Plasma really worth it? (1 Viewer)

[ChrisWiggles]

Plasmas have very long image retention. That is, when a pixel is fired, it stays lit brightly for a moment (yes moment... quite scientific indeed... sorry ). So, especially on fast motion images, with bright colors and whites, you can get severe smearing as what is supposed to turn off immediately continues to emit light for a little bit. How much I dont know, a frame.. a couple extra frames, i'm sure it varies. To a much less significant extent, they stay lit very dimly for quite a long time. Put up a bright image, then immediately stop the disc or somehow put up a black image, and you will see a shadow of the bright image on the screen stay up for a very long time, up to like a minute. It fades away slowly.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Also keep in mind that CRTs, depending on the set, can have slightly similar problems. It takes time for the phosphor to decay. I'm sure phosphor decay also exists on plasmas, but is outweighed by I think the gas cells(getting a little out of my element...im forgetting exactly how plasmas work) that take much longer to return to their off state.

I've seen direct view CRTs with significant green phosphor decay times, which looks a lot different than the in general slowness of a plasma, and is viewable in dark scenes with moving bright images. A light green trail will follow the bright object as the green phosphor continues to emit light. Most sets shouldn't suffer from this, and phosphor speeds vary. Computer monitors, for instance, tend to have VERY fast phosphors, which is why at what are pretty high refresh rates, you can still see flicker that you would never see on other TVs.

And as for my quote that seems to have been misunderstood:

"dim, at first fuzzy-looking, not-NEARLY as colorful".

I was saying that a CALIBRATED display, ANY display will look dim, not as colorful, and softer than the HIDEOUS PQ of an out-of box TV of ANY kind. What you see in Best Buy, very bright, very colorful, and often way oversharpened images are NOT what tv's of any kind are supposed to look like. This is why I always try to reiterate calibration, AND dark viewing environments, along with patience. Newbies will buy a calibration disc like Avia, follow the instructions, and then find that their set is "too dim","too soft and unsharp" and mess up all the calibration. Follow the patterns, and leave it as is for a week, and see if you don't get used to it. A properly calibrated set, of ANY kind, plasma, crt, dlp, lcd, whatever, will to the untrained eye look much worse at first. The problem is 99% of the population thinks that the WAY over-bright TVs they see everyday is what they are supposed to look like. You obliterate detail like that, color rendition is horrible, and very degrading artifacts are added by over-sharpening.

All displays have shortcomings. From an *absolute* reference standpoint, FP CRT is still king. But it should be obvious why FP CRTs are hardly ever sold any more, even though they are still visually the best. When you can get 90% of the PQ(albeit for tens of thousands of $$) from a brighter, smaller, digital that doesn't require constant tweaking and nightmarish setup, you can see why people are hesitant to hoist up a 200lb volkswagen-sized projector on their ceiling.

 

[Steve_L_B]

Plasmas have very long image retention. That is, when a pixel is fired, it stays lit brightly for a moment (yes moment... quite scientific indeed... sorry ). So, especially on fast motion images, with bright colors and whites, you can get severe smearing as what is supposed to turn off immediately continues to emit light for a little bit. How much I dont know, a frame.. a couple extra frames, i'm sure it varies. To a much less significant extent, they stay lit very dimly for quite a long time. Put up a bright image, then immediately stop the disc or somehow put up a black image, and you will see a shadow of the bright image on the screen stay up for a very long time, up to like a minute. It fades away slowly.

This was a severe problem in the first couple of generations of plasma displays, but it is really a non-issue on the newest generation plasmas, especially those manufactured by Pioneer, Panasonic and Fujitsu.

The bottom line is that you need to judge for yourself. Try to evaluate displays at off peak hours when your salesman can help you adjust the display settings and let you evaluate the picture quality using various preferred DVDs (and HD content, if available).

IMHO, no other display technology produces as real a looking image as a good plasma display. By real, I mean giving one the feeling that they are looking through a window.

-Steve

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Your understanding is a little incorrect. CRTs in general, be they direct view or projection; front or rear-projection, should, if setup up right, be able to produce absolute blacks without losing shadow detail. Obviously, the abilities of different sets varies, things like liquid coupling can help in contrast and fine dark detail when done properly in a projection CRT, be it front or rear(not really aware of many RPTVs that are this high-end though...)

Thus the black levels in plasmas and RPTVs are very different. Again, not that plasma doesn't throw a fine picture. Indeed they do, I just looked at a wall of them that were well set-up, and they look fantastic(and all pretty much the same). But then again... for much less than the price of a really great plasma you can have an RPTV, and have it ISFed, with a much bigger picture. Plus the overall PQ would be better, if you are picky about that.

As for DLP, I think they can throw a wonderful picture, but then cost is significant for a GOOD one. Rainbows can be a little irritating, though.

And as for LCD... lol.

 

[Steve_L_B]

I was referring specifically to RPTVs, not front projection. While CRT based RPTVs may produce absolute black in a totally dark room with an all black picture, their black level tends to rise with average picture level and ambient lighting due to internal reflections. DLP and LCD based RPTVs generally have black levels that are worse than the best plasmas.

Good direct view CRT displays have the best black levels and tend to hold their black level better with average picture level.

As was stated in another post, plasmas do not suffer from convergence, geometry and focus issues and have a much wider viewing angle than RPTVs. These also contribute significantly to picture quality. CRT based RPTVs require periodic adjustments to all of these to maintain their picture quality. I personally would never consider going back to an RPTV.

-Steve

 

[Rich H]

Hi Jon (and others).


Given many of the negative comments still circling around concerning plasma picture quality, I thought I'd address why
an AV buff like myself would end up choosing plasma. The short answer: plasmas are capable of jaw-dropping picture quality and produce a picture that is "different" from RPTV, with some advantages that I see regarding picture quality. Many people simply have not seen what plasma can do in a quality set-up. (BTW, I *have* seen what RPTVs/LCD/DLP/Tube Sets/FP can do in quality controlled set-ups...so I'm not basing my opinion simply on the unrepresentative crap you see in store set-ups). If you want an idea of the picture my Panasonic Plasma puts out, click the link below my name to see screen shots (as best as I could muster...they still don't look as good as the real thing of course).

I bought the Panasonic brand plasma because I wanted deep black levels and I got 'em. There is a bit of detail lost in the very lowest end of the gray scale, but it is rarely noticeable, especially next to the amazing strengths of the plasma image. The picture is just insanely gorgeous. My previous 27" Panasonic Tau has absolutely nothing on the plasma. Nor have I auditioned any tube set that I felt matches the visual impact, naturalness and believability of the plasma image (that included auditioning the latest HD tube sets from Loewe/Sony/Toshiba/Panasonic etc..). I've several friends with top tube sets from Loewe/Sony who warned me against plasma but, who upon seeing my plasma in action have been stricken with lust on sheer picture quality alone ("Plasma's next for me").

ChrisWiggles feels RPTV picture quality kills plasma, and that's very cool; this hobby is obviously very subjective so we are just comparing opinions here.

I've directly compared performance of Fujitsu/Panasonic/Pioneer plasmas to the best RPTVs from Hitachi/Mitsubishi/Sony/Toshiba/Pioneer Elite. In all cases the displays - both plasma and RPTV - were ISF calibrated and the viewing conditions were controlled (direct feeds from DVD player/HD box to display, control over lighting to get it to "home theater" levels). The RPTVs were quite good at producing a Film-like image, and good black levels, and of course they had size in their favor. But in every case I found that in terms of pure picture quality, overall, the plasmas produced a more engaging, and certainly the more realistic-looking image.

Why? I find that emissive technologies (plasma/tube set) have a certain advantage to achieving a believable image.
Rear Projection *looks* rear-projected: the image looks like a reflected image. It looks intermediated and doesn't have quite the "thereness" of a display that directly emmits the image to the eye. And the emissive technology has perfectly even brightness, which I find impacts picture quality even from on-axis (I find myself aware of the uneven illumination of any RPTV from any angle...which is an artificial cue). The result is the plasma image has a density or palpability to the images on screen - a shot of an apple or something can give you the uncanny impression it is right before you; that you know exactly what it would be like to reach in and touch it. It brings images of people and objects to another level of "life-like" that I don't get from either RPTV or Front Projection technology, which earn their rep mostly from imitating the look of film.
I've many times compared the look of real objects to objects
in a hi-def feed on RPTVs and plasmas. The RPTVs look good with hi-def in of themselves, and the image is big and immersive. But they do not survive the comparison to real life like the plasmas. Look at real objects to objects on an RPTV and the RPTV images look like light shadows. Look from real objects to a well-set-up plasma like Panasonic, and it can match the sense of looking from real life to a window on another scene of real life.

So, that's what I get from my plasma: a clarity, density, palpability, liveliness and realism of image that I've yet to see in any RPTV. The image isn't as big, but for me it's better in the ways I appreciate.

I sure don't think everyone would or should see it the same way. But every pal of mine who owns a different display technology is blown away by the plasma image I get at home. And every person over at the AVS Plasma forum who bought a top-end plasma, and who owned (or owns) a RPTV has reported
preffering the overal picture quality of the plasma (including guys with RPTVs using 9" crt guns). So I'm not alone, it seems.

A couple of points to finish with:

1. MOTION LAG: Motion lag in plasma is virtually a non-issue these days and has been, in the best brands (Pioneer/Panasonic/NEC/Fujitsu) for quite a while (about two years in my experience). I'm extremely sensitive to motion artifacts - can't stand either choppy motion or smeared motion (why I can't watch LCD flat panels for too long), and I see no motion problems or smearing with my Panasonic plasma. Over at the heavily-trafficed AVS Plasma forum no-one complains of motion smear on their plasma. Non-issue!

2. BLACK LEVELS: Plasma black levels vary among brands. Panasonic is perhaps the most popular plasma maker, and they have acheived very good deep black levels, subjectively and objectively. Technical-oriented Reviewer Peter H. Putman, who is quite experienced measuring plasma performance, writes: "The Panasonic panels typically produce a black level of .2 nits, equivalent to my Princeton CRT monitor." (http://www.projectorexpert.com/Pages/shmontrast.html)
The same measurment apply to many of the panels made by Fujitsu (using the Panasonic glass). From the many technical reviews I've read, I'd rate the black level performance from the big manufacturers from best to worst:
Panasonic/Fujitsu - NEC - Pioneer - Sony (Sony is still pretty awful for it's crappy black levels). Many other manufacturers are outsourcing from Panasonic/NEC/Pioneer.
There are a bunch of other companies who've jumped into plasma production, but I think the Panasonic/Fujitsu/NEC above remain the best.

As far as plasma gray scales and color accuracy, Tom Norton of Stereophile Guide To Home Theater wrote in the calibration section of his Fujitsu 50" Plasma review:
"The resulting gray scale (After), also plotted, is excellent. Moreover, this result is actually as close as I have ever measured to the desired value of D6500 on the CIE color chart." And.."flesh tones, after calibration and given good program material, were the most convincingly natural I have ever seen on any video display of any type."
And..."this is our benchmark for plasma displays. For that matter, it's my benchmark for a display of this size using any technology. It's that good." So plasma can indeed have superb performance.


Ain't this AV stuff fun?

Rich.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Well obviously. It's the same at the digital projection forums. And the CRT forums. And the RPTV forums. I don't give that much sway at all. Read them all, and know the pro-level people who know what they are talking about, and you can get a pretty good feel for the reality, not the "look at me I bought product X, it's the greatest in the world because I bought it."

You get the same thing in Bose forums too.

 

[Rich H]

Good points Chris.

I agree: CRT FP is da bomb! I generally prefer it to DLP/LCD projection. I also tend to prefer the better CRT RPTVs to the LCD/DLPs - likely for the same reasons you do.
BTW, I come from the film business (was in picture editing for quite a while...spoiled by seeing a lot of fresh 35mm answer prints). So I'm in love with the look of film too.
I'm also in love with the different look offered by technologies like plasma.

"Well obviously. It's the same at the digital projection forums. And the CRT forums. And the RPTV forums. I don't give that much sway at all. Read them all, and know the pro-level people who know what they are talking about, and you can get a pretty good feel for the reality, not the "look at me I bought product X, it's the greatest in the world because I bought it.""

You're right...but also kind of wrong

There is an element of fallacy in dismissing someones opinion simply because they own X display. Yes people can have bias. However, most people do not decide their opinion on image quality AFTER they own a display, the make assesments of image quality BEFORE they own the display, which then leads them to buying the display. I had no bias about plasmas being good before I bought one, in fact I had if anything an anti-plasma bias based on my previous experience with 1st and 2nd generations of that technology. I compared everything out there and assessed plasma as the most pleasing before I ever spent a cent.

Yes you'll find people on the RPTV forums feeling they've made the best PQ choice. But in my experience I've yet to see someone post on an RPTV forum that they have actually lived with both technologies (plasma/RPTV). Whereas on the plasma forum quite a number of people have had both.

Also, when you say look at the "pro people who know what they are talking about," I'd say Tom Norton of SGTHT, and Peter Putman, whom I quoted, would be pros. But I'd also make the point that had I listened to "the pros" I would never have considered plasma. And I would never have had the incredible satisfaction this technology brings me. Two years ago it was almost unanimous among "the pros" that plasma PQ was sub-par for anyone serious about picture quality. Yet Panasonic had introduced the first ED plasmas with great black levels, which my eyes told me produced some of the most amazing images I'd seen (and which started me saving for plasma). Two years later the Panasonic picture quality of the Panasonic ED plasma is the subject of universal raves from the very AV writers who had dismissed plasma. And the models they are reviewing are identical in picture quality (measured objectively too) to the two year old model I bought. In other words, it took the pros two years to catch up to what my eyes had already told me.

None of this is to say "plasma is better."
And it's not that many pros don't know what they are talking about. But picture quality is ultimately pretty subjective, which is why I judge PQ based on what I see, not on other people's opinions, pros or otherwise.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Yep. I agree with you on pretty much everything there.

On the OTHER hand...the films that mean the most to me look like crap, sound like crap(mono anyone?), often aren't even available on DVD.

But that's just my crazy subjective taste too. How about films with absolutely no plots? Oh yeah, I've sat through hours of those and loved every second of em.



BTW your gallery doesn't seem to be working :frowning: .

 

[KenK]

RPTV's prices are dropping through the floor and the quality levels are very high. Downside is the monstrous big box, sensitivity to ambient and reflected light.

FPTV's - even more sensitivity to ambient light, less to reflected. Prices dropping fast but continuously outpaced by more popular RPTV's (due to LCD's, etc.) Still in the "early adopters" phase. Few have large enough rooms to appreciate pictures bigger than 55 diagonal inches.

Plasma's, 5 times price of comparably sized RPTV due to ridiculous manufacturing yields, but basically a smallish picture even at 50". Hangs on the wall like a regular picture. Excellent viewing angle. Vivid colors, limited to 720P lines but still very good HD rendering.

SO....
If you don't care about money and don't need more than 50" get a Fujitsu plasma.

If you want/gotta have bigger than 65" get a FP to suit your budget since they range down to $1500 for decent quality.

For the average home and budget, RPTV is going to lead for a long time, and the pictures in 1080i are very good. DVD's only have 420 lines after all.

If I was going to part with $10K-$15K for a monitor, I'd have an easy time choosing FPTV over plasma. People that paid $10K+ for plasma are duty bound to say how vivid the colors are, but have to live with a smallish unit (maybe they are used to that Big budget, small unit.

I've watched 'em both for many hours, both are OK, but I'm a bigger picture kinda guy I guess.

 

[Rich H]

"BTW your gallery doesn't seem to be working."

Would you do me a favor and try again? It's working for me.
I've heard that the site I'm using can be a bit funky sometimes, and if the picture links are broken you should close out of the browser window and reopen it (or just try opening up the gallery/pictures in a new browser window).

Link:

http://www.pbase.com/chunkofunk/screen_shots_gallery

Thanks.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

just gives me red x's. Then again im at work, crappiness of puters may be in play. Ill try at home. nothing better than viewing plasma screenshots on my crt. hehehe.

 

[Father John A]

Site works fine for me here.

Quick question: I have been pricing plasmas and have noticed many in the sub 3K range do not include TV tuners. Is this the case in general? If so, I am defintely going to have to look elsewhere for a new TV.

Thanks.

 

[Jon Cheung]

Hey Rich, what model # is your panisonic? How would you go about fine tuning your plasma? How do you calibrate it? Thanks for all the input.

 

[Karlf]

OK, it sounds like black level is close enough to CRT. How about shadow detail??

 

[JaleelK]

After reading all these post, which are very interesting, I need some opinions. Is this a good time to purchase a LCD, LCOS or DLP RPTV? Or are we still in the early adopter stage on those type sets?

I ask because I'm considering purchasing one them by the begining of 04.

Personally I don't like plasma's picture quality, they still have that effect of looking at a picture through screened door(the kind that you put on the back door of your house to let air in and keep flys out, anyone else know what I mean about that?

Also, I have a Mits Platinum plus 55 inch CRT RPTV that's almost 3 years old, does anyone know if Mits is coming at out with a new DLP or LCD display, I would be interested in purchasing one.

 

[Rich H]

Father John A

I'm not sure about other brands, but I'm pretty sure you can find the Panasonic commercial ED model (TH-42PA20) on-line for under $3,000 (if you are comfortable with on-line purchases. If not...I dunno...)

Karlf,

Shadow detail on the Panasonic models is very good, But not quite the equal of the best CRTs. A good CRT can distinguish the very lowest steps of the gray scale. I find this rarely noticeable in actual viewing conditions. I'm a horror movie/sci-fi movie lover, so it would really bother me if the plasma didn't do black levels deep enough, without enough detail. But it's all up to your eyes and what you'd accept of course. For me, it would be hard to imagine giving up an image that looks so amazing on 95% of the material simply because I'm searching for that last gradient of black detail. YMMV.

Here's a screen shot from Attack Of The Clones playing on my plasma. It's a night scene. Unfortunately my digital camera crushed black and white detail that was visible in the real plasma image. However, it does show to some degree the plasma preserves gradients of darkness quite well, for a smooth picture:

Rain Planet Screen Shot

JaleelK,

When you mention the screen door effect, I'm imagining you are talking about the "ED" definition plasmas, which have larger visible pixels than the "HD" models. I'd be truly amazed if you are bothered by any screen door effect on the very densely packed HD models. I sure as heck don't see it from any reasonable viewing distance. In fact, from about 8 feet on I don't find the pixels on my Panasonic ED model to be discreet - it's a very smooth picture. Are you standing too close to the plasmas at the stores or something? (If you look at my screen shots from about 2 1/2 to 3 ft from your monitor, you'll get the same look as I do from my viewing distance. I doubt you'll notice any screen door effect. Maybe, who knows?)

Rich.

 

[Dave McC]

Another problem with Plasma is that it works on a pixel resolution(1024 x 780) or whatever. If a signal is entering the monitor that not at the correct resolution of the display, then the monitor must convert the signal. This conversion of a 1080i, 720p, or 480i/p will lead to artifacts. These look like little dots that a pixel displays because the source was converted.

 

[Rich H]

Dave McC,

True to a point. Welcome to the wonderful world of digital displays

However, a plasma with a good scaler will look just fine in it's up/downconversion of signals to it's resolution. I happen to be partial to the Panasonic plasmas (and Fujitsu plasmas based on the Panasonic glass).

A conversion does not necessarily entail the artifacts you mention. For instance, my Panasonic ED plasma has a truly superb scaler. It converts DVD, Hi-Def and NTSC signals with virtually no artifacts...definitely none of the "little dots" that you mention. (And I know exactly the scaling artifacts you are referring to).

In fact, it's ability to display NTSC, blowing it up to a 42" screen size without noticeable processing artifacts is, in my experience, unparralled by any other large screen display I've auditioned. I've auditioned most of the DLPs/LCDs (RPTV and flat panel), RPTVs and bigger-sized widescreen HD tube sets, playing NTSC. None have produced as sharp, smooth and natural processing of NTSC as I see on this plasma. A friend dropped by while I was watching standard def on the plasma and he assumed it was an HD signal - he couldn't believe how beautiful, sharp, detailed and realistic NTSC could look on a display. (Not to say the crappier channels aren't revealed to look crappier).

In fact, I find even the processing applied in most HD widescreen tubes sets (32-38") to be more obtrusive and synthetic-looking than on my plasma.

Just more notes from the field. Obviously, I'm a happy customer

 

[Mando-R]

I don't know how you can say that. I looked at your screenshots and even though they are scaled I can still see artifacting heavily in Episode 2 of Star Wars.

I'm not going to go into detail, because looking at your posts, you always give the question a runaround, and never really answer with a straight forward response.

My opinion - Plasma's are junk. No offense to any of you, but the image quality and lifetime of the set definitely doesn't make up for its cost. I've seen plenty of plasmas come back at Circuit City, and the owners go and pick up a Grand VVega because the image quality is better and the money is right.

I noticed on all flat panel televisions, that fast motions have artifacting blur because of the conversion. If you watch Matrix for example, (you have to have good eyes for this, mind you) when Neo is fighting Morpheus, you can see artifacting in the negatives of Neo's movements because the set has to upconvert each and every motion because it's a new image. I know what you're going to say, Rich, because I've dealt with people like you. "Well I don't notice that on my Panasonic ED set, so maybe you should check those out before you judge." Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I have checked out Panasonics sets, the 5UY, and the 6UY, and their current HD models too. My friend was in the market to buy a plasma, and I was the one scoping them out. I checked out the Korean models, Japanese models, and Chinese models and I've come to a well thought out and researched conclusion. Plasma's, even when calibrated, will give a user with good eyesight problems with artifacting images.

Don't even get me started with LCD flat panel tv's. Those have even worse motion artifacting. Not only that, but the screen has a "milked down" look to it, and it doesn't have the benefit that plasma's do, in the aspect that you can view it from most angles.

Are plasma's really worth it? At this point in time, no. A lot of people say, "Well I want something I can move, and I don't have the room for a projector." Ask any real enthusiast here... There is ALWAYS room for a projector. Table top mounting and ceiling mounting give you all the possibilities you want. Plus, since when are plasma's so compact anyway? Do you know how long it takes to move a plasma? They might be light but there's no one in the world that can carry one by himself. You wanna know why? Because plasma's can't be tilted at all, or you're screwed. With projection tv's, they have wheels at the bottom. A regular projector can be unplugged and moved to a different room as you please. How long does it take for you to nail up a pull down grey screen? The wall mount for a plasma tv takes 4-5 times the amount of time it takes to nail up a pull down screen. "I don't have controlled lighting" If that's the case then spend half the cash to get twice the size on a RPTV. There are RPTV's out that aren't affected by damp lighting. There are Panasonic and Samsung RPTV's that are very thin and produce a clean HDTV image because they are native at that resolution.

The only advantage to owning a plasma, is that you will get major browny points with the ladies for having one. But, most of the guys on this forum are married, so I know those guys only care about one thing - price/value. CRT's are cheaper, and provide better image quality, hands down.

If you wanna spend a lot of money to get something cool, then get a Samsung DLP RPTV. The 617 is a 61" wide screen projection tv that will knock you off your feet and it's only 5 grand.