance the specifications for Web sales.

Except that with the newfound popularity of 120Hz and 240Hz sets, the jury is finally in, and more people like frame interpolation than do not. The biggest group remaining is actually the non-critical viewer who goes for the 60Hz set because the 120/240Hz and frame interpolation makes no difference he's willing to pay for. The minority opinion now is that SOE is a problem not a benefit.

You appear to have lots of obsolete opinions that do not take into account the technological changes in the last two years. LCDs have made advances in motion resolution, contrast ratios, and black levels, while Plasmas are undergoing re-designs in an attempt to keep the technology viable under the new Energy Star 3.0 and California Tier 1 power efficiency standards. In many cases the newer more-power-efficient plasmas offer worse video quality than the older models, and no options to turn off the new power-saving features causing the problems. Spend some time in a local B&M store and get youir opinions re-calibrated with modern sets is my suggestion.

Because the major magazines and webzines are all now in agreement that there is at best a very minor overall quality difference between the two flat panel technologies and lots of room for personal preferences that are perfectly valid. It is fine to have preferences but in the interests of the factual accuracy we struggle to acheive at AVS, you should admit that that is what they are - personal preferences - instead of repeating obsolete criticisms based on older HDTV designs.

Gary, I really was beginning to respect you and your seemingly level headed opinions, a rarity on these boards. After these responses though, it's hard not to question your motivation because what you're saying is incredibly misleading in general and not based primarily on fact. I would like to address all points, same as you did.

To claim that LED based LCDs have better black levels than plasmas is completely misrepresenting the technologies. I must question any opinion given after this because of its unqualified and obvious incorrectness. Having owned the best of both technologies, it is apparent to the discerning viewer that LEDs, and local dimming in particular, is a stop gap measure to improve upon LCD weaknesses that have already been addressed with plasma. Yes, local dimmed LED sets like the 950 from Samsung and the XBR8 from Sony CAN produce a .000 ftL reading, resulting in a completely black screen. Problem is, this ability means little in real world application. In mixed material, or in scenes lacking in light but not completely black, the local dimming is insufficient and LCD technology's weaknesses exposed.

In terms of overall contrast in these scenes, good plasmas (particularly Pioneer's, with their massive REAL contrast numbers) will continually trounce LCDs. That is a fact, verified by professional readings and statistics of many AV publications. Even with relatively advanced (and expensive) application of the tech, LED sets cannont match the dimensionality and depth of a good plasma. If Pioneers can reach .001 ftL, then there is really almost no room for improvement. Even technological showcases like the XBR8 obviously don't dim on a pixel level. Because of the limits of the tech, and a small number of dimming zones, likely dictated by financial concerns, LED LCDs cannot attain Kuro quality blacks and produce as three dimensional a picture. Full black screen advantage aside (we're only considering actual performance here), LCD manufacturers can't possibly hope to compete because Pioneer, and hopefully soon, Panasonic too will have essentially achieved what is comparable to what I would nearly expect local dimming to look like on the pixel by pixel level.

After spending extensive amounts of time comparing local dimmed sets to top plasmas with the most demanding material, I simply can't believe that you either are ignorant of these performance inconsistencies or are intentionally misleading people. There really is no contest.

LEDs, and more importantly, local dimming, is trying to compensate for shortcomings that are characteristic of the tech.

As for the other stuff, viewing angles, motion, color saturation, I believe that the majority of the more educated members here on AVS, and the professional AV community in general, would agree that plasmas dominate almost all these areas.

The only lcds that can compete in motion resolution are local dimmed sets that also have 120, and soon, 240hz refresh rates (240 may be out already, but hasn't been combined effectively with local dimming yet to my knowledge). With the combined benefits of motion enhancers and the flicker introduced by tech like LED motion plus, yes, tvs like the 950 and XBR8 can achieve near perfect motion resolution. But that is not representative of the general consensus and the reality of the situation. In general, plasmas measure high motion resolution more akin to a good CRT. Certainly, there are exceptions. At the top, the two technologies are essentially deadlocked. However, you have to consider that this is with TWO new introductions from major lcd manufacturers that have only recently closed the gap. These functions must be ON or the lcds drop to normal, blurry levels. So overall, it would be almost ridiculous to claim that LCD has surpassed plasma in this regard.

When you say that color saturation can produce a problem in color accuracy for plasmas, unless that plasma is an "uber expensive Pioneer", I just couldn't really take that seriously. When you're asserting that lcds have met or surpassed plasma in many regards, yet the only LCDs that have supposedly been able to do this are MORE expensive than equivilent "uber expensive Pioneers", any statement following can't hold much weight for me. Panasonics, which perform better anyway, are much less expensive than local dimmed sets from Samsung and Sony just for your information.

I would specifically like to consider the below statement

"You appear to have lots of obsolete opinions that do not take into account the technological changes in the last two years. LCDs have made advances in motion resolution, contrast ratios, and black levels, while Plasmas are undergoing re-designs in an attempt to keep the technology viable under the new Energy Star 3.0 and California Tier 1 power efficiency standards."

You might appear to have obsolete opinions, if we really consider what the reality actually is. Yes, lcds have made strides in these areas, but at what cost? It definetely seems a high one (literally). Samsung and Sony have both been able to produce LED local dimmed sets that account for many of traditional lcd flaws, and that is a commendable achievement. It has been expensive though, and these impressive sets still fall short of the performance offered by better, more mature plasmas.

If the best criticism one can muster against plasma is that it might struggle to meet efficiency standards [potentially] put in place by the greenest, possibly most progressive state in the country, well...

If you're on AVS, you're probably primarily concerned with PQ. Power efficiency, while important, isn't even remotely of the same importance as performance. If it is, we're not having the same conversation anymore and we should probably stop conversing.

"In many cases the newer more-power-efficient plasmas offer worse video quality than the older models, and no options to turn off the new power-saving features causing the problems."

Are these "many cases" the Panasonics in particular? If that is the case, I think it's pretty well documented that the NeoPDPs are superior in almost every regard to the previous generation. Black level is lowered, light output is increased, and overall PQ is a step forward. If they have implemented more aggresive automatic dimming features, it hasn't affected professional reviewers and respected AVSers, who are nearly universal with praise for the new Panny lineup.

ABL is a reality. If you want to criticize it, be my guest. I won't deny that plasmas have limitations. It's just that I, and most of the AV community, don't regard this as a significant weakness comparable to LCD viewing angles, flashlighting ,etc...

If this sounded like a personal attack, that wasn't intended. As a member of AVS, I feel some responsibility to present what I feel is the most accurate and true info. Gary, you seem like a pretty unbiased guy, at least compared to most of the fanboys on the interwebz, but I just thought a counter argument was needed here. You don't have to believe me, but I am not a plasma or Kuro disciple. I've owned, and been satisfied with, many lcds (mostly from Samsung) and only want the best PQ. I honestly have no agenda other than finding, and telling others about, the best display technology.
post #50 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by aim120 View Post

now lcds with active LED baclight such as samsung 950 etc and XBR8 can show a black level of 0.0cd/m2.

No they cannot. It is currently impossible for an LCD to create a black level of 0 unless the entire backlight is turned off. Only OLED and ECC PDP are technically capable of this. Not even SED can do it
post #51 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

No they cannot. It is currently impossible for an LCD to create a black level of 0 unless the entire backlight is turned off. Only OLED and ECC PDP are technically capable of this. Not even SED can do it

well they can achieve 0.0 blackness,thats why we have local dimming LED ,they don't have to turn off the entire backlight to do this.
post #52 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by aim120 View Post

well they can achieve 0.0 blackness,thats why we have local dimming LED ,they don't have to turn off the entire backlight to do this.

That is a misconception. In between the LED backlight and the LCD panel is a diffuser plate that spreads light out laterally in all directions. This makes it impossible for the black level to reach zero unless the entire LED array is off.
post #53 of 179
Plasma has noisy picture. Go with LED if you watch Blu-rays.
post #54 of 179
I'm no expert so I could be wrong here, but aren't half of the evil, PQ destroying energy saving features implemented in the new Panasonics just limits applied to the standard picture profile, meaning you can disable most of them in about 5s?
post #55 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by st0nedpenguin View Post

I'm no expert so I could be wrong here, but aren't half of the evil, PQ destroying energy saving features implemented in the new Panasonics just limits applied to the standard picture profile, meaning you can disable most of them in about 5s?

You can't disable the built in brightness limiter. Hopefully next year's models will be bright enough.
post #56 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll Viper ll View Post

To claim that LED based LCDs have better black levels than plasmas is completely misrepresenting the technologies. I must question any opinion given after this because of its unqualified and obvious incorrectness. Having owned the best of both technologies, it is apparent to the discerning viewer that LEDs, and local dimming in particular, is a stop gap measure to improve upon LCD weaknesses that have already been addressed with plasma. Yes, local dimmed LED sets like the 950 from Samsung and the XBR8 from Sony CAN produce a .000 ftL reading, resulting in a completely black screen. Problem is, this ability means little in real world application. In mixed material, or in scenes lacking in light but not completely black, the local dimming is insufficient and LCD technology's weaknesses exposed.

on the whole plasma tvs of today cannot achieve 0.0cd/m2,lcd is a different technology,it needs a backlight to show us the image.whether it achieved 0.0 cd/m2 of black by the lcd pixels completly blocking or by playing with backlight,who cares it shows true blacks,and even if u take a look at conventional lcds with CCFL their blacks are as good as the latest plasmas,may not be as good as the pioneer kuro,but we know how much lcds have improved compared to even last year lcd ,it will surely surpass the plasma even with conventianal CCFL backlight or NON local dimming LEDs and againg local dimming led backlight will also be improved quite a lot.

Quote:


In terms of overall contrast in these scenes, good plasmas (particularly Pioneer's, with their massive REAL contrast numbers) will continually trounce LCDs. That is a fact, verified by professional readings and statistics of many AV publications. Even with relatively advanced (and expensive) application of the tech, LED sets cannont match the dimensionality and depth of a good plasma. If Pioneers can reach .001 ftL, then there is really almost no room for improvement. Even technological showcases like the XBR8 obviously don't dim on a pixel level. Because of the limits of the tech, and a small number of dimming zones, likely dictated by financial concerns, LED LCDs cannot attain Kuro quality blacks and produce as three dimensional a picture. Full black screen advantage aside (we're only considering actual performance here), LCD manufacturers can't possibly hope to compete because Pioneer, and hopefully soon, Panasonic too will have essentially achieved what is comparable to what I would nearly expect local dimming to look like on the pixel by pixel level.

lcd with conventional CCFL backlight can match the contrast of pioneer kuro,if not atleast they can match and sometimes exceed other plasma from panasonic and samsung.and if u want the link to the review i can gladly give it.

Quote:


After spending extensive amounts of time comparing local dimmed sets to top plasmas with the most demanding material, I simply can't believe that you either are ignorant of these performance inconsistencies or are intentionally misleading people. There really is no contest.

well they same can be said about plasma shortfalls,u may consider the shorfalls of lcds a significant factor for u to prefer a plasma,but there are plenty, infact majority of the people who prefer lcds.


Quote:


LEDs, and more importantly, local dimming, is trying to compensate for shortcomings that are characteristic of the tech.

is there a rule that manufactures should follow,they can alwaus use different methods to achive the same result,and BTW LEDs are the future,in 10years every light that would be in a car or any other lighting will mostly be a LED.

Quote:


As for the other stuff, viewing angles, motion, color saturation, I believe that the majority of the more educated members here on AVS, and the professional AV community in general, would agree that plasmas dominate almost all these areas.

well viewing angle of plasmas are indeed superior,but with current flat panel sizes i dont thing it will make any difference for the majority,since only after a certain angle will we see some contrast shift in lcds which is around 45degree from centre for a spva/amva based conventional backlight,and 40 degree for a local dimming LED backlight,and about 60 to 65 degree for a IPS based lcd,at those angles people won't even feel like watching be it crt ,plasma or a lcd.
And about motion resolution well majority can't see the difference in todays lcds like 120hz ,( many plasmas )with about 600lines of motion resolution and lcds with 240hz or some high end plasma that show full resolution.only man made devices can spot the difference,which is also said in many professional reviews.

Quote:


The only lcds that can compete in motion resolution are local dimmed sets that also have 120, and soon, 240hz refresh rates (240 may be out already, but hasn't been combined effectively with local dimming yet to my knowledge). With the combined benefits of motion enhancers and the flicker introduced by tech like LED motion plus, yes, tvs like the 950 and XBR8 can achieve near perfect motion resolution. But that is not representative of the general consensus and the reality of the situation. In general, plasmas measure high motion resolution more akin to a good CRT. Certainly, there are exceptions. At the top, the two technologies are essentially deadlocked. .

well again not all plasma have an edge over lcds and vice versa,but then u must remember there are a vast majority who prefer the way lcds show the image and various other factors who dont mind paying for those ubber expensive tvs.well

Quote:


However, you have to consider that this is with TWO new introductions from major lcd manufacturers that have only recently closed the gap. These functions must be ON or the lcds drop to normal, blurry levels. So overall, it would be almost ridiculous to claim that LCD has surpassed plasma in this regard

well again not all plasma out there have achieved full motion resolution and isnt that good that lcds manufacture gave the user the option to switch it on and off.


Quote:


You might appear to have obsolete opinions, if we really consider what the reality actually is. Yes, lcds have made strides in these areas, but at what cost? It definetely seems a high one (literally). Samsung and Sony have both been able to produce LED local dimmed sets that account for many of traditional lcd flaws, and that is a commendable achievement. It has been expensive though, and these impressive sets still fall short of the performance offered by better, more mature plasmas.

well even lcds with conventional CCFL backlight have improved a lot in enerfy efficiency like the sony WE5 series which has a HECCFL or highly efficient CCFL.


Quote:


ABL is a reality. If you want to criticize it, be my guest. I won't deny that plasmas have limitations. It's just that I, and most of the AV community, don't regard this as a significant weakness comparable to LCD viewing angles, flashlighting ,etc...

well thats agan there are also equal or majority of the AV community that don't regard viewing angles,etc as a significant weakness compared to the weakness of plasma,all these are subjective.

Quote:


If this sounded like a personal attack, that wasn't intended. As a member of AVS, I feel some responsibility to present what I feel is the most accurate and true info.

same way this again is not a personal attack,but i feel it has a constructive discussion.
both tech have their strengths and weakness,so u have to choose whats best for U.
post #57 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

That is a misconception. In between the LED backlight and the LCD panel is a diffuser plate that spreads light out laterally in all directions. This makes it impossible for the black level to reach zero unless the entire LED array is off.

well yes but i havent seen any reviews of my knowledge that critize it,or they may have used a newer form of LEDs with built in diffusers.
post #58 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by aim120 View Post

well yes but i havent seen any reviews of my knowledge that critize it,or they may have used a newer form of LEDs with built in diffusers.

The discussion is about technology, not the reviews that you read. If you wish to continue to cite professional reviews please do so with examples and not vague references.

As it is now, you are telling us what someone else said... without telling who the someone was, or what they actually said... just that whoever they are supports your opinion.
post #59 of 179
This...is funny. Wasn't the whole point the OP asked was to get guidance in a very simplistic form? Like me, I think he just wants to watch TV with a good picture! When I want to argue or examine specs, I'll stick with computers. I don't want that in a TV, and neither do a lot of people. Just give us something with a REALLY good picture, that works.

Mine you, this is coming from someone with a Toshiba 34" wide direct-view CRT, bought in '02 because, "There's no way flat-panel tech will drop to the price level that CRTs took 25 years to reach in less than 5 years..."
post #60 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy Jollimore View Post

This...is funny. Wasn't the whole point the OP asked was to get guidance in a very simplistic form? Like me, I think he just wants to watch TV with a good picture! When I want to argue or examine specs, I'll stick with computers.

Of course this is the AV Science forum... So specs and detail are to be expected here when people discuss displays. I'm the reverse, I could now care less about PC specs and related arguments. Of course I won't be having my PC discussions at www.xtremesystems.org .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home