I've noticed a few times that you guys obviously hate flat panels, but prefer LCD to Plasma. I was just wondering... why?

The newest plasmas no longer suffer from burn-in, it's nonexistant now.

The newer panels (Panasonic at least) are now rated at 100,000 hours to half-brightness. That's more than what standard CRT's are rated at.

They won't dim and get all pink or yellow tinted over time like LCD backlights do.

They have MUCH better blacks, black is black not a really dark blue like on LCD's.

No motion smearing whatsoever.

More natural looking colors.

And they're not retina-burning, fake-looking overly bright like LCD's.

So, just out of curiosity, I'm just wondering why you guys prefer seem to dislike plasmas when they are much closer to CRT's than LCD's are.

Personally I haven't seen many plasma sets that impressed me. The colors are not as natural as a good CRT, but to each his own.

Add to that the fact that plasma displays use a lot of energy and give off a good deal of waste heat, and I'm just not ready to buy into the technology.

For the money, I love my Panasonic TH42PZ80U plasma. Clear motion and glare is not problem at all, less than my old tubed tv. The reds issue mentioned around the web is real but minor imo.

My wife drew the line when I tried to drag it into bed with me :eek:

They say they use as much power as a fridge. So I looked - the tv was about 4.6 amps max, my fridge was 4.6. So they have a point.

Of course many of us run amps that pull that or better.

Is it just me, or didn't fridges used to run more like 8 amps or more??

Pete

I just don't think the plasma has a good a picture as an LCD, or even a tube. Just my preference. It's true they've improved the blacks, and the lifespan, but the whites are still dazzling and silverish, like a bad VHS tape played on a weak tube. Also, they suck up the current like there's no tomorrow, and you better open the window if you don't want to heat the room up. And another beef: They're heavier than LCDs. *Granted; not as heavy as a flat CRT. Another pro for plasma is that they're cheaper inch-for-inch than LCD, but that saving is quickly lost in power bills.

Believe me, my wife can easily afford any TV she wants, but we have all CRT TVs. It's a STRONG preference!

Charles

The plasmas I have seen at Frys seem to still have that motion smearing problem,but look great with stationary images.At this point I think that flat screen technology trades convenience,aesthetics and space saving for overall picture quality,and at a much,much higher price.
Jimmy

I've had a Plasma for almost 4 years now and I won't buy another. It's too heavy, and I'm already on my second after the first one failed (in warranty). The screen developed a green 'snow' that usually went away after it warmed up, but started to get worse. The newer one has a bit of this, also, when cold. For what it's worth, however, I love the picture quality. I have digital cable and even standard def looks much better, to me, than on a CRT. On HD, my old CRT is left in the dust. To be honest, there is no love lost between me and CRT...I hated having this giant square box sitting around, regardless of picture quality.

When my Plasma goes (which I feel it will...) I am hoping the newer 'laser' screens will be around by then. Sony just came out with an 11" version (obnoxiously expensive, but it's more of a technology demonstrator for super rich geeks) that has a screen/case maybe 3mm thick, and better color variation and better blacks, lighter weight, less power, etc etc, than either LCD or Plasma. I'm not sure what's holding up this technology, it was mentioned to me by a tech friend two years ago as something that would literally change the face of the TV market within a year, but it seems to just now be coming to market.

If it never comes of age, I'm just going to buy a projector.

I'm not up on new technology, not even close. When I walk through the store I don't know if I'm looking at LCD, DLP or Plasma. I know that most of these sets, when I first see them, knock my socks off. Then I stand and watch them for about 20 seconds and I see the defects. LCD seems like maybe a more familiar technology than plasma, and perhaps more service friendly (read: easier to tote in the shop and then out to the dumpster) but I can't offer a real opinion of picture quality. The best color I've seen remains the same: 30-50 year old tube chassis sets.

I looked long and hard at all sorts of HD technologies before I settled on my LCD. As a combination of price and picture, the model I chose was unbeatable. I've been very happy with it - and the blacks aren't a "dark blue" - they're a very dark charcoal grey, at worst.

Oh, the new laser technology is called "OLED". Sony and Mitsubishi are releasing sets this year at prices more akin to what Plasma was a few years ago, so hopefully it will come down after the early-adopter phase and any defects are worked out by those who have money to burn on untried technologies.

000

I love the blacks of Plasma and love the whites and colors of LCD, but hate the smeared motion of both and that is why I still use a CRT.

It's amazing how we all see things differently and those opinions follow suit.To me, black level is everything.You can't do that with any set that uses a bulb. I'm a die hard CRT user. The closest I've seen from flat panels that would come close is a plasma. Hell, if I still had the room for it, I'd continue with a CRT front projector firing onto the Stewart screen. Best ipicture I've ever had.

It may be some time before OLED or FED hits the consumer market. I just hope my Pioneer Elite RP hangs in there long enough to maybe go that route. LCD/DLP just doesn't cut it for me.

It's amazing how we all see things differently and those opinions follow suit.To me, black level is everything.You can't do that with any set that uses a bulb. I'm a die hard CRT user. The closest I've seen from flat panels that would come close is a plasma. Hell, if I still had the room for it, I'd continue with a CRT front projector firing onto the Stewart screen. Best ipicture I've ever had.

It may be some time before OLED or FED hits the consumer market. I just hope my Pioneer Elite RP hangs in there long enough to maybe go that route. LCD/DLP just doesn't cut it for me.

I think Mitsubishi's OLED is launching this year at around $6500. It was, I think, 55" or so. I'm going off of memory. I'll check back in three years to see if that price has come down!

I actually saw a Samsung LCD HDTV not too long ago that had surprisingly good black levels. Black looked, well, Black.

I haven't shopped for tv's in a few yrs, so I don't have a comparison for current tv's. I'll have to take your word for it, that plasmas no longer suffer from potential burn-in. In the 'old days', plasmas had better viewing angles and contrast ratios.

Plasma Pro - screen phosphor coating had color that was closer to tube tv
Plasma Con - screen tended to reflect room lights

LCD Pro - weighed less than plasma
LCD Con - picture slightly less natural than top plasma's

That is all (I know, until I go shopping, when my current tv craps out). I'll have to check out the current market.

I actually saw a Samsung LCD HDTV not too long ago that had surprisingly good black levels. Black looked, well, Black.

My Philips looks black except in a few areas closer to the light sources where it gets somewhat dark-grey-ish. I'm very happy with it, and I'm sure that by the time I'm ready to replace it, my career will be progressing nicely and I'll be able to get a really, really big laser set. :D

To my eyes, the LCDs with the worst black levels (at least among the "name" brands) have been Sony models. And they're expensive for their rated diagonal size.

I've had both, first a Sony 42" LCD, currently a Panny 46" plasma. To me there is no comparison. The plasma is just better. The LCD can put out a brighter picture, and did not reflect room lights like the plasma. But the last issue is a non-issue with proper setup in the room, and the brighter LCD picture is a very mixed bag. LCDs look better in the big box store under the fluorescent lights but I found that once set up at home everything looked unnatural.

Yes, it throws off a bit of heat (nothing bad, and half the year its welcome anyway) but the picture quality makes it all worth it.

Plasmas: had bad reds (orangy) - now improved; had burn-in problems - now fixed; had artifacts due to strobing used to create gray levels - not fixed, but maybe improved depending on the gray-scale processing and driver circuits; had motion smear - not fixed, although may be improved in some models

LCD: had trouble with contrast ratio -now fixed (at least for viewing from near head-on, some may be degraded when viewed from a steep angle); had color/gamma problems, especially in highly saturated colors - now fixed; had motion smear - fixed in 120 Hz models

Personally, I have always liked the rendition on LCDs over that of plasmas given their state of improvement at any given time.

However, until recently, I felt that the best non-CRT HD display was the DMD projector. LCD flat panels may have caught up with that.

LCDs these days may be designed to produce the HDTV primary colors exactly. There have been some introductions of wider-gamut LCD displays, particularly high-end computer displays, but there have been some reviews counseling against these as being more variable when viewed off-axis. There are standards in place that would allow coding DVDs or Blu-rays with this wider gamut; otherwise, having it is a waste and an invitation to exaggerated and innacurate color if the panel is not set to a normal-gamut mode.

I repair both plasma and LCd. I prefer plasma.

000

The heat those plasma screens put out is scary...

That's a myth. The newer models don't get nearly as hot as the old ones did. We have a Panny 42PX80U and no heat radiates off the front, the back only gets warm to the touch. It's only a 720p plasma, and those run cooler than 1080 plasmas, but to say that the amount of heat they put out is "scary" is an overstatement.

I think each technology has its place. LCD for monitors, CRT for kitchen/bedroom TV's, Plasma for the main/living room set IMO.

I've had a Panasonic TH-42PZ700U (Plasma) since March, and love it. I shopped for over a month, looking at a lot of different products and the Panasonic plasma was best IMO.

So, I guess to sum things up, we don't agree on which is better.

Tubes! S/S! Vinyl! Cds! Horns! Direct Radiators! Cables!

And now: TV's! Life is good.

Whatever you do, DON'T ask about favorite vegetables :)

Pete

PS - no heat probs with mine, but it's been I think -20 since I got it 2 months ago.

That's a myth. The newer models don't get nearly as hot as the old ones did.

The same may be said for solid-state TVs vs. tube-powered sets. SS TVs run a lot cooler than tube-type sets; SS sets use much less power than older tube sets did as well. For example, my RCA XL-100 CTC185 barely gets warm in operation and draws under 100 watts of power from the line; ditto for my Zenith Sentry 2. Compare this to the old tube sets that drew upwards of 300 watts (some big 3-way consoles, such as Magnavox's stereo-theatre sets of the '60s, could draw more than 400 watts, with a few going as high as 500 depending on audio output power) and got very hot when left on a few hours, especially around the horizontal-output and audio output stages. This could be one of several reasons the Maggie 25" theatre consoles don't show up very often on eBay; another is the sheer size of those consoles--they would either have to be listed as pickup only or freight, the latter being very expensive. Let's not forget that shipping one of these sets carries with it a huge risk of damage, to the CRT and other components as well if it isn't handled properly.

ROTFL story:

Some relatives of mine recently bought a Panasonic 1080p 42" plasma (fantastic picture, IMO). As they were unpacking the set from the carton, the wife said "Well, I'm glad we won't be using that old set anymore, it was really costing us on the electricity bills!"
At this point, I checked the boiler plates on both the plasma and their old set (32" color analog-only CRT with solid-state chassis). The plasma uses almost 600 watts, but the CRT only 140!


I wonder if anyone could offer their opinion on two rumors I've heard (I have nothing to back these up).:

1) (per a ham radio operator): "Plasmas produce a huge amount of RFI, LCDs are much (RF) cleaner".

2) (per someone who works in a shop that does TV repairs): "all flat screen TVs need a repair within three years, EVERY brand, ALL of them!!"

000

One of my friends bought a 32" Samsung LCD last christmas, and i had a chance to watch a movie on it, what a terrible viewing experience! halfway through the movie i had bad eye strain and some dizziness... the picture looked so unnatural, harsh and shallow, i just can't understand why so many people think FP sets are so much better than CRTs!

Well, maybe that's because i've spent 30 years watching CRT sets.

I agree, it's hard to give up a tube. I use NEC plasmas (http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=b2927353-7702-4699-8e36-232240a82287) at work, and except for the pixel size, they look just about exactly like CRTs. You get real blacks, the whites are really white (not silvery), and I see no blur. I almost want one for home.

I don't yet know an LCD that can give you true black, or the off-axis performance of a plasma or CRT.

NEC's are VERY good plasmas from what I've heard.

Something to consider, if a tv is set up wrong it will look bad.

Pete

One thing to consider is that if you buy an HD T.V. and are not watching HD material, the picture will not look very good. It will look a little worse than a regular definition set would. SUPPOSEDLY, after the transition in February, this will improve. But if you have an HD set and are watching HD material, the picture should be noticeably improved. It is on my HD set.

Call me a maverick,but only just this week,I hooked-up a 32 inch 1080i capable CRT.
The LG 32FS2ANB.
I'm using it via component connection from a Sony BDP-S1E Blu-ray player.

After fine tuning the settings on both the Blu-ray player and the LG tonight,I have to say that set at 1080i,the picture is very,very nice(even on DVDs).

Who needs Plasma or LCD? :scratch2:

Something to consider, if a tv is set up wrong it will look bad.

Pete

I believe that's probably a main reason so many have such negative opinions; not set up properly, using the factory presets and not properly setting the backlight, contrast, brightness, color, and gray scale properly, and not turning OFF most if not all of the video "enhancing" functions which usually seem to degrade the picture more when enabled. One that does work quite well in my Sony is the Advanced Contrast Enhancer set to Low. Really brings out the black levels without crushing the details. I watched CRT sets for 57 years, last summer retired a 30" NEC CT-3000 TV that I bought in 1988 that has a Toshiba tube in it, and I can say PROPERLY SET UP my Sony LCD meets and exceeds all my expectations. It has excellent black levels that blend into the black cabinet. Colors are very accurate. No discernable blurring, watched a Mavericks basketball game last night excellent motion handling. Viewing angle is fine for any angle it will be viewed at in my living room. I usually sit generally in FRONT of a TV if I am watching it. As far as LCDs looking worse on SD than plasmas, that has to do with the A-D processing not the type of panel it uses. Some sets are much better upscaling SD video than others, regardless of the type of panel.

In my opinion, LCDs seem to give less reflections in the screen in a bright room than plasmas, and in a very low light, plasmas seem to give more realistic colours and better detail.

However, and again this is just my personal opinion, they BOTH suck at detail available in dark parts of the image. Oh, some are better than others, but to me it looks like anything approaching black, and the detail just disappears, leaving a nothing but a black blob.

I'm hoping those news ones with the LED backlighting instead of flourescent are better, but no new TV for me till they solve that issue. I mean why fork out over a thousand bucks (depending on quality, features, and screen size) just to take two steps back in image quality!?

No thank you.

In my opinion, LCDs seem to give less reflections in the screen in a bright room than plasmas, and in a very low light, plasmas seem to give more realistic colours and better detail.

However, and again this is just my personal opinion, they BOTH suck at detail available in dark parts of the image. Oh, some are better than others, but to me it looks like anything approaching black, and the detail just disappears, leaving a nothing but a black blob.

I'm hoping those news ones with the LED backlighting instead of flourescent are better, but no new TV for me till they solve that issue. I mean why fork out over a thousand bucks (depending on quality, features, and screen size) just to take two steps back in image quality!?

No thank you.
I saw something amazing whilst setting-up my LG HD CRT.
I had to access the adjustment to both the Blu-ray player,and the CRT to arrive at a truly natural skin-tone rendering.
The Blu-Ray had a White optimisation 'bar' and a Black optimisation 'bar'.I picked a scene with objects in a shadow(natural light).The Blu-Ray player had a 'Preview Scene' feature where one could adjust the chosen parameter whilst watching the effect on the scene.The detail within the shadow simply emerged as I adjusted the Black optimisation 'bar'.
I was blown away at how much better the picture was.
I'd seen criticism of the LG CRT for what had been called 'Clayface' on the internet.Unnatural skin-tones.Indeed I was having trouble eliminating it.
The solution ended-up being adjustments made to both the Blu-Ray player,and the CRT.
I've finally ended-up with a picture which is not perfect(I don't know how to describe what I am seeing),but is quite amazing in it's detail.Even up close to the screen the pixelation is difficult to notice.
All in all,I'm very happy with both the Blu-ray player and the LG HD CRT. :thmbsp:

call me crazy, but one of the things i don't like about HD LCDs is their very fine phosphor dot pitch, it's like watching TV on a VGA monitor, horrible.

also, i don't like their widescreen format, and i don't like their flat screens, and that's also true for those "TruFlat" CRTs used in many later model TVs, give me a good old 4:3 CRT with a curved screen everyday!

question from the guy living on a rock out in the middle of the ocean... is DLP considered to be not even worth considering compared to lcd and plasma? :scratch2: