Plasma TV's...Am I Missing Something here? (1 Viewer)

[Grace]

i'm actually giving up my samsung 50" hpn5039 plasma for a samsung hlp6163w dlp set

 

[Jackson L]

That is because LCD's have a native resolution. If you watch a standard def program on an HD LCD it has to be interpolated down to a lower resolution which results in a blurred, soft picture. This has always been an issue in PC monitors. Some LCD's are better at interpolating than others.

 

[JeanP]

Wow talk about a tough crowd..... I have a Panasonic TH42PWD7UY plasma and wouldn't change it for the world. Burn in ? What burn in ? Burn in was a problem with the first displays now days IF it's used properly, like anything else, you have no burn ins. Of course if you start using it improperly with fix images, well you get problems. It's more a question about getting the right thing for YOU. With prices falling to an below 2300$ for the Panys (the best choice with Pioneers )i think it's a great solution if it fits your needs.

 

[Rich H]

I'm big on plasma myself and own a Panasonic ED plasma.
However, I wouldn't go so far as to say "plasma is the best" at all. There are too many different factors that come into play, in regards to what each technology (and screen size) has to offer. All specs aside, when the end receiver is a human being subjectivity plays a big role in deciding what may be the "best" picture quality.
(Not that studies haven't shown some interesting trends in how we perceive picture quality...for instance tests have apparently shown that contrast rates above resolution in importance to people's perception of picture quality).

All that said, at this point one thing that plasma does for me is: at it's best it provides the most "transparent" viewing experience. That is the best plasmas with the right viewing material provide a looking-at-reality and see-through-the-technology effect I've experienced. To elaborate:

1. Front Projectors are awesomely cinematic and film-like. But every one I've seen (including some stratospherically priced ones) still looks like a "projected" image - it still has that signature great hologram but not really real look. It lacks the density and palpability of a plasma or direct view.

2. RPTVs: All of them, DLP, LCD, CRT have a somewhat beamy, uneven brightness and projected from behind look. (This is most reduced in the LCD/DLPs, but still there).
Great images, but they have that signature look that is a constant reminder that it ain't real.

3. LCD flat screens - on just the right Hi-Def material (something very detailed but without enough shadow are in the image to draw attention to the higher black levels), they can look incredible. But they still have the illuminated from behind, slightly "shifty" and not perfectly even look to the image.

4. CRT direct views. Don't quite match the sharpness, complete flatness, perfect geometry etc. of plasma. They do great blacks and color, and the best I've seen is the latest Sony super-fine pitch. Awesome with Hi-Def. But just not big enough to attain any immersion factor...too small to feel "real." (And still looks to much like TV).

Plasma is an emissive light source - not reflected or projected, so it attains a realistic evenness, intensity and density to the image. Perfectly even brightness so it doesn't have that beamy, shifty cue of the DLP/LCD/CRT RPTVs. And the picture looks more solid. Looks even sharper than CRT direct views - with right right Hi-Def plasma can look as clear as life. And plasma's perfectly flat image, perfect focus, geometry, it's thinness...all help it's window-like look.

Finally, and this is subjective but I know quite a few people who feel this way: There's something about the light quality put out by the best plasmas (Fujitsu P50, Panasonic, Pioneer sometimes etc) that just seems exceptionally natural (when properly calibrated). When I look at an outdoor scene on my plasma it looks like I'm looking into a scene were natural light is hitting real objects. I can look out my window and look back to the plasma and there is a continuous sense of reality from the plasma that I just don't get from other technologies. With other display types I always feel the scene is being "represented" by light bulbs, or projected light, or neon-glowing phosphors...there's always a distinct electronic signature that seems blissfully absent on some plasmas.

That's my take anyway. I'm not wedded to plasma in that I'll jump on whatever comes along that I like better (I'm really high on the arrival of SED).

Rich.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

At the risk of revealing my utter contempt for Plasma (apologies to Plasma owners here, really), let me just interject that IMO, they are the biggest scam perpetrated on consumers since, well, I can't even compare it to anything actually.

I honestly don't mean to sound harsh, but whenever I hear that someone has just paid 2,000 or so for a 30" Plasma it makes me want to sob, because I hate seeing people being taken for a ride for a product that isn't worth that much money for that small size.

I am a HUGE advocate for front projection, ever since getting my first projector this year, the InFocus X-1, I quickly relized that FP is the only way to go. I may come off sounding like the guy who sells the InFocus on the shopping channel, but what he says is true, for 1,000 you get the DLP Darkchip technology that produces images that shatter any plasma i've seen, you get Farouja DcDi de-interlacing and a six-color wheel that produces every color under God's eye!

Now, this is only one example and one projector, but my point is who needs plasma when you can have all of that for only 1,000 bucks? I didn't even mention the image size you can get with only a few feet of distance from screen to projector, with only 14' I get a 96" image, that's 8' folks.

Yes, i've heard the argument that FP isn't for everyone and my response has always been "Why not?", with a little creativity i'm convinced that FP would be perfect for anyone, especially someone considering building a HT, I can't see how one in that situation could consider anything less.

Here's my theory, it's simple and I believe accurate: Plasma's are popular for only one reason...people don't know about FP. That's it. If they did, not another plasma would be sold. I'm just looking forward to the day when FP's will quit being relegated to the computer area in Best Buy and take their rightful place in history.

Well, maybe their popular for a second reason as well, so that you can tell Frank next door that you have one of those cool flat tv's that hang's on the wall like in Star Trek. In keeping with that, why buy a monitor for all that money only to end up with the helm of a tugboat when you can spend far less and end up with the Bridge of the Enterprise!?

Alright, i'll get off my soapbox now, and again sorry to those with Plasma's for my rant, no hard feelings.

 

[Rich H]

John,

Well, that was an impassioned speech. I understand your enthusiasm for front projection. I love front projection too. But I think we both know you got a little carried away there.

For instance: "Here's my theory, it's simple and I believe accurate: Plasma's are popular for only one reason...people don't know about FP. That's it. If they did, not another plasma would be sold."

...isn't accurate. People know about FP, but not many want the hassle. And FP is not the total solution that many people want (good for SD as well as DVD/HD, and regular TV viewing at any time, under any light conditions).

Further, I'm quite familiar with front projection myself - I've shopped for them, seen my reference DVDs on the low end to the ultra-high end...and I bought a plasma. So right there your theory is shot.

No plasma I've seen offers the cinematic immersion of a front projection system.

No Front Projection system in my experience offers the reach-in-and-touch it realism of the best plasmas.

They each do something different for the viewing experience.

My fellow HT friends and I have movie nights. Sometimes I go to their place and watch a flick (one guy has a CRT RPTV, one an LCD Front Projection, the other a DLP Front Projection system). When I watch movies at their house I get image-size-envy. However, when they watch movies at my house on my plasma they get image-quality envy. Even these jaded fellows drop their jaw at the image. As one guy put it: "My front projector is great, but it somehow just doesn't do this. By which he meant the sheer clarity, realism and immediacy of the image.

How about another person very familiar with high-end displays of all types? Stereophile Guide To Home Theater (now "Ultimate AV") technical editor/reviewer Tom Norton.
In his review of the Fujitsu 50" plasma he wrote:

"but for now, 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."

Does that sound like a "scam" to you?

Note that Mr. Norton goes on to say:

"Within a few weeks of evaluating this set, I had two video projectors in my studio: a $60,000 Madrigal CRT and an $11,000 Sharp DLP. While both had their strengths—the CRT's blacks, of course, chief among them — neither provided consistently better overall subjective image quality than the Fujitsu.

I agree that front projection is a great experience and can be fantastic bang for the buck. But your thesis that plasma is a scam or that a front projection image is preferable in every way is...well...wrong.


Prof.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Rich,

likewise, a passionate post. Yeah, maybe I got carried away with that one statement, however I stand firmly by the rest.

The notion of a FP not having that reach-in-and-touch-it feel is false IMO. I have yet to see a plasma that can deliver a film-like image as well as a FP can, smooth, clean and with none of the pixel artifacts (up close or far away) exhibited by plasmas. Watching the image of a plasma is akin to a swarm of bees forming a moving picture.

And yes, I do believe that the general public is being ripped off with these sets, that's just one man's opinion of course. 2-3,000 for a 30" or 40" that can't even deliver an image that surpasses most good RP. I tried to like them, I really did, but I just have yet to see one that impresses me to the point where it merits the price. RP or FP they both offer everything technologically speaking as a plasma (Farouja, DLP etc), the three major distictions...

1. Price

2. Performance

3. Size, yes, size

I mean once it's stripped down to the basics, all plasma has to offer is the cool factor, you can hang it on the wall like a picture. That's cool i'll admit, however I have my screen on the wall too and I didn't have to hire a carpenter to rip up my house for the wiring required (adding even more insanly high costs to an already bloated product) to put it their.

I think maybe you got me all wrong in my post, i'm in it for the quality, not the quantity of the image, bigger isn't always better we all know that. However I believe I have achieved BOTH.

Let's just agree that we disagree on this one.

 

[Rich H]

It's always fun to exchange views and experience. And this certainly is the appropriate thread for the topic of plasma image quality compared to other technologies.

John wrote:
No.

Plasma, like any technology, brings to the table a set of individual strengths in terms of picture quality: emissive (not reflected) light, even brightness, high light output, perfect focus, geometry, density of image etc. It means a plasma image looks different from a front projection image. Many people - people who have been to countless theatrical films and who have seen front projectors - find that the image can look sharper, more vivid and "alive" on a plasma.

You don't have to agree with that. But a lot of people see it that way. To think that , at this point in plasma technology, all plasma has to offer is that it's thin is simply not the case. Plasma is being lapped up by picky videophiles these days, and that wouldn't be happening if plasma were all form without excellent image quality.

Cheers,

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Rich,

after reading your latest post, i've been trying to find a statement that would best define our differences of opinion on this matter and it is this:

It's one of expectation and preferance.

Let me explain further. You touched on it in your post when you menioned theatrical prints and the criteria you use to evaluate a monitor, a very valid system for your expectations. I however measure an image on it's appearance to film and how said image appeared on a theatrical screen.

I watch movies more than anything else, and have been to the movies more times than I can count during my 32 years on this planet, and films just do not appear on a theatrical screen the way they appear on a plasma. Just APPEARANCE wise, film is softer and so is the image of that same film when it's displayed on a FP system either on DVD or on an HD channel.

It's the delivery of the image that concerns me here, IMO a FP is just more faithful to film than a plasma, calibrated or not. I'm sure your plasma looks great, but does it truly resemble film, or a high tech ultra clear video device. To me every plasma i've seen, and i've seen my share, looks like video, very clear video, but video all the same.

You put it best in your opening remarks above, because a FP is pretty much doing what the projector did at the theater, that is precisly why I prefer it over plasma.

Bottom line, you look for realism in your monitors, I look for a faithful re-creation of 35mm film as close as I can get it in my home.

 

[Rich H]

I hear ya John.

For the record, I'm a film nut myself...a film school graduate who went on to working in the film business over the past 18 years. I've lit for film, shot film, edited film (done a bit of directing...smaller stuff) and eventually ended up in the sound effects editing side of production. But I've seen so many pristine 35mm prints that I think it made a bit of a snob out of me. Even the best HT projectors still look like video blown up trying to look like film. (Although, a good portion of this limitation is the current DVD format itself).

For me, when I want to see projected film I go to see projected film. When I want an alternate take on a film - a fresh spin - that's where my plasma comes in. I have to say, as nice as it has been seeing re-issues of Hitchcock classics in the theaters, Technicolor has never displayed such jewel-like gorgeousness as it appears on my lil' plasma.

But..I love Front Projection too and would love to have a set-up.