Why do most go for an LED when Plasmas have better PQ? - Page 3

i was a big plasma fan for years panny 42 px80 42pz80 65gt30 and i now have a sony 55 hx929. i love the sony the picture is more exciting than any of the plasma's i have owned and yes the plasma's were isf calibrated.

I've lifted both the UN60C6300 (LCD) and PN59D8000 (Plasma) sets, both thin design, and the plasma's a bit heavier. From the manuals weights without and with stands:

C6300:
68.3 Ibs (31.0 kg)
83.6 Ibs (37.9 kg)

D8000:
77.2 lbs (35.0 kg)
84.4 lbs (38.3 kg)

As I'm looking for a new Tv the issue is timely. While I like the picture on a plasma I watch a lot of cnbc and kids like videogames so burn in is a concern; also, the plasmas seem to throw off large amounts of heat...just walk by the displays in any store. In a small room this would be a dealbreaker.

Don't base your decisions on something you hear people repeating that was really only valid many years ago.

I'm not saying you should go get a plasma, but neither of your points really apply to modern plasmas. Given that new plasmas don't use anymore power than LCDs, they also don't put off any more heat, either. I've had PCs that could heat a room, but a TV that uses $20-$30 of electricity per year simply isn't capable of heating up a room significantly.

And the motion in video games looks better on plasmas.

... Although if I was going to spend half the time watching CNBC, I think the logo persisting for a little bit would freak me out.

Completely agree and it's why I never completely listen to them. It was learning how they sell TVs and why people are picking what they do. I thought LEDs were the end all because well, that's what everyone was talking about. It took actually watching a plasma to realize that there was more to life! If I could, I'd buy both. The Plasma for a basement and a LED for a living room. However, I live in a fraternity house and don't own a home. It's a tough choice when you want it to be large but at the same time accurate. I think after reading the thread I'm convinced on the 70 inch LED again, I'm only on page 26 but I'll be done soon.

But ya to answer the OPs question, it's like why did people rush to DDR2 and DDR3 ram when it first came out even though it was worse than the current ram available? It was the latest new thing and people want things that are new to brag to their friends that they have the best. People sometimes forget their needs and are suckered in by a price or the newness of a technology and rarely shop around for the best price.

OLED smokes both technologies without even trying. The only weakness OLED will have is price.

and lifespan although it is not as bad as it used to be

I get mild IR on my 2010 plasma, although after the first couple hundred hours of watching it, the IR became even more mild. It doesn't really bother me and goes away in 1-2 minutes.

Interestingly enough, I just replaced my 4 year old LCD monitor (A 22" Hanns-G) with a new LG IPS monitor. The Hanns-G had burn in on it. It wasn't noticeable all the time, but on some screens it was really easy it to see it.

Plasmas do not have the best picture quality and this is coming from someone who had all plasma TVs bought a vt30 only to be like what is up with this picture then ro buy the Sony led 929 only to be blown away so plasmas have reached the end of their life and are not as good period

lol

FWIW, My 2007 Dell 24" P-VA LCD has burn-in as well.


Seriously. What's up with the influx of people who can't use a period or form proper sentence structure in this forum? Are they kids? This forum needs some sort of intelligence test to gain entry.

Right. That's probably it. Please.

Some of the criteria her are downright funny seeing as we are on a video enthusiast forum. Who cares about power consumption? Since when does that matter? Image quality reigns supreme. All other priorities are expendable, as Ash would say in the movie Alien Power use is trivial no matter what and if you are that tight budget wise or that environmentally sappy, then you shouldn't even buy a TV. Weight is another one I don't get. Huh? What? What's the point of worrying about that?

LCDs have made some solid progress over the years but the fact that they are still being compared to 3-4 year old KUROS says something about plasma, doesn't it? In brightly lit rooms there is no doubt that an LED is your best bet. However, how much TV are people really watching on sunny, bright days? Go outside and get some fresh air. At night, when I suspect more TV is watched, that's where the plasmas still hold a slight, if smaller than ever edge in PQ. It's much closer than its ever been. Everyone has to assess their own situation. Just don't fall for the gimmicks and lies, like burn in being a wide spread problem. Both techs can and do produce some great images.

And let's stop worrying about pointless nonsense like power use and weight. C'mon guys.....

I prefer the PQ from either the Sony 929 or Sharp Elites to the Kuro or VT30. The black levels are as good, grayscale and color is excellent and the picture on the local dimming LCD's is more dimensional and detailed. And yes, all of this stuff is calibrated except for the Elite.

Plasma has the obvious advantage of viewing angle (and price in the case of the VT30), but the top end local dimming LCD's are exceptional and offer, IMHO, better PQ within their viewing angle.

Once you drop into non-local dimming LCD's, you have a tradeoff of dimensionality and vividness against black level and uniformity. I can understand things being not as clear cut there.

Technology moves on. If OLED can overcome the practical concerns (life, IR & cost) then it will be top dog.

Obviously the Sony 929 ($2220 for 46", $2500 for 55") and Sharp Elite ($4530 for 60", $6700 for 70") are great TVs, but they also cost twice as much as the best plasmas.


Is there anything even remotely comparable in the price range of a Panasonic VT30/ST50 -- great TVs that you can get for about $1250 for a 50" and $1500 for a 55"?


I'm not stuck on plasma. But I'm looking for a new TV in about two months for a small apartment without a lot of bright lights. It needs a good enough viewing angle that I'm not pissed off to see it from the kitchen at a 45-degree angle. It has to be bigger than my last 46" TV, but more than 55" would be asinine for a 500 sq. ft. apartment.

So I'm probably going to get a Panasonic 50ST50.

I have a first gen 60inch kuro but want to get a new tv this year either the 65es8000 Samsung led or the 65vt50 I have controlled lighting in my living room so I don't know which one I should get and if it is really going to be that much better than my kuro.

Right. Plasma stands still, LCd moves on. 2011 Sharp Elite Pro LCd is the first flatscreen which is considered to be 2008/2009 Pioneer Elite Kuro's Plasma equal. Expect more LCd's with Sharp Elite Pro's PQ next few years. Expect very little improvement in non-KURO Plasma PQ.

If OLED can overcome the practical concerns then it will be top dog''

Well, they are both Elites and the LED-LCD Elite was meant to be the successor to the Plasma Elite.

Even the Sharp Elite has poor viewing angles and blooming artifacts, according to CNET.

Fair points. The 929 and Sharp elite are the top offerings from each company and I'd expect them to beat out relatively old sets. The issue, from what I've seen out there is the middle or low middle price range sets just aren't cutting it. The best LEDs or LCDs are very solid. The rest seem mostly bleh to me and can't beat my four year old KURO. I agree that technology does move on and what was hot years ago is slowly falling to the back of the pack. It's a minefield out there right now for those that are replacing KURO quality sets because we apparently have to be willing to spend HUGE money to make upgrades worth it. My current set is 50 inches and I'd like to get something in the 65-70 inch range. From what I've seen, I'm looking at $5k to do that. Yikes.

OLED I'm afraid seems to have a long way to go. I hope not. Just a long way off before they are down in price. Plus, no one will likely touch the first gen units for obvious reasons.

The title of the thread was always going to cause out of hand arguments and people insulting one an other.

Don't see the point in any of it really.

Aaron

People have been saying that for 10 years. Samsung said at CES they have a 55" one coming this Spring, but Spring starts in 9 days and I don't see a firm date or MSRP anywhere.

Just because Samsung is efficiently cranking out 4" OLED screens doesn't mean anybody's going to have a big one in their house anytime soon.

The Sharp Elite Pro is a Sharp product. Sharp bought the Elite Pro name, thats basicly all there is to it.

If you took the time to read his post instead of a knee jerk response, you'd see he actually got honest and correct information.

If I had to guess, it has a lot to do with Dynamic/Vivid mode in store showrooms and salespeople telling customers that LED TVs are brighter than other technologies.

For folks trying to make a quick and painless TV purchase, "brighter" certainly equals "better" because of how much more the picture pops on the LED tvs in a showroom compared to the dimmer, hazier looking plasma sets.

Right nor wrong, I think that's the majority of it. People are drawn like moths to a flame...to a flame!!!

A good way of comparing the position of the Sharp Elite versus Panasonic's 2011 flagship plasma - the VT30 - I could buy 3 65" VT30s for the price of one 70" Elite! Everyone has to do that same cost/benefit analysis when shopping for a TV. Is the increase in pq of the Elite worth 3X the price over the VT30?

Use cases can be made for going either way, but certainly is your life going to be better for having the best showcase TV, or 3 spectacular in its own right VT30s?

An interesting post but one thing I don't understand is your complaint about high quality tvs being expensive. The Kuro wasn't exactly cheap when it was being sold.

"Why do most go for an LED when Plasmas have better PQ?"

This is a very ignorant statement. I can easily argue that plasmas don't have better PQ. While plasmas do look better with dark content, they perform poorly with bright content. There are many reasons to not get a plasma: power consumption, heat, buzzing, burn-in, flickering, fuzzyness, ABL and list goes on.

Also I would say plasmas are pretty bad choice for gaming. Main reason is burn-in, flickering and ABL. All of these will gradually make you hate plasma for games more and more, since majority of games tend to be much brighter than movies. My eyes get tired extremely fast if I use plasma for gaming, and ABL just makes bright games look horrible.

Clearly you're a biased LCD fan.

I've been gaming on a Vizio 50" for about 4 years now. It was my primary monitor for my PC and I've yet to have any burn-in, let along flickering or fuzzyness. My current Samsung plasma is now my primary monitor for my PC. I've played Skyrim for 4+ hours straight, numerous times recently, and I have yet to see any burn-in.

PQ is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. I prefer the plasma, but I'm not trying to burn my eyeballs out with "bright content" whatever that is, I'd just turn the backlight/cell level down anyways. I am a film fan and the plasma beats heck out of the LCDs I had/exchanged, (a Samsung UN60C6300 for a Samsung PN59D8000. It handles motion better, better black levels, color accuracy and just has better overall PQ. Most importantly my plasma has a uniform screen in dark scenes, with no flashlighting/clouding/blooming (which was the primary reason I got rid of the LCD).

Power consumption is only a bit more than current LCDs, not a big worry, no more a worry than leaving your various electronics around your house on in standby when not in use IMHO. I've got no IR/burn-in, buzzing, flickering, ABL or heat or other issues. I do use my set more to watch film than anything else, so that's the most important thing to me. I also don't display static images for long, and while that can be a concern, I've had no IR/burn-in issues at all when I've done so although some sets still have issues. I'm not a dedicated gamer, though I did play some GT5 last night on the PS3 and it was great; I'm not using my set as a computer monitor, either.

A good friend of mine just got an LCD set and for his viewing environment and habits, it's a great choice for him. It wouldn't be for me. YMMV.

Clearly you know nothing about me. I have a 51" plasma, so tell me how does that make me a biased LCD fan? If not being blind to and admitting numerous drawbacks of Plasma technology makes me a biased LCD fan then so be it, better that than living in denial.