More than ever I understand why Plasma and any quality display is DOOMED (1 Viewer)

[Bryan^H]

However, it was amazing to see how most people can't tell a bad picture when they see it.
This further drives home the point that consumers don't care about bad quality displays, and
therefor, we lose really good technology in the process.

Unless they are going blind they CAN tell the difference. That is the problem, they choose not too. Lazy viewership I call it.

I got a top shelf 40" Sony LCD in 2010 with the fastest refresh rate possible, and when I got it I thought it was the best thing in the world. My brother got his 60" plasma a year later. I was stunned at how much better(and different in a good way) movies looked on his display, Suddenly my 40" was terrible, and I've been wanting a plasma ever since.

 

[Worth]

The Plasma burn-in problem was one of the reasons I did not go with plasma. Even though I was told it had gotten better, I did some research online and it still seemed that it still existed.

Everything can "burn in". LCD pixels can become permanently stuck, which looks pretty much the same as uneven wear on a plasma or CRT.

 

[ScottHM]

TO ME, I just prefer the LCD/LED picture. My brain will tell me that plasma is best, but my eyes just don't agree with it. I'm going to go with LED because it is more pleasing to my eye. If that puts me in amongst the "crap loving" public, then so be it.

It's like the debate between watching Citizen Kane in black and white or colorized. People like what they like, no matter how things "should" be.

---------------

 

[atfree]

I've had plasma's since 2007 (both Panasonic), never had burn-in problems and we watch a ton of network shows with logos constantly on screen, sports with stuff constantly on the bottom of screen, and I personally watch a lot of old movies with black bars on both sides of screen.

My only encounter with burn-in came when we moved my 2007 42" model to our son's bedroom in 2011 when I got a new model. One night, he fell asleep with his Xbox360 on, with a static "start" screen for game displaying for about 8 hours. When I discovered it the next morning, there a definite image left on the screen but after he watched a couple of hours of regular TV, the image was completely gone. Other than that, never a problem. While I don't dispute that some people have encountered burn-in with plasma, I also think burn-in became somewhat of an urban legend, propulgated largely by uninformed sales people at big box stores trying to sell more LCD's IMO.

I've always found it ironic that plasma's have pretty much universally been hailed as the best TV's just about every year (and I have personally found them to be the best), but I've never heard a so-called "expert" at a store actually recommend one to a customer, and plasmas always got relegated to some outer realm of the TV department in almost every store I've visited. Something was always rotten in Denmark IMO in the plasma vs LCD world.

 

[schan1269]

LCD has higher profit margin.

 

[Bryan^H]

LCD has higher profit margin.

Bingo

 

[schan1269]

Many moons ago, when I sold big ticket at Lazarus...Toshiba and Mitsubishi had 7% to 12% commission.Philips/Magnavox and RCA had 6%, while Sony went 4% to 9%.Case in point, we had a 19" Magnavox that came in 3 flavors...Mono "non numbered" remote(6 button) for $200 at 1% comm.Stereo with a numbered remote for $210 at 4%.Stereo with a front AV jack and universal remote for $230 at 12%.Guess which TV got hammered to customers?The next highest "our pocket" was a 20" Mits for $250 with 7%...In projection sets...Sony was 7% across the board. Twin tuner PIP Toshiba and Mits were 14%. Even if the Sony cost more...we pushed the less expensive Toshiba. (Mits were "clerked"...as people 99% of the time already knew the model they wanted. Then it was merely pushing warranty...)

 

[GeorgeAB]

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." H.L.Mencken

 

[zoetmb]

The problem is that consumers have been trained to think an over-bright, over-contrasty, over saturated picture is a good picture. When the masses look at a calibrated picture, they don't like it. It feels dim and dull to them. Back in the '70s, I sold audio equipment at retail. The speaker that had over-emphasized low and high end always sold better than the refined accurate speaker. I help people out with their setups in my apartment building. I'm no longer shocked when I find them incorrectly tuning the SD channel when they have an HD cable box and TV. Half are amazed when I show them the difference. But the other half aren't, don't really see the difference and go back to watching the SD channel because that's what they're used to doing. And in fairness, we've been in a lousy economy for a long time and the masses don't want to spend the money. So for all those reasons and also because everyone lost money selling plasma, we no longer have it. I never wound up buying one, but when I first saw the Kuro, it literally took my breath away.

 

[Carl Johnson]

While a cheap LED looks like crap compared to a properly calibrated plasma display, it looks phenomenal when compared to the tube television that the consumer has grown accustomed to. When a customer has the opportunity to get a product that's better than anything that they have ever owned for $400, few will even take the time to compare the features on the $600 model.

 

[Jason Charlton]

And in fairness, we've been in a lousy economy for a long time and the masses don't want to spend the money.

You bring up some good points, but in the case of plasma displays, they had been the cheaper alternative for several years. People were/are paying MORE for a display not because it offers a better picture (which it doesn't) but because it is thinner and has all sorts of "features" which they are TOLD (marketing BS) they need, but no one really ever bothers to ask (or learn) WHY* they need them.

*hint: Because the display technology is inherently terrible and these are ways they try (and fail) to make it more like a plasma

 

[schan1269]

You bring up some good points, but in the case of plasma displays, they had been the cheaper alternative for several years. People were/are paying MORE for a display not because it offers a better picture (which it doesn't) but because it is thinner and has all sorts of "features" which they are TOLD (marketing BS) they need, but no one really ever bothers to ask (or learn) WHY* they need them.*hint: Because the display technology is inherently terrible and these are ways they try (and fail) to make it more like a plasma

If "price" were the driver...We'd still have DLP RPTV. The best of those were 2/3 the price of the shittiest LCD(can't compare plasma...as the smallest DLP was larger...) when Mits pulled the plug.When you have 4 historically "premium brands" kill themselves off...It is a race to the bottom. Samsung and Vizio(LG is exempt here, cause they learned how to make good product from Mitsubishi) have led the race to the bottom.And yes, I know Samsung has top tier product. How big is that side of the coin from the "absolute crap" side?(In another year we'll know if these current Samsung TV really were upgraded with better caps. Just because "yes we were using crappy caps that caused our TV to die, we switched vendors"...doesn't mean the new caps aren't crap)

 

[Rick Thompson]

So what else is new? Why do you think film cameras got run out of the market by low-rez phone cameras? And why do you think digital cameras that allow you to take better pictures because they're designed to be cameras are so rarely seen?

After all, we went to digital television because it was so much better resolution than NTSC, even though it meant non-urban areas were forced to satellite at extra charge. And now people are watching movies on 4" phones and 10-12" tablets that don't use the resolution. We could have stayed with NTSC and saved all that money we sent to China, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia and Korea.

Yes, the epiphany: People don't care about quality.

So what else is new?

 

[David Willow]

Oh boy, this really hit a nerve with me. I have been watching the younger generation gradually stop caring about quality. For me this is especially true with music. While I have no problem paying more for music from hdtracks.com or buying vinyl, kids today would rather listen to the crappiest sounding music they can get. First it was mp3's, now it is even worse with streaming music from services like Pandora. And they listen to this crappy music on the cheapest set of earbuds they can find...

 

[youworkmen]

All I could see was that the picture looked nowhere near the quality of what I was usedto seeing on my plasma

That's because you were used to watching the "shit" that is plasma.Plasma images are dull in comparison to LED . I tried a plasma and the brightness and contrast wouldn't even go up to the levels that I wanted so it went back.After LED I tried some Blurays on the plasma but it was difficult to tell it was actually HD.After reading all the love letters about plasmas on this forum ( I didn't intervene or give my opinion because I've seen the reception others have gotten just for dissing plasmas especially from one of your "reviewers") I accepted that perhaps I just like bright colorful images - the sort that plasma failed to deliver.So to test it out and I purchased one of those HD calibration Bluray discs fully expecting to find that my brightness , contrast and color were all way too high.Guess what . I hadn't paid someone to visit my house to tell me what I should be looking at , I used the only measure I was interested in - my own opinion and the calibration disc told me my images were perfect with the exception of just one setting . It said to INCREASE the contrast slightly .So now a calibration disc aswell as my opinion both match . Has it ever occured to you that the reason you don't like LCD/LED is because you've been used to watching plasma for so long ? You've not been able to set your tv to the settings the majority of the public enjoy which is why plasma is dead.I'm sure you or someone will try and return with some smartarse remarks but previously I've seen naysayers told to get their set calibrated . Well I have . I expect my disc must be faulty

 

[youworkmen]

The problem is that consumers have been trained to think an over-bright, over-contrasty, over saturated picture is a good picture. When the masses look at a calibrated picture, they don't like it. It feels dim and dull to them.

Your comments seem at odds to the calibration disc I recently purchased.I do like a bright high contrast image and was willing to accept that perhaps that wasn't what techheads accepted as being quality but according to the calibration disc I purchased my settings are fine http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B0045ASBLG/ref=oh_details_o03_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1Maybe Disney are wrong

 

[David Willow]

There are defined film industry standards that all displays and sound systems should be set to. It is very difficult to get the display settings correct on non-plasmas because they have so much trouble producing black. Now if your preference is to not like these standards, then by all means adjust as you see fit. But if you want to see and hear in your home the same thing you see and hear at better movie theaters, then you have to make the adjustments (and you need a TV that can be adjusted). It is just preference vs reference....

Do you see the same color and contrast on your screen as you see when you look outside? It shouldn't be that much different.

 

[youworkmen]

There are defined film industry standards that all displays and sound systems should be set to. It is very difficult to get the display settings correct on non-plasmas because they have so much trouble producing black. Now if your preference is to not like these standards, then by all means adjust as you see fit. But if you want to see and hear in your home the same thing you see and hear at better movie theaters, then you have to make the adjustments (and you need a TV that can be adjusted). It is just preference vs reference....Do you see the same color and contrast on your screen as you see when you look outside? It shouldn't be that much different.

I have to say that in the few days I was using a plasma it certainly didn't look like outside.I agree that you need a tv that can be adjusted which is why the plasma went back.I got it because I wanted a 3D set and Panasonic at that point only did 3D on plasma sets but when I was unable to adjust the contrast and brightness to levels I was happy with it had to go back.As I said , I assumed that my preference may not be reference but I was happy with that . However , the calibration disc I used surprised me by telling me my settings were perfectly fine.The Panasonic I have now seems to display black without a problem.Once I'd decided to try again buying 3D I tried a home cinema specialist aswell as a general electronic retailer . The latter made the mistake of having their single plasma side by side with an LED set . It was hard to see why anyone would go for the plasma .The specialist also was low on plasma but the Panasonic they had looked inferior even from a distance .I only have a 42" set but it does me . Its a Panasonic 3D smart tv and I'm very happy with the images . As Ronald says about his friends - that's what countsThe calibration disc does have separate sections for setting up plasma and LED so perhaps that's why it says my setup is ok

 

[DaveF]

They contacted me to ask for a recommendation on purchasing large displays
for their home.
...
I attempted to recommend plasmas, even hoping they would spend the money for
at least one Samsung F8500. Sent them an email carefully pointing out the advantages
of going with a quality plasma display.

In the end, they bought two Vizio 60" LED displays that went for about $1500-$1700
apiece.

What makes me the most sad about these scenarios:

"Our trusted friend, founder of the the preeminent Home Theater Forum website, and knowledgable enthusiast, recommends a Plasma TV"

"Yes dear, but the Best Buy blue-shirt recommends a Vizio."

"You're right. Let's ignore the expert and buy what the big-box store hack suggests."

I find the problem less about knowledge or understand of quality, but about how we can completely ignore informed opinions that were asked for.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I attempted to recommend plasmas, even hoping they would spend the money for
at least one Samsung F8500. Sent them an email carefully pointing out the advantages
of going with a quality plasma display.

In the end, they bought two Vizio 60" LED displays that went for about $1500-$1700
apiece.

Ron,

What's ironic is i just bought a 60" Samsung F8500 for $1698 which means it's in the same price range as those Vizeo LED displays.