# Plasma VS LCD



## Rich

Here's a great *link* from someone who agrees with my opinion of LCDs and plasmas.

Rich


----------



## sigma1914

:beatdeadhorse: 

All that matters is XYZ is happy with their TV.


----------



## Zellio

rich584 said:


> Here's a great *link* from someone who agrees with my opinion of LCDs and plasmas.
> 
> Rich


Notice it's called an 'opinion'? If you can't also post alternate views that don't agree, then stop making fanboy topics.


----------



## harsh

I guess I have to point out that the reviewer compared only one model employing each technology. For him the question wasn't so much LCD versus plasma as it was one TV versus a different TV.

A truly comprehensive test would have involved calibrated displays and more than likely a number of highly ranked implementations of each technology.

Then again, my local BB has a display showing a ISF calibrated (presumably by their in-house Geek Squad) TV atop a non-calibrated TV and I have to say that the uncalibrated TV looked a little "better".

As long as the TV can be dialed in enough to look good, what does the technology matter?


----------



## -Draino-

rich584 said:


> Here's a great *link* from someone who agrees with my opinion of LCDs and plasmas.
> 
> Rich


That link is one persons opinion. Opinions are like........well you get it.

The author of that article talks about "burn in" not being an issue any more. I can tell you that burn in is still alive and well on plasmas. I see it ever day on newer plasmas. Granted these plasmas ONLY display pretty much the same static image but it is clearly visible and this is might be enough to scare some people away.

If plasma wants to be competitive with LCD then they need to come way way down in price.

When we finally get OLED, which is way off in the future, (I think I read somewhere that no one can agree on standards and there are lawsuits over the technology) we might have something that hands down beats both.

We all know there are pros and cons to both, but in the end, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....and I love my TV!!!!


----------



## tcusta00

sigma1914 said:


> :beatdeadhorse:
> 
> All that matters is XYZ is happy with their TV.





Zellio said:


> Notice it's called an 'opinion'? If you can't also post alternate views that don't agree, then stop making fanboy topics.


Jeez, care to calm down, gents? Rich created a new discussion in a discussion forum linking an article about a topic that he agreed with. :scratchin If you don't care to discuss things in a discussion forum you're welcome to click the left arrow button at the top left corner of the window or, even better, the little "X" button in the top right corner.

And while we're on the topic I'm getting sick of people calling others fanboys around here. It's disgusting that we have to be so mean to each other to make a point. Can't we have a discussion of a topic without flaming each other? :nono2:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Just a friendly reminder to keep things civil. No need for any name-calling just because someone has a differing opinion._


----------



## Rich

tcusta00 said:


> Jeez, care to calm down, gents? Rich created a new discussion a discussion forum linking an article about a topic that he agreed with. :scratchin If you don't care to discuss things in a discussion forum you're welcome to click the left arrow button at the top left corner of the window or, even better, the little "X" button in the top right corner.
> 
> And while we're on the topic I'm getting sick of people calling others fanboys around here. It's disgusting that we have to be so mean to each other to make a point. Can't we have a discussion of a topic without flaming each other? :nono2:


Unfortunately, the Internet is a spawning place for "cyber cowards". I was just gonna ignore that post, but you're right, ignore people like that and more of them will show up.

That's not the first article I've seen like that, just the first one that kinda mirrored my experiences with LCDs and plasmas. Didn't think it was confrontational or particularly argumentative, just a guy doing what I have done myself. He obviously wanted the LCDs to work better than the plasmas and so did I. Price wasn't a factor in my case, performance was and that was before the 120 hertz sets came out.

Appreciate the support,

Rich


----------



## sigma1914

rich & tcusta...

I meant nothing personal, I just thought this topic was rehashing this recent topic: *Why do people prefer inferior LCDs to superior Plasmas or even CRTs?*

I was reinforcing the idea that in the end it's all about what you want.


----------



## tcusta00

Meh, it's a forum about TV - there's bound to be continued, sometimes repetitive discussion about... wait for it... TVs. :shrug:


----------



## Rich

sigma1914 said:


> rich & tcusta...
> 
> I meant nothing personal, I just thought this topic was rehashing this recent topic: *Why do people prefer inferior LCDs to superior Plasmas or even CRTs?*
> 
> I was reinforcing the idea that in the end it's all about what you want.


But I did the same thing the guy that wrote the article did and I decided I wanted plasmas. Money had nothing to do with it, I ended up buying six Panny plasmas. Had I found a better LCD TV, I would have bought six of them. I have never read that thread you supplied the link to, I will now. Frankly I was amused at how the writer's experience was so much like mine. Didn't want to argue, I never post with that in mind. Well, almost never :lol:.

Rich


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> I guess I have to point out that the reviewer compared only one model employing each technology. For him the question wasn't so much LCD versus plasma as it was one TV versus a different TV.
> 
> A truly comprehensive test would have involved calibrated displays and more than likely a number of highly ranked implementations of each technology.
> 
> Then again, my local BB has a display showing a ISF calibrated (presumably by their in-house Geek Squad) TV atop a non-calibrated TV and I have to say that the uncalibrated TV looked a little "better".
> 
> As long as the TV can be dialed in enough to look good, what does the technology matter?


I really get a kick out of BB's Geek Squad. I watched one kid go from learning to use a cash register to being a member of the Geek Squad in about six months. Kinda made me wonder...

Rich


----------



## Rich

tcusta00 said:


> Meh, it's a forum about TV - there's bound to be continued, sometimes repetitive discussion about... wait for it... TVs. :shrug:


Never thought a mod would have to step in when I started the thread. And I started it with no malice intended.

Rich


----------



## dave29

I have Plasma TV's in main viewing areas and a couple smaller LCD's in insignificant areas. I have not bought a new TV for almost a year and a half. But, I am in the market for a new 50" plus TV and the first thing that I will look at are Panny Plasma's. I have always liked plasmas alot more than LCD's. I hear that LCD's have caught up to plasmas, but I don't see it. 

I guess it is just personal preference, and for me, it is plasma all the way.


----------



## linuxsense

-Draino- said:


> The author of that article talks about "burn in" not being an issue any more. I can tell you that burn in is still alive and well on plasmas. I see it ever day on newer plasmas. Granted these plasmas ONLY display pretty much the same static image but it is clearly visible and this is might be enough to scare some people away.


Some plasma displays have serious issues with image retention, others dont. And I am not just talking about different makes and models...it can vary between units of the same model. We had a 50" Samsung plasma that had image retention so bad that even just viewing the DirecTV menus for 15 seconds would cause IR that would stay visible for 5-10 minutes. (Samsung was horrible to deal with on the issue..but I wont get into that here) The Panasonic 50" plasma we replaced the Samsung with has zero IR issues. Night and day difference.

So...anyone saying that IR and burn-in are not issues anymore are simply wrong...its just not as much of an issue. With that said, I can turn around and look at the LCD that displays a quad view from my CCTV system and that sucker has burn-in like a mofo...so LCD is not immune from burn-in either


----------



## paulman182

rich584 said:


> I really get a kick out of BB's Geek Squad. I watched one kid go from learning to use a cash register to being a member of the Geek Squad in about six months. Kinda made me wonder...
> 
> Rich


Anyone who can't learn enough to set up home theatre equipment in six months will have trouble with the cash register, too.


----------



## Zellio

rich584 said:


> Unfortunately, the Internet is a spawning place for "cyber cowards". I was just gonna ignore that post, but you're right, ignore people like that and more of them will show up.
> 
> That's not the first article I've seen like that, just the first one that kinda mirrored my experiences with LCDs and plasmas. Didn't think it was confrontational or particularly argumentative, just a guy doing what I have done myself. He obviously wanted the LCDs to work better than the plasmas and so did I. Price wasn't a factor in my case, performance was and that was before the 120 hertz sets came out.
> 
> Appreciate the support,
> 
> Rich


'cyber cowards' eh? Then how about we let EVERY SINGLE PERSON post their opinion on lcd vs plasma in this forum and see how the mods feel?

Couldn't you have posted in the other topic? Instead your making new topics which is why I called this one a fanboy topic. If you weren't being a fanboy then I apologise.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Zellio said:


> 'cyber cowards' eh? Then how about we let EVERY SINGLE PERSON post their opinion on lcd vs plasma in this forum and see how the mods feel?
> 
> Couldn't you have posted in the other topic? Instead your making new topics which is why I called this one a fanboy topic. If you weren't being a fanboy then I apologise.


Why couldn't we all post our opinions?

The answer is we can.

In the future if you don't like a particular thread you can just ignore it. People who post that a thread shouldn't exist come off more as trolls then anything else. If you feel there is a problem with a particular post/thread please use the "Report Post" button and let the Mods make the decision.

BTW, I'm a plasma fan. 

Mike


----------



## Rich

dave29 said:


> I have Plasma TV's in main viewing areas and a couple smaller LCD's in insignificant areas. I have not bought a new TV for almost a year and a half. But, I am in the market for a new 50" plus TV and the first thing that I will look at are Panny Plasma's. I have always liked plasmas alot more than LCD's. I hear that LCD's have caught up to plasmas, but I don't see it.
> 
> I guess it is just personal preference, and for me, it is plasma all the way.


I have three 50" Panny plasmas and I really like the size. I have one 58" in my larger family room. Nice size for a large room. I bought mine with a plan. I hope to sell all the 720p sets that I have or give them away if I can't sell them. Then I'll replace them with 1080p sets. I had only planned to keep five of them for two years and the time is just about up for a couple of them.

Did you notice in that article that the writer had to have TVs that could be viewed from any angle? That is my problem too. Every LCD that I tried was limited in viewing range. I go to stores where all the TVs can be viewed from all angles and I do see an improvement in the LCDs, especially the 120 hertz sets. But now I'm reading about 240 hertz sets. And 3D, and laser and the list goes on and on as time goes by.

I'll probably stick with the plasmas and they'll definitely be Pannys. Good PQ right out of the box. I've tried just about every brand worthy of consideration and I was surprised at how much better the Pannys were and are. I've never been impressed by Panny products, but the plasmas are worth considering. I even made the mistake of buying a Panny BD player recently and that was really a mistake. Unreadable manual. Took it back and got a Sony and the PQ on that is great.

Rich


----------



## Rich

paulman182 said:


> Anyone who can't learn enough to set up home theatre equipment in six months will have trouble with the cash register, too.


You should have seen the trouble he had with the cash register. Can't believe he has been unleashed on an unsuspecting public. I asked one of the Squad how much a memory upgrade would be on a particular model computer that I have, just to see what his reply would be. First thing out of his mouth was the $70 fee to run a diagnostic test on the computer, then the price of the chips plus the labor. When I told him my computer didn't need a diagnostic test, he told me it was mandatory, I laughed and left. Scam. Wonder how many people get sucked into that?

One thing I have noticed when pulling into the BB lot is that a lot of Geek autos are just sitting in the same place day after day. Doesn't seem to be working out too well.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Zellio said:


> 'cyber cowards' eh?


Yup.



> Then how about we let EVERY SINGLE PERSON post their opinion on lcd vs plasma in this forum and see how the mods feel?


Go right ahead and start a poll. Why would the moderators care as long as it was properly worded? I would only produce a subjective outcome, but if you feel that strongly...



> Couldn't you have posted in the other topic? Instead your making new topics which is why I called this one a fanboy topic. If you weren't being a fanboy then I apologise.


The first time someone called me that, I had to look it up, had no idea what it meant. "Fan" would have sufficed then and still would now. If I thought there was something better than plasmas out there, I would have bought them. Doesn't make me a "fan" of plasmas, just a consumer who carefully selects what he purchases. As for the "other topic", I did mention in a prior post that I didn't know the thread existed.


----------



## Rich

MicroBeta said:


> Why couldn't we all post our opinions?
> 
> The answer is we can.
> 
> In the future if you don't like a particular thread you can just ignore it. People who post that a thread shouldn't exist come off more as trolls then anything else. If you feel there is a problem with a particular post/thread please use the "Report Post" button and let the Mods make the decision.
> 
> BTW, I'm a plasma fan.
> 
> Mike


This is why I rarely leave the HR forum. Been kinda boring there lately, not many problems, and this certainly hasn't been boring. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Zellio

rich584 said:


> Yup.
> 
> Go right ahead and start a poll. Why would the moderators care as long as it was properly worded? I would only produce a subjective outcome, but if you feel that strongly...
> 
> The first time someone called me that, I had to look it up, had no idea what it meant. "Fan" would have sufficed then and still would now. If I thought there was something better than plasmas out there, I would have bought them. Doesn't make me a "fan" of plasmas, just a consumer who carefully selects what he purchases. As for the "other topic", I did mention in a prior post that I didn't know the thread existed.


Doesn't this make you a 'cyber coward' too then? You are also saying things about me without knowing me in real life.



MicroBeta said:


> Why couldn't we all post our opinions?
> 
> The answer is we can.
> 
> In the future if you don't like a particular thread you can just ignore it. People who post that a thread shouldn't exist come off more as trolls then anything else. If you feel there is a problem with a particular post/thread please use the "Report Post" button and let the Mods make the decision.
> 
> BTW, I'm a plasma fan.
> 
> Mike


I think the point that I made is that if every person on the forum voiced their opinions in new topics, this forum would have 70,000+ topics all on what tv type you like. But hey, lets not use logic, just call me a troll.

Btw, if you have a right to make a topic, then I also have a right to complain about it. Try understanding that opinions go beyond yours.


----------



## Zellio

The entire point is that this is a discussion forum about hd television sets. When people start posting their opinions ONLY in tons of new topics, it becomes less of a discussion, and more or less Twitter.

Thats the entire problem. It's not the opinion, because everyone has one, but when topics are nothing BUT an opinion... I don't think they honestly belong in a discussion.

Say what you want about me, but tell me this: How much good will it do Dbstalk if tommorow you find 50+ topics with people saying either 'Plasma is best!' or 'Lcd is best!'?

The entire issue I have once again is that this topic is no discussion. Only people who agree'd with the OP were shown, which isn't a discussion, it's more or less a twitter type opinion. If you think this is okay, then everyone in the forum could just post their opinions.

I'm not trying to insult you Rich, and yes I do notice that you meant no harm, but this is a discussion forum, and new topics like this could cause alot of issues..


----------



## Zellio

And the reason I asked why you couldn't post in the other topic wasn't to be mean as well, it was because this really adds nothing but an opinion, and we already have a topic on people's opinions of lcd vs. plasma. If it added something to a discussion, I wouldn't say anything.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Zellio said:


> Doesn't this make you a 'cyber coward' too then? You are also saying things about me without knowing me in real life.
> 
> I think the point that I made is that if every person on the forum voiced their opinions in new topics, this forum would have 70,000+ topics all on what tv type you like. But hey, lets not use logic, just call me a troll.
> 
> Btw, if you have a right to make a topic, then I also have a right to complain about it. Try understanding that opinions go beyond yours.


I never called you a troll. For the record I don't think you're a troll. I apologize if I gave you that impression.

The point I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to make is that there are better ways to accomplish a goal. Being argumentative isn't the way to do that.

The fact is, as long as it within the User Rules anyone can post almost anything they want.

If you report it to the Mods, they'll make the appropriate decision.

I actually like these kinds of threads. I always learn something from them.

Mike


----------



## tcusta00

We still talking about why the thread exists? 

If you're not interested in a particular thread or think it's redundant find the button in the top right corner of your window that looks like this and click it!


----------



## Sackchamp56

this thread reminds me of my wife and I trying to decide where to eat.:bang:


----------



## bobukcat

-Draino- said:


> If plasma wants to be competitive with LCD then they need to come way way down in price.


This is simply not true and 10 minutes on Best Buy, Cruthfield, or Amazon will quickly show you that in sets larger than 40" (and the bigger they get the more the difference is apparent) Plasma is competitively priced and in some cases actually cheaper than a comparable LCD. The new LED edge-lighted 55" Sammy is considerably more expesive than a 58" Panny Plasma, but that's just one example.


----------



## Jason Nipp

For the $$.... Equivalently priced to LCD plasmas cannot match the display resolution of a mid to high end 1080p LCD. Especially if you live at a high altitude....


----------



## linuxsense

All I know is we paid $1100 for a 50" Panasonic plasma (only 720p) and we constantly get comments from LCD owning friends about how amazing the picture looks in comparison to their displays, especially when watching something like hockey. 

Myself, I know that their are superior LCD and plasma displays available, but when I watch my TV it looks good. Getting caught up in the specs and trying to stay on the bleeding edge will only make you unhappy IMO. Buy what pleases you and enjoy it 'til its time to buy another one....'cus no matter what you buy something 'better' will be released within 30 seconds of your purchase...


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Jason Nipp said:


> For the $$.... Equivalently priced to LCD plasmas cannot match the display resolution of a mid to high end 1080p LCD. Especially if you live at a high altitude....


Two months ago I bought a 1080p 50" Panasonic(G10 Series) Plasma for $1495.


----------



## Rich

linuxsense said:


> All I know is we paid $1100 for a 50" Panasonic plasma (only 720p) and we constantly get comments from LCD owning friends about how amazing the picture looks in comparison to their displays, especially when watching something like hockey.
> 
> Myself, I know that their are superior LCD and plasma displays available, but when I watch my TV it looks good. Getting caught up in the specs and trying to stay on the bleeding edge will only make you unhappy IMO. Buy what pleases you and enjoy it 'til its time to buy another one....'cus no matter what you buy something 'better' will be released within 30 seconds of your purchase...


I'm still impressed by the PQ of the 720 Panny plasmas and I do have a 1080p Panny to compare them to. Not a whole lot of difference.

Rich


----------



## bobukcat

Jason Nipp said:


> For the $$.... Equivalently priced to LCD plasmas cannot match the display resolution of a mid to high end 1080p LCD. Especially if you live at a high altitude....


Are you suggesting a 1080P LCD has a higher resolution than that of a 1080P plasma? If so please explain.

As for altitude, like burn-in, power consumption and weight, it is not nearly as much of a problem for plasma as it used to be. The new Pannys are rated to 9000 ft, and even at higher altitudes they don't lose resolution, they just create more heat and may have an audible buzz as they work harder to disipate the increased heat caused by pressure imbalance.


----------



## bobukcat

rich584 said:


> I'm still impressed by the PQ of the 720 Panny plasmas and I do have a 1080p Panny to compare them to. Not a whole lot of difference.
> 
> Rich


In one double-blind side by side comparison a 720P Pioneer beat several 1080P LCDs, I can't find the link right now but I'll keep looking.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

rich584 said:


> I'm still impressed by the PQ of the 720 Panny plasmas and I do have a 1080p Panny to compare them to. Not a whole lot of difference.
> 
> Rich


I had a 720p Philips. I think there's a big difference between the Philips and my Panasonic G10. Even my wife noticed it.

Mike


----------



## koji68

Enjoy!

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2349236,00.asp


----------



## FaderMD

This still hasn't been locked?? 

Aren't we supposed to "search before posting" so that we don't end up with 50 threads "discussing" the same thing???

:nono2:


----------



## bobukcat

koji68 said:


> Enjoy!
> 
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2349236,00.asp


Good stuff, thanks for sharing. Of particular interest to me was that he takes exception to sets with wider color gamuts than the standard, and for more than one reason. I'm sure it comes down to personal preference but it made me think of the review of the Mits LaserVue DLP that had a color gamut WAY beyond the standard but was very pleasing to that reviewer.

At the same time this test does re-affirm what other similar tests in the past have shown; LCDs (even the top of the line ones) suffer from very significant off-angle (less than two persons wide) color and black level reproduction problems. It may not be obvious to the typical observer unless you see them side by side with a plasma, CRT or front projected image.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

koji68 said:


> Enjoy!
> 
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2349236,00.asp


Interesting article.

I have friends at work who would swear they actually have 170°+ of viewing angle with no degradation of the picture. I need to show them this article.

Mike


----------



## Zellio

FaderMD said:


> This still hasn't been locked??
> 
> Aren't we supposed to "search before posting" so that we don't end up with 50 threads "discussing" the same thing???
> 
> :nono2:


I'd stay out of this. Otherwise they'll jump on you. If the mods don't care about tons of same exact topics then let their forum go to hell.


----------



## tcusta00

Zellio said:


> I'd stay out of this. Otherwise they'll jump on you. If the mods don't care about tons of same exact topics then let their forum go to hell.


If the mods found the thread redundant they would have locked it. They didn't. So it's open for discussion. Why must you harp on this? :nono2:

Move along please.


----------



## Zellio

tcusta00 said:


> If the mods found the thread redundant they would have locked it. They didn't. So it's open for discussion. Why must you harp on this? :nono2:
> 
> Move along please.


But this is my opinion. What this, you guys like to talk about your opinion and don't like to hear mine?

If that's the case maybe you should form a plasma forum. I think us who like lcds deserve the right to give our opinions too.

You don't see multiple people posting I love lcd topics, nor do you have ones making opinions and acting superior.


----------



## Zellio

The simple fact is, you guys want to pretend this is a discussion.

Any type of discussion ended when plasma users started multiple topics giving their opinions. So I'm now giving my opinions. Since we aren't discussing, but simply giving opinions, don't hate MY opinion.

And thats the fact. This topic right here speaks spades on it. The entire topic has been a plasma love fest. Anybody else's opinions on plasma versus lcd is shot down by your opinions.

If you call a topic that says 'plasma vs. lcd' a 'discussion' when all it has boiled down to is opinions and plasma love, then you will be making a hypocrite out of yourselves to bash my opinions, since this isn't a discussion by any means.

I guess also the 'crt is greater then plasma' topic went right over your heads. That was a topic made as an opinion. This topic is a opinion poorly disguised as a 'discussion'. You'd be better off making a 'I love Plasma' topic.

One thing I've learned in 30 years is that anybody that starts off with a slant on a topic wants to influence you with their opinion. A real discussion on plasma vs lcd would have been a bit more neutral.


----------



## bobukcat

Zellio said:


> But this is my opinion. What this, you guys like to talk about your opinion and don't like to hear mine?
> 
> If that's the case maybe you should form a plasma forum. I think us who like lcds deserve the right to give our opinions too.
> 
> You don't see multiple people posting I love lcd topics, nor do you have ones making opinions and acting superior.


There are multiple people asking why this thread exist but koji68 just posted a link to a great (IMHO) article with a lot of good data in it that I might not have seen if not for this thread!

If the site was that strict about it there would be one gigantic "E* screwed me over" and one "D* screwed me over thread" as opposed to letting specific conversations die and new ones (with new nuances) spring up. For one thing, it makes it a lot quicker to scan an old thread to see if it applies to what you might be looking for. It's just TV people, or is it????


----------



## bobukcat

Zellio said:


> The simple fact is, you guys want to pretend this is a discussion.
> 
> Any type of discussion ended when plasma users started multiple topics giving their opinions. So I'm now giving my opinions. Since we aren't discussing, but simply giving opinions, don't hate MY opinion.
> 
> And thats the fact. This topic right here speaks spades on it. The entire topic has been a plasma love fest. Anybody else's opinions on plasma versus lcd is shot down by your opinions.
> 
> If you call a topic that says 'plasma vs. lcd' a 'discussion' when all it has boiled down to is opinions and plasma love, then you will be making a hypocrite out of yourselves to bash my opinions, since this isn't a discussion by any means.
> 
> I guess also the 'crt is greater then plasma' topic went right over your heads. That was a topic made as an opinion. This topic is a opinion poorly disguised as a 'discussion'. You'd be better off making a 'I love Plasma' topic.
> 
> One thing I've learned in 30 years is that anybody that starts off with a slant on a topic wants to influence you with their opinion. A real discussion on plasma vs lcd would have been a bit more neutral.


You are more than welcome to post your opinions and, preferable to me anyway, some facts or 3rd party "opinions" to back up your opinion. More than just the "plasma lovers" are attempting to influence other's opinions here!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Maybe I'm missing something, but I see exactly 2 threads discussing LCD vs Plasma. Granted, there could probably just be one but by the time I noticed this there was enough activity in both threads that I feared merging them would just confuse people.

That said, I've already asked people to play nice and respect others' opinions. Name calling and questioning of moderation are against the rules, and I'd really hate to close the thread based upon a few people who are determined to be off-topic._


----------



## Zellio

Alright, I won't speak against you guys if you'll do the same for me. Don't call me out and I will be gone from this topic. My points still stand, I don't take anything back, so let's just call our differences and drop this argument.


----------



## Rich

bobukcat said:


> In one double-blind side by side comparison a 720P Pioneer beat several 1080P LCDs, I can't find the link right now but I'll keep looking.


Huh. There's a brand I never tried. I have put my 42" 720p Panny plasma next to my 1080p Panny plasma and compared the 720p to the 1080i and there is little difference. It's all subjective, I guess, but that test seemed pretty objective. Might have been the size difference, no? The 1080p is a 50" set. Sure looked about the same.

I'm just really happy to have these TVs with the PQ that they all have. And to think that four years ago I was quite content with a house full of SD CRT TVs. Kinda mind blowing.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Zellio said:


> The simple fact is, you guys want to pretend this is a discussion.
> 
> Any type of discussion ended when plasma users started multiple topics giving their opinions. So I'm now giving my opinions. Since we aren't discussing, but simply giving opinions, don't hate MY opinion.
> 
> And thats the fact. This topic right here speaks spades on it. The entire topic has been a plasma love fest. Anybody else's opinions on plasma versus lcd is shot down by your opinions.
> 
> If you call a topic that says 'plasma vs. lcd' a 'discussion' when all it has boiled down to is opinions and plasma love, then you will be making a hypocrite out of yourselves to bash my opinions, since this isn't a discussion by any means.
> 
> I guess also the 'crt is greater then plasma' topic went right over your heads. That was a topic made as an opinion. This topic is a opinion poorly disguised as a 'discussion'. You'd be better off making a 'I love Plasma' topic.
> 
> One thing I've learned in 30 years is that anybody that starts off with a slant on a topic wants to influence you with their opinion. A real discussion on plasma vs lcd would have been a bit more neutral.


I'd tend to agree with the positions in this post.


----------



## Rich

MicroBeta said:


> I had a 720p Philips. I think there's a big difference between the Philips and my Panasonic G10. Even my wife noticed it.
> 
> Mike


Oh God! I tried a couple Phillips TVs, both plasmas and they were, by far, the worst of the sets I tried. The first one I tried I had so much trouble just getting the PQ right that I took it right back. Figured I had bought the one lemon in the pile at Sam's Club. Grabbed another one and it was the same. Glad to see they stopped making plasmas.

Rich


----------



## Rich

koji68 said:


> Enjoy!
> 
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2349236,00.asp


Just got thru reading that whole article and it agrees with what I have experienced. Thanx for the link.

Rich


----------



## Rich

MicroBeta said:


> Interesting article.
> 
> I have friends at work who would swear they actually have 170°+ of viewing angle with no degradation of the picture. I need to show them this article.
> 
> Mike


My father always owned the best car on the market. Until he traded it in for the best car on the market. Lot of people like that. Never make mistakes, never dawns on them that they might be wrong. I've never seen an LCD set that you could view at that wide an angle without PQ degradation. Perhaps the 240 hertz models will do that.

Rich


----------



## Mike Bertelson

rich584 said:


> Oh God! I tried a couple Phillips TVs, both plasmas and they were, by far, the worst of the sets I tried. The first one I tried I had so much trouble just getting the PQ right that I took it right back. Figured I had bought the one lemon in the pile at Sam's Club. Grabbed another one and it was the same. Glad to see they stopped making plasmas.
> 
> Rich


It was quite a difference compared to my new Panasonic TV-P50G10. Very Nice TV. 

We finally had to get rid of the the old plasma because it was failing. Good ol' Philips/Magnavox. 

Mike


----------



## bobukcat

rich584 said:


> My father always owned the best car on the market. Until he traded it in for the best car on the market. Lot of people like that. Never make mistakes, never dawns on them that they might be wrong. I've never seen an LCD set that you could view at that wide an angle without PQ degradation. Perhaps the 240 hertz models will do that.
> 
> Rich


I'm certainly not an expert but I don't think any increase in refresh rate will resolve the off-angle issue. AFAIK it happens because the colors in an DV LCD set are formed by three "stacked" LCD panels (RGB) with light passing through them. When you move to the side the light is no longer passing directly through each panel and therefore both black and color accuracy suffer. In plasma the picture is formed by a glowing plasma cell - it emites a color, not relying on a light source to pass through it therefore it stays accurate to the wider angles.


----------



## Rich

bobukcat said:


> I'm certainly not an expert but I don't think any increase in refresh rate will resolve the off-angle issue. AFAIK it happens because the colors in an DV LCD set are formed by three "stacked" LCD panels (RGB) with light passing through them. When you move to the side the light is no longer passing directly through each panel and therefore both black and color accuracy suffer. In plasma the picture is formed by a glowing plasma cell - it emites a color, not relying on a light source to pass through it therefore it stays accurate to the wider angles.


So that "angle of viewing" problem will not be easily solved? Good explanations, by the way.

Rich


----------



## Mike Bertelson

rich584 said:


> So that "angle of viewing" problem will not be easily solved? Good explanations, by the way.
> 
> Rich


IIUC, OLED is not subject to the motion blur that LCD is.

Maybe OLED will be the LCD/plasma killer...although, $2500 for an 11" display is a bit much no matter how good it looks. :grin:

Mike

Edit: OLED vs LCD a pro OLED site so take it with a grain of salt. It also compares to Plasma.
http://www.oledbuyingguide.com/oled-tv-articles/oled-tv-vs-lcd-tv.html


----------



## loves2watch

Plasma is clearly the superior technology. I just don't understand why LCD proponents cast doubt, FUD and misinformation in an attempt to show LCD as being better. Being an owner of multiple technologies (plasma, LCD, LCD projection, LCoS, DLP, CRT) it's easy to do side by side comparisons (besides doing it for a living) and showing just how much better plasma is in all areas. Even though LCD outsells plasma, it is not a dying breed but rather a more mature technology that gets better with each new iteration of display panels. Just look at the new Panasonic line(s).


----------



## Jason Nipp

MicroBeta said:


> ... Good ol' Philips/Magnavox.


Hey now... be nice... their pension fund is still alive... I'd hate to lose part of my nest egg cause you bad mouthed those arrogant Dutch pr*^&'s. :lol:


----------



## Mike Bertelson

loves2watch said:


> Plasma is clearly the superior technology. I just don't understand why LCD proponents cast doubt, FUD and misinformation in an attempt to show LCD as being better. Being an owner of multiple technologies (plasma, LCD, LCD projection, LCoS, DLP, CRT) it's easy to do side by side comparisons (besides doing it for a living) and showing just how much better plasma is in all areas. Even though LCD outsells plasma, it is not a dying breed but rather a more mature technology that gets better with each new iteration of display panels. Just look at the new Panasonic line(s).


I agree that Plasma is superior to LCD.

However, people buy into the hype of burn-in, heat, short panel life. These were real issues (except the short life) but these days it's a non issue.

IMHO, burn-in is the biggest culprit. I know people who decided not to by Plasma just because they are afraid of burn-in. No matter what you tell them or what you show them they refuse to accept that it won't be a problem. I don't know, maybe the hype was so ingrained that people won't let it go.

My 2¢ FWIW 

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Jason Nipp said:


> Hey now... be nice... their pension fund is still alive... I'd hate to lose part of my nest egg cause you bad mouthed those arrogant Dutch pr*^&'s. :lol:


They're out of the plasma business now.

Philips is doin' just fine. Keep saying that. :grin:

Mike


----------



## harsh

MicroBeta said:


> IMHO, burn-in is the biggest culprit. I know people who decided not to by Plasma just because they are afraid of burn-in.


I avoided plasma because for a full-featured TV, they were a whole lot more expensive. There are trash TVs and awesome TVs in all technologies and you must compare them apples-to-apples.


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> I avoided plasma because for a full-featured TV, they were a whole lot more expensive. There are trash TVs and awesome TVs in all technologies and you must compare them apples-to-apples.


Not expensive now. And I don't think I paid more than $6000 for my six Panny plasmas. Fortunately, there is so much competition here in the NYC Metro area that some of the sales are kinda hard to believe. I just bought a 1080p 50" Panny plasma four or five months ago for a tad more than $800. Plus tax of course.

That sales tax kills me. All the BS about reviving the US auto industry and all the Federal Government had to do was forbid sales tax on new or relatively new cars. A Cadillac that sells for $50,000 carries a $3,500 tax burden in NJ and some states have higher than 7% sales tax. I've never seen one word in print about this or heard one word about it on TV.

Rich


----------



## Rich

MicroBeta said:


> I agree that Plasma is superior to LCD.
> 
> However, people buy into the hype of burn-in, heat, short panel life. These were real issues (except the short life) but these days it's a non issue.
> 
> IMHO, burn-in is the biggest culprit. I know people who decided not to by Plasma just because they are afraid of burn-in. No matter what you tell them or what you show them they refuse to accept that it won't be a problem. I don't know, maybe the hype was so ingrained that people won't let it go.
> 
> My 2¢ FWIW
> 
> Mike


And there was all that misinformation about using plasmas for games. My son has a 50" Panny plasma in his bedroom and is constantly playing games on it and the graphics are great and there have been no problems at all. Where do people get this stuff from?

Rich


----------



## harsh

rich584 said:


> Not expensive now. And I don't think I paid more than $6000 for my six Panny plasmas.


I'm not talking about wholesale replacement of a bunch of 27" TVs, I'm talking about big screens. Looking at the latest on the BB website (the 60+" choices are now VERY limited and include no LCDs or LCoS; notice how they now call them _60" class_), the price is about $3,800 per TV. The 61" that I have cost $2,200 with a five year warranty three years ago.


> A Cadillac that sells for $50,000 carries a $3,500 tax burden in NJ and some states have higher than 7% sales tax.


My state has no sales tax. Fortunately, unless you're one of those who feels compelled to tool around in a three ton fake off-road vehicle, you can get a pretty good car and pay less than $2,000 in sales tax. You might save that in the first year in fuel cost alone.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

I noticed a couple of months ago that I started class for TV sizes.

My Panasonic TC-P50G10 is 50" Class and specs list it at 49.9'. 

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson

rich584 said:


> And there was all that misinformation about using plasmas for games. My son has a 50" Panny plasma in his bedroom and is constantly playing games on it and the graphics are great and there have been no problems at all. Where do people get this stuff from?
> 
> Rich


Me an my daughter play Wii on our plasma all the time.

However, it's not as a computer monitor...unless that's all it will be used for...maybe. :grin:

Mike


----------



## B Newt

I never liked the glossy screens on plasma tv's. Now I am looking for a new tv and was looking at the Samsung LED LCD tv's and they have glossy screens. I guess I have to look at something else.


----------



## paulman182

B Newt said:


> I never liked the glossy screens on plasma tv's. Now I am looking for a new tv and was looking at the Samsung LED LCD tv's and they have glossy screens. I guess I have to look at something else.


I never liked them either until I bought one. My Toshiba LCD shows very little reflection, and the glossy screen makes the blacks a lot darker in a lighted room.

The window is at a 90-degree angle, not in front of the TV. Window placement will make results vary.


----------



## bonscott87

For my home theater I went with Plasma, wasn't much of a question. Reason for me:

1) Better at high motion and sports. Hands down, there isn't an LCD yet that can keep up with a Plasma on this. Even 240hz and things like "action motion" tricks LCDs do still aren't up to a Plasma
2) Richer colors, not so "washed out" as some LCDs can be
3) Deeper blacks. LCDs are getting better, but not there yet.
4) Low light to near dark room so needing to worry about light isn't an issue.
5) Price. At the size I was looking at (under 60") Plasma was actually cheaper then LCD.

Now on my patio I'll be upgrading that TV at some point and I'll get an LCD no question. 
1) Main reason is because it's a high light situation that I can't control and the LCD will perform a lot better in high light.
2) Also it's mainly just a "casual" TV watching area so high quality motion for sports and stuff aren't much of an issue.
3) I'll be looking for a smaller screen and it's hard to find Plasma's that are under 42".

In the end, what matters is what makes you happy. For me I would not be happy with an LCD. I am very interested to see where LED goes in the future.


----------



## peano

bonscott87 said:


> For my home theater I went with Plasma, wasn't much of a question. Reason for me:
> 
> 1) Better at high motion and sports. Hands down, there isn't an LCD yet that can keep up with a Plasma on this. Even 240hz and things like "action motion" tricks LCDs do still aren't up to a Plasma
> 2) Richer colors, not so "washed out" as some LCDs can be
> 3) Deeper blacks. LCDs are getting better, but not there yet.
> 4) Low light to near dark room so needing to worry about light isn't an issue.
> 5) Price. At the size I was looking at (under 60") Plasma was actually cheaper then LCD.


You just can't sum it up any better than that! 1,2 and 3 are the deal breakers for me. Picture quality is what I want. LCD simply cannot compete in those criteria.

The bright room argument for LCD makes me chuckle a bit, because any TV will look like crap in that environment. Might as well buy a cheap Walmart HDTV for a bright room.


----------



## Rich

peano said:


> You just can't sum it up any better than that! 1,2 and 3 are the deal breakers for me. Picture quality is what I want. LCD simply cannot compete in those criteria.
> 
> The bright room argument for LCD makes me chuckle a bit, because any TV will look like crap in that environment. Might as well buy a cheap Walmart HDTV for a bright room.


I've got one Panny plasma in a room with eight windows and all I do is shut a few blinds and the picture is fine. And the one thing I'm really picky about is PQ. Used to have a Hi Def CRT TV in that room and the plasma is just about as good.

Rich


----------



## linuxsense

rich584 said:


> I've got one Panny plasma in a room with eight windows and all I do is shut a few blinds and the picture is fine. And the one thing I'm really picky about is PQ. Used to have a Hi Def CRT TV in that room and the plasma is just about as good.
> 
> Rich


Same here. We live at beach in So Cal and bright and sunny is pretty much how it is all the time. Even with all the blinds open in the living room where our 50" Panasonic plasma is its totally watchable....the 'bright room' performance is better than I expected prior to installing the Panny. Frankly, its better than the CRT's we have had in that room.


----------



## Rich

linuxsense said:


> Same here. We live at beach in So Cal and bright and sunny is pretty much how it is all the time. Even with all the blinds open in the living room where our 50" Panasonic plasma is its totally watchable....the 'bright room' performance is better than I expected prior to installing the Panny. Frankly, its better than the CRT's we have had in that room.


The 50" Panny I was referring to has a non-glare screen, I'd guess yours does too.

Rich


----------



## linuxsense

rich584 said:


> The 50" Panny I was referring to has a non-glare screen, I'd guess yours does too.
> 
> Rich


Its a 08 model so it has the 'anti-reflective' screen while the older models had the 'anti-glare' screen. Not real sure what is different between the two, but Panasonic claims the 'anti-reflective' screen provides better color fidelity over the prior years models. All I know is it works better then I thought it would considering the screen is so glossy.


----------



## Rich

linuxsense said:


> Its a 08 model so it has the 'anti-reflective' screen while the older models had the 'anti-glare' screen. Not real sure what is different between the two, but Panasonic claims the 'anti-reflective' screen provides better color fidelity over the prior years models. All I know is it works better then I thought it would considering the screen is so glossy.


I'd guess that is what mine have too. Semantics. Whatever, it is it sure looks great no matter the ambient light. Of course, if I were to pull up all eight blinds, I wouldn't be able to see any more than I could on the 36" CRT that was in the room before the plasma.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Well, here's another *link* that pretty much nails my thoughts on the subject, again.

Rich


----------



## paulman182

rich584 said:


> Well, here's another *link* that pretty much nails my thoughts on the subject, again.
> 
> Rich


Yeah, looks like LCD is definitely not for "industry experts, manufacturers, engineers, reviewers, journalists, and ISF instructors."


----------



## hdtvfan0001

paulman182 said:


> Yeah, looks like LCD is definitely not for "industry experts, manufacturers, engineers, reviewers, journalists, and ISF instructors."


Unless you count all those people I personally know who fall into all those categories (except the manufacturers) that own an LCD...and NOT a plasma.

I guess one person's opinion is indeed just that. 

This debate will likely continue until the final days when Plasma is eventually discontinued...


----------



## 4HiMarks

One thing I have not yet seen mentioned in this "discussion" is size. We are remodelling a room in our basement into a home gym, and needed a flat panel TV to mount on the wall for Wii Fit-type games, and Exercise DVDs, etc. 

37" was the absolute maximum size she was even willing to consider, because she also wants mirrors on that wall, so the set can't extend too far down. Even that might turn out to be a bit large for the distance to the exercise area. How many plasmas 37" or smaller are there? I had plenty of choice in LCDs, and the fact that they do better in bright rooms, like a gym, is an even bigger factor in their favor. When BB put the 37" Insignia on sale for under $400 there was no question what to get.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

There really seems to be 2 major things in play...

1. Opinion
2. Value for price

We all like different things, so there's a wide range of opinion on what looks good to each of us... so beyond the technical specs that might lend credibility to superiority of one technology over another, what we like to sit and view matters most.

Then what can I afford comes into play.


----------



## Rich

Stewart Vernon said:


> There really seems to be 2 major things in play...
> 
> 1. Opinion
> 2. Value for price
> 
> We all like different things, so there's a wide range of opinion on what looks good to each of us... so beyond the technical specs that might lend credibility to superiority of one technology over another, what we like to sit and view matters most.
> 
> Then what can I afford comes into play.


I agree. The whole thing is clearly subjective, but some empirical data does show up on that last link that is interesting. Especially the part about the viewing ranges.

Rich


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Stewart Vernon said:


> There really seems to be 2 major things in play...
> 
> 1. Opinion
> 2. Value for price
> 
> We all like different things, so there's a wide range of opinion on what looks good to each of us... so beyond the technical specs that might lend credibility to superiority of one technology over another, what we like to sit and view matters most.
> 
> Then what can I afford comes into play.


I have to disagree with the price thing...in general that is not necessarily as it applies to you.

I can't tell you the number of times over the last two years I was asked to help people pick an HDTV. In every case I explained the technologies; pros and cons on both sides. I gave them some website that compared and contrasted the two.

When we started talking features and models I was able to show each one how they could get what they wanted or better with a plasma. Every time, without fail or regard to price, they chose the LCD. Actually, it's more accurate to say they decided NOT to get plasma. Even if they could get a larger screen for the same money.

The most common excuse I hear by far and away is "burn-in", followed by power consumption, then weight.

Each time they don't believe there is an off-axis issue, they don't believe there is motion blur. They read on the internet "someone said" it's not an issue anymore and that burn-in is a fatal flaw which will happen no matter what. 

In reality, burn-in is much less(in three years I've never seen it) of an issue while off-axis and motion blur is...go figure. :grin:

My point is that, in my experience, most people discount plasma outright then look at options/value/price in LCDs.

IMHO, there is a large bias against plasma.

Mike


----------



## Rich

MicroBeta said:


> I have to disagree with the price thing...in general that is not necessarily as it applies to you.


I've always assumed a level of affluence as regards the members of the forum. This isn't cheap stuff we talk about. I realize some have more than others, but generally speaking we probably can all afford at least one really good TV. I know the economy is in the dumper, but my assumption was formed over the last few years and I think it is still valid. Does price really matter that much?



> I can't tell you the number of times over the last two years I was asked to help people pick an HDTV. In every case I explained the technologies; pros and cons on both sides. I gave them some website that compared and contrasted the two.
> 
> When we started talking features and models I was able to show each one how they could get what they wanted or better with a plasma. Every time, without fail or regard to price, they chose the LCD. Actually, it's more accurate to say they decided NOT to get plasma. Even if they could get a larger screen for the same money.


I've had the same experiences. With TVs and D*. The folks on the forum listen and make informed decisions. The general public, the Great American Herd, doesn't have a clue and the people you talked to probably don't even understand what you told them.



> The most common excuse I hear by far and away is "burn-in", followed by power consumption, then weight.


The other one is that you can't play games on it. Another urban myth. My son plays his X-Box and PlayStations and Wii on his 50" Panny plasma all day long, has had the Panny for over two years, has no burn in problems and even the Wii looks great on it. Regarding power consumption, 690 watts when "on", 2 watts when "in standby", pulls less than 6 amps when on, practically nothing when "in standby". Not great, but not bad for a 50" plasma.



> Each time they don't believe there is an off-axis issue, they don't believe there is motion blur. They read on the internet "someone said" it's not an issue anymore and that burn-in is a fatal flaw which will happen no matter what.


This is the truth, so help me Fred: I just saw an article that said that no matter what you believe or are told, burn in will occur in a plasma TV. Can't remember where, but I just saw it. Might have been a post. How can you fight people that truly believe that? The off-axis issue is the very obvious loss of color problem if you're not almost directly in front of the TV, I gather?

I don't see how people can deny that degradation of color when you move to either side of the LCD screen and the farther you move, the worse it gets. That just doesn't happen on a plasma. My brother-in-law has a DLP TV in his family room and has "his" chair positioned precisely in front of it. Everywhere else in the room the picture looks terrible. Sit in "his" chair and the picture is gorgeous. It's not one of the huge DLPs, don't remember the brand.



> My point is that, in my experience, most people discount plasma outright then look at options/value/price in LCDs.


I don't get it. I always wanted a plasma. First one I saw cost about $14,000. Never thought I'd be able to afford one.

Rich


----------



## RobertE

rich584 said:


> The other one is that you can't play games on it. Another urban myth. My son plays his X-Box and PlayStations and Wii on his 50" Panny plasma all day long, has had the Panny for over two years, has no burn in problems and even the Wii looks great on it. Regarding power consumption, 690 watts when "on", 2 watts when "in standby", pulls less than 6 amps when on, practically nothing when "in standby". Not great, but not bad for a 50" plasma.


By comparision, I just picked up a 47" LG. 185 watts when on, 1 in standby. Thats quite a power savings.



rich584 said:


> This is the truth, so help me Fred: I just saw an article that said that no matter what you believe or are told, burn in will occur in a plasma TV. Can't remember where, but I just saw it. Might have been a post. How can you fight people that truly believe that? The off-axis issue is the very obvious loss of color problem if you're not almost directly in front of the TV, I gather?
> 
> I don't see how people can deny that degradation of color when you move to either side of the LCD screen and the farther you move, the worse it gets. That just doesn't happen on a plasma. My brother-in-law has a DLP TV in his family room and has "his" chair positioned precisely in front of it. Everywhere else in the room the picture looks terrible. Sit in "his" chair and the picture is gorgeous. It's not one of the huge DLPs, don't remember the brand.
> 
> Rich


As much as the burn-in "problem" gets overblown, I believe the same holds true for the off axis color issue.

I took a few snapshots dead-on, at about 45 deg off to one side then another about 75-80 or so. I don't see a lot in therms of color shift, however, I do notice a difference in brightness.

In my viewing area, you would notice little to no difference in picture regardless where you sit.

I see a fair number of sets on daily basis. I just don't like the plasmas. I can't put my finger on exactly why (power and heat issues aside), they just don't look that good to me. Perhaps they are too sharp, artificial looking, I dunno. Just don't like the picture on them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Well... people talked about burn-in with CRTs also... and while it is definitely something that can and did happen... it wasn't the huge deal-breaker some made it out to be.

Keep in mind that my 2 major factors of opinion & price/value ratio are only valid when people are properly informed. There's no way to measure the uninformed, because there is so much misinformation out there and seemingly no way to stop it.

So, all things being equal... and assuming no internet-fear-mongered misinformation is in play... I think folks will first look at what they like the best... then they will start comparing prices.

I will pay a little more for better quality... but I won't pay a lot more for just a little better quality.

I've seen Plasmas that looked better than LCDs more often than not... but couldn't justify the price of either frankly when I could get a CRT or a DLP much cheaper for the same size screen.

Of course now that CRT and DLP are being left in the rear-view mirror... I can only hope LCD or Plasma, or maybe OLED will see some price reductions without sacrificing quality.


----------



## phat78boy

Just recently I had to replace a 50" Panasonic Plasma that I use in my loft from burn-in issues. My loft is primarily used 60% of the time for video games and 40% for movies/television. The Panasonic was a 2008 model. 

From now on I tell everyone looking to purchase an LCD or Plasma that if you will be playing video games on it, get an LCD. While action games might be fine, trying playing a sports game that has a constant scoreboard on screen for a few hours and see what happens. There is nothing worse then seeing my Madden football score from 6 months ago on top of the movie I'm trying to watch.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

RobertE said:


> By comparision, I just picked up a 47" LG. 185 watts when on, 1 in standby. Thats quite a power savings.


There is no doubt that plasma will never compete with LCD in power consumption. It's a fact. 



> As much as the burn-in "problem" gets overblown, I believe the same holds true for the off axis color issue. I
> 
> took a few snapshots dead-on, at about 45 deg off to one side then another about 75-80 or so. I don't see a lot in therms of color shift, however, I do notice a difference in brightness.
> 
> In my viewing area, you would notice little to no difference in picture regardless where you sit.


This one I have to disagree with you on.

The link in post 37 has an excellent discussion on the two technologies. It wasn't a TV review but rather a review of the technologies. All results were based on electronic measurement vice visual observation

It also dedicated two pages to viewing angle.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2349241,00.asp



> We measured the Peak White and Black Luminance values for the HDTVs at a moderate 45 degree angle and then recomputed the Contrast Ratios for each of the units. The values are listed in Table 2. At 45 degrees the Panasonic Plasma was down by a moderate 9 percent, but the LCD units were down by enormous factors of 2.9 to 7.6. What happens for LCDs is that the Peak White Luminance decreases with viewing angle while the Black Luminance increases with viewing angle. Both of these effects reduce the Contrast Ratio.



I don't like how the author used percentage for plasma and factors for LCD. However, the values are accurate and what I see visually when I look at LCD. There is not denying that there is significant loss of contrast and color and a "noticeable picture degradation is a mere ±10 degrees" off axis.

I'm not sure about the 10° thing. I notice it at about 25° and I have perfect color vision (as tested and documented in my medical record). However, I've never seen an LCD where this hasn't been noticeable and this article backs that up with direct scientific measurement.



> I see a fair number of sets on daily basis. I just don't like the plasmas. I can't put my finger on exactly why (power and heat issues aside), they just don't look that good to me. Perhaps they are too sharp, artificial looking, I dunno. Just don't like the picture on them.


 Interesting. Artificial looking is the usual observation of LCD TV processors attempts to correct for motion blur.  Of course that's usually only when watching movies. IIRC, it's not an issue when watching broadcast TV...I think. :grin:

Mike


----------



## Zellio

I enjoy how you two downplay the plasma burn in issue as much lower then it is while making a much bigger issue out of off-axis colors then need be.

And maybe the 'great american herd' wants to buy lcds, no matter how much you dislike it.


----------



## Zellio

MicroBeta said:


> The most common excuse I hear by far and away is "burn-in", followed by power consumption, then weight.


When I got my 40" Samsung lcd, I was looking at the panasonic 40" plasmas. I went with the Samsung because at 40 lbs it could fit on a table with my stuff and my computer and not be an issue. The device itself is also 110 watts. The Panny was over 100 lbs and over 300 watts, and I couldn't run it on my core i7 rig without blowing a circuit.

Considering it's also a pc that constantly has a background, burn in would also be a large issue.

The issues ARE REAL, no matter how much you try to downplay them.



MicroBeta said:


> Each time they don't believe there is an off-axis issue, they don't believe there is motion blur. They read on the internet "someone said" it's not an issue anymore and that burn-in is a fatal flaw which will happen no matter what.


Maybe they didn't notice an off-axis problem? If they don't then what is the issue?



MicroBeta said:


> In reality, burn-in is much less(in three years I've never seen it) of an issue while off-axis and motion blur is...go figure. :grin:


You sound exactly like the people you accuse of bias.



MicroBeta said:


> My point is that, in my experience, most people discount plasma outright then look at options/value/price in LCDs.
> 
> IMHO, there is a large bias against plasma.


Or maybe they like LCDs more? No of course that can't be it can it?

Considering you two are calling people who buy lcds 'The great american herd', I'm surprised this topic still continues, since your just now insulting people who buy lcds.


----------



## Zellio

Also, lets try this one on for size:

Lcds are far easier to wall mount then plasmas, esp. big models.

There ARE reasons for lcds, no matter how much you two laugh and insult them for their decisions.


----------



## Zellio

And yes, I said I would leave this topic, but I take offense to two fools who act like buying lcds means you are some ignorant fool who doesn't understand what things are.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Zellio said:


> When I got my 40" Samsung lcd, I was looking at the panasonic 40" plasmas. I went with the Samsung because at 40 lbs it could fit on a table with my stuff and my computer and not be an issue. The device itself is also 110 watts. The Panny was over 100 lbs and over 300 watts, and I couldn't run it on my core i7 rig without blowing a circuit.


 Wow, I wonder why that Panasonic weighed so much. My 50" weighs 70# without the stand. However, you are correct. In all cases size for size the plasma weighs as much as twice that of an LCD.



> Considering it's also a pc that constantly has a background, burn in would also be a large issue.
> 
> The issues ARE REAL, no matter how much you try to downplay them.


 I don't believe I'm downplaying anything. When used as a TV or with a game console, burn-in is rare. Does it happen, sure. Is it likely, no.

However, if someone is going to use it as a PC monitor then it should not be a plasma unless it's exclusive. Burn-in is inevitable and you'll see it when you watch TV.


> Maybe they didn't notice an off-axis problem? If they don't then what is the issue?


 In the context of the post you're quoting, all the people in question notice the off axis issue after they got their TVs...except one that is. He still maintains that the the manufactures spec of 170°+ is accurate and reasonable. :grin:

The point I was trying to make, apparently badly sorry, was that every LCD TV has the off axis issue and is inherit to the technology. However, while burn-in is inherit in that it's possible (no denying that), with normal TV viewing is not likely to occur. In the three years I've had plasma TVs I've never seen it. I have seen it on some older displays though but the newer PDPs are less prone to it.

I try to be more careful to make my posts clearer next time.

With off-axis there is no prone to; is simply exists and is quantifiable on every LCD display.


> You sound exactly like the people you accuse of bias.


It is true that I am biased towards plasma.

My bias is based on the fact that, to the maximum extent possible, I want my picture quality to remain intact no matter where in the room I am. For me this means plasma.

You do need to take things in context though. You have read my other posts on this subject so you know that I've often said that there are reasons either technology is appropriate in a given situation. 


> Or maybe they like LCDs more? No of course that can't be it can it?


Again, take things in context. I was discussing specific situations with some specific people.

My last statement was more generic then I had intended, sorry. However, the other point I was trying to make, again apparently badly sorry, was that people have a bias against plasma without knowledge of or experience with either technology.



> Considering you two are calling people who buy lcds 'The great american herd', I'm surprised this topic still continues, since your just now insulting people who buy lcds.


First off, I never called anyone "The great American herd". Do not accuse me a insulting people unless you know what you're talking about.

If you take the post you're quoting in *context* with my other posts on the subject you would see that I've repeatedly said that in general it's HD and looks great on either technology. Further, I've stated that there are situations where LCD has the advantage. Pay attention before you accuse me of single minded fanboyism.

For some context, my opinions on LCD vs. Plasma are based on research, experience, and comparison. The only thing I care about is picture quality. I've put them side-by-side more then once and for me plasma wins hands down. I'm willing to admit that LCD is viable and has advantages over plasma. Are you?

As for insulting people who have LCD, look at setup link in my signature. I have an LCD TV. :eek2:

Mike


----------



## Zellio

MicroBeta said:


> Wow, I wonder why that Panasonic weighed so much. My 50" weighs 70# without the stand. However, you are correct. In all cases size for size the plasma weighs as much as twice that of an LCD.
> 
> I don't believe I'm downplaying anything. When used as a TV or with a game console, burn-in is rare. Does it happen, sure. Is it likely, no.
> 
> However, if someone is going to use it as a PC monitor then it should not be a plasma unless it's exclusive. Burn-in is inevitable and you'll see it when you watch TV.
> In the context of the post you're quoting, all the people in question notice the off axis issue after they got their TVs...except one that is. He still maintains that the the manufactures spec of 170°+ is accurate and reasonable. :grin:
> 
> The point I was trying to make, apparently badly sorry, was that every LCD TV has the off axis issue and is inherit to the technology. However, while burn-in is inherit in that it's possible (no denying that), with normal TV viewing is not likely to occur. In the three years I've had plasma TVs I've never seen it. I have seen it on some older displays though but the newer PDPs are less prone to it.
> 
> I try to be more careful to make my posts clearer next time.
> 
> With off-axis there is no prone to; is simply exists and is quantifiable on every LCD display.
> It is true that I am biased towards plasma.
> 
> My bias is based on the fact that, to the maximum extent possible, I want my picture quality to remain intact no matter where in the room I am. For me this means plasma.
> 
> You do need to take things in context though. You have read my other posts on this subject so you know that I've often said that there are reasons either technology is appropriate in a given situation.
> Again, take things in context. I was discussing specific situations with some specific people.
> 
> My last statement was more generic then I had intended, sorry. However, the other point I was trying to make, again apparently badly sorry, was that people have a bias against plasma without knowledge of or experience with either technology.
> 
> First off, I never called anyone "The great American herd". Do not accuse me a insulting people unless you know what you're talking about.
> 
> If you take the post you're quoting in *context* with my other posts on the subject you would see that I've repeatedly said that in general it's HD and looks great on either technology. Further, I've stated that there are situations where LCD has the advantage. Pay attention before you accuse me of single minded fanboyism.
> 
> For some context, my opinions on LCD vs. Plasma are based on research, experience, and comparison. The only thing I care about is picture quality. I've put them side-by-side more then once and for me plasma wins hands down. I'm willing to admit that LCD is viable and has advantages over plasma. Are you?
> 
> As for insulting people who have LCD, look at setup link in my signature. I have an LCD TV. :eek2:
> 
> Mike


Alright, point taken. I should direct my post toward Rich.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Zellio said:


> Alright, point taken. I should direct my post toward Rich.


I don't get it. What does Rich have to do with me discussing LCD & Plasma? :scratchin 

I like discussing this stuff. 

Mike


----------



## Zellio

MicroBeta said:


> I don't get it. What does Rich have to do with me discussing LCD & Plasma? :scratchin
> 
> I like discussing this stuff.
> 
> Mike


He made the comment of the American Herd.

And honestly, you guys do come off as biased and acting like people who buy lcds are inferior, I mean read what you write (And I realize you don't mean it, but still). You guys do act like people who buy lcds don't have a clue. If plasmas were so superior I'd be on them on my pcs, but they do have this little issue of burn in, and heavy weight, and as far as power goes, I'd rather have a core i7 and a gtx 260 then slightly better picture.

The simple thing is, buying lcds isn't as much of an open and shut case as you think, and it certainly isn't based on nothing but opinion of picture quality. Lcds have lots of real world usages, and have many strengths that make them worth buying in many cases above plasma.


----------



## sigma1914

Who watches TV at an off-axis of 170?

I think off-axis is over blown on newer LCDs just like burn in is with newer plasmas.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Zellio said:


> He made the comment of the American Herd.
> 
> And honestly, you guys do come off as biased and acting like people who buy lcds are inferior, I mean read what you write (And I realize you don't mean it, but still). You guys do act like people who buy lcds don't have a clue. If plasmas were so superior I'd be on them on my pcs, but they do have this little issue of burn in, and heavy weight, and as far as power goes, I'd rather have a core i7 and a gtx 260 then slightly better picture.
> 
> The simple thing is, buying lcds isn't as much of an open and shut case as you think, and it certainly isn't based on nothing but opinion of picture quality. Lcds have lots of real world usages, and have many strengths that make them worth buying in many cases above plasma.


It certainly isn't open and shut. That's why I own both a Plasma and an LCD. 

It depends on use and what's important to you. I would never put a plasma on a PC unless it was *never* going to be used as a TV. It will burn in guaranteed. I certainly wouldn't want to see that Windows start bar across the Mythbusters. :grin:

I do prefer Plasma for all the reasons I've already laid out so in that sense I am biased toward LCD.

Burn in isn't something you should worry about any more then you would on a CRT. PDPs have built in schemes (e.g. pixel shifting) that reduce the probability of image retention. Read your manual, set the brightness/contrast to reasonable levels, and minimize the kinds of things that could cause image retention for the break-in period and there will be no permanent image retention. Today's PDPs are no more susceptible burn in then CRTs. How much did we worry about burn in before we had flat panels? I don't know about you but I never did...I'm just sayin' :grin:

They are heavier then LCDs but lighter then our old CRTs. Let's face it, all flat panels are actually pretty light when compared to CRTs. My 50" Plasma weighs 70#. However, I suppose the lighter LCD does allow for more mounting options...marginally...but I can't think of anywhere I would mount a TV that wouldn't work for both. My 50" Plasma is mounted on a 2x2 partition wall. 

Plasmas do use a lot of power; absolutely true, inherent in the technology, and no way around it. AAMOF mine uses more power then any TV I've ever owned (I think) and 2-3 times more then comparable sized LCDs(based on my own googling on that one so take it with a grain of salt).

Power and weight are what they are. You can't get away from it and LCD has the advantage in both of those. If these are your primary concerns the plasma is not for you. :shrug:

The only two issues with LCD that really matter to me are motion blur and off axis viewing. My problem is there is currently no way around them. I can see them every time I watch my LCD. Further, there is nothing I can do to prevent them from occurring (which I can do with burn in). They're inherent in the technology.

Plasma TVs don't suffer from these issues and with about 3 seconds thought I can do what's necessary to prevent burn in (it's worked for the past three years without any permanent image retention). I can have a TV that looks great from anywhere in the room with absolutely no blurring during fast motion across the screen. If I could find something besides Plasma that would do that I would buy it in a heart beat. For now I consider it a small trade off to have the picture I want.

Make no mistake about it; it's an active process to prevent burn in which is a consideration. It doesn't really affect regular TV viewing but has an impact on gaming. We use our Wii all the time and I have to consider that. Gaming itself isn't a problem but pausing could be. Would I rather not have to worry about leaving the Wii paused for two hours? Sure I would! Until blur/off-axis is eliminated from LCD or something better comes along, I'll stick with plasma for our main TV.

With that said, I know plasma's not practical for all general TV viewing situations. Which is why I have an LCD TV in the other room. I'll always have plasma as my primary family TV...at least until the blue thing is fixed in OLED and they become a viable option; or maybe SED. I don't know which will be first but one of those will kill both Plasma and LCD. But, then something else will just come along. 

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson

sigma1914 said:


> Who watches TV at an off-axis of 170?
> 
> I think off-axis is over blown on newer LCDs just like burn in is with newer plasmas.


My friends Aquous has a stated viewing angle of 176°. That means I could be off to the side of the TV, 2° off the plane of the screen and have a perfect picture. :sure: :eek2:

That's not true for any TV...ever...since the dawn of time.

Mike


----------



## phat78boy

I have to disagree that burn-ins are no more worrysome on plasma's then on CRT's. I just went through this issue with a current model plasma. It only took 3 games in a row of madden football to leave a permanent scoreboard on the plasma screen. This is not something that would have happened on any CRT that was made this decade. 

If all you want the TV for is watching TV and movies, plasma's should definitely be added to your shopping list for a new TV. However, if you plan on hooking up the laptop/computer to it or playing video games, I wouldn't risk the money on a plasma.


----------



## Rich

RobertE said:


> By comparision, I just picked up a 47" LG. 185 watts when on, 1 in standby. Thats quite a power savings.


Yup, sure is. As long as the wife doesn't complain about the electric bill...



> As much as the burn-in "problem" gets overblown, I believe the same holds true for the off axis color issue.
> 
> I took a few snapshots dead-on, at about 45 deg off to one side then another about 75-80 or so. I don't see a lot in therms of color shift, however, I do notice a difference in brightness.
> 
> In my viewing area, you would notice little to no difference in picture regardless where you sit.
> 
> I see a fair number of sets on daily basis. I just don't like the plasmas. I can't put my finger on exactly why (power and heat issues aside), they just don't look that good to me. Perhaps they are too sharp, artificial looking, I dunno. Just don't like the picture on them.


When I go to Costco, I always check out all the TVs and the LCDs do look as if they have the best pictures. But with high pressure sodium lights all over the ceiling, the place is so bright that my perception has to be skewed. I have bought several LCDs and gave up and brought them all back. Not only because of the axis issue, but that was the main reason. But I also bought a lot of plasmas before I finally settled on the Pannys.

When I look at the LCDs in Costco, the only LCD I see that has apparently ameliorated the axis issue a bit more than the others is the Sony.

It's not a money issue. I'd like to have a huge LCD that I could use as a computer monitor too, but we just can't get past the axis issue. I'd also like to a have a huge DLP, I have a perfect room with a great sound system, but again, the viewing area is not suitable. Great picture head on, but neither of our family rooms is set up for head on viewing.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001

MicroBeta said:


> IMHO, there is a large bias against plasma.
> 
> Mike


Perhaps....

Having an over-priced, over-weight, over-hyped, over-heated nuclear power plant hanging on your wall tends to created all sorts of strange thoughts...


----------



## Rich

Zellio said:


> I enjoy how you two downplay the plasma burn in issue as much lower then it is while making a much bigger issue out of off-axis colors then need be.
> 
> And maybe the 'great american herd' wants to buy lcds, no matter how much you dislike it.


The GAH is capable of doing some really stupid things. We're not supposed to talk about politics, but there are some great examples there. Sony's Beta-Max was so far superior to the VHS format that Sony couldn't believe that anyone would buy anything but a Beta-Max. They didn't factor in the GAH's tendency to believe anything they see in print. Are you using a Mac? Why not? They are far superior to the PCs and yet the GAH has embraced the PCs simply because of price (I know there are other factors, but the bottom line is the price).

Perhaps the GAH has embraced the LCDs too. Doesn't make any difference to me. I just see a better picture from any angle on my plasmas and that's all I care about.

I've posted two links to reports that I had nothing to do with. If I see a report that makes a clear argument, based on empirical testing or data, for LCDs, I will be sure to post it. I've never seen one, have you?


----------



## sigma1914

I just tested my off-axis on my LCD (model in my signature) and I had to go very far too the side before noticing a loss in PQ. It was so far too the side that no one would sit that far to the side. Here's a crappy diagram of where I sat:


----------



## Rich

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Perhaps....
> 
> Having an over-priced, over-weight, over-hyped, over-heated nuclear power plant hanging on your wall tends to created all sorts of strange thoughts...


I don't think any of the Panny plasmas I bought were over-priced. They were pretty much in line with the DLPs. Never paid much attention to the price of the LCDs.

Over-weight? Nah. The only one I wouldn't lift by myself is my 58" plasma. Not because of just the weight, but the weight and size make it too difficult to lift properly. That 58"' plasma took the place of a 40" $4,000 (list price, I didn't pay that much) Sony CRT Hi-Def TV that weighed 500 pounds. The 50" plasma in the room I am in now took the place of a Sony CRT Hi-Def TV that cost over $2000 and weighed over 250 pounds. And that Panny is a 1080p set that cost me $800 + tax. Over-priced? Nah.

I've got two 42" Pannys that cost me less than $600 apiece and replaced much heavier and much more expensive CRTs.

690 watts is really not that much. Do the math. 5.75 amp draw. Less than either of our two refrigerators and less than our freezer. And I never have more that two on at a time, as a rule. My wife's after me to get a hot tub. Know what the draw on them are?

Don't forget, I grew up dirt poor. I'm not gonna die dirt poor, and I'm gonna indulge myself in the time that I have left. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Mike Bertelson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Perhaps....
> 
> Having an over-priced, over-weight, over-hyped, over-heated nuclear power plant hanging on your wall tends to created all sorts of strange thoughts...


Gee, it looks to me as if you just jealous. 

Seriously, I can't find an LCD that's cost less then comparable Plasma.

Show me an LCD comparable in quality and features to the TC-P50G10 for less then $1495...can ya, I don't think so. :grin:

Mike


----------



## Zellio

rich584 said:


> The GAH is capable of doing some really stupid things. We're not supposed to talk about politics, but there are some great examples there. Sony's Beta-Max was so far superior to the VHS format that Sony couldn't believe that anyone would buy anything but a Beta-Max. They didn't factor in the GAH's tendency to believe anything they see in print. Are you using a Mac? Why not? They are far superior to the PCs and yet the GAH has embraced the PCs simply because of price (I know there are other factors, but the bottom line is the price).
> 
> Perhaps the GAH has embraced the LCDs too. Doesn't make any difference to me. I just see a better picture from any angle on my plasmas and that's all I care about.
> 
> I've posted two links to reports that I had nothing to do with. If I see a report that makes a clear argument, based on empirical testing or data, for LCDs, I will be sure to post it. I've never seen one, have you?


Now I see what's going on. I hate to break it to you, but Macs are using the same computer components as pcs, you're just paying 3x more for the same product.

That's not superiority.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

MicroBeta said:


> Gee, it looks to me as if you just jealous.


....anything but....:lol:

But I am wealthier, thinner, and cooler without one.


----------



## NOLANSKI

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Perhaps....
> 
> Having an over-priced, over-weight, over-hyped, over-heated nuclear power plant hanging on your wall tends to created all sorts of strange thoughts...


Hummm you could be right but...I have a 58" 1.5 in. thick, 119 pound, top of the line plasma that cost me $2525.00 with a 3 year extended warranty.

Show me a top of the line 55" or larger (yeah right) LCD with a better picture than the most decent plamsas mid to to top of the line available now for anything close to that price.
Won't happen.


----------



## -Draino-

NOLANSKI said:


> Hummm you could be right but...I have a 58" 1.5 in. thick, 119 pound, top of the line plasma that cost me $2525.00 with a 3 year extended warranty.
> 
> Show me a top of the line 55" or larger (yeah right) LCD with a better picture than the most decent plamsas mid to to top of the line available now for anything close to that price.
> Won't happen.


I have a 1.2 in. thick, 58 pound top of the line LCD w/LED backlighting and I'll put my PQ against ANY plasma.


----------



## peano

-Draino- said:


> I have a 1.2 in. thick, 58 pound top of the line LCD w/LED backlighting and I'll put my PQ against ANY plasma.


Which model? What about resolution during fast motion and black levels? Most good plasmas will beat ANY LCD in those areas. Not to mention SD. SD on an LCD is terrible.


----------



## -Draino-

peano said:


> Which model? What about resolution during fast motion and black levels? Most good plasmas will beat ANY LCD in those areas. Not to mention SD. SD on an LCD is terrible.


See sig


----------



## Zellio

rich584 said:


> The GAH is capable of doing some really stupid things. We're not supposed to talk about politics, but there are some great examples there. Sony's Beta-Max was so far superior to the VHS format that Sony couldn't believe that anyone would buy anything but a Beta-Max. They didn't factor in the GAH's tendency to believe anything they see in print. Are you using a Mac? Why not? They are far superior to the PCs and yet the GAH has embraced the PCs simply because of price (I know there are other factors, but the bottom line is the price).
> 
> Perhaps the GAH has embraced the LCDs too. Doesn't make any difference to me. I just see a better picture from any angle on my plasmas and that's all I care about.
> 
> I've posted two links to reports that I had nothing to do with. If I see a report that makes a clear argument, based on empirical testing or data, for LCDs, I will be sure to post it. I've never seen one, have you?


I do too. Plasmas ARE better looking. But not when you have a non moving computer desktop on them, and you see that non moving desktop forever.

Lcds are fine, and the high end ones look great.


----------



## Grentz

Zellio said:


> I do too. Plasmas ARE better looking. But not when you have a non moving computer desktop on them, and you see that non moving desktop forever.
> 
> Lcds are fine, and the high end ones look great.


Yup yup 

A big problem and why many really hate LCDs is all they ever see are the cheap house brand and low end ones...some of the higher end and better brand models are much much better.


----------



## Rich

Grentz said:


> Yup yup
> 
> A big problem and why many really hate LCDs is all they ever see are the cheap house brand and low end ones...some of the higher end and better brand models are much much better.


Hate? Where'd that come from? Hate an inanimate object? I'd happily buy an LCD if I could see it from all angles like a CRT. I only look at high end models and the best LCDs I've seen are the Sony's. And I can't see them from the side. Pretty close tho.

Back to hating an inanimate object, is that even semantically possible? :lol: Well maybe if the model number ended in "100", I could see it.

Rich


----------



## Zellio

rich584 said:


> Hate? Where'd that come from? Hate an inanimate object? I'd happily buy an LCD if I could see it from all angles like a CRT. I only look at high end models and the best LCDs I've seen are the Sony's. And I can't see them from the side. Pretty close tho.
> 
> Back to hating an inanimate object, is that even semantically possible? :lol: Well maybe if the model number ended in "100", I could see it.
> 
> Rich


Admit it... Your a facist lcd hater!


----------



## bobukcat

-Draino- said:


> See sig


That model got panned by at least one reviewer and I was shocked to see it because I think Sammys are generally very good sets. Apparently the LED edge lighting, especially with the dynamic backlight control did some pretty funky things to the picture. I think they'll continue to perfect it but it is still kind-of first gen.


----------



## bobukcat

sigma1914 said:


> I just tested my off-axis on my LCD (model in my signature) and I had to go very far too the side before noticing a loss in PQ. It was so far too the side that no one would sit that far to the side. Here's a crappy diagram of where I sat:


But did you have anything else to compare it to? You may not notice the color degredation, particulalry if you move SLOWLY from one spot to the other - but that doesn't mean it's not there.


----------



## NOLANSKI

-Draino- said:


> I have a 1.2 in. thick, 58 pound top of the line LCD w/LED backlighting and I'll put my PQ against ANY plasma.


It would lose in so many areas...I'm sorry they just aren't there yet, close but no banana.

Accurate colors nope.
Motion issues still yep.
Great blacks nope.
I don't care what anyone says, off angle viewing on ANY LCD is less than stellar that's why I returned my Samsung last year.
Did it have a crappy picture?
No it was awesome just not that awesome and not as good as any great plasma.\
No sir LCD is not the clear winner yet....with the exception MAYBE of the small and brand new and very expensive SIM2 LCD they rate the contrast ratio as "infinite"....ok whatever. 
JMHO


----------



## Mike Bertelson

-Draino- said:


> I have a 1.2 in. thick, 58 pound top of the line LCD w/LED backlighting and I'll put my PQ against ANY plasma.


Pretty bold statement. :eek2:

Especially considering that in every comparison you will find (google is your friend), plasma wins the PQ comparison hands down...actually CRT wins hands down but that's not within the scope of this discussion. :grin:

AAMOF, there's a link in post #37 comparing the two technologies (not a review of TVs). Among others, you'll find a Samsung LCD/LED and a Panasonic Plasma.

The LCDs (including the Samsung) lost to the plasma in contrast, color accuracy, and black levels. This is consistant with every other comparison I've ever read.

That article also has a series of tests on viewing angles. You will be surprised how your Samsung LCD/LED(as well as the other TVs in the test) fared in the face of direct electronic measurements as well as visual tests. All of which is consistent with what I've experienced. I hate being more then about 15°-20° off axis with my LCD.

In the end the PQ of the LCDs, while great (it is HD after all) is still was not as good a plasma.

However, what seems to be forgotten is that were talking about the best PQ any of us has ever seen in our homes. These are HDTVs where the minute differences when viewed direct on are barely noticeable when even when they're side by side. LCD PQ is great. It's just that Plasma is a wee bit greater. 

Mike


----------



## scrybigtv

rich584 said:


> Oh God! I tried a couple Phillips TVs, both plasmas and they were, by far, the worst of the sets I tried. The first one I tried I had so much trouble just getting the PQ right that I took it right back. Figured I had bought the one lemon in the pile at Sam's Club. Grabbed another one and it was the same. Glad to see they stopped making plasmas.
> 
> Rich


I have to take issue with this and a few other posts that I believe have taken some unwarranted swipes at Philips plasmas. While I don't doubt that you're being truthful about your experiences with the Philips brand, I can only say that I've had a completely opposite experience.

I own a Philips Model 42PF9631D plasma and I have been very happy with the PQ and overall performance of this TV. I purchased the set about 2 1/2 years ago, plugged it up to a DirectTV HD DVR, and it's responded with great service and picture quality ever since - to the tune of about 12 to 16 hours per day. And the only service the plasma has required in that time involved replacing a couple of small capacitors - at a cost of less than $15 - on the main power board.

I could also offer my two cents on the great black levels, contrast, color accuracy and lack of motion blur and burn-in that I've enjoyed with my Philips plasma. But I realize such claims often reflect the owner's bias and lack of objectivity, so they typically have little merit.

Maybe it was just dumb luck that I purchased one of the few great flat panel plasmas manufactured by the Philips company. If that is the case, I guess I should be counting my lucky stars. But if, per chance, there are other satisfied Philips owners out there, perhaps some of you would like to add your comments to this thread.


----------



## Rich

scrybigtv said:


> I have to take issue with this and a few other posts that I believe have taken some unwarranted swipes at Philips plasmas. While I don't doubt that you're being truthful about your experiences with the Philips brand, I can only say that I've had a completely opposite experience.
> 
> I own a Philips Model 42PF9631D plasma and I have been very happy with the PQ and overall performance of this TV. I purchased the set about 2 1/2 years ago, plugged it up to a DirectTV HD DVR, and it's responded with great service and picture quality ever since - to the tune of about 12 to 16 hours per day. And the only service the plasma has required in that time involved replacing a couple of small capacitors - at a cost of less than $15 - on the main power board.
> 
> I could also offer my two cents on the great black levels, contrast, color accuracy and lack of motion blur and burn-in that I've enjoyed with my Philips plasma. But I realize such claims often reflect the owner's bias and lack of objectivity, so they typically have little merit.
> 
> Maybe it was just dumb luck that I purchased one of the few great flat panel plasmas manufactured by the Philips company. If that is the case, I guess I should be counting my lucky stars. But if, per chance, there are other satisfied Philips owners out there, perhaps some of you would like to add your comments to this thread.


Some of them had to be decent. Ever have the Phillips next to another brand in your viewing room? I did.

Rich


----------



## scrybigtv

rich584 said:


> Some of them had to be decent. Ever have the Phillips next to another brand in your viewing room? I did.
> 
> Rich


Actually, no. I did, however, spend about two months comparing picture quality, features, etc. on several different brands - both plasma and LCD. This was not done in the settings of the big box stores (I live outside of a major metropolitan area, with no Best Buy, Costco or Sams Club available to me). My shopping was done mostly in smaller electronics/department stores and one WalMart Super Center.

I did view a few TVs that I thought might have had better PQ than my Philips, but they were a little above my price range. By the way, some people say it's nothing but a gimmick, but the Ambilight on my Philips plasma is really a very nice feature.


----------



## Rich

scrybigtv said:


> Actually, no. I did, however, spend about two months comparing picture quality, features, etc. on several different brands - both plasma and LCD. This was not done in the settings of the big box stores (I live outside of a major metropolitan area, with no Best Buy, Costco or Sams Club available to me). My shopping was done mostly in smaller electronics/department stores and one WalMart Super Center.
> 
> I did view a few TVs that I thought might have had better PQ than my Philips, but they were a little above my price range. By the way, some people say it's nothing but a gimmick, but the Ambilight on my Philips plasma is really a very nice feature.


I wish you the best of luck with it.

Rich


----------



## Yoda-DBSguy

scrybigtv said:


> I have to take issue with this and a few other posts that I believe have taken some unwarranted swipes at Philips plasmas. While I don't doubt that you're being truthful about your experiences with the Philips brand, I can only say that I've had a completely opposite experience.
> 
> I own a Philips Model 42PF9631D plasma and I have been very happy with the PQ and overall performance of this TV. I purchased the set about 2 1/2 years ago, plugged it up to a DirectTV HD DVR, and it's responded with great service and picture quality ever since - to the tune of about 12 to 16 hours per day. *And the only service the plasma has required in that time involved replacing a couple of small capacitors - at a cost of less than $15 - on the main power board.*
> I could also offer my two cents on the great black levels, contrast, color accuracy and lack of motion blur and burn-in that I've enjoyed with my Philips plasma. But I realize such claims often reflect the owner's bias and lack of objectivity, so they typically have little merit.
> 
> Maybe it was just dumb luck that I purchased one of the few great flat panel plasmas manufactured by the Philips company. If that is the case, I guess I should be counting my lucky stars. But if, per chance, there are other satisfied Philips owners out there, perhaps some of you would like to add your comments to this thread.


Hmmmmmmm aready having issues 2 1/2 years in is NOT a good thing in most peoples books including my own.

On that same note, your statement of only costing 15 bucks to fix is simply NOT the case for the problem you described, unless you are a tech yourself, as no servicer would even think about comming out for less then 80 bucks much less touch/fix a plasma for less then a coupe of hundred *at minimum*.


----------



## scrybigtv

rich584 said:


> I wish you the best of luck with it.
> 
> Rich


That's very nice of you. Thank you so much. :lol:


----------



## Rich

Yoda-DBSguy said:


> Hmmmmmmm aready having issues 2 1/2 years in is NOT a good thing in most peoples books including my own.
> 
> On that same note, your statement of only costing 15 bucks to fix is simply NOT the case for the problem you described, unless you are a tech yourself, as no servicer would even think about comming out for less then 80 bucks much less touch/fix a plasma for less then a coupe of hundred *at minimum*.


Same thought I had, but the implication is one I don't care to express on the forum.

Rich


----------



## scrybigtv

Yoda-DBSguy said:


> Hmmmmmmm aready having issues 2 1/2 years in is NOT a good thing in most peoples books including my own.
> 
> On that same note, your statement of only costing 15 bucks to fix is simply NOT the case for the problem you described, unless you are a tech yourself, as no servicer would even think about comming out for less then 80 bucks much less touch/fix a plasma for less then a coupe of hundred *at minimum*.


I believe I said LESS than 15 bucks. At any rate, I'll offer a multiple choice response to your comment, Yoda:

(A) I paid my good friend - a TV technician - $6.50 each for two capacitors that he replaced (for free) on his own time; or

(B) I'm a total fraud who has nothing better to do than spin lies on an Internet message board.


----------



## Yoda-DBSguy

scrybigtv said:


> I believe I said LESS than 15 bucks. At any rate, I'll offer a multiple choice response to your comment, Yoda:
> 
> (A) I paid my good friend - a TV technician - $6.50 each for two capacitors that he replaced (for free) on his own time; or
> 
> (B) I'm a total fraud who has nothing better to do than spin lies on an Internet message board.


Since it's multiple choice, I choose (D): :grin:

(C) You took advantage of a option not available to the average consumer by explointing your friend's method of livelyhood at the expense of straining your relationship.

(D) Both (B) & (C) apply.


----------



## bobukcat

This is good news for plasma fans (myself included), although it may not be indicative of a turning point (I hope it is) maybe people are finally actually doing some research before buying a TV!! :righton:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/08/20/plasma-steals-a-round-from-lcd-in-the-second-quarter-of-2009/



> but in the second quarter of 2009 plasma was the only large screen (greater than 40-inches) TV technology to show growth in the US market. Compared to the first three months of the year, plasma was up 31-percent in volume and 35-percent in dollars according to research firm Quixel


----------



## Hutchinshouse

bobukcat said:


> This is good news for plasma fans (myself included), although it may not be indicative of a turning point (I hope it is) maybe people are finally actually doing some research before buying a TV!! :righton:
> 
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/08/20/plasma-steals-a-round-from-lcd-in-the-second-quarter-of-2009/


It's only because retailers are dramatically discounting their stagnant inventory. :lol:

Signed,
Sony 52XBR4 LCD owner


----------



## FogCutter

I have both LCD and plasma, a 58" plasma Panny and a 52" Sony LCD -- on bright outdoor shots the Sony is breathtaking, the Panny looks best on moderate to low light scenes with complex dark tones and shadow. 

Shudda guessed that, I suppose.

Just read that Sony is pushing the OLED roll out down the road for a year or two, citing the horrendous economy. Sony is losing money on its flat screen operation, the upscale units they rely on are simply not moving. 

I know, the OLED 11" has been out for some time, but at $2500 -- really? Please Sony, fun is fun but put the coke back in the baggy for a while. Being that jagged will kill ya. 

Which is better, LCD or plasma -- if I had to buy only one, I'd go plasma. Except for some rare scenes they really are more pleasing to watch. 

There I did it, took sides and all. A caveat -- that plasma is one heavy son of a gun -- I haggled free delivery and set up, and my back thanks me to this day.


----------



## bobukcat

FogCutter said:


> There I did it, took sides and all. A caveat -- that plasma is one heavy son of a gun -- I haggled free delivery and set up, and my back thanks me to this day.


Compared to LCD maybe, but my 60" plasma can easily be lifted by two people (one person could lift it failry easily if it had handle or something) but three of us moved a 36" CRT and it was not a fun time!


----------



## bobukcat

Hutchinshouse said:


> It's only because retailers are dramatically discounting their stagnant inventory. :lol:
> 
> Signed,
> Sony 52XBR4 LCD owner


Part of the success is atributed to a lot of smaller (42"-46") 720P sets selling during the DTV transition and that makes sense. However, as at least one review determined, a good 720P plasma still looks better than many 1080P LCDs and if it's mainly going to be showing SD the advantage is even more in plasma's favor.


----------



## rudeney

bobukcat said:


> Compared to LCD maybe, but my 60" plasma can easily be lifted by two people (one person could lift it failry easily if it had handle or something) but three of us moved a 36" CRT and it was not a fun time!


Yep, I had a 36" CRT in an armoir. Whenever I had to move it, I'd place a table at the same height in from of the armoir and slide it out, then get a Friend to help me lift it. I have a 50" Panasonic plasma with its attached stand that sits on a cabinet that's about 3 feet tall. I can actually lift it up there by myself, but with its lack of handholds, I'd prefer to have help. My nephew bought a 52" Sony LCD that I helped install and I'd estimate it weighs about half of what my plasma does.


----------



## scrybigtv

rudeney said:


> Yep, I had a 36" CRT in an armoir. Whenever I had to move it, I'd place a table at the same height in from of the armoir and slide it out, then get a Friend to help me lift it. I have a 50" Panasonic plasma with its attached stand that sits on a cabinet that's about 3 feet tall. I can actually lift it up there by myself, but with its lack of handholds, I'd prefer to have help. My nephew bought a 52" Sony LCD that I helped install and I'd estimate it weighs about half of what my plasma does.


My parents also have a 36-inch (Sony) CRT, and that set is one heavy son-of-a-gun. It's heavier than my 42-inch plasma; takes two men to move it - and I'm not talking 98-lb. weaklings either. It's a nice set, however, and has really good picture quality for a SD TV.


----------



## FogCutter

bobukcat said:


> Compared to LCD maybe, but my 60" plasma can easily be lifted by two people (one person could lift it failry easily if it had handle or something) but three of us moved a 36" CRT and it was not a fun time!


36" CRT -- that is a bigger load.

My plasma had to go up two flights of stairs -- more than I cared to haul. 
The stand was much heavier than the display. My back is still smiling.


----------



## Rich

FogCutter said:


> I have both LCD and plasma, a 58" plasma Panny and a 52" Sony LCD -- on bright outdoor shots the Sony is breathtaking, the Panny looks best on moderate to low light scenes with complex dark tones and shadow.
> 
> Shudda guessed that, I suppose.
> 
> Just read that Sony is pushing the OLED roll out down the road for a year or two, citing the horrendous economy. Sony is losing money on its flat screen operation, the upscale units they rely on are simply not moving.
> 
> I know, the OLED 11" has been out for some time, but at $2500 -- really? Please Sony, fun is fun but put the coke back in the baggy for a while. Being that jagged will kill ya.
> 
> Which is better, LCD or plasma -- if I had to buy only one, I'd go plasma. Except for some rare scenes they really are more pleasing to watch.
> 
> There I did it, took sides and all. A caveat -- that plasma is one heavy son of a gun -- I haggled free delivery and set up, and my back thanks me to this day.


I get a lot of CE newsletters and recently I got one that stated that the new plasmas would be about equal in wattage to the same size LCDs. Unfortunately, I deleted it and cannot supply a link. I thought this thread was dead and since we weren't getting anywhere with it, I never considered posting a link to the article.

I never expected to see the arguments we have seen on this thread when I posted the first two links about plasmas vs LCDs. And I have to admit that most of the arguments disappointed me. I had not meant the thread to go in that direction. What I had hoped to see was that people had compared the two side by side and made their purchases based on that comparison.

Personally, I can't imagine buying a TV without a side by side comparison in my home. Being a member at Costco and Sam's Club has allowed me to do that and I chose the plasmas. To see members of the forum being vilified for purchasing one or the other is disturbing. To see the implications made that people are deliberately lying is even more disturbing.

All that said, I guess the thread is still alive and I hope we can see some empirical data, such as a side by side comparison in the same room of your homes on the same feeds, to support claims of which is better than the other rather than just basing an opinion on what you bought blindly. *FogCutter*, in his post did just that. And made the same decision as I did. Good for him.

Rich


----------



## Rich

FogCutter said:


> 36" CRT -- that is a bigger load.
> 
> My plasma had to go up two flights of stairs -- more than I cared to haul.
> The stand was much heavier than the display. My back is still smiling.


I made the mistake of buying a 40" Sony HD CRT. Talk about heavy, try 500 pounds. Traded it for some work by a contractor and it took three of them and a hand cart to get it out of my downstairs family room.

Rich


----------



## FogCutter

rich584 said:


> I made the mistake of buying a 40" Sony HD CRT. Talk about heavy, try 500 pounds. Traded it for some work by a contractor and it took three of them and a hand cart to get it out of my downstairs family room.
> 
> Rich


Carumba! Please don't call me when it is time to move it.


----------



## Rich

FogCutter said:


> Carumba! Please don't call me when it is time to move it.


Yet another example of how stupid I can be.

Rich


----------



## FogCutter

rich584 said:


> Yet another example of how stupid I can be.
> 
> Rich


I have a lovely collection of Laserdiscs and a Pioneer player as mementos of my lesser judgments. Happens to all of us. Oh, and an HD-DVD player, Toshiba, but that was only $100.

I can say with authority that BluRay looks much better than HD-DVD despite similar specs. Glad BluRay won.

Back to LCD vs Plasma, for whatever reasons LCDs look better than plasma in places like Best Buy, Sam's, and Costco. Even side by side LCD edges out plasma most of the time.

But in the home environment, plasma wins. Could it be overall brightness?

Pioneer and Sony have dropped their plasmas completely. Samsung has rolled out a super thin model with advanced image features.


----------



## Zellio

Hey, the hddvd player was a great buy! Even at $100... Unless you didn't go hddvd buying when their were 400 hddvds at $2-$5 each :nono2: :nono2::nono:


----------



## rudeney

rich584 said:


> Yet another example of how stupid I can be. /QUOTE]
> 
> Don't beat yourself up. We can all be stupid at times. It's what makes us human and keeps out favorite comedians in business! :lol:


----------



## peano

FogCutter said:


> But in the home environment, plasma wins. Could it be overall brightness?


Fluorescent lighting in the showrooms.


----------



## FogCutter

peano said:


> Fluorescent lighting in the showrooms.


Very good thought -- some of the stores even have mercury vapor lights -- both fluros and MV lights do screwy things to color temperature.

Bet that's it.


----------



## Rich

FogCutter said:


> I have a lovely collection of Laserdiscs and a Pioneer player as mementos of my lesser judgments. Happens to all of us. Oh, and an HD-DVD player, Toshiba, but that was only $100.
> 
> I can say with authority that BluRay looks much better than HD-DVD despite similar specs. Glad BluRay won.
> 
> Back to LCD vs Plasma, for whatever reasons LCDs look better than plasma in places like Best Buy, Sam's, and Costco. Even side by side LCD edges out plasma most of the time.
> 
> But in the home environment, plasma wins. Could it be overall brightness?
> 
> Pioneer and Sony have dropped their plasmas completely. Samsung has rolled out a super thin model with advanced image features.


Yeah, I've got most of the same stuff and a couple thousand dollars worth of standard DVDs. I've got NetFlix now and a Sony BD player and it does upscale the standard DVDs beautifully, so the DVDs are not a total loss. Fortunately, I waited for the BD vs Toshiba's version of disks to sort itself out. I doubt if I'll ever buy a BR disk. I've given away a small fortune in prerecorded VHS tapes and blank tapes and even the VCRs. I'm pretty tired of the technology changing so quickly.

As far as the plasma vs LCD, I've had them side by side on the same feeds and I just liked the plasmas better. I think it's a subjective thing to a point. And I think that point stops at viewing area. I keep an open mind and keep looking at the LCDs and I still see a loss of PQ unless you're almost directly in front of them. The newer LCDs are a bit better.

Rich


----------



## Rich

FogCutter said:


> Very good thought -- some of the stores even have mercury vapor lights -- both fluros and MV lights do screwy things to color temperature.
> 
> Bet that's it.


Oh absolutely. You can't really tell in a store that is well lit what the TV will look like in your home. You've got to put them side by side to really get the "full picture". And that's what I've done. Believe me, I didn't go out and buy six Panny plasmas without making many comparisons. The Pannys showed the best PQ in our home. My wife, my son and his girlfriend were there for the comparisons.

At Costco, I don't think that they use mercury vapor lights, I think those are high pressure sodium lights. Much more light output (lumens) then mercury vapor lights or anything you'll find in a house.

Rich


----------



## Rich

peano said:


> Fluorescent lighting in the showrooms.


Fluorescent lights put out a different sort of light. You can get them in all sorts of light outputs, but the standard tubes put out light according to whether they are in fixtures with diffusers or bare tubes (not good). Different diffusers produce different lighting.

Rich


----------



## Rich

rich584 said:


> Yet another example of how stupid I can be.





> Don't beat yourself up. We can all be stupid at times. It's what makes us human and keeps out favorite comedians in business! :lol:


A good pessimist "beats himself up" constantly. When I'm wrong it's usually a good thing. :lol:

Rich


----------



## FogCutter

rich584 said:


> Fluorescent lights put out a different sort of light. You can get them in all sorts of light outputs, but the standard tubes put out light according to whether they are in fixtures with diffusers or bare tubes (not good). Different diffusers produce different lighting.
> 
> Rich


I used to use bare bulb fluro bulbs to sterilize by lab bench. Nasty UV. Kills everything, even cranks out ozone.

I'm amazed how Netflix has changed things for so many people I know. No point in buying software anymore. My family tells me that I'm hard to buy gifts for, so I direct them to the BluRay aisle when a movie really catches my eye. Otherwise it's just put it on the list and watch it when it gets here.

Six Pannys! Good grief. I thought I was bad.


----------



## Rich

FogCutter said:


> I used to use bare bulb fluro bulbs to sterilize by lab bench. Nasty UV. Kills everything, even cranks out ozone.


Last time I checked, opinions on the safety of fluorescent light tubes were still not formed, but there are a lot of negatives about them. Marvelous how they test them on an unsuspecting public, isn't it?



> I'm amazed how Netflix has changed things for so many people I know. No point in buying software anymore. My family tells me that I'm hard to buy gifts for, so I direct them to the BluRay aisle when a movie really catches my eye. Otherwise it's just put it on the list and watch it when it gets here.


I just refuse to spend a fortune on another technology that will be near obsolete in a couple years. I don't own one BluRay disk.



> Six Pannys! Good grief. I thought I was bad.


And yet, my wife continues to outspend me. It's not fair how many products are aimed directly at women. I can't find toys to spend money on. She does it with no problem at all. Not fair.

Rich


----------



## FogCutter

rich584 said:


> And yet, my wife continues to outspend me. It's not fair how many products are aimed directly at women. I can't find toys to spend money on. She does it with no problem at all. Not fair.
> 
> Rich


When I bought my current projector the wife took one look at the price (the projector was already on the kitchen counter) and did the 'send it back' war dance. This went on for a bit, then I pulled our spending for the year -- Thank Heaven for Quicken.

Even with the projector she had outspent by 3:1.

She took off her dancing shoes and said no more.

Victory is sweet, very rare, but sweet.

I am lucky, she could go for any high dollar designer stuff she wants, but she contents herself with Macy's and Marshall Fields.

Next year I plan to ascend to 1080p projecting, we'll see how that goes.


----------



## Zellio

See, your failure is spending money on tvs. Buy a large amount of good computer parts and you'll outspend all those pesky women :grin:


----------



## Rich

FogCutter said:


> When I bought my current projector the wife took one look at the price (the projector was already on the kitchen counter) and did the 'send it back' war dance. This went on for a bit, then I pulled our spending for the year -- Thank Heaven for Quicken.
> 
> Even with the projector she had outspent by 3:1.
> 
> She took off her dancing shoes and said no more.
> 
> Victory is sweet, very rare, but sweet.
> 
> I am lucky, she could go for any high dollar designer stuff she wants, but she contents herself with Macy's and Marshall Fields.
> 
> Next year I plan to ascend to 1080p projecting, we'll see how that goes.


You can win battles, but I don't think we'll win the war. My wife loves jewelry and every big item I buy ends up costing me twice as much because she looks at the bill and heads for the jewelry store and buys something for at least that much.

We can't win, it just can't happen. There's just too much stuff for women to buy. The odd thing is that we never argue about what we buy. She's going on a "Scrapbooking" cruise next spring and that should get me a new TV. Already warned her, got a dirty look, and that was the end of it. She goes on the cruise, I buy a new TV that won't come close to the price of the cruise and, once again, she comes out ahead.

Oh, well. As long as everything remains peaceful...:lol:

Rich


----------

