Proper handling of a 50" plasma TV

[Sandy G]

Hehehehehehehehe...

[MelodyMaster]

Originally Posted by ctc17

HD is great, but..
These thing were pushed as a type of must have bling on people who really couldnt afford or need them.
Most casual users dont need HD but they were the first ones to max out there credit cards so they could look cool. (their HD flatpannel is fed through the composite video port from a vcr)
The short lifespan and difficulty to repair compounds the problem 10x. Millions of good working CRT sets going into land fills and these only having a 2-4 year lifespan is an environmental mess.
It just adds to our debt enslavement disposable consumer culture.

I made the decision to get a plasma set on my own, thank you. Hype or not, 1920 X 1080 is just the same resolution as is most commonly used for computer displays. When was the last time that 720/640X480 (or 800X600) was considered decent for computer graphics? That's standard def.

Originally Posted by Eric H

I have a 2009 Panasonic Plasma that is 600hz, however from what I read Plasma and LCD can't be compared based only on the numbers.

I'm quite happy with the set, the picture is excellent and I haven't noticed any motion blur, it's not even Panasonics top of the line set, actually one of their less expensive models, had 8000 hours on it last time I checked, bought it with 800 hours on it because it was a demo.


Like anything I would expect the better brands to work better and last longer than something from a low priced "junk" brand (Think Westinghouse, Orion, RCA, Zenith, Funai etc).


I don't think any decent set today will be less than 240 Hz, make sure it has plenty of HDMI inputs though, at least three I would think.

Composite inputs are fine for standard DVD provided it's a Progressive Scan player which they probably all are any more.

600Hz, or 240Hz on early models, for plasma sets is NOTHING to do with refresh rate, 95% of people get this wrong. and the advertising hype deliberately confuses the issue. Being 600Hz is an entirely fake, bogus, figure.

Unlike CRT or LCD, a plasma pixel can only be on, full brightness, or off. The perceived brightness is set by how LONG the pixel is activated. There has to be a precharge, then pulse length charge (the actual activation of the pixel) and a discharge, usually two cycles for best blacks. That's already 240 Hz for each frame. But that would cause flicker, and considerable banding. The more times the pixel is activated during each frame the better the brightness control and the less flicker. 600Hz is a high enough figure to avoid flicker but still remains within the cycle time capability of the panel. Also higher cycle rates allow for dithering: on and off pixels alternate in a small area to provide an AVERAGE light output.

In BOTH plasma sets and LCDs the "smoothness" created by new intraframe information is created in ELECTRONICS and is nothing to do with refresh rate. There is an advantage of having the refresh rate on LCDs a multiple of both film and video rate, 240hz, to provide for most smoothness for any type of action without artifacts. Plasma doesn't even need to worry about that.

[Eric H]

One other thought as to which sets are more environmentally friendly.

40" CRT, weight 250-300 lbs, most of which is leaded glass, eventually winds up on the side of the road smashed to bits.

50" Plasma/LCD, 70-80 lbs, no Lead at all most likely, most of the rest of it is probably RoHS compliant (which probably reduces reliability somewhat).
100% recyclable.

Don't forget the fuel used to ship a 300 lb TV across the Ocean and then Truck it around the Country, you can also fit a lot more Flat Screens in the same shipping space.

Not every CRT set was top notch quality that would outlive a flat screen, in fact I would say a large majority of the sets made in the last 15 years of CRT's were low end BPC.

Hundreds of millions of sets were made in the tube powered era, 98% of them are in the landfill now, the majority went there because the died and the owners bought another tube set to replace it.

[classictv80s]

Originally Posted by Eric H

One other thought as to which sets are more environmentally friendly.

40" CRT, weight 250-300 lbs, most of which is leaded glass, eventually winds up on the side of the road smashed to bits.

50" Plasma/LCD, 70-80 lbs, no Lead at all most likely, most of the rest of it is probably RoHS compliant (which probably reduces reliability somewhat).
100% recyclable.

Don't forget the fuel used to ship a 300 lb TV across the Ocean and then Truck it around the Country, you can also fit a lot more Flat Screens in the same shipping space.

Not every CRT set was top notch quality that would outlive a flat screen, in fact I would say a large majority of the sets made in the last 15 years of CRT's were low end BPC.

Hundreds of millions of sets were made in the tube powered era, 98% of them are in the landfill now, the majority went there because the died and the owners bought another tube set to replace it.

I don't have a problem with those who truly want LCDs and plasmas and buy them. I do, however, have a problem with the fact that people who wish to buy new CRTs in 2011 cannot do so. I believe in consumer choice, problem is, we no longer have it.

Technological advances were being made to reduce the weight and bulk of CRTs, Samsung's Slimfit line of picture tube televisions being a prime example. I have often wondered how much further advancement in CRT technology could have been made if a company like Samsung had continued to make CRTs?

Large 16:9 flatscreen TVs actually take up more space in people's homes than traditional CRT sets. I believe the original movement to make these new type of televisions came not from the consumers themselves, but from the top management of TV manufacturing companies.

[jr_tech]

Originally Posted by classictv80s

Technological advances were being made to reduce the weight and bulk of CRTs, Samsung's Slimfit line of picture tube televisions being a prime example. I have often wondered how much further advancement in CRT technology could have been made if a company like Samsung had continued to make CRTs?

If these reviews on Amazon are any indication, the "Slimfit" might well have illustrated the problems that can occur when a design is pushed too far... A 30" tv only 16" deep... WOW! but perhaps at the expense of geometry and convergence problems? On top of that, the 30" tv weighed in at about 130 lbs, roughly 5X as heavy as my 32" S0ny LC set.
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-TX-R30.../dp/B000B66EJO

Not affiliated with Amazon or Samsung,
jr

[MelodyMaster]

Originally Posted by classictv80s

I don't have a problem with those who truly want LCDs and plasmas and buy them. I do, however, have a problem with the fact that people who wish to buy new CRTs in 2011 cannot do so. I believe in consumer choice, problem is, we no longer have it.

Technological advances were being made to reduce the weight and bulk of CRTs, Samsung's Slimfit line of picture tube televisions being a prime example. I have often wondered how much further advancement in CRT technology could have been made if a company like Samsung had continued to make CRTs?

Large 16:9 flatscreen TVs actually take up more space in people's homes than traditional CRT sets. I believe the original movement to make these new type of televisions came not from the consumers themselves, but from the top management of TV manufacturing companies.

There was a technology that combined aspects of plasma and CRTs, the gun was at the bottom of the tube with the beam diverted against the screen to activate the plasma cells - plasma with scanning. This was actually an attempt to make the ultimate flat CRT.

When I moved recently, the 60lb 50" plasma was MUCH easier to handle than the 138lb 30" Wega, which I ultimately gave to one of the fellows helping me move rather than have to deal with carrying it and setting it up myself in the apartment. Flat screen TVs actually take up LESS space, they can mount against the wall, thus taking up NO room space, or in my case I have the Samsung on a stand far enough away from the wall so that it can swivel, and the satellite box and audio amps are BEHIND the set, out of sight rather than taking up rack space. Likewise my IPS computer monitor is flat against the wall at the back of my desk, rather than taking up desk space as did my 22" Sony GDM. (Which I still have.)

And if by "taking up more space" one means the screen area is bigger. Yep, Bud. that's the whole idea...

Finally, getting accurate colorimetry with CRT phosphors was always tricky, especially for blue and red. Now Plasma sets can easily have PERFECT colorimetry according to Rec 709. Only in the fifites with a few sulfide picture tubes was such accurate NTSC/Rec 601 colour previously achieved. Ever afterwards it has been a race for better brightness, with orangey reds and greenish blues against hot whites. (Yes there's a slight blue error in Rec 709which can never be quite eliminated, but it's not at all noticeable.)

I can not think of a SINGLE advantage to CRT nowadays.... I won't enumerate the plasma advantages. ...The only issues are that plasma circuitry generates a lot of electronic hash, I have to turn off the set when shortwave listening, (15760Hz Scanning whine was less of a problem) and black levels are tricky: better blacks require more power in plasma sets. (higher discharge current.)

[andy]

...

[classictv80s]

Originally Posted by andy

If people were still interested in buying CRTs, they would still make them. Electronics companies are in it for the money, so they will make what ever sells well. Of my friends and family, I can't think of anyone who would rather have a CRT TV. Most of them got rid of their working CRTs as soon as flat panels became affordable. Even professional monitors are all flat panels now, and that's a market that demands performance at any cost.

Well, it doesn't seem like they've been making a lot of money as of late - and as far as quality is concerned it's currently one big race to the bottom. There is still, in my view, a large niche market for CRTs but the electronics manufacturers don't care because everything nowadays is run completely from the top-down. But I shouldn't be too surprised by this, because at the rate things are going companies like Sony will eventually meet the same fate as RCA.

[classictv80s]

Originally Posted by MelodyMaster

There was a technology that combined aspects of plasma and CRTs, the gun was at the bottom of the tube with the beam diverted against the screen to activate the plasma cells - plasma with scanning. This was actually an attempt to make the ultimate flat CRT.

When I moved recently, the 60lb 50" plasma was MUCH easier to handle than the 138lb 30" Wega, which I ultimately gave to one of the fellows helping me move rather than have to deal with carrying it and setting it up myself in the apartment. Flat screen TVs actually take up LESS space, they can mount against the wall, thus taking up NO room space, or in my case I have the Samsung on a stand far enough away from the wall so that it can swivel, and the satellite box and audio amps are BEHIND the set, out of sight rather than taking up rack space. Likewise my IPS computer monitor is flat against the wall at the back of my desk, rather than taking up desk space as did my 22" Sony GDM. (Which I still have.)

And if by "taking up more space" one means the screen area is bigger. Yep, Bud. that's the whole idea...

Finally, getting accurate colorimetry with CRT phosphors was always tricky, especially for blue and red. Now Plasma sets can easily have PERFECT colorimetry according to Rec 709. Only in the fifites with a few sulfide picture tubes was such accurate NTSC/Rec 601 colour previously achieved. Ever afterwards it has been a race for better brightness, with orangey reds and greenish blues against hot whites. (Yes there's a slight blue error in Rec 709which can never be quite eliminated, but it's not at all noticeable.)

I can not think of a SINGLE advantage to CRT nowadays.... I won't enumerate the plasma advantages. ...The only issues are that plasma circuitry generates a lot of electronic hash, I have to turn off the set when shortwave listening, (15760Hz Scanning whine was less of a problem) and black levels are tricky: better blacks require more power in plasma sets. (higher discharge current.)

I can, the color reproduction and contrast is better, the picture is more natural looking, there's no motion blur, and on non-widescreen CRT sets there's a lot less distortion - when I watch TV it doesn't look like everybody is four feet tall. But as I said, I have no problem with people who prefer either LCDs or plasmas. I just want to be able to have the choice of buying a new CRT if I want one. Each one of us has a different pair of eyes and, as a result, we all have differing opinions on which TVs look the best.

[RobtWB]

pros and cons either way - crt vs flat panel, lcd/led vs plasma.
no matter though i am going to treat myself to one soon - i may hate it once i get it and send it home with my 13 year old daughter - but we will see .
why so few plasma sets on the market? seems like lcd/led sets outnumber them 10:1 ?
i assume they have a greater manufacturing cost over lcd/led sets?

[andy]

...

[Electronic M]

The same way there are only a few flat pannel makers now there were only a few color CRT makers in the 60's. The display device is usually the most expensive part to make of any TV, and being among the first few to make them in any quantity is an honor reserved for those who have the resources to pay for the plant, and deal with all the wacky over regulation of manufactuering.

[MelodyMaster]

Originally Posted by classictv80s

I can, the color reproduction and contrast is better,

Colour is more accurate on plasma, and contrast will always "look" higher on a smaller screen.

Originally Posted by classictv80s

the picture is more natural looking,

Plasma is a photo, CRT has scannning lines, Plasma looks more natural.

Originally Posted by classictv80s

there's no motion blur,

For film Plasma has less motion artifacts than CRT, and for interlaced sources plasma sets use full frame interpolation, each field is doubled and the whole frame scanned at 120Hz, there is no loss in either resolution or detail , UNLIKE with CRT scanning.

Originally Posted by classictv80s

and on non-widescreen CRT sets there's a lot less distortion

Plasma sets have NO geometrical distortion whatsoever, it's perfectly linear - unlike CRT sets that depend upon the accuracy of scanning circuits and convergence. Plasma has no registration issues, whereas it's very hard to eliminate fringing on CRT.

Originally Posted by classictv80s

when I watch TV it doesn't look like everybody is four feet tall.

I'm sure you're being facetious, I KNOW you're not that uninformed. A 16:9 image will fill the screen, a 4:3 image will have bars at the side, but both are flawlessly linear. Some idiots put a standard definition picture into a widescreen set, then have the image stretched to fill the screen, causing fat people, and "believe" they're getting "high-Definition," but I know you're too smart to fall for that.

Originally Posted by classictv80s

But as I said, I have no problem with people who prefer either LCDs or plasmas. I just want to be able to have the choice of buying a new CRT if I want one. Each one of us has a different pair of eyes and, as a result, we all have differing opinions on which TVs look the best.

The discussion will be moot once Organic LED hits the mainstream, they are already far exceeding CRT picture quality in every way except available screen size.

And I just don't like LCD because of reduced viewing angles, so I won't even bring them up.

[Eric H]

Originally Posted by MelodyMaster

Colour is more accurate on plasma, and contrast will always "look" higher on a smaller screen.


Plasma is a photo, CRT has scannning lines, Plasma looks more natural.


For film Plasma has less motion artifacts than CRT, and for interlaced sources plasma sets use full frame interpolation, each field is doubled and the whole frame scanned at 120Hz, there is no loss in either resolution or detail , UNLIKE with CRT scanning.


Plasma sets have NO geometrical distortion whatsoever, it's perfectly linear - unlike CRT sets that depend upon the accuracy of scanning circuits and convergence. Plasma has no registration issues, whereas it's very hard to eliminate fringing on CRT.


I'm sure you're being facetious, I KNOW you're not that uninformed. A 16:9 image will fill the screen, a 4:3 image will have bars at the side, but both are flawlessly linear. Some idiots put a standard definition picture into a widescreen set, then have the image stretched to fill the screen, causing fat people, and "believe" they're getting "high-Definition," but I know you're too smart to fall for that.



The discussion will be moot once Organic LED hits the mainstream, they are already far exceeding CRT picture quality in every way except available screen size.

And I just don't like LCD because of reduced viewing angles, so I won't even bring them up.

What he said.
Glad to have someone else defend HD and Flat Screens for a change.

Then of course there's the Mitsubishi LaserVue, which is I believe a DLP set using three Lasers for it's light source.

Reviews say it's stunning, so's the price though, also it's a not a true Flat Panel but rather a Projection set.

http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/product/L75A91

[MelodyMaster]

I'm watching "Can't Hardly Wait" (not the usual choice of film for this vintage movie buff, so no flames please) and I can't help realizing how ridiculous this discussion is. It's a Samsung PN50C7000, which has its flaws: Black level isn't great, and image retention of hard borders can be momentarily distracting; but it was set up with a Canon colorimeter, greyscale at 6500 Kelvin, gamma, and colorspace decoding are perfect, and I find the accuracy of the faces regarding colour and shading, the overall detail, and the naturalness of the image to be breathtaking. I also have an Ikegami broadcast monitor, and a 1957 Admiral colour TV with sulfide tube, and neither can compare with the overall image of the Samsung, and that's comparing a PREMIUM CRT monitor and early NTSC set with good reds against essentially a CHEAP and flawed plasma. Yet there is no contest.