CRT vs DLP, RP HDTV, Plasma? Which is best? - Page 3  

I've enjoyed reading Rich's posts too, but his love of the Plasma tech does not gel w/other consumer reports, and this has me perplexed. Consumer mags have stated that the best PQ is STILL from Tubes, and Tubes STILL give the biggest bang for the buck in 2004.

Then again, when you go on the Plasma Forum, all these informed people that USED to be Tube lovers like us are raving about their Plasma screens. What the hell gives?? Who are we to believe?? I'd greatly appreciate some answers and input on this dilemma.

I will tell you what I think the answer is. Too many "consumer reports" have not taken enough time to really get the settings right to really show off what the Plasma screens can do. When I first received my Plasma a few weeks ago, I wasn't really getting the "wow" I was hoping to have and Analog SD was just Attrocious. But, I took the time and over a weeks period of concentration of working with the settings. I have picture quality that gives me that "WOW" feeling and I now feel my analog SD looks better than all the three CRTs I own. The thing is, the Plasmas can look like crap, and they can look really good. It's finding the correct settings that seperate the two.

Hammer

Panasonic makes a great EDTV Plasma. Noboby else does. Fujitsu makes a great 50-inch plasma. Nobody else does. Both of these displays while great do not give the resolution of the Sony 34XBR 910, but the Fujitsu is close. Since the Fujitsu is 50-inches you might could make the point that it delivers a better Home Theater Experience. I'd say that if you took the basic tube that was better than 75% of the tubes and matched it against the basic plasma that was better than 75% of the plasmas that the tube would be slightly better. Plasmas are getting better though. Only the Panasonic and the Fujitsu do a great job with black level and tubes are still slightly better in that regard. The only plasmas that I would want would be the Panasonic 42-inch EDTV Plasma and the Fujitsu 50-inch HD plasma. If forced to pick between a Fujitsu 50-inch HD plasma and the Sony 34XBR910, even though I wish the 910 was larger I would still pick it because the TV runs nearly 20 hours a day at my house and the tube would be more durable than the plasma. The only other display that is any good in my opinion is the Mitsubishi 73713 with 9-inch guns, calibrated and in a light controlled environment because it has more resolution than any other RP CRT. So basically I like the Sony 34XBR910, the Sony 40XBR800, the Fujitsu P50 Plasmam the Panasonic EDTV Plasma, and the Mitsubishi 73713 RP CRT. I think that all other displays are inferior. If I had to choose among all 5 I would choose the Misubishi 73713 for the simple fact that 73 inches would give the best Home Theater experience. The best value for the money and the perfect bridge transition TV among these 5 is without a doubt--the Sony 40XBR800--buy them while they last and join the International Crusade for more and bigger Direct-view CRTs!!!

I think that view is a bit narrow, but I certainly agree that those two sets are at or near the top of the heap in their respective categories. I think that is the concensus of most of the plasma forum as well. Certainly the Fujitsu 42" EDTV is at least as good (if not better than the panasonic) and the 50" Panny, new Sony, Pioneer, and NEC are all very good as well. Again with the concensus that the AMV processing on the Fujitsu's is what makes the extra difference (ie their superior electronics and scaling circuits). It's also the reason they sell for a $2k+ premium over the 50" panny (which would be my choice- the commercial model- in the 50" arena).

Well, it really depends on your source. If you look at the HT mags, plasmas do very well in comparisons with other technologies (even the CRT holy grail). Then rags like 'consumer reports' put out total trash reviews (or the like of CNet or TechTV). Many times these reviews are not done properly, are subjective, and/or are filled with down right inaccuracies and/or dubious conclusions. I agree it's good to be skeptical and really the best choice-maker is your own eyes. The catch though is you really should be looking at a well calibrated set in the conditions you will view it to make that decision (which is a good point on the part of Hammer69)- that is critcial between something looking good, and it looking like crap, even on the best sets out there. Some of the set (like the Pio Elite and other even more wildly expensive 'pro-sumer' brands like Runco and Farouja) come ISF calibrated out of the box, but most do not and you will need to tweak. Unfortunately for just going out and seeing them, B&M stores are notoriously bad with the settings and feeds to TV and that makes a direct comparision difficult without access to sources and the TV's calibration menu!

As a CRT lover I can respect a plasma lover. I don't know what rear projection LCD supporters see. RP CRT isn't very bright. DLP is bright but hasn't ironed out its problems and flat panel LCD suffers from smearing in terms of motion. Though I think DLP has great potential and may really start getting there with the next generation I think for right now that GREAT Plasma and GREAT CRT is where it is at in regards to picture quality. That's why I'm always campaigning for larger size when it comes to CRT and lower price when it comes to plasma. These seem to be the two technologies shortcomings. DLP isn't there yet. but does have huge potential.

cajieboy,

You seem to be in the same state of confusion I was when trying to decide which display to upgrade to a couple years ago. You read one thing from the pros, another from smitten consumers on a forum like this, and then your eyes tell you another story when you see the displays for yourself.
That's why I never say "X display is best," and instead only report the reasons I like a certain display (and also throw in reasons others like it too).

As far as "tubes are best" the reason you hear that a lot is that in some important ways it's true. You probably know that no display technology yet can jump through all the NTSC calibration hoops as easily as CRT. Certainly black levels are one of those major hoops in which CRT still reigns supreme. So every other technology is trying to play catch up to CRT which is why it's held as the gold standard. (Remember too that NTSC video standards - the ones used to grade and calibrate any display type - were created for CRT).

The things is, because this is such a plain fact it tends to take precedent over what some of the new technologies bring to the table: the impact of digital displays with such things as perfect focus and geometry, perfectly flat screens at larger sizes than any tube set. It all brings up the fact that "video image quality" has now diverged. Video image quality used to only refer to CRT-type images. Now we have to consider the look of a whole host of new technologies - Plasma, DLP, LCOS, LCD etc - that bring their own characteristics to an image; characteristics that aren't yet really quantified as well by tests as they are by simply viewing them.

About three years ago when I first encountered a good plasma (Panasonic 3UY...first plasma to achieve the picture quality you see today) I found it had a different look than I'd seen from CRT or projection technologies. It's combination of attributes made for what to me was a sort of palpable realism that I'd never felt from previous displays. Yet I'd read the AV mags that told me CRT produced the best picture quality, I'd go back and test the best tube sets I could find, then the plasma, and nothing made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck like the plasma. It brought my DVDs alive with a window-on-life feeling I just couldn't get from the other displays.

A lot of people feel the same way. A lot of people still feel a CRT tube set is better. I do think for pure image quality - richness of contrast, naturalness of color, ease of viewing angles - CRT is the best bang for the buck. And the Sony XBR910 has among the best Hi-Def images I've ever seen. But even if the XBR910 slightly edges out a Fujitsu 50" plasma in some parameters (ultimate resolution, lower gray scale etc), the Fujitsu plasma still has incredible picture quality. And the fact that picture quality is perfectly flat, perfectly focused, has perfect geometry and comes in 50" glorious inches of that stellar quality it creates an image experience the 910 just can't match. I watched a Hi-Def hockey game on the Sony XBR910 (and Loewe Aconda) and on a Fujitsu P50 plasma. The Sony was like watching an incredibly great TV, whereas the 50" plasma had a I-am-there feeling, like looking through a window from my own private box seat, that the smaller Sony just couldn't achieve at 34."

I"ve also found the very lates generation of LCD flat panels, especially the 30" Sony, have certain qualities that are virtually unmatched (at least in a well lit room, where the weaknesses of the panel don't detract). On certain Hi-Def material, and even some DVDs, the LCDs can have a combination of sharpness, directness and density that is astounding. An image of a marble sculpture, for instance, can look so perfectly "there" and marble-like in quality it's like I could reach in and touch it. It's a level of palpability that I've rarely seen from any display type. (Although I could go on about the problems with LCD too...)

So the line you tend to get from AV gurus are the objective facts on how accurately each display performs on standard tests. And I'm very adamant about the value of such tests, as I don't propose pure subjectivity in discussing image quality. But, in this ever growing garden of visual technology, there are combinations of intangible or neglected factors that often go un-discussed in the subject of picture quality. Which is why a picky consumer should judge for himself.

Forgive my babbling. On with the thread.

Thanks Rich, I enjoy visiting the Plasma Forum from time to time, and as I plan a future upgrade to a larger screen size than my current 40XBR, it's been informative to say the least.

Cajieboy: Hang with the Sony 40XBR 800 as ong as you can, but when you do buy plasma either buy a fujitsu or a panasonic. They really are the best! If you can wit just a little while prices will drop for them and they will one day change from 1366X768 to 1920X1080! Right now it seems like 50inches is the best size--larger than that the displays aren't as bright. All of these things are subject to change though. If it were up to me I'd wait until 2006 at the earliest! Maybe you'll get a good deal on one then. Good Luck! You own one of the greatest CRTs of all time Here's hoping that you will one day do just as well with a plasma!

Wait at least two years before you even consider buying a plasma. By then, maybe the prices will be down to Earth and the quality will be a lot better than what it is now.

To get a decent Plasma, you have to easily break the $5000 barrier, and that just isn't worth it.

I'd still tell you to lean towards OLED, LCOS, and DLP first before going plasma, but...a year or two could really change the whole landscape anyways...

"I'd still tell you to lean towards OLED, LCOS, and DLP first before going plasma, but...a year or two could really change the whole landscape anyways..."

I respect your opinion Q of BanditZ. That's cool. If you like DLP etc better I wouldn't argue. But, this is a thread about what we recommend to others
and why, to which I'd add:

Given the experience of those who have switched from DLP to plasma, I certainly can't agree about recommending "go DLP over plasma" for picture quality.

From a recent thread on whether to go DLP or Plasma, former DLP owners unanimously have preferred the plasma to their DLP. I think it's relavent as these are owners who have lived with each technology, vs someone who has only looked at them in a store. Each of these quotes are from different former DLP owners who've switched to plasma:


Another who replaced his DLP with plasma, talks about the DLP:

Another:

Another guy:

Another:

And this about an LCD RPTV experience:


So, I'd say there are good reasons why plasma can be preferable to DLP.
Some of the guys above own the Panny ED plasma, which they prefer to their DLP, and which you can easily find for under $3,000 (it's listed at $2,700 at one reputable on-line dealer right now). That, and my own experience with the ED plasma, contradicts the idea that you need to spend over $5,000 for a plasma or "it just isn't worth it."

Food for thought...

(And I happen to really like DLP! Maybe there are some who have switched from owning a good plasma to DLP and preferred DLP. But I've yet to see anyone who has.).

I would suggest an edtv plasma also

However, I would suggest the daewoo dp42sm plasma diplsay.

It is an excellent 42" edtv plasma and its current msrp is down around $2500!

In my opionion this is even better than the commercial/industrial panny edtv plasma when it comes to watching non-hdtv. Granted the panny does better downconversion from actual HD sources, but not by much.

doing a side by side comparison, the daewoo does the best analog/digital cable to 480p conversion Ive seen on any plasma display

So, if your main television experience is digital cable/satellite and DVD, I would say the daewoo is the best option for you.

Incredible.

Well, in any event, I don't know anyone can recommend EDTV of any kind. Why spend $2500+ on a half way step? Plasma or not?

No offense to anyone, but that just makes no sense, especially when you can buy fully integreated HD sets now for easily lower than that price, although you'll have to go tube. But the picture will be better.

Performance is ultimately what we buy TV's for...isn't it?

;)

Q,

Size does matter though. I own the 40XBR and can't imagine getting a smaller screen no matter what the performance. In fact, I want a much larger screen. Anything less than what I already own would appear almost "tiny" in comparison. When your aim is to get great PQ AND a large screen over 40", you have left the realm of Tubes and enter into a whole new ball game. IMO, at the top of the lineup in large screens are Plasma TV's.

Daewoo plasma EDTV's black level is horrible. Unless we are referring to different model, otherwise, I will never recommend the Daewoo 42" Plasma EDTV to anyone. Go check at Bestbuy to see how horrible the black level is on this TV. It doesn't have black at all.

"Performance is ultimately what we buy TV's for...isn't it?"

As a fellow video nut I agree, if by that you mean how a display actually looks playing the content people watch on it.

Most people buy displays based upon the best image that can fit into their situation, and based upon their subjective assessment of the total viewing experience a display provides. Tube sets are great, but their limited size means they can't provide the larger, more cinematic feel that you can get with a plasma, which many find more involving.

Nor can my plasma provide the "I-am-at-the-theater" experience I get at my friend's place with his front projector set up. Yet, as happy as he is with a big projector, he lfinds himself amazed by the image quality things my plasma can do that his projector can not (in terms of sheer realism, vividness and palpability to the image).

Which means that generalizations like "a tube picture will look better than plasma," or "DLP is better than CRT RPTV" or "Plasma is better than LCD" aren't very useful or particularly accurate. It depends on the aspect of performance that proves most valuable to the individual.

*takes big draw on peace pipe >cough< passes it around to his fellow videophiles...*
Cheers,

I am referring to the daewoo dp-42sm, yes this is the one (the only daewoo plasma) on display ay bestbuy.

It has 600 cd/m and a contrast ratio of 3000:1

Have you tried messing with the adjustments or are you speaking from just what youve seen on one display with the way BB had it adjusted?

I never even had mine calibrated, just dropped the contrast and made a few adjustments to some of the other settings and the picture is wonderful! Black level is near perfect.
I can only imagine how good this display could look if the proper tweaks were performed in the service menu because it is absolutely stunning even without.

Well, if you watch mostly SD (which alot of us do) The ED plasma will look better than an HD. (SD upconverted to 480p looks alot better than SD upconverted to 1080i)

I like to watch what I like to watch, I cant understand why someone would spend 5K+ and let the display dictate what they watch.

The REAL competition will start when DLP goes to 1080p, adds another segment to its wheel, and increases its contrast ratio--when mighty Intel actually does produce LCoS worth watching--and who knows about OLED, SXRD, or SED? Plasma may be closest to matching some long standing CRT standards, but eventually it will face competition. Late 2006 will be when we start separating the men from the boys--everything will be HDMI then and sattellite and cable will be able to deliver it so it really will get down to who offers the best picture. Won't that be nice?

And that will be the time to consider jumping on this bandwagon...especially when the prices will be a lot more reasonable than they are now.

I can't believe how freakin' good the DLP projectors look already, let alone how the next gen is going to perform. I do see rainbows in the lower priced ones, and only occasional rainbows in the better ones (probably to vanish next gen).

For some reason I don't notice rainbows on the DLP RPTVs.

I'll believe it when I see a DLP - consumer or commercial - that doesn't crush blacks to the point where shadow detail is completely absent.

I figure if they can't do it in $50K commercial DLP units intended for theatres as film projector replacements, it won't be happening in home units any time soon...

R Harkness, Do you know of a smaller version of your Panny ED plasma? I was here thinking about a Zenith 34" HDTV but you made your Plasma sound very enticing. My biggest limitation is size--it has to fit in a wall unit that has a 39" wide opening, so I need something smaller than yours. Do you know of such a model that is current, or have any guess of how much I can expect to pay for such a model?

Thanks much.

Wow, you'd really consider buying an EDTV over a fully-integrated HDTV?

<jaw drops to the floor>

I'm not Rich, but Panasonic makes a 37" version, the TH-37PWD6UY, which is just over 36 inches wide (24.2" High w/stand x 36.2" Wide x 3.5" Deep). It can be found for around $2500 or so. It doesn't have a tuner but would still be a great alternative to a 34" tube TV if you can get by with only 2 inputs. I seriously considered the 37" and 42" ED Pannys several months ago but i just don't need one. Want, yes. Need, no. Ummph.

I'm always amused over people that stick to that "just an EDTV, not real HD" attitude. Seriously, HD is just more resolution. That's ALL it's got over an ED.

My DLP projector is 800x600. OH MY GOD NOT HD!! OH MY GOD!! Why did I buy something so pointless?


But you know what, not all of us are resolution-obsessed, and shoot for other aspects of the display that are more important. And HD still looked kick-ass on my X1 for as long as I had it (then I ebayed it, I don't watch enough TV).


I'd rather have better black levels than more resolution (one thing the Panny 42inchers had going for them). I watch mostly DVDs and play videogames on my X1 anyway. Resolution is only useful for HD broadcasts. Black levels, viewing angle, etc, are good for all video sources and material.

Q of BanditZ,
have you been reading this thread at all??? From what I see here, it seems the Panny ED upconverts SDTV better than the HD sets do, and I have 20 years of videos and dvds that I am not going to trash just because networks may broadcast SOME shows I like in the next year or 2 . . . and even if they do, they should still look pretty good on the ED Plasma. Besides, the cost differential is a BIG factor--I am not even sure I can afford the ED model. I am just im a look see stage now, at least until after the TV repair guy gets here next week and I see if my current SDTV can be fixed. Remember, I havent ruled out the Zeniths yet, or looked at the Sony Direct Views yet either. Cost will be a big factor in all of this.

Andy,
The size on that sounds good . . . and I dont need a tuner--I have cable going through an AV home theater system. Just 2 inputs? That could be a problem though. My current SDTV has something like 6, which is handy--cable boxes in 2, home theater in one (s-video), and computer in one when I want to use it as an extra monitor. I will have to see if I can do with less.

One question on size--when watching 4:3 shows, what would be the equivalent screen size in a SDTV model? Would I be correct in guessing that the height of the image would be about the same as on a 27" TV?.

Thanks for your input!

For TV viewing comparisons, check out this link:

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

Wow, very kewl site. Thanks!!

Actually i think you can configure it to have 3 video inputs plus a fixed computer input. Two of the video inputs are in the form of plug-in video input boards commonly called blades (there are two slots to insert the two blades). You can get optional blades with either composite inputs or component inputs among others. There is also a fixed 15-pin D-sub connector that i *think* can be used as a 3rd video input (maybe as component only), plus a fixed "RS-232C" input that i *think* can be used to connect to your computer for use as a monitor. I'm not sure how these two fixed inputs work, but you can investigate them further with the help of the guys on the Plasma forum ;)

On the Business and Professional section of the Panasonic home page you get a pdf file of the Operating Manual that shows everything including the available inputs.

The manual also covers the 42" version which has 3 slots, but the 37" has only two so remember that when you see 3 slots in the manual.

Here's the link:

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...el=TH-37PWD6UY