# Compelling reason NOT to go plasma?



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

Been on the look out for a while now (Sony GWIII dying), and have been looking at 50" or so LCD's. Today was really the first time I considered a plasma. Looking at a couple in the store, I was really much more impressed by the picture of the Samsung PN50A450 (720P 50" plasma) over the LN46A650 (1080P 120Hz 46" LCD) and other Panasonic, Toshiba and Sony LCD's. 

I may just save myself $1000 and go with a plasma,... any compelling reasons not to?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Really the only issues with plasma is they dont like the heat so if your room is warm in the summer this will shorten its lifespan. Plasma's also tend to have more of an issue with dead pixels at an early stage (less than 3 years).
On the plus side they have great contrast and work well in bright locations.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

tonyvdb said:


> Really the only issues with plasma is they dont like the heat so if your room is warm in the summer this will shorten its lifespan. Plasma's also tend to have more of an issue with dead pixels at an early stage (less than 3 years).
> On the plus side they have great contrast and work well in bright locations.


PDPs do generate more heat and are somewhat less efficient, and anytime you have more heat, you need more effective cooling systems and semiconductors are more likely to have shorter lifespans. I have seen more failures in high current drive circuits in PDPs than the lower current circuits in LCDs. I have not seen environmental effects on PDPs, however. I have also not seen the problem with dead pixels as more common in PDPs.

LCDs actually have greater peak white output and lower glare so they actually work quite a bit better in bright locations.

PDPs have the dissadvantages of phosphor wear and potential for burn-in, higher power consumption (both are mitigated by proper calibration to a large degree), potentially higher failures due to higher current devices, and fewer OEMs.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Screen reflections is by far their biggest issue in my opinion - once you go LCD, it's very hard to watch anything with a reflective screen. Susceptibility to burn-in during the display's first several hundred hours is another issue, especially if you watch a fair amount of non-stretched SD content. Pixel fill rate is an issue that bothers me a bit - if you look closely at a plasma vs an LCD, the pixels are more rounded off on a plasma, creating more black space between pixels. Lastly, to my eyes at least, a plasma picture just doesn't "pop" as much as that from a LCD.


----------



## Blaser (Aug 28, 2006)

fftopic2:An LCD projector can look very good as well :hide:


----------



## thxgoon (Feb 23, 2007)

In my experience a lot of the plasma problems are overblown. Unless you live in a really reflective environment you're not likely to notice the reflections. Any plasma today has anti glare coatings that will make it much less reflective than your current wega tube. Burn in is an issue as someone mentioned if you're watching a lot of SD content with the bars on the sides but now most plasmas use a grey bar that approximates an average luminocity and greatly reduces the chances of it. Burn in occurs as a process and goes away with time so if it begins to happen you can catch it early on and take steps to eliminate it. From experience with plasmas though, this is really a non issue. As far as life span, it's been a few years but I remember Panasonic rating their plasma sets at 60,000 hours until half life. Meaning that after 60,000 hours of continuous average use it would be half as bright as the day you bought it which is a pretty long time! IMHO I like the picture of plasma over LCD. LCD's are bright and they do 'pop' but I think this gives them an artificial quality. Plamsa appear to have better greyscaling and do a better job at reproducing subtle hues in colors to me anyways. Good luck, let us know what you decide to do. I don't think you can go wrong either way.


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

Well, I do have a bright room with seven windows so reflection would be an issue. Dunno, the plasma looks much more reflective than my current wega screen, it's a rear projection LCD not a tube (KF-50WE610) :yes:. I also liked what I saw from the plasma, very little pixelization that I could see. Looking at the LCD and plasma side by side, leaves blowing in the wind on the LCD looked very square, while the same scene on the plasma looked very realistic.


----------



## TheGovernment (Aug 11, 2008)

I prefer plasma pq to and lcd. I find on alot of lcd's I can't get over the "digital look"
I've got a hitachi 42hdt79 and nothing but greatness for the ol' girl 2 years running.


----------



## superchad (Mar 7, 2008)

The lines are getting blurred but Plasma still looks more natural, LCD has a candy sorta Disney look to it and I know thats not going to make sense to many but thats my take. Glare is an issue but there is no perfect solution, when I do notice glare I start paying attention to whats on and it leaves my mind but it is a huge issue for some that I understand can be a deal breaker. In the end for serious movie watching its likely going to be in a dark room (if your trying to capture the theater mood) and glare is not going to be an issue. Far too many LCD units still have the motion blur and defficient black levels, I own an LCD Projector and its blacks annoy me, on the 58in Plasma and 30in CRT there is no comparison, many LCD monitors offer way better contrast levels than what I refer to but generally not near Plasma and surely not without a generally premium price.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Did you ever do anything Mark... did I miss it? Or are you still holding on to that money?


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

Nope,... still holding off. The GWIII is still chuggin' along and I can't seem to make up my mind. I'm really starting to lean toward a plasma (Panasonic TH-50PX80U or Samsung PN50A450). I've also heard Toshiba is revamping their employee discount (I believe an announcement is coming on Monday the 18th), maybe it's been worth holding out,.... we'll see. 

The other issue,... I'd really like to start on the basement theater this winter so I really don't want to spend any money. Course the picture on the old Sony just gets worse with each passing day. :waiting:


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> I can't seem to make up my mind


Yeah, I've gone back and forth between deciding on a plasma or an LCD big screen TV for quite a while now. 

I've decided that plasma definitely has a better picture and for quick movement of sports, etc., it's the best IMO. 

I know most of the standard advantages and disadvantages between the two types, but recently I was reading a review of the Samsung 58" PN 58A650, where the reviewer says, "The Samsung PN58A650 runs HOT. The top back corners are almost untouchable after using the plasma for 30 minutes".. 

I started looking up the power consumption of big screen plasmas and they appear to be around 500-700 watts. That's a fair heater to have running in your room, especially in the summer. 

I guess I'll have to think about my plasma decision a bit more. I simply don't like LCD. I have a new HDTV 26" LCD fed from my HD PVR in a back room and while LCD's make for great computer monitors, they just don't impress me as televisions. I may reconsider though, given the rather large power consumption of plasmas.

Do any of you with plasmas regret the purchase because of heat / power concerns?

brucek


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

There is no doubt that PDPs require more power. The power ratings, however, are not typical of your real use in most cases. That would be the max that they can draw, when a full white pattern is displayed, plus some safety factor. The actual power consumption is likely half that when run at max contrast like they come OOB. After calibration you will likely run it at a lower contrast ratio and the power consumption will be quite a lot lower. Likely it will still be more than an LCD of the same size, but remember, even in dark scenes, LCD backlights are still lit, while at lower outputs PDPs use less power. 

That said, with higher potential current levels, PDPs are somewhat more failure prone than LCDs, IME. Still far better than CRTs (in spite of what consumer reports might say), but this varies greatly among the sets. The Samsung products seem to have improved in build quality in recent years, from my service perspective.


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> Likely it will still be more than an LCD of the same size, but remember, even in dark scenes, LCD backlights are still lit, while at lower outputs PDPs use less power.


That's a good point I hadn't thought of. 

I measured the power consumption of my 26" LCD HDTV at various backlight settings (just out of interest) and they were, from low to high:

backlight 0 = 39 watts, 
backlight 50 = 74 watts, 
backlight 75 = 92 watts, 
backlight 100 = 106 watts.

Once the backlight is set on an LCD, you're pretty much assured that this is the power that will be dissipated.

I guess that isn't true with a plasma.

brucek


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

The PDP will draw more for the same output, but it is not as much of a difference as you might think and it will vary with brand and model.


----------



## hddummy (Mar 9, 2007)

http://www.digitalhome.ca/content/view/1961/206/

this article pretty much sums it up for me.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

That article very much overstates the advantages in image quality for plasma, and overstates the importance of viewing angle. Over the past few years LCD sets have improved to the point that many are better than some PDPs and the viewing angles are not an issue for many applications. Properly calibrated, the best LCDs can compete (but not exceed) in picture quality. On the low end, you could go either way depending on the brand and model. Certainly for a large screen in a flat panel, plasma has the edge. In moderate and smaller sizes, the issue is less clear.


----------



## pwrjam (Jul 31, 2008)

I'd like to bring this back from the dead to point out that after a bit of research I found that plasma's don't use 600-700 watts unless you have the contrast and brightness MAXED out with a full white screen. Not many of you would have that setup. Check out www.crutchfield.com they measure power draw from each tv they sell to give you real world power figures. I saw that the panasonic plasmas used about the same wattage as a comparable samsung LCD. 

Also about the samsung plasma running HOT... I noticed that samsung didn't use any fans on their TVs for some odd reason. Where as every Panasonic I've seen in stores had fans very few, if any, samsungs had fans. As I'm sure many of you know, heat and electronics don't get along too well. So if you're considering plasma I don't think I'd go with samsung plasma for that reason alone.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

I've been doding some more viewing myself as I prepare to buy a new tv, and what really bothers me at this stage of the game with plasma is the dinginess, especially washed out whites. But to each his own. 

If you are set on plasma, check out this review . I've never given much consideration to Vizio, but this one looks like a winner, the measurements are quite good - better than any other plasma I've seen reviewed except for the Pioneer Kuros.


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

I'm still up in the air over all this,...though I may be close to making a final decision. My GWIII did finally die,... well, it caught on fire anyway,... waiting for a tech to look at it. I have had several conversations with Sony,.... so hopefully they will do something.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I have always preferred plasma, but the more I look at the 650 LCD from Samsung, I have a hard time not liking it.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Yeah, that's the one I am jumping on. Tremendously low black level with the dynamic backlighting in effect, vibrant-wet looking colors, and crisp detail.


----------



## pwrjam (Jul 31, 2008)

lcaillo said:


> I have always preferred plasma, but the more I look at the 650 LCD from Samsung, I have a hard time not liking it.


That one is a tie with another couple TV's I've been considering
The panasonic 50" 800U and 50" 850U. Though between those two I think I'd go with the 850. But that 650 from samsung is a real sweet TV! by far one of the best bang for the buck LCD's out now.:T


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S (Sep 15, 2007)

SteveCallas said:


> I've been doding some more viewing myself as I prepare to buy a new tv, and what really bothers me at this stage of the game with plasma is the dinginess, especially washed out whites. But to each his own.
> 
> If you are set on plasma, check out this review . I've never given much consideration to Vizio, but this one looks like a winner, the measurements are quite good - better than any other plasma I've seen reviewed except for the Pioneer Kuros.


If you calibrate your LCD it will be much less blue-white.
The 650 is nice for an LCD.
The 950 is better if you only have one or two viewers straight on.
Plasmas still have more contrast and at least as good or better blacks.(depends on manuf.)
No uniformity issues either on pdp's, nor off-axis issues.
Better/higher motion resolution.(huge for sports fans)


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

E-A-G-L-E-S said:


> If you calibrate your LCD it will be much less blue-white.
> The 650 is nice for an LCD.
> The 950 is better if you only have one or two viewers straight on.
> Plasmas still have more contrast and at least as good or better blacks.(depends on manuf.)
> ...


Actually, if you calibrate ANY set it will have less blue whites. They all come OOB with extremely high color temps. Also, PDPs can have significant uniformity issues. It varies with brand and model, and within models, but some have very splotchy color differences. With LCDs it often is more a matter of brightness variance, with PDPs it is more color variance.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S (Sep 15, 2007)

Well, the top three have no uniformity issues for the last two gen's.
But many fall in love with those too bright too blue whites in-store not knowing the truth.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

You have not looked closely...though you are correct that the problems are minimal and much better than earlier sets.

The "love" for blue whites and pink flesh tones, and lobster faces lasts only until realistic colors are experienced for most people. Once you point out that their favorite sports team's jerseys and helmets are not the right color, or that people can actually look like they don't have too much makeup on, or that the differences between channels in color can be minimized, most people are very happy to have a better calibrated set. Some not, but the majority actually prefer more natural color.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S (Sep 15, 2007)

Not looked closely, lol.
I have calibrated an a650 and a a750 from Sammy for friends in their homes.
I had a one on one with the a950 in a dark room.
I've also owned at one time or another eight HDTV's from three different tech's and five different manufacturers.
They may be getting better but they still have a ways to come.
And now they are going in the 'wrong' direction with putting the LED's on the side which is worse for the end result.

I believe you are way off on your speculation. I'd be willing to bet that more than 90% never get a calibration and more than 80% never even go online to look for tweaks.
Everyday I read of people who even do come online that they hate the "dim" picture of a calibrated set.

I would never not have a calibrated display.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Sorry, I was talking about PDPs. They all have some uniformity variance, though it is not as bad as in the past. LCDs have a different issue, that seems to be very model specific, and even great variance between sets within the same model. There is a trade-off between diffusion and max output in design, and some sets have not had adequate diffusion of the backlight tubes or have had defects in the diffusion layers. Most of the better LCD sets have mostly eliminated the problem, but you will still see it on some if you put a full field of white or R, G or B on the screen and measure various points or for ANSI contrast.

I am not speculating, I calibrate and service these types of sets for a living and see many brands and models. Uniformity is much poorer than most people assume on many sets. The fact is, however, that it rarely is a factor in actual viewing in te best of the latest models in either technology.

I agree, regarding calibration. Most people who make these comments have probably only compare displays casually, which is exactly the condition for which the "torch modes" are designed. The frst 5 seconds of viewing leaves a significant impression that is dominated by contrast and saturation. That impression affects buying decisions more often than not.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S (Sep 15, 2007)

Ahh. 
Well, there are other things at play as well as you know...like personal viewing processes too.
But I was speaking more about off axis, even more so with LED, the clouding/flashlighting, mura. etc is getting much better the last few gen's.

I can see the clarity in still shots and the brightness being inticing, and with the top end ones adding color accuracy and even some with decent blacks as well...but to my eyes even beyond the mess(big time sample and hold sufferer) it just doesn't do it for me when the added contrast and my perceived realism of plasma is an option.

Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

What was your opinion on the relative qualtity of the 650 and 750?


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S (Sep 15, 2007)

Excellent color accuracy, very respectable black level for the most part(especially for an lcd) and a super clean image presentation. More than bright enough as well.
I leave it at the positives.
The reason they bought the 650 and 750 lcd's respectively was due at least in part to them asking for my advice and saying they definitely without a doubt wanted an lcd.
I don't like the TOC personally, but that is just like many people not liking piano black and I do.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

But what do you think of the difference between the two? Is the 750 worth it?

I agree on the "touch of color." Foolishness, IMO. All sets should be a neutral color and perhaps have some options for those that must have something else.

These sets look quite good to me, and the 650 appears to be the value point in the line, but I have limited experience with them.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S (Sep 15, 2007)

I saw 0% difference in IQ between the two.
The 650 is a great deal for lcd fans.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

I've decided to hold off on the 650. Vizio is coming out with a 55" 240 zone LED backlit LCD with local dimming, 240hz, 5 hdmi, relatively matte panel, bluetooth remote control, WiFi, USB, soundbar (useless), and several video codecs built in so you can play almost anything from your computer on it without having to actually connect your computer. The LCD panel will be made by LG. MSRP is ONLY $1999, so retail price will probably be $1799.

If Vizio sticks to the track record it has been getting from recent display reviews with detailed measurements, this is a sure fire winner.


----------

