Do Plasmas Have any Real Advantage?

[Hidavi]

Despite hearing so much about how it sucks ass, new plasma display models keep rolling out. Why? Is there a good side to plasma displays?

[**G.I.BRO**]

I wouldnt hesitate to purchase a plasma if i was in the market for a new tv. I have many friends who have LCD's and plasmas and the viewing is just as pleasureable on either make.

[Hidavi]

The complaint I've heard is that plasma is far from reliable in terms of actually functioning.

[Oui]

Better black levels.

To be honest I consider both LCD and Plasma to be substandard in quality vs CRTs.

[**G.I.BRO**]

The complaint I've heard is that plasma is far from reliable in terms of actually functioning.

Meaning if they just break down alot? Its possible i guess, i think theres more happening meaning plasma sets have more work to do to actually getting the display to function. Im not entirely sure though but from what i have seen they are on par with LCD's in being reliable.

As for crt thing, oui please dont turn this into this is better than that.

[VW_Factor]

The complaint I've heard is that plasma is far from reliable in terms of actually functioning.

I couldnt afford one, however my mother and father were able to.

It still is a great monitor to this day. I still wish I could own it myself.

[vitocorleone]

Not sure if it's improved over the last year or so, but plasma screens are more reflective such that if you have the tv in a room with windows that do not have blackout shades then you'll get more glare. This tends to dampen the plasma claim to "better blacks", as does, say, the very very latest gen LCDs that get even better than before (see new, top of line Sony XBRs for example).

[gts007]

the burn-in issue with plasmas is a thing of the past.

they're known for having superior black levels to LCDs, which is particularly useful in situations like watching a movie in the dark. But many consider LCDs to have superior white levels.

what I dont like about them is 1) the poor desktop IQ when hooked up to a computer, and 2) the pointless reflective screen surface. My parents have 2 Hitachi plasmas and the reflection is VERY annoying. When they work out these 2 issues I will definitely consider a plasma. Actually, if they work out those 2 issues and make the prices competitive that could be the death of LCD TVs.

[MysticKiller]

Tbh i'd consider the glossy finish a luxury, since it looks better when its switched off, but then again its a pain when you really want to watch it lol. Looks better furniture wise than an LCD. Uncle just bought a plasma, he got 3rd time lucky. The first 2 has massive cracks in it like someone had just kicked the screens in, horrible! But i guess thats just human error/stupidity.

[ASCI Blue]

if a plasma breaks it can kill you. an LCD cannot. also plasmas are not supposed to be laid flat, it will cook the screen. LCD is virtually bulletproof.

[Dynamike]

I love my plasma screen!!!!!!!!!

Anyway's here's my thoughts.

Plamsa screens give a Warm image while a LCD give's a harsh image...
-I can tell from looking at my pc screen and then the tv.

Plasma have better collors.
Better blacks (contrast)
warm.


Plasma has individual pixels that only light up when it's needed.
LCD has the constant backlight. Hench the better blacks on plasma.


Plasma screens have better responce time couse once again they have individual pixels that can change rapidly.

LCD has black to white wich results in tearing or how you wanne call it.
Pixels have to change from black to white and black again wich results in delay once it's needed fast.

Yeah well it's something like this ^^
Im not so good @ explaining all this...

[MysticKiller]

I love my plasma screen!!!!!!!!!

Anyway's here's my thoughts.

Plamsa screens give a Warm image while a LCD give's a harsh image...
-I can tell from looking at my pc screen and then the tv.

Plasma have better collors.
Better blacks (contrast)
warm.


Plasma has individual pixels that only light up when it's needed.
LCD has the constant backlight. Hench the better blacks on plasma.


Plasma screens have better responce time couse once again they have individual pixels that can change rapidly.

LCD has black to white wich results in tearing or how you wanne call it.
Pixels have to change from black to white and black again wich results in delay once it's needed fast.

Yeah well it's something like this ^^
Im not so good @ explaining all this...

Dude a PC screen usually sucks compared to a proper HD LCD, like this one:

http://www.sharp.co.uk/invt/lc46xd1e

LCD's, as far as i've seen definetly have a better resonse time, and are cheaper when your looking for 1080p in a large, flat screen. But plasmas do produce better blacks.

[Shoey Peachew]

Well, since I'm in the market for a new HDTV I thought I throw out some deals I found. I'm planning on getting an LCD for my PC, but I thought I'd keep my options open just in case. Some of these sets are cheap, but I thought I'd share them to get an opinion.

I thought Sylvania made lightbulbs. The Poloroid is really cheap, but I suspect it's crap.

Panasonic TH-37PX60U $1,199.00

Sylvania 42" Plasma HDTV (6842THG) $1,199.99

Polaroid 42" Plasma HDTV (PLA-4248) $899.99

LG 42" Plasma HDTV (42PC3D) $1,399.99

Hitachi Ultravision 42HDS69 42" Plasma HDTV $1,599.99

Pioneer 42" HD Plasma Display - PDP-425CMX $1,149.99

Pioneer PDP4216HD 42" Plasma HDTV for $1,799.99

[Tizen]

if a plasma breaks it can kill you. an LCD cannot. also plasmas are not supposed to be laid flat, it will cook the screen. LCD is virtually bulletproof.

Maybe bulletproof, but not Wiimoteproof

http://www.wiihaveaproblem.com/

[CR2500]

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...iesguide11.php

[Dynamike]

Dude a PC screen usually sucks compared to a proper HD LCD, like this one:

http://www.sharp.co.uk/invt/lc46xd1e

LCD's, as far as i've seen definetly have a better resonse time, and are cheaper when your looking for 1080p in a large, flat screen. But plasmas do produce better blacks.

Same technology.

And better response time ? i think not Response time doesn't even excist for plasma.

[Treeckcold57]

But....DLP HDTV or LED HDTV is really best advantages but LED HDTV is most excellent. Current Samung have it right now for available. But I have panasonic plasma 50" HDTV, it look still great look in video quality when during play DVD playback.

[Bamboozled]

Well, since I'm in the market for a new HDTV I thought I throw out some deals I found. I'm planning on getting an LCD for my PC, but I thought I'd keep my options open just in case. Some of these sets are cheap, but I thought I'd share them to get an opinion.

I thought Sylvania made lightbulbs. The Poloroid is really cheap, but I suspect it's crap.

Panasonic TH-37PX60U $1,199.00

Sylvania 42" Plasma HDTV (6842THG) $1,199.99

Polaroid 42" Plasma HDTV (PLA-4248) $899.99

LG 42" Plasma HDTV (42PC3D) $1,399.99

Hitachi Ultravision 42HDS69 42" Plasma HDTV $1,599.99

Pioneer 42" HD Plasma Display - PDP-425CMX $1,149.99

Pioneer PDP4216HD 42" Plasma HDTV for $1,799.99

Are any of those HD? (the greatest resolution seems to be 1024x768)

Might need a bigger panel to display non-scaled HD signals. (720P or 1080i or 1080P- if it ever gets broadcast )

For a TV- I think Plasma is the way to go- and I've heard OLD stories about reliability- but nothing recently.

[CR2500]

Are any of those HD? (the greatest resolution seems to be 1366x768)

fix't

now it contains all pixels necessary for 720p.

For a good review on the Panasonic 50" Plasma, check today's HTGuys podcast.

[MysticKiller]

Same technology.

And better response time ? i think not Response time doesn't even excist for plasma.

Wow, are you sure its the same technology? Far as i know LCDs use a back light, where as a plasma has its own cells light up.

[Bamboozled]

fix't

now it contains all pixels necessary for 720p.

.

I'm not getting your post

Which one of those he listed is HD? The greatest resolution of those he listed is 1024x7680 which isn't HD.

[HalcYoN [nV]]

I'm not getting your post

Which one of those he listed is HD? The greatest resolution of those he listed is 1024x7680 which isn't HD.

Most flat panels, except for a few that carry correct native 720p or 1080p resolutions, do not actually follow a given HD standard. 768 lines of resolutions is quite normal for LCD and Plasma panels. Most plasmas are 1024x768, meaning rectangular pixels and most LCDs are 1366x768.

What does that mean? It means that the quality of the picture does not depend on the panel itself but the scaling engine driving the image. The TV will take a native signal of 480i, 1080i or 720p (maybe 1080p) and convert it to the native resolution. The cheaper plasmas and LCDs have cheaper rendering engines leading to micro-blocking, banding or noise.

We have a high quality 480p plasma that a fantastic job of up-converting 480i content (DVDs and standard def) and down-converting 1080i and 720p content. It conveys the HD signal in the native res of 853x480 and at our seating distance of 10-12', the pixel size in imperceptable. It was the best bang for the buck when we bought it two years ago with the lower res 480p picture beating most "HD" plasmas with in $500 of the price. If we were buying today, we would likely go with the Panasonic 42 or 50 "HD" panels.

Resolution isn't everything. The best advice I have is to not pay attention to specs. Go to a good AV shop that allows you to view TVs at your seating distance, lighting levels and viewing angle. Watch HD content as well as standard def and DVDs and make your choice based on your priorities.

[Bamboozled]

Most flat panels, except for a few that carry correct native 720p or 1080p resolutions, do not actually follow a given HD standard. 768 lines of resolutions is quite normal for LCD and Plasma panels. Most plasmas are 1024x768, meaning rectangular pixels and most LCDs are 1366x768.

Actually, it's the size of the plasma screen- very rarely does a 42" have enough room for pixels. Virtually all 50" are able to render an unscaled HDTV signal in it's native resolution (720P or 1080i), while smaller plasma's cannot. (There a few 42" plasma that are true HD, but most aren't)

Virtually all follow HDTV standards, albeit the signal may need to be scaled. The bottom line, 1024x764 just isn't HD. I know it's semantics, bit it just doesn't meet the requirment. 1280x720, does, as does 1366x768. Smaller screen HDTV LCD's are quite popular now, while Plasma's- you still (generally) need a BIG panel toget true HDTV

[HalcYoN [nV]]

Actually, it's the size of the plasma screen- very rarely does a 42" have enough room for pixels. Virtually all 50" are able to render an unscaled HDTV signal in it's native resolution (720P or 1080i), while smaller plasma's cannot. (There a few 42" plasma that are true HD, but most aren't)

Virtually all follow HDTV standards, albeit the signal may need to be scaled. The bottom line, 1024x764 just isn't HD. I know it's semantics, bit it just doesn't meet the requirment. 1280x720, does, as does 1366x768. Smaller screen HDTV LCD's are quite popular now, while Plasma's- you still (generally) need a BIG panel toget true HDTV

Not quite sure I agree that a plasma can render a resolution "unscaled" if it has to convert from 720p or 1080i to 768p. You will be hard pressed to find any plasma glass that has a 720p (1080i not really possible) native resolution.

I'll give you that 1024x768 is slightly short of the 720p native resolution pixel count, but keep in mind that if you go by vertical lines per second, it has more than 1080i. I am sure you know this, but for the folks at home, the i stands for interlaced which means two sets of 540 lines, offest, each 30 times per second so there are truly only 540 lines of resolution conveyed over the same time period as the 720p standard. There is a lot of room for debate on semantics and potential bickering here, which has been done before so I'll let it ride.

Bottom line, if the signal is displayed well, it will apear to be "HD" to our eyes. I have said it before and will say it again; our 480p panel has better picture quality than almost any 768 vertical line plasma at realistic viewing distances because it's scaler does a better job of conveying information carried in the native signal to the panel's native resoltuion. The 480p haters can attack, but I do not mind. I am getting my money's worth, heh.

Similarly, I have seen several 1024x768 plasmas look far better than 1366x768 panels because the 1024 panel does a better job of conveying the HD signal. It isn't all numbers (shhhh, don't tell the Best Buy sales people). I'd rather spend the money on better scalers than an extra 300 dots per line. I know I can see the difference made by the higher quality electronics at 10'.