Plasma, LCD, or Keep Waiting? Advice Wanted. (1 Viewer)

[Jack_TN]

I just got a Panny TH-42PA20U/P mounted up on the wall and running last Saturday, with a viewing distance of about 10 feet. I've seen people complain on some of the forums that NTSC looks crappy. I watch a lot of satellite TV and while the quality does vary from channel to channel, I think almost all look good and some look great. Of course, DVDs look fantastic. And I haven't gotten around to using a calibration disc yet.

Jack

 

[Bruce Rebels]

"Plasmas look great, however, who wants to get a monitor that you have to replace after a few years?"
Certainly not me! But...what has that statement to do with plasmas?"
To many consumers...ALOT. Are you saying that Plasmas don't lose it's gases after a few years..hence degrading the quality of the picture??

"I have to assume you've fallen victim to the mis-information circulating about plasma life span."
Acutually NO! I have witnessed personally the end result of what happens to a PLasma Monitor after 2 years, I haven't been misinformed by any ads or salesmen

"If you don't want to buy plasma, at least make your choice based on something other than misinformation."
I agree, but get all the facts from as many people as possible. Especially from people who work with them extensively.

I'm not saying that DLP or LCD is better than Plasma.
I'm saying that you need to look @ all the variables.
Most people can't afford Plasma.so they want the next best thing. Give alternatives.

 

[Craig John]

I'm surprised nobody has yet suggested any of the RP CRT's. I see downsides to ALL the "digital" technologies. Those downsides simply don't exist with CRT's.

Plasma: I see the pixel structure -- on even the more expensive, HD models. At 8', this would drive me nutty, especially for that much money.

DLP: I see rainbows -- even on the 5-color wheel devices.

LCD: I see dead pixels. I also see gray's where I should see black.

Of course, the downside to RP CRT's is their size. In a Manhattan apartment, this could be a real problem. However, if you can live with the size, I would suggest the Hitachi X500 series. All the hi-end features plus 2 DVI connections. You can find full spec's on these TV's at the Hitachi.us website. (I can't post the link 'cause I ain't a 15-post member yet.)

Just my $0.02

craig

 

[DaveGTP]

To many consumers...ALOT. Are you saying that Plasmas don't lose it's gases after a few years..hence degrading the quality of the picture??

Untrue - I suggest some research. I won't go into the technical explanation for why plasmas dim over time (it's not losing gasses!), but as has been stated - it's 40,000 to 60,000 hours to half brightness. That's something like 13yrs @ 8 hours a day. Not "a few years". This is indeed misinformation. For that matter, Rich above has a 3-yr old plus plasma if I recall the model # on it, he can speak personally to the matter.

 

[Rich H]

"To many consumers...ALOT. Are you saying that Plasmas don't lose it's gases after a few years..hence degrading the quality of the picture??"

Yes, that's exactly right. They don't. This "loosing it's gasses" thing is a myth.

"Acutually NO! I have witnessed personally the end result of what happens to a PLasma Monitor after 2 years, I haven't been misinformed by any ads or salesmen"

Bruce, this is bizarre. I've been over at the AVSforum for over two years and not one person who has owned a plasma for any lengths of time has reported noticable picture loss (save one guy with a first or second generation plasma over 6 years). What exactly happened to the plasma you saw? How old a model was it and how was it used?

I've had my plasma for two years of heavy use - it is indestinguishable from when I got it.
People over at AVS have had plasmas for four years. They are fine too. And these are older models. One of the largest strides in plasma manufacturing over the past three years has been increased life-span to half-brightness. You've already been given the latest estimates.


"I agree, but get all the facts from as many people as possible. Especially from people who work with them extensively."

Totally agree. My information comes from, among other sources, tech people at Panasonic, Pioneer and the head tech guy for Fujitsu North America. And from owning a plasma.

I'm not saying that DLP or LCD is better than Plasma.I'm saying that you need to look @ all the variables. Most people can't afford Plasma.so they want the next best thing. Give alternatives.

I totally agree with you there!

Thanks,

 

[Rich H]

"I'm surprised nobody has yet suggested any of the RP CRT's. I see downsides to ALL the "digital" technologies. Those downsides simply don't exist with CRT's."

I really like CRT RPTVs too - better than DLPs and LCDs for the most part.

Of course CRT RPTVs have downsides that plasma does not:

1. CRTs suffer convergence/focus issues; plasma always has perfect convergence and focus corner to corner.

2. CRT RPTV has uneven illumination (even from directly on axis) and changes it's image with a viewing position. You have to sit just right to get the best, most accurate image.
Plasma does not have this disadvantage - it is perfectly illuminated from pretty much every viewing angle.

3. Brightness: Lots of CRT RPTVs only shine in low lighting conditions - the "close the curtains" problem for daytime viewing. Plasma can produce a brighter image that remains punchy in all lighting conditions.

4. As you already mentioned: Size.

More subjectively, I find a good plasma is capable of greater realism in how it can reproduce the sensation of looking at dense, solid objects, as they appear in real life. In comparison I find CRT RPTVs overlay a "projected" effect onto all images of all source type (for obvious reasons - it is projected).

That said, I certainly agree there are advantages to CRT RPTVs - the best ones can register full HD resolution, have great black performance and color detail, and you get bigger, more film-like images. Not to mention their price makes them comparitively great bang for the buck.

I don't really feel one technology should be lauded or pushed above another, because they all have different "looks" to the image that appeal to different people. And other issues such as aesthetics, concern about burn-in, viewing angles etc. all play a part in making a display "right" for someone.

 

[Bruce Rebels]

Just because people in the AVS Forum haven't noticed the image on their Monitor "degrade" over time doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Rich, Are you saying that you can't lose gas from a plasma monitor? I'm a little skeptical on that.
What about burn in? Plasma can suffer burn in because it's phospher based(unlike LCD/DLP/CRT).

Not trying to debate you Rich,actually I'm learning even more about Panasonic's line of Plasma Monitors thanks to you & I might look @ getting one down the road!
What do you think about Fujitsu's line in comparison?

 

[Rich H]

Hi Bruce,

First, I'm not pushing plasma as the solution to everyone, to say the least. I think I feel it's an even more subjective taste issue than most videophiles (who insist on the superiority of one technology).

However, when I got to researching a display replacement for my Panasonic Tau tube set a couple years ago I walked into a store and saw from the (then) latest Panasonic plasma the most captivating images I'd ever seen. Back then plasma was heavily derided by most "real videophiles" as producing sub-standard images. Yet my eyes told me the complete opposite when it came to this particular plasma (and I'm in film, having edited and shot film, as well as seen a steady diet of pristine 35mm answer prints over my post production career).

I'd argue that plasma can produce an amazing viewing experience, in terms of realism. But I'd hear gaffaws from AV people who "knew plasmas weren't any good."

Now, three years later even the AV press is going nuts over the image quality of Panasonic's latest plasmas. Yet these new models produce essentially the same image quality as the unit I've lived with for a couple years - back when no one seemed to listen to us earlier adopters.

So, I guess I'm still somewhat in the habit of sticking up for plasma and correcting mis-information, even though most AV popple now find plasma produces excellent images.

On to your questions:

"Rich, Are you saying that you can't lose gas from a plasma monitor? I'm a little skeptical on that."

Answer, from the Plasma FAQ at the AVSforum:

The actual facts are that once plasmas are sealed, they are sealed forever (so the gas does not escape). There is no way to open the plasma, or recharge the gas in any way. Opening the the plasma would destroy it. While the gas does not degrade over time, the phosphors on the inside face of the plasma screen can degrade over time (just like in a normal CRT based TV).

"What about burn in? Plasma can suffer burn in because it's phosphor based(unlike LCD/DLP/CRT)."

CRTs have phosphors to and are susceptible to burn in (true of both tube sets and RPTVs). The threat of plasma burn-in for most consumers has been greatly exaggerated. With normal care and usage it has not been problem for anyone over at the AVSforum - and there have been countless threads asking about burn-in over the years. One guy apparently did get barely noticeable burn-in (when viewed on an all-white screen, not normal viewing) but that was from playing EXCLUSIVELY 4:3 material with black sidebars for over seven months, every day. That type of usage would produce burn-in in any CRT as well.

I've had my plasma for a couple years, normal heavy usage, plenty of letter-boxed movies, lots of kids channels played for hours with heavy screen logos, and there isn't a hint of burn in at all.

DLP/LCD are supposedly not susceptible to burn-in, which is good if you are a heavy game player or if you insist on wanting your NTSC played 4:3 and not filling your wide-screen display.

"What do you think about Fujitsu's line in comparison? "

I love Fujitsu's plasmas. They manufacture the glass for some of their displays and employ what they call their ALIS technology, which is different from most plasma's progressive scan processing. And they also sometimes use Panasonic's glass for those great black levels, but add their own electronics and connectivity options for an even better product. The Fuji P50 (50") plasma is often cited as the best on the market.

Take care,

 

[Brent M]

I just came across this thread and thought I'd chime in with my .02 on the topic. I'm completely in agreement with Rich H on this one--to me plasma looks better than all the other alternatives on the market(DLP, LCD, CRT rear projection, etc). I've had a 42" Panasonic plasma for almost 9 months now and every time I watch a DVD on it I'm blown away. It has such a great picture that I can't imagine ever finding anything better. In fact, I'm so impressed with my 42" that I'm giving serious consideration to buying a new 50" Panasonic HD plasma sometime after the new year. I've spent a lot of time looking at all the various displays on the market and have even done side-by-comparisons between plasmas and DLP, LCD and CRT rear projection displays. To my eyes there is no comparison as the plasma always blows away everything else sitting next to it. I know there are a lot of people with other displays that are very happy with them and I'm glad they're not distracted by the flaws I see in those technologies(viewing angle, weak black levels, motion artifacts and video noise, etc). Plasma has none of these problems(well, some plasmas do have weak black levels but that's not a problem if you buy a Panasonic or Fujitsu panel) and the only downside to them is cost. I was able to get my 42" Panny for a very reasonable price, however, and it's even cheaper now so there are affordable plasmas out there if you do the research to find them. The purpose of this post is not to trash DLP, LCD or CRT rear projection TVs because some of them can look very good, but if you're interested in the most mind-blowing picture you've ever seen I truly think plasma is the only choice. At least, that's how I feel and I know many other people who feel the exact same way. Good luck to everyone in their search for video utopia.

 

[John_F]

Hello Bruce,


Could you please post on what you saw? What was the manufacturer/model/year?

Thanks,
John Flegert

 

[Brent M]

John,

Bruce was completely off base with his comments. Nothing is going to happen to a plasma after only 2 years of use. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who spread misinformation about plasma displays(mainly salespeople at Best Buy and Circuit City) and that just keeps the cycle of ignorance going. The new crop of plasmas have roughly the same life-span as a CRT tube TV so you can expect many trouble-free years out of a good plasma display(no loss of gases or any other bogus claims like that). If anything, my only strong piece of advice would be to avoid the Korean brands like Sampo, Daewoo, etc. as they are nowhere near the quality of Panasonic, Fujitsu and Pioneer.

 

[John_F]

Brent, while I appreciate the information, I would like to hear from Bruce.

Thanks.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Many thanks to all for the useful information here, in particular Rich H. I've been considering a plasma for some time now -- a 29" 4:3 CRT just doesn't cut it anymore :frowning: -- and hopefully a decent year-end bonus will allow me to take the plunge as well.

I've sort-of kept an eye out on plasmas in the local equivalents of Best Buy etc. I would agree that even on a cursory viewing, the Pannys are outstanding, and Toshibas are not bad either. Pioneers used to be up there but seem to have slipped a little. The newest Sony (with the clear frame around the screen between it and the speakers) looks nice too.

Any thoughts on the JVC? I thought it looked very good, and it's won a number of "best of" awards in the consumer mags (e.g. What HiFi).

 

[Mort Corey]

Well Yee-Ming, after months of viewing Pioneer, Fujitsu, Panasonic and Sony sets I finally made the decision to go back to the store that carried the Fujitsu displays....more expensive, but it was the best PQ on the widest variety of material. However......when I walked in, ready to finally make the purchase, they had the 42HD JVC that they'd just put on display. I fed it (and the new 30 seriers Fujitsu) HD, SD, DVD and even VHS (one in black and white no less) and the JVC unit surpassed all the other models. That it had additional features and I liked the esthetics more were a bonus. The best part of all was when I got it home and hooked it up to my cable feed. I was expecting a mediocre picture (at best) and was stunned at how good it looked. Whatever they put in their media box does wonders to SD material. Still waiting for my HD to be installed but I already know that will look even more awesome.

Mort (a happy comsumer...ZERO % buyers remorse)

 

[Darryl]

What's the model number on the JVC you just purchased?

 

[Mort Corey]

JVC PD-42WX84. 1024X768 resolution (XGA) with a 770p native display rate.

Mort

 

[Eric_Connelly]

If you can live without HD then the ED units are great.

We bought a 60" Grand Wega LCD for a few reasons...

1. HD Plasma's look incredible, but we have a very large room, 19 feet from the screen, and a Plasma of that size is VERY pricey, almost triple the cost of the LCD we bought. I don't believe the hype over Plasma's short lifespan...but then again I don't want to gamble with 8-9 grand when no one REALLY knows the answer. I'm not saying anything either way and I lean towards it all being hype, but again its my money

2. DLP...The 50" DLP, along with the 43" my boss has seemed to look real bad on NTSC. High Def looked awesome but I could still see pixelation or 'flipping' of some pixels on some signals. I checked out the 43 for quite a long time at his house and again the HD stuff looked awesome but NTSC was poor. Not to mention for our viewing area it was a tad bit small.

3. Sony 50" Grand Wega...looked slightly better on NTSC, not much, picture on HD to me looked brighter and more acceptable. Price, for $500 less plus the perceived higher NTSC and brightness that sealed it.

Why the 60? They are out of stock of the 50 and they sold me the 60 for the 50 price since they were in stock, hard to turn that down.

On an HD signal it looks incredible...the guy at the store said as good as Plasma and I thought he was embelishing, but for the cost difference its good enough for me.

I do notice the Neon lighting effect others talked about, but I haven't even begun to try to adjust it yet.

This is again for HD, if you like and can live with ED then I would have bought a ED plasma in a heart beat, in fact if the pricing drops a bit more I might look at one for the bedroom. I'm not buying a complete set of HD equipment for another room and for NTSC Plasma beats both formats by a mile.

 

[Norris]

JVC PD-42WX84. 1024X768 resolution (XGA) with a 770p native display rate.

Mort

Can you tell me where you got it and about how much? (if you don't want to reveal the exact amount). Also, do you know who manufactured the glass on the JVC unit? That seems to have a major effect on the picture quality.

Thanks!

 

[Mort Corey]

I've read that either NEC or Panasonic makes the glass....didn't care either way as it was picture quality that was the number one priority. I believe that the electronics behind the glass (the man behind the curtain ) is every bit as important as the glass itself. MSRP is $6499...available for less on line or through (in my case) a local retailer special sale about 20% less. JVC's web site shows an ED unit as well but I haven't seen one in person.

Mort

 

[Torgny Nilsson]

I would consider a plasma but for one problem: burn in. Even the posts on this thread seem to say that burn in is a problem unless you stretch the picture to fill your plasma screen. But I think that a 4:3 signal looks horrible when stretched. So how much of a problem is burn in if you never stretch 4:3 material?