Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

why would ANYONE buy plasma

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:20:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

For example, looking at the Sony website, a 50 inch plasma is way more than
twice the price of a 50 inch LCD projector, is wider and weighs more. And it
has the burn problem as well. Since the picture quality of the LCD is
spectacular on HD, I can't imagine the plasma could be noticeably better.
The newest LCD is plenty bright enough for a normal room. The only
advantage of the plasma I can see is that it is thinner, but the LCD is only
a little over a foot thick anyway. Is there something else I'm missing?

More about : buy plasma

Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:20:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

It's sexy.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:41:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Compared to LCD RP tvs from my very subjective eyes...

Picture and colors are more vivid on plasma, fast motion scenes are
better on plasma, no screen door effect/scan line look,

Plasma can hang on wall and has much more WAF appeal than a 1 foot deep
TV.

Friend's WOW factor is much more with a plasma ;) 


--
sampatterson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by sampatterson
Related resources
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:48:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Ahh!!

You should have seen the Last Samurai in HD last night
on my 50 7uy. I couldn't move for the entire movie.

Best investment I ever made.


"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:o aKdnUo7UO40YivcRVn-iw@magma.ca...
> For example, looking at the Sony website, a 50 inch plasma is way more
than
> twice the price of a 50 inch LCD projector, is wider and weighs more. And
it
> has the burn problem as well. Since the picture quality of the LCD is
> spectacular on HD, I can't imagine the plasma could be noticeably better.
> The newest LCD is plenty bright enough for a normal room. The only
> advantage of the plasma I can see is that it is thinner, but the LCD is
only
> a little over a foot thick anyway. Is there something else I'm missing?
>
>
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:59:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:20:46 -0500, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:

>For example, looking at the Sony website, a 50 inch plasma is way more than
>twice the price of a 50 inch LCD projector, is wider and weighs more.

And it is significantly thinner.

> And it has the burn problem as well.

Only for the careless, irresponsible or infantile.

>Since the picture quality of the LCD is
>spectacular on HD, I can't imagine the plasma could be noticeably better.

It is. And it is better over a wider range of viewing angles.

>The newest LCD is plenty bright enough for a normal room. The only
>advantage of the plasma I can see is that it is thinner, but the LCD is only
>a little over a foot thick anyway. Is there something else I'm missing?

That thickness prevents it from being simply hung on a wall bracket
and, therefore, demands room real estate for a supporting cabinet.
Also, both the LCDRPTV and the cabinet impose a severe penalty
in terms of audio reproduction for those who are fastidious about it.

Otherwise, fine. I plan on getting an LCDRPTV for my den.

Kal
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:19:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dave Gower wrote:
> For example, looking at the Sony website, a 50 inch plasma is way more than
> twice the price of a 50 inch LCD projector, is wider and weighs more. And it
> has the burn problem as well. Since the picture quality of the LCD is
> spectacular on HD, I can't imagine the plasma could be noticeably better.
> The newest LCD is plenty bright enough for a normal room. The only
> advantage of the plasma I can see is that it is thinner, but the LCD is only
> a little over a foot thick anyway. Is there something else I'm missing?

The Sony LCD RP (Rear Projection) TVs are pretty good. But the plasma
offers over the LCD RPTV: no motion smear, better black levels, wider
viewing angle with no sweet spot limitations, more vivid looking through
a window effect picture, no $250 to $400 bulb to replace every few years
(assuming 4000 to 6000 hours per bulb before it gets too dim to use).

Con: burn-in is a concern, but the newer generation plasmas from the
Japanese brands (and presumably the others are catching up) are much
improved in this area. Most of those who have a plasma for 2 to 3 years
report that burn-in has not been a problem, but they took care to avoid
putting a frozen image on the screen for many hours on end. If playing
computer games on the TV is going to be the main use, then either the
new 7 gen Panasonic plasmas, direct view LCD, or LCD or DLP RP TV are
the better choices. CRT RPTV are most definitely prone to burn-in.

I assume you are looking the weight specs for the Sony 50XS955 which
is an excellent plasma set, but the XS955 series are on the heavy side
for plasma TVs. The XS955 models have a built-in subwoofer on the back
which adds to the total weight. However the Sony are not designed to be
lightweight plasmas, for example the 50" Pioneer 5040 is much lighter at
83 lbs with an external AVC box.

I have spent way too time much since January of this year researching
which HD TV to get, learning about the tradeoffs between the various
display technology and brands, and waiting for prices to fall. I just
ordered a Panasonic 7UY 42" commercial plasma as I have an audio/video
receiver setup & cable and don't need all the connectors & built-in
speakers.

Alan Figgatt
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:28:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Why would anyone buy projector? How can one compare a back projected image
which may be big but surely very bad to images on CRT's, Plasma's, or LCD
monitors. Projector TV's are inherently inferior in image quality!
Projectors represent a dead end in TV technology!

"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:o aKdnUo7UO40YivcRVn-iw@magma.ca...
> For example, looking at the Sony website, a 50 inch plasma is way more
> than
> twice the price of a 50 inch LCD projector, is wider and weighs more. And
> it
> has the burn problem as well. Since the picture quality of the LCD is
> spectacular on HD, I can't imagine the plasma could be noticeably better.
> The newest LCD is plenty bright enough for a normal room. The only
> advantage of the plasma I can see is that it is thinner, but the LCD is
> only
> a little over a foot thick anyway. Is there something else I'm missing?
>
>
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:37:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"lotus" <tohuva@bohu.com> wrote
<...How can one compare a back projected image
> which may be big but surely very bad to images on CRT's, Plasma's, or LCD
> monitors.

"Very bad"? Wow, either my eyes must need checking or we have been into
different showrooms.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:19:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

X-No-archive: yes

"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:o aKdnUo7UO40YivcRVn-iw@magma.ca...
> For example, looking at the Sony website, a 50 inch plasma is way more
> than
> twice the price of a 50 inch LCD projector, is wider and weighs more. And
> it
> has the burn problem as well. Since the picture quality of the LCD is
> spectacular on HD
==============================
Actually, it is lousy!
Have you watched any HD on one?
The pixelization and blurring of motion makes me sea sick.

CRT RPTV still beats them all (except FP CRT)
===============================


>: I can't imagine the plasma could be noticeably better.
> The newest LCD is plenty bright enough for a normal room. The only
> advantage of the plasma I can see is that it is thinner, but the LCD is
> only
> a little over a foot thick anyway. Is there something else I'm missing?
>
========================
Yes..the blurring motion on the LCD
December 8, 2004 4:23:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:20:46 -0500, "Dave Gower"
> <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> >For example, looking at the Sony website, a 50 inch plasma is way
more than
> >twice the price of a 50 inch LCD projector, is wider and weighs
more.
>
> And it is significantly thinner.
>
> > And it has the burn problem as well.
>
> Only for the careless, irresponsible or infantile.
>

Or the uninformed. The fact of the matter is that of all technologies
available for HDTV, plasma is the most susceptible to burn in. Burn in
is a real threat to any technology that burns phosphor to produce an
image. From what I've seen Plasam is by far the worst.

The only real way to avoid it is to limit you use of viewing of static
content (static being anything from black/grey side bars to video game
status meters) to no more than 20-25% of your total viewing time.
(20-25% is based on technology improvements over the last few years, it
was recommended less than 15% not very long ago). You can base the 20%
on total monthly viewing hours.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lieing, ask them what they base their
stance on? I base mine on experience and what the manufactuers suggest
(I encourage anyone who doubts me to give their manufacters service
center a ring...)

Burn in is not covered under any manufacters warrenty that I have seen.
The cost to repair burn-in is astronomic, it's usually near the cost of
a new set (at times it exceeds the cost of a new set).

-Jeremy
December 8, 2004 7:05:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Convergence, convergence, convergence ..... we don't need no steenking
convergence!

"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:o aKdnUo7UO40YivcRVn-iw@magma.ca...
> For example, looking at the Sony website, a 50 inch plasma is way more
than
> twice the price of a 50 inch LCD projector, is wider and weighs more. And
it
> has the burn problem as well. Since the picture quality of the LCD is
> spectacular on HD, I can't imagine the plasma could be noticeably better.
> The newest LCD is plenty bright enough for a normal room. The only
> advantage of the plasma I can see is that it is thinner, but the LCD is
only
> a little over a foot thick anyway. Is there something else I'm missing?
>
>
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 7:58:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 8 Dec 2004 13:23:50 -0800, jeremy@pdq.net wrote:

>
>Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>> Only for the careless, irresponsible or infantile.

>Or the uninformed. The fact of the matter is that of all technologies
>available for HDTV, plasma is the most susceptible to burn in. Burn in
>is a real threat to any technology that burns phosphor to produce an
>image. From what I've seen Plasam is by far the worst.

Agreed. However, there's no reason to expect significant burn-in as
long as you know what you are doing. It is not the correct technology
for some. In fact, I have just recommended a front projection system
for a friend who was wowed by my system since his needs and uses are
not the same as mine.

My viewing consists of equal parts full screen HD broadcasts, SD
broadcasts zoomed and DVDs that fill the screen. Rarely, if ever, are
there any exceptions. No computer connections and no games. Works
fine for me.

Kal
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:34:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:41b76d40$0$1686$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
> news:o aKdnUo7UO40YivcRVn-iw@magma.ca...
> > For example, looking at the Sony website, a 50 inch plasma is way more
> > than
> > twice the price of a 50 inch LCD projector, is wider and weighs more.
And
> > it
> > has the burn problem as well. Since the picture quality of the LCD is
> > spectacular on HD
> ==============================
> Actually, it is lousy!
> Have you watched any HD on one?
> The pixelization and blurring of motion makes me sea sick.
>
> CRT RPTV still beats them all (except FP CRT)
> ===============================

While I agree that CRT based systems are still the best choice, to be fair,
PDPs don't suffer from pixelation and motion blurring that is worse than
CRTs. At least not on the higher end PDPs. What you are seeing is likely
either in the source or the low level activation noise that IS common to
PDPs. The do, however, seem to vary greatly in performance. The best are
very good.

Leonard
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 10:31:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote

> Have you watched any HD on one?
> The pixelization and blurring of motion makes me sea sick.

Yes, a Sony 50 inch at the local Best Buy a couple of weeks ago. I saw none
of that, but I'll check some more. Thanks for the heads up.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 11:16:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

X-No-archive: yes

"Leonard Caillouet" <nospam@noway.com> wrote in message
news:ViLtd.125794$jE2.91866@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:41b76d40$0$1686$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>> X-No-archive: yes
>>
>> "Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
>> news:o aKdnUo7UO40YivcRVn-iw@magma.ca...
>> > For example, looking at the Sony website, a 50 inch plasma is way more
>> > than
>> > twice the price of a 50 inch LCD projector, is wider and weighs more.
> And
>> > it
>> > has the burn problem as well. Since the picture quality of the LCD is
>> > spectacular on HD
>> ==============================
>> Actually, it is lousy!
>> Have you watched any HD on one?
>> The pixelization and blurring of motion makes me sea sick.
>>
>> CRT RPTV still beats them all (except FP CRT)
>> ===============================
>
> While I agree that CRT based systems are still the best choice, to be
> fair,
> PDPs don't suffer from pixelation and motion blurring that is worse than
> CRTs. At least not on the higher end PDPs. What you are seeing is likely
> either in the source or the low level activation noise that IS common to
> PDPs. The do, however, seem to vary greatly in performance. The best are
> very good.
>
> Leonard
>
===============================
I was referring to LCD.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 11:32:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

X-No-archive: yes

"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:GsudnW4P7OwMACrcRVn-vA@magma.ca...
>
> "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote
>
>> Have you watched any HD on one?
>> The pixelization and blurring of motion makes me sea sick.
>
> Yes, a Sony 50 inch at the local Best Buy a couple of weeks ago. I saw
> none of that, but I'll check some more. Thanks for the heads up.
========================
Once again, I am referring to LCD.

But, I drive my wife crazy because I see imperfections even on our Pioneer
Elite at times that she is blind to. Usually , they are source problems.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 4:14:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote

> Once again, I am referring to LCD.

So am I. I went on a tour of several stores this morning. Quite honestly, I
don't like plasmas all that much. To me they seem almost unrealistically
crisp and colourful. I found the Sony LCD projection more comfortable to
watch, but the Sammy DLPs looked more realistic and are my favourite of
those three. And finally, I looked at something I missed the first time -
the JVC HD-ILA. It was just as good as the DLPs, and is smaller and lighter
for each screen size. Kind of pricey though, but being a new technology may
have more downward room.

Choices, choices, choices.

Note on my reaction to plasma. I had cataract surgery a couple of years ago.
I could not believe how vivid everything looks now - your natural lenses are
never completely clear, whereas the artificial ones are. This may affect how
I see various TV screens.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 5:20:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 13:14:35 -0500, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:

>
>"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote
>
>> Once again, I am referring to LCD.
>
>So am I. I went on a tour of several stores this morning. Quite honestly, I
>don't like plasmas all that much. To me they seem almost unrealistically
>crisp and colourful.

They come set that way to stand out at the store. Mine came,
predictably, set up in 'torch' mode with brightness, contrast and
sharpness turned up way too far.

If they are properly calibrated, they are quite realistic and, along
with the best FP, better than other technologies, $$$ aside.

Kal
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 6:09:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Alan Figgatt wrote:

> The "blurry" problem with LCD TVs is caused by the response time of

> the LCDs.

A lot of older or cheaper LCD TVs I've seen are blurry even on still
pictures.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 6:40:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dave Gower wrote:

> "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote
>
> So am I. I went on a tour of several stores this morning. Quite honestly, I
> don't like plasmas all that much. To me they seem almost unrealistically
> crisp and colourful. I found the Sony LCD projection more comfortable to
> watch, but the Sammy DLPs looked more realistic and are my favourite of
> those three. And finally, I looked at something I missed the first time -
> the JVC HD-ILA. It was just as good as the DLPs, and is smaller and lighter
> for each screen size. Kind of pricey though, but being a new technology may
> have more downward room.
>
> Choices, choices, choices.
>
> Note on my reaction to plasma. I had cataract surgery a couple of years ago.
> I could not believe how vivid everything looks now - your natural lenses are
> never completely clear, whereas the artificial ones are. This may affect how
> I see various TV screens.

If you went to the big B&M chains - Best Buy, Circuit City, etc - be
careful in judging screen quality there. Most of them display the sets
under bright lights and crank the screen brightness and colors up, when
they anything at all to sets. The video feed can vary widely between
sets as they split the signals many times to all the sets. The video
feed could also be DVD, upconverted DVD, OTA SD, or real HD. A trip to a
specialty dealer or high end store might give you a better read on
picture quality.

The DLPs can present a good picture but some people find them bothered
by the color flash effect after they have had the set for a while. The
current DLP RP sets on the market all have a single DLP chip and use a
color wheel which flashes between RGB to generate the color. The LCD RP
and JVC ILA sets have 3 chips, one for each color, projecting the image,
so color flash is not an issue with those sets.

Alan Figgatt
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 9:32:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Neither do the DLP sets! :-)

"JAS" <spin500@cox.net> wrote in message news:q0Ktd.42$hp.24@lakeread08...
> Convergence, convergence, convergence ..... we don't need no steenking
> convergence!
>
> "Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
> news:o aKdnUo7UO40YivcRVn-iw@magma.ca...
> > For example, looking at the Sony website, a 50 inch plasma is way more
> than
> > twice the price of a 50 inch LCD projector, is wider and weighs more.
And
> it
> > has the burn problem as well. Since the picture quality of the LCD is
> > spectacular on HD, I can't imagine the plasma could be noticeably
better.
> > The newest LCD is plenty bright enough for a normal room. The only
> > advantage of the plasma I can see is that it is thinner, but the LCD is
> only
> > a little over a foot thick anyway. Is there something else I'm missing?
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 9:54:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I used to think that, but lately the RPTVs have gotten MUCH better. My next
set will be RPTV for sure.

--Dan

"lotus" <tohuva@bohu.com> wrote in message
news:%3Ftd.25462$Ou1.1512588@weber.videotron.net...
> Why would anyone buy projector? How can one compare a back projected image
> which may be big but surely very bad to images on CRT's, Plasma's, or LCD
> monitors. Projector TV's are inherently inferior in image quality!
> Projectors represent a dead end in TV technology!
December 9, 2004 10:06:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:32:36 -0800, "Richard C."
<post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:

>X-No-archive: yes
>
>"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
>news:GsudnW4P7OwMACrcRVn-vA@magma.ca...
>>
>> "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote
>>
>>> Have you watched any HD on one?
>>> The pixelization and blurring of motion makes me sea sick.
>>
>> Yes, a Sony 50 inch at the local Best Buy a couple of weeks ago. I saw
>> none of that, but I'll check some more. Thanks for the heads up.
>========================
>Once again, I am referring to LCD.
>
>But, I drive my wife crazy because I see imperfections even on our Pioneer
>Elite at times that she is blind to. Usually , they are source problems.
>
>
LCDs seem blurry to me also.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 10:06:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thumper wrote:

> LCDs seem blurry to me also.
> Thumper
> To reply drop XYZ in address

The "blurry" problem with LCD TVs is caused by the response time of
the LCDs. The slow response time results in motion smear. Response times
of 25 ms lead to bad motion smear, 16 ms sets which are becoming more
common still have motion smear but not quite as bad. The Sharp Aquos G
series and the high end Sony LCD TVs go a long way to solving this
problem but still have some as far as I can tell. Be careful of official
response times as there is the manufacturers measure their sets in
different ways.

Alan Figgatt
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:42:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

It is quite funny, how many twisted ideas, fears, rumors are repeated here,
that originated decades ago at the dawn of PDP technology. The 60,000 hours
half brightness lifetime for a present day plasma panel provides much more
brightness 20 years from now than a back projected brand new screen can
have today! But that is not the point. What counts is the image. Who cares
what technology is behind a really nice image. But satisfaction depends of
the taste. Until there are people satisfied with pale blurry images,
projection tv manufacturers have no headaches. Myself, I watch sony xbr CRT
for 20 years, and could not imagine sitting ahead of a box with back
projected mimic of a tv. Only good plasma panels can get close to the crisp
and vivid images I am accustomed to. This is why I will now by plasma au
lieu of a big screen sony xbr crt that is not manufactured anymore. Why sony
abandoned its most successful and far their best product. Who knows? They
still use the xbr and wega denominations for propaganda purposes without the
very content where they produced the best picture on crt's.

"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:4dOdnZDe3dsrgircRVn-2A@magma.ca...
>
> "lotus" <tohuva@bohu.com> wrote
> <...How can one compare a back projected image
>> which may be big but surely very bad to images on CRT's, Plasma's, or
>> LCD monitors.
>
> "Very bad"? Wow, either my eyes must need checking or we have been into
> different showrooms.
>
December 10, 2004 12:56:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <f69hr0prk8e1v98shngv3vo8dtvasj0ckq@4ax.com>, kr4@nyu.edu
says...
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 13:14:35 -0500, "Dave Gower"
> <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote
> >
> >> Once again, I am referring to LCD.
> >
> >So am I. I went on a tour of several stores this morning. Quite honestly, I
> >don't like plasmas all that much. To me they seem almost unrealistically
> >crisp and colourful.
>
> They come set that way to stand out at the store. Mine came,
> predictably, set up in 'torch' mode with brightness, contrast and
> sharpness turned up way too far.
>
> If they are properly calibrated, they are quite realistic and, along
> with the best FP, better than other technologies, $$$ aside.

Subjective only.

I don't think they have the 'best' picture.

But even if we agreed that they did I really don't like that they age to
unusable faster than any competing techology.

If you plan on throwing it out and replacing it every 4 or so years,
then sure it might be the best technology, but if you want your purchase
to be more long lived ... Plasma is the worst technology.

I read an article that suggested DLP/LCD were cheaper than plasma but
had a higher TCO as you had to periodically replace the bulbs,
eventually making them more expensive to own then a plasma. I found that
extremely amusing, because they failed to account for the fact that
you'd have to replace the entire plasma display multiple times before
you'd bought enough bulbs to make lcd/dlp cost more.

(Of course I'm sure plasmas will cost less in the future, and hopefully
be more long lived... but then lcd/dlp bulbs will likely be cheaper and
more long lived in the future too... and of course I may well by a new
TV in 5-10 years anyway to take advantage of 1080p or something...but I
would like the TV I have to have a shot at being more than landfill at
the time.)
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:56:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

42 wrote:
> ...
> If you plan on throwing it out and replacing it every 4 or so years,
> then sure it might be the best technology, but if you want your purchase
> to be more long lived ... Plasma is the worst technology.


???
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:56:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

42 wrote:

> But even if we agreed that they did I really don't like that they age to
> unusable faster than any competing techology.
>
> If you plan on throwing it out and replacing it every 4 or so years,
> then sure it might be the best technology, but if you want your purchase
> to be more long lived ... Plasma is the worst technology.

You have some wrong information. The current generation of plasmas
from Panasonic, for example, are rated for 60,000 hours to
half-brightness. Samsung and several other claim 50,000 hours. These
numbers are longer than CRT TVs use to last not all that long ago. There
was a chart posted earlier this year from someone who has actually
measured plasma & LCD brightness over 1000s of hours for earlier
generation models and the 3rd gen plasma actually got brighter out to
5,000 hours.

Both plasmas and direct LCD view displays will last a very long time;
the electronics are more likely to fail or technology obsolesce will get
them first.

Alan Figgatt

PS Plasma sets don't need "refilling" in case you heard that piece of tripe.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:56:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:56:14 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>If you plan on throwing it out and replacing it every 4 or so years,
>then sure it might be the best technology, but if you want your purchase
>to be more long lived ... Plasma is the worst technology.

4 years? Mebbe if you watch 24/7 (estimated halflife life of
3.4years) but not for most people and certainly not for me.

Let's see. With a minimum, these days, of 30,000 hours to
half-brightness (which, btw, is close to where you want to set it
anyway) for a top line set and my usage pattern (4-6hours, 2-3days per
week), the arithmetic promises me the set will outlive my interest in
it, about 32years! For a more normal user with a 6hour/7day pattern,
it comes to about 13years+! Boy, will it be old technology well
before then!

>I read an article that suggested DLP/LCD were cheaper than plasma but
>had a higher TCO as you had to periodically replace the bulbs,
>eventually making them more expensive to own then a plasma. I found that
>extremely amusing, because they failed to account for the fact that
>you'd have to replace the entire plasma display multiple times before
>you'd bought enough bulbs to make lcd/dlp cost more.

Over a 50year period, perhaps.

Another issue, for me, is the necessity of the flat panel and, in the
50" size, the LCDs are still more $$$.

The bottom line is that each technology has its advantages and
disadvantages but the weighting and assessment of the balance between
them is highly subjective.

Kal
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 9:46:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

lotus <tohuva@bohu.com> wrote:

> Why would anyone buy projector? How can one compare a back projected image
> which may be big but surely very bad to images on CRT's, Plasma's, or LCD
> monitors. Projector TV's are inherently inferior in image quality!
> Projectors represent a dead end in TV technology!

I'll put my 65" widescreen platinum Mitshubishi HDTV up against anything
you can find. It is downright stunning... and you sure aren't going to
find any 65" CRT, Plasma or LCD anytime soon...

--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 1:13:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

X-No-archive: yes

"Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hd8hr0lh62kebqjla3q5lg334u1l7p9801@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:32:36 -0800, "Richard C."
> <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>X-No-archive: yes
>>
>>"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
>>news:GsudnW4P7OwMACrcRVn-vA@magma.ca...
>>>
>>> "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> Have you watched any HD on one?
>>>> The pixelization and blurring of motion makes me sea sick.
>>>
>>> Yes, a Sony 50 inch at the local Best Buy a couple of weeks ago. I saw
>>> none of that, but I'll check some more. Thanks for the heads up.
>>========================
>>Once again, I am referring to LCD.
>>
>>But, I drive my wife crazy because I see imperfections even on our Pioneer
>>Elite at times that she is blind to. Usually , they are source problems.
>>
>>
> LCDs seem blurry to me also.
> Thumper

=============================
I watched one again today.
The blurry "trailing" of all motion drives me up the wall.
It is like the pixels cannot turn off or change fast enough for the motion.

I am still VERY pleased with my Pioneer Elite 710 16:9 64" HD RPTV.
Plan on keeping it for a long time.
Still one of the best pictures I have seen.
==============================
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 1:14:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

X-No-archive: yes

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9uqdnQ6vaJlCKCXcRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
> Thumper wrote:
>
>> LCDs seem blurry to me also.
>> Thumper
>> To reply drop XYZ in address
>
> The "blurry" problem with LCD TVs is caused by the response time of the
> LCDs. The slow response time results in motion smear. Response times of 25
> ms lead to bad motion smear, 16 ms sets which are becoming more common
> still have motion smear but not quite as bad. The Sharp Aquos G series and
> the high end Sony LCD TVs go a long way to solving this problem but still
> have some as far as I can tell. Be careful of official response times as
> there is the manufacturers measure their sets in different ways.
>
> Alan Figgatt
>
=================================
Thanks.............
That explains my objections and what I see perfectly.
Good info.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 1:33:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Do you realize there is also a halflife for the good ole CTRs also??
According to WSR, they are even shorter than the current plasma
technology.......

42 wrote:

>
>
>If you plan on throwing it out and replacing it every 4 or so years,
>then sure it might be the best technology, but if you want your purchase
>to be more long lived ... Plasma is the worst technology.
>
>
>

--
Ric Seyler

--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 6:43:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Burt Johnson wrote:
> I'll put my 65" widescreen platinum Mitshubishi HDTV up against anything
> you can find. It is downright stunning... and you sure aren't going to
> find any 65" CRT, Plasma or LCD anytime soon...

For the record, you can buy a Panasonic 65" plasma TV. The commercial
TH-65PHD7UY version has shipped, not sure if the high end home theater
oriented 65" Onyx model has shown up yet. Not cheap, but the 65"
commercial model can be had for around $11 to $12K USD from some
discount on-line dealers.

LG has also announced a 71" 1920x1080 plasma TV, but reportedly only
has shipped a small number to the Korean and Japanese markets so far.
The US price is expected to be very high.

So not anytime soon is not quite true.

BTW, by next spring or summer, 55 to 57" direct view LCDs are expected
to hit the market. Sharp has also rumbled about releasing a 65" Aquos
model by the end of 2005. Not going to be cheap, however.

Alan Figgatt
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 11:47:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote

> BTW, by next spring or summer, 55 to 57" direct view LCDs are expected
> to hit the market. Sharp has also rumbled about releasing a 65" Aquos
> model by the end of 2005. Not going to be cheap, however.

I can remember when I was a kid (in the 1950s!) reading in Popular Mechanics
or some such mag that one day we would have entire walls than would become
flat-screen tvs at the touch of a switch. Sounds like that prediction will
take a while yet.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 2:43:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Alan Figgatt <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:

> Burt Johnson wrote:
> > I'll put my 65" widescreen platinum Mitshubishi HDTV up against anything
> > you can find. It is downright stunning... and you sure aren't going to
> > find any 65" CRT, Plasma or LCD anytime soon...
>
> For the record, you can buy a Panasonic 65" plasma TV. The commercial
> TH-65PHD7UY version has shipped, not sure if the high end home theater
> oriented 65" Onyx model has shown up yet. Not cheap, but the 65"
> commercial model can be had for around $11 to $12K USD from some
> discount on-line dealers.
>
> LG has also announced a 71" 1920x1080 plasma TV, but reportedly only
> has shipped a small number to the Korean and Japanese markets so far.
> The US price is expected to be very high.
>
> So not anytime soon is not quite true.
>
> BTW, by next spring or summer, 55 to 57" direct view LCDs are expected
> to hit the market. Sharp has also rumbled about releasing a 65" Aquos
> model by the end of 2005. Not going to be cheap, however.

Wow! They are getting big faster than I thought!

I still like my r65" ear projection Mitshubishi though. I got it about
3 years ago for about $5K. It is sharp, bright, wide viewing angle, no
problem when the sun is shining in the room. :-)

--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 2:43:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Burt Johnson wrote:
> Alan Figgatt <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> For the record, you can buy a Panasonic 65" plasma TV. The commercial
>>TH-65PHD7UY version has shipped, not sure if the high end home theater
>>oriented 65" Onyx model has shown up yet. Not cheap, but the 65"
>>commercial model can be had for around $11 to $12K USD from some
>>discount on-line dealers.
>>
>> LG has also announced a 71" 1920x1080 plasma TV, but reportedly only
>>has shipped a small number to the Korean and Japanese markets so far.
>>The US price is expected to be very high.
>>
>> So not anytime soon is not quite true.
>>
>> BTW, by next spring or summer, 55 to 57" direct view LCDs are expected
>>to hit the market. Sharp has also rumbled about releasing a 65" Aquos
>>model by the end of 2005. Not going to be cheap, however.
>
>
> Wow! They are getting big faster than I thought!
>
> I still like my r65" ear projection Mitshubishi though. I got it about
> 3 years ago for about $5K. It is sharp, bright, wide viewing angle, no
> problem when the sun is shining in the room. :-)

Oh, so you have not kept up with the market. I was focusing
specifically on 65"+ when I wrote about plasmas, but there have been 60"
to 63" range plasmas on the market for the past several years. There is
the 63" Samsung, 63" Fujitsu (came out early this year I think), the 60"
LGs and Zeniths, the 61" Sony, the 61" NEC and Pioneer (which brought
NEC's plasma plant recently). Panasonic just one-upped them by coming
out with a 65" model. I saw the new model 60" LG at a Best Buy recently,
so the 60" range plasmas are going more mainstream.

All of them are too big and way too expensive for me. But I expect we
will see the 60" LG retailing for under $10K by next summer or fall as
LG wants to push into the US market in a major way.

Alan Figgatt
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 11:59:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Alan Figgatt <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:

> Oh, so you have not kept up with the market. I was focusing
> specifically on 65"+ when I wrote about plasmas, but there have been 60"
> to 63" range plasmas on the market for the past several years. There is
> the 63" Samsung, 63" Fujitsu (came out early this year I think), the 60"
> LGs and Zeniths, the 61" Sony, the 61" NEC and Pioneer (which brought
> NEC's plasma plant recently). Panasonic just one-upped them by coming
> out with a 65" model. I saw the new model 60" LG at a Best Buy recently,
> so the 60" range plasmas are going more mainstream.
>
> All of them are too big and way too expensive for me. But I expect we
> will see the 60" LG retailing for under $10K by next summer or fall as
> LG wants to push into the US market in a major way.
>
> Alan Figgatt

Can't honestly say I have. I walk into the showrooms Magnolia's now and
then (our local high end TV store) and see what they have. The plasmas
all seem rather small compared to my set. I haven't seen anything that
large in the showroom.

--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:40:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dave Gower wrote:

>
> I can remember when I was a kid (in the 1950s!) reading in Popular Mechanics
> or some such mag that one day we would have entire walls than would become
> flat-screen tvs at the touch of a switch. Sounds like that prediction will
> take a while yet.
>

That will be possible with OLED technology, probably in the next 10 years.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 11:38:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I'll tell you what, my Sony XBR WEGA plasma is just stunning, so if you go
that route, I would be willing to bet that you won't be unhappy.

"lotus" <tohuva@bohu.com> wrote in message
news:_18ud.27692$bD6.380610@wagner.videotron.net...
> It is quite funny, how many twisted ideas, fears, rumors are repeated
> here, that originated decades ago at the dawn of PDP technology. The
> 60,000 hours half brightness lifetime for a present day plasma panel
> provides much more brightness 20 years from now than a back projected
> brand new screen can have today! But that is not the point. What counts is
> the image. Who cares what technology is behind a really nice image. But
> satisfaction depends of the taste. Until there are people satisfied with
> pale blurry images, projection tv manufacturers have no headaches. Myself,
> I watch sony xbr CRT for 20 years, and could not imagine sitting ahead of
> a box with back projected mimic of a tv. Only good plasma panels can get
> close to the crisp and vivid images I am accustomed to. This is why I will
> now by plasma au lieu of a big screen sony xbr crt that is not
> manufactured anymore. Why sony abandoned its most successful and far their
> best product. Who knows? They still use the xbr and wega denominations for
> propaganda purposes without the very content where they produced the best
> picture on crt's.
>
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 11:42:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 13:14:35 -0500, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:

>
>"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote
>
>> Once again, I am referring to LCD.
>
>So am I. I went on a tour of several stores this morning. Quite honestly, I
>don't like plasmas all that much. To me they seem almost unrealistically
>crisp and colourful. I found the Sony LCD projection more comfortable to
>watch, but the Sammy DLPs looked more realistic and are my favourite of
>those three. And finally, I looked at something I missed the first time -
>the JVC HD-ILA. It was just as good as the DLPs, and is smaller and lighter
>for each screen size. Kind of pricey though, but being a new technology may
>have more downward room.
>
>Choices, choices, choices.
>
>Note on my reaction to plasma. I had cataract surgery a couple of years ago.
>I could not believe how vivid everything looks now - your natural lenses are
>never completely clear, whereas the artificial ones are. This may affect how
>I see various TV screens.
>


When I was shopping earlier this year, I noticed a *huge* difference
(at least to me) in picture quality between different plasmas. And
there was no direct correlation between price and quality of picture.
So make sure you check several brands and models. And keep in mind
that at the stores, the settings on the sets on display may not be
optimized for viewing either. You really need to work with a
knowledgable sales rep that can adjust the set you are looking at.
Many sets have been putzed with by shoppers and such, and some may not
even have a HD feed at all. It took me a few months before I ended up
getting the Hitachi HDT50. Haven't noticed any burn in problems but I
don't do PC games on the set, and avoid letterbox or sidebar views.
Good luck. Nomather what you get, you will surely love the HD.

==VernMan==

PS. When I was shopping around I wanted to get an LCD (very crsip and
no burn in issues), but they didn't come over 30 some inches at that
time, and I wanted a 42 or maybe 50 inch display for my family room. I
see now you can get a large screen LCD without having to rob a bank...
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 4:22:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>I'll tell you what, my Sony XBR WEGA plasma is just stunning, so if you go
>that route, I would be willing to bet that you won't be unhappy.
>

Yup. You can add to that 'stunning' list, Fujitsu, Panasonic and Pioneer. The
Pioneer will not give you the darker blacks of the Fujitsu/Panasonics, but it
will provide an overall brighter image. I've heard the just released 50"
Fujitsu has both the brightness of the Pioneer with the nice blacks of previous
Fujitsus and Panasonics. I haven't seen them yet, but I'm anxious to.
!