Need help deciding.

Are Fords better than Chevys?

Buy what looks good to you. Many issues may be to subtle for you to care about. Major brands will probably hold up better than off-brands but there are no guarantees. The look of the housing was every bit as important to my wife than the image of the screen. She hated the shiney black of the Sharp, we bought a Sony.

Get the most dots, on the largest screen for the least amount of money. But most of the video sources can't drive the 1080P screens with real data so the TV makes up the missing dots. This is the source of most "image" issues. High dot data is coming so if you only want to buy one set for the next 10 years, but 1080P but tolerate the image imperfections.

With all the technologies, there is something wrong with them all, just like manufacturers.

Enjoy your choice.

DB

Forget LCD, get a Pioneer or Panasonic plasma and never look back!

Hey Elemental1,

You slammed in the other post regarding plasma. First, I have been in the flat panel industry since 1984 (yep, 1984). The actual display element in plasma emits light. The actual display element in a LCD shutters light from the CCFL (hey, did you know that the CCFL is actually a plasma type light source). Anyway anything that emits light will emit less light. Even the CCFL will emit less light. It is just that it will not emit less light in a data pattern (like the CRT or plasma).

I am certain you like plasma and I have no real opinion. If you read my post correctly, I spelled out how the plasma mfgs have corrected the image retention issues with plasmas.

But please, I actually do know what I am talking about.

DB

You're right about the light issue, plasmas and CRTs "paint" light directly on phosphors which gives them a very deep, rich look -- a quasi-three- dimensional sense of depth in a two- dimensional image -- with many program sources, particularly dramatically lit motion pictures.

LCDs and DLPs produce a much flatter and less movie-like picture than plasmas, but they do, as you say crank out more lumens. My question is, what's the point? The first thing that happens in calibrating any big screen -- plasma, LCD flat panel or rear-projector -- is a drastic reduction in the ridiculous brightness levels all the manufacturers use in their default settings.

Virtually every set on the market, regardless of display technolgy, has the ability to produce twice the brightness necessary to totally washout picture highlights and destroy any semblance of a quality image. So who cares if you can spew as much light out of an LCD as they used to shoot the movie, when it will be three times as bright you need to watch the movie.

A plasma and an LCD adjusted for optimum viewing in any ambient light condition will be almost identically bright. Depending on user preference that may be very bright or very dim, but it will be the same. (And the plasma will have the better picture at all viewing angles.)

With those plasma facts, you don't seem to.

I would have to respectfully disagree with this statement. Simply buying the TV "with the most dots" will, IMO, not give the best picture quality. It has been proven, again and again, that a plain Panasonic EDTV plasma, with its "low" resolution, will yeild a much better PQ than the typical cheapo 1080i/1080p LCDs, proving that resolution is only a small variable in what makes a good television display.

As for getting the "largest screen possible", again, I must say that this is not necessarily the best advice. At a typical 9-10 ft viewing distance, for example, getting a 50+" screen over, say, a 42", will only emphasize image flaws (signal compression, de-interlacing/scaling artifacts, etc.,) which will be detrimental to the overall PQ. IMO, people need to choose a screen size based on viewing distance, not based upon what their wallet can support.

No offense. Simply stating my personal opinion

This is what I've been thinking to get. Are the Samsung plamas good too? The one thing that's been making it hard to decide is the burn-in issue with a plasma. I don't want to have to baby a tv.

Then get the Panasonic if that is your big worry.
It is not an issue.

There are issues with all of the technologies. To deny that... is... being in denial. Are LCD perfect??? Heck know. Are plasmas? Nope, they have issues too. They are just different. DLP? LCOS? Are any of these technologies without sin... nope.

Buy what you like to look at today. With Moore's law, you will certainly be buying something that could/will be obsolete in 2 years. You can't win this battle. You will be looking at this set for hours a day, for years to come. If you don't like it now, you won't like it later.

My comment regarding "more dots" is merely the fact that since the US gov't. will mandate a 1080P/I world, this is where the "content" is going (real HD stations, Blueray, etc). I went with 1080P and is "suffering" with low information content media knowing that it will get better. I only want to buy one set for the next ten years. And that was my only motivation for buy 1080P LCD. Plasmas on lower information medias, do look better. But can they ever get to 1080P dot pitch... I don't think so. Plasma industry... prove me wrong.

DB

Again DBLASS,

Your facts are in question.
No HD by 2009....just digital is required.
Panasonic plasmas do NOT have a burn in issue.
You can deny that all you want but we owners KNOW it.

The "perfect tv" you seek does not exist. There absolutely are a lot of good lcd and plasma sets on the market. However, if you scan through the LCD and Plasma threads in this forum, you will discover that both technologies have their share of issues and problems. Some of these are real problems while others are misunderstandings or failed expectations. This may frighten you. But keep in mind that in most cases, each time you read about a problem another poster praises his set.

Each of us can offer you an opinion, point you to a particular technology or to a specific brand and model. We can point out some pluses and minuses. We can tell you we favor JVC, or Panasonic, or Samsung, etc. etc. But none of this should really matter. We can not make the decision for you. YOU are the one that has to live with the selection.

Elemental1,

So which of my facts are off? Can plasma produce a dot pitch that can place 1920x RGB on a 42" display? Panasonics don't have burn in? Come on, plasmas are ionized mercury vapor that excites a phosphor, that will glow red, green or blue. Anything that emits light, will emit less light over time. A CRT emits less light AND YES, the CCFL of a LCD will also wear out. If pixels of a plasma are heavily used in a pattern, they will produce less light than unused pixels. Will this happen quickly. NO. If you would read, rather than showing everyone what a pontificating soul you are, you would have read that I DID EXPLAIN why plasma have gone a long way to fix the issue. They do put more gas in the display, put it under higher pressure and the do know how to move the image around to prevent the excessive wearing out of a few pixel. All of this is truly acedemic though. Most people are buying these sets for TV and movie entertainment. If they are looking for a display for digital advertising, I would suggest they shy away from plasma. If they want to watch movies at home, all of this falls under the "dont' care" category.

I sold the first 26" display to the New York Stock Exchange in 1986 and it was a NEC 526x256 plasma display (now that was state of the art back then). Plasma's claim to fame is viewing angle, size and switching speed. They have their issues (power, weight and sorry (in some applications) burn-in.

I participate in this forum to help disspell certain myths since I do have 27 years in selling displays (LCD and Plasmas) the OEM level. If you wish, I will go head to head with you, if you chose to attack and/or spread half-truths. I may not be able to change your mind on anything, but it should prove to be entertaining to others.

DB

Actually, the cells contain inert noble gases, such as xenon and neon. There is no mercury in the gas discharge.

With all due respect for your 27 years of selling FP displays, there are some facts you may need to verify before posting them here. There are people here that know a thing or two about these things


Actually, burn-in resistance was improved in the past few years by using different types of phosphors, and chemically treating them, rather then "putting more gas in". Plasma cells aging/burn-in is a result of the phophors wearing, not the gases burning-out/running-out. The quantity of gas has nothing to do with it.


Hmm.. Seems to me you are doing a relatively good job of creating myths

Sorry, but there is no such mandate. The 2009 cut-off date applies to moving to digital-only broadcasts, not HDTV.

Considering that plasma televisions have not hit the market until the mid 1990's, I can't help but wonder how you came to be a plasma salesperson for 27 years.

Also, in this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post9462316

you said:

"I have been in the OEM side of TFTs for 17 years"

Is it 17 years or 25

I read DBLASS' statement differently than you. I understood him to mean he has been selling displays (he did not say televisions) for 27 years. He has sold LCDs and plasmas. I did not understand him to mean he has been selling plasmas for 27 years. But it is posssible that he meant just that. The plasma display monitor was invented in July 1964 at the University of Illinois. http://inventors.about.com/od/pstart...a/plasmaTV.htm And "the industry's first mass-produced, large-screen plasma display terminal for commercial use" was developed in 1983 http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynami...a/plasma1.html


It can be both. He could be stating that he has been in sales for 27 years of which 17 were spent selling OEM displays. The other ten years could be in general sales.

I would tend not to believe that with the facts he has presented thus far.
Remember 'Blue shirts' are sales people too.

You could be right. But his exact phrase was:

"I do have 27 years in selling displays (LCD and Plasmas)"

In any case, whether he's been selling displays for 17 or 25 years or 6 months, it has obviously nothing to do with the fact that he seems badly misinformed about plasma technology, and has no problem spreading the myths around, which bothers me even more.

Anyways.. Lets move on

Dear Stripe and Elemental1

Plasma displays for computer readouts (numerical) have been out since the 1950's. Look up the Nixie tube. Burroughs, Sperry and others have made segmented plasmas since the 1970's. Early gas pumps and pinball machines used them long before even the LED readout. Full matrix plasma (640x200, 640x400, etc) were made by Matsushita, NEC, AT&T (yep, but they got out quickly) and Dixy (long dead supplier), during the 1980's.

Your comment on noble gas... is not really correct. Back in the 1980's and before, plasma DID use noble gas (neon, etc) but they glow a monochrome color, usually red. When plasma got into the color display game, new they could not use a noble gas and use the inherent color, since they glow monochrome. Plasma shifted to a technology that uses phophors. With a phosphor technology, the plasma (using high voltage) causes an electron avalanche throw the gas. The gas will ionize and glow UV (ultraviolet light). The UV charge with then exite the phoshor and the phosphor will glow red, green or blue. I DID incorrectly say "mercury vapor" because this is the gas used in fluorescent tubes which use the exact same "ionized gas" concept as described above. I was corrected and my associates feel that plasmas use Argon gas to produce UV.

Color LCDs and color plasmas have been in a technolgy horserace since the early 1990's. Plasmas have the node for size (LCDs are size constrained for the $), plasma switch data really fast (we all know LCDs are dirt slow...6mS response only if you play games with the numbers.... I CAN explain) and the plasma glow is spherical, so they have tremendous viewing angles (LCDs suffer from birefringence which kills off viewing angles). But, come on....to deny that plasma have their baggage is just not being honest. Are the issues with plasmas enough to cause pain and suffering with their owners....of course not. In average TV viewing plasmas are fine.... for years... (but I would not use them in digital signage).

Look, you guys like plasmas. I truley have been in the industry as long as I have been and I "almost" went with plasma (I like the softer pixels) and one of my "LCD associates" did side with plasma. I know the strengths of both technologies and their weaknesses. Both technologies have both.

Is Chevy better than Ford....yes......and no

But just accuse me of being misinformed and we'll get along fine.

DB