9 Reasons We Should Save Plasma TV

[Dave K]

There are definitely some strong opinions here regarding image quality, but IMO you're quibbling over a very marginal difference in performance.

Most people who do side by side comparisons will agree that Plasma has better image quality (IMO 90%+ of that advantage is black level) and for that marginal advantage you get something that's got some drawbacks.

MOST people these days are deciding that the drawbacks outweigh the advantage... hence LCD beating Plasma in every market segment they compete in.

Now... some of you are saying to yourself "but the image quality difference is HUGE". I'd respectfully disagree, if you want to see what a REALLY superior image looks like then you need look no further than a decent 9" CRT Projector. I've got a Sony 1292, it's old, it's a beast (weighs over 200 lbs), it takes almost 20 minutes to fully warm up, burns over 1000w when running, and tubes are getting hard to come by... but image quality is mind boggling (HD content looks amazing). After that... the Plasm vs. LCD quality difference is negligible.

I've also got an LCD projector aimed at the same 120" screen (Panasonic AE900U)... it looks washed out in comparison, but we still use it 9 times out of 10 because it's EASY.

 

[jwl3]

Practically every moron on this forum criticizing the author is an LCD fanboy. The author owns both types of displays and he makes very valid points, for the objective reader.

I own a plasma for all the very reasons that he pointed out. A friend bought a Sony XBR 46" LCD for $2000. I bought a 58" Panasonic plasma 1080p 58pz800u for $2299. And my picture looks better. My Samsung LCD 24" monitor has terrible viewing angles, so much so that the top 1/3 of the monitor differs a great deal in color to the middle and bottom half. The people who are happy with an LCD's viewing angles have their tv's at a long viewing distance. If your couch was 7 feet away from the tv, you wouldn't be so happy to be sitting at an angle to an LCD.

 

[bustapr]

[citation][nom]jwl3[/nom]If your couch was 7 feet away from the tv, you wouldn't be so happy to be sitting at an angle to an LCD.[/citation]
How long ago was the last time that you reviewed plasma and lcd tvs? LCD tvs no longer suffer from bad viewing angles. My SONY BRAVIA KDL-40SL140 has 178 degree viewing angle and looks great. Iwent with LCD because of power usage and it was on special $850.Its true that plasmas are cheaper, but they are also heavier, power hungry, and reflect alot of light. That samsung of yours must be an old crap, since the touch of colors and every other samsung has had wide viewing angles for a very long while now.

 

[calsaird]

The author of this article actually based quite a few of his points around factual points bolstered by anecdotal evidence. Considering this is an opinion column, I see no problem with that.

For those who say that Plasmas use substantially more power than LCDs, take a gander at the following link: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html

You'll find that if you sort by power consumption, there is actually a group of high end plasmas that do rather well in power consumption. For example: The Panasonic TH-58PZ800U 58" Plasma used ~196.37 Watts. Meanwhile a Samsung LN-T4681F 46" LED LCD is using ~194.65. (I chose those two models simply to illustrate the power draw on a Plasma and a LCD).

Quite simply, both technologies have their place (although LCD has been encroaching successfully upon Plasma's territory for quite some time). If someone wants to be a fanboy, this goes for Plasma lovers and LCD lovers alike, then power to them. They can enjoy their 55" LCD in a room with a 15' viewing distance or their Plasma in a room with the sun shining through all of its windows.

 

[Guest]

Glare, glare, glare. In a real world situation, which is a room with a window “99% of everyone” you loose half your picture quality on a plasma due to light glare off of Plasma glass.. There is very little glare on a LCD most have no glass. I had a Plasma and could not see the screen in the daytime, switched to a LCD and 95% of glare was gone. It would not mater if I had a $100,000 Plasma My $1500 LCD will have superior picture quality in my real world TV room because you cannot get rid of glare. The only time a PLasma is superior is if you have a didicated room with blacked out windows and no lights on which is 1% of population.

 

[Dave K]

[citation][nom]jwl3[/nom]Practically every moron on this forum criticizing the author is an LCD fanboy. The author owns both types of displays and he makes very valid points, for the objective reader.I own a plasma for all the very reasons that he pointed out. A friend bought a Sony XBR 46" LCD for $2000. I bought a 58" Panasonic plasma 1080p 58pz800u for $2299. And my picture looks better. My Samsung LCD 24" monitor has terrible viewing angles, so much so that the top 1/3 of the monitor differs a great deal in color to the middle and bottom half. The people who are happy with an LCD's viewing angles have their tv's at a long viewing distance. If your couch was 7 feet away from the tv, you wouldn't be so happy to be sitting at an angle to an LCD.[/citation]

If you're having viewing angle problems with an LCD then it's either a very old or a VERY cheap panel. I've got a cheap Westy 42" 1080p panel that is perfectly viewable from 60 degrees off angle (much father than you'd ever want to sit off axis) and is still entirely viewable from 80 degrees off. Viewing angle problems are a thing of the past... at least 2 years in the past. I've got two 26" LCD's for my pc's, neither displays a viewing angle issue of any kind.

 

[Mach5Motorsport]

[citation][nom]jwl3[/nom]Practically every moron on this forum criticizing the author is an LCD fanboy. [/citation]

LCD fanboys?!?! LOL
Ah, the old "don't have a factual retort, so I go for the insult" tactic instead. You stay classy.

Plasma is nice, but expensive to own and maintain. And no, I don't plan to get a tv that is over 42" to partake of the wonderment. iI fact, MOST homeowners don't need such large TVs. Plasma isn't needed. so sorry.

 

[ezmoneycfb]

Calsaird

You'll find that if you sort by power consumption, there is actually a group of high end plasmas that do rather well in power consumption. For example: The Panasonic TH-58PZ800U 58" Plasma used ~196.37 Watts. Meanwhile a Samsung LN-T4681F 46" LED LCD is using ~194.65. (I chose those two models simply to illustrate the power draw on a Plasma and a LCD).

Quite simply, both technologies have their place (although LCD has been encroaching successfully upon Plasma's territory for quite some time). If someone wants to be a fanboy, this goes for Plasma lovers and LCD lovers alike, then power to them. They can enjoy their 55" LCD in a room with a 15' viewing distance or their Plasma in a room with the sun shining through all of its windows.

I can use your same link and say that this years Samsung A650 52" only consumes 219W at a cost of about $68.81/year while Vizio VP505XVT 50" Plasma consumes 474W at a cost of $146.72/year.

No matter how you slice it the AVERAGE plasma consumes a great deal more energy than a LCD.
LCD has just as much reason to be in a room with windows as a Plasma also. Plasma gets glare, LCD gets some wash out.
Regardless, there are reasons why the industry is shifting from plasma, so investigate the reasons and jump on LCD for the time. Laser TV will be a short lived fad that MIGHT last in really large sizes, once OLED becomes standard for 32-50". Just keep in mind that even the newest TVs have flaws, OLED has very low brightness ratings, so rooms with alot of light/windows could be very bad for them for the 1st generation or 2.

 

[Guest]

Those who state that LCD don't have burn issues aren't correct.

We do have LCD used for security camera monitoring and yes it has burned in images.
Also we have a computer monitor that has images from the desktop burned in too.

So the claim that LCDs won't burn it is false.
Also today's Plasmas have technology that compensates for burn in concerns.
Finally, look at the latest specs for the Panasonic Plasmas and now power concerns are not a issue any longer.

I can't watch LCD TVs, the motion blur gives me headaches, there is very little if any with Plasmas. Simply to the response time of Plasma, 2ms, vs LCD 8 ms.

 

[realibrad]

Not all burn it can be stopped. For example, the nifty little HUD's in game, how could you stop those from causing burn in? You could not play games as long? Or if you happen to like a network over another, that uses a logo at the bottom of the screen, same problem. Why should a consumer have to change there habbits to accommodate the technology? Technology is here to serve the people, not the other way around.

LCD's dont get "burn issues". Over time, the usage of specific colors causes them to wear out. And if you think that 8ms response time is avg, you need to look at the current lcd's on the market.

 

[Guest]

I would go for a LCD hdtv with LED-backlighting, black is really black and the contrast ratio goes above a million to one. New LCD Displays can go up to 200Hz refresh rates so the blurry movements are history.

I think plasma is dead, LCD is the one to go for!

 

[techtre2003]

[citation][nom]RealiBrad[/nom]Not all burn it can be stopped. For example, the nifty little HUD's in game, how could you stop those from causing burn in? You could not play games as long? Or if you happen to like a network over another, that uses a logo at the bottom of the screen, same problem. Why should a consumer have to change there habbits to accommodate the technology? Technology is here to serve the people, not the other way around.LCD's dont get "burn issues". Over time, the usage of specific colors causes them to wear out. And if you think that 8ms response time is avg, you need to look at the current lcd's on the market.[/citation]

Plasma screens combat that type of burn in problem by shifting pixels every so often. I've played games and watched news programs with static images for many hours at a time with no problems on my plasma; I've had it for 3 years now and it looks like it did on day 1. How many plasma screens do you see in airports running Fox News 24/7 with the tickers and logos constantly on the screen? I'm not saying they'll NEVER get burn-in issues, but that's an extreme case and still they don't seem to have many issues with it.

LCD screens can absolutely get burn in. In fact, I've got an LCD monitor here at work that has the outline of the state of Illinois burned into it because the user had a weather map as his desktop image, didn't use the computer much, and never shut the monitor off.

 

[bemenaker]

@KPO Burn in is more of a problem on LCD's than it is on Plasmas. Also, what is the worst screen there is for burn in? CRT's!!!! When was the last time you saw burn in on a CRT? Burn in on a screen is virtually non existent anymore, period.

 

[Dave K]

These days burn in is a non-issue unless you're using the panel as a PC display (and using it a LOT). In that case you'll want to avoid plasma (While they've beat the problem down substantially... they are still FAR more susceptable to burn in than LCD's or CRT's).

CRT's and LCD's CAN experience burn in... but in both cases it takes a long term display of the same image to get you there (at least an order of magnitude less sensitive than Plasma, probably more than one order of magnitude). Plasma has mitigated the problem by having clever electronics tricks that prevent a stagnant image from being displayed indefinitely, and if you DO get burnin you can often get rid of it by blasting a white image... but these are workarounds not fixes, Plasma burn in is something to at least be aware of and understand.

 

[KyleSTL]

Oh my God, I'm so sick of the myth of plasma consuming considerably more power than LCD, here's some real (up-to-date) data:

CNET independent reviews -
Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite = 333/293W
Link
Panasonic 50" PZ850U = 164/284W
Link
Sony 52" XBR 7 LCD = 286/161W
Link
Samsung 52" A650 LCD = 220/140W
Link

OK, there's a reasonable amount of data to go over, they're comparable sizes and quality. See that the plasmas don't consume the rediculous amounts of power that LCD fanatics and under-informed consumers believe they do. Plasmas consuming significantly more power than LCDs do ended more than a year ago.

 

[mavroxur]

[citation][nom]TomsGuideRachel[/nom]Thanks for your input m1ch4L. Please keep in mind that Tom's Guide is intended for a different audience than Tom's Hardware.[/citation]


For reference, see the copy and pasted article on free WiFi for the Xbox 360, linked from Tom's Hardware Homepage, or any of the other 1,492,294 web site on the internet it was copied from.

 

[KyleSTL]

Sorry for the double post, but here's a good link to the database of power consumption on CNET:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html?tag=rb_content;rb_mtx

If you organize by "Power (per size)" you'll notice the newer 50"+ plasmas (Panasonic 8-series, etc) all score Good or Average, it's the older plasmas (7-series) and smaller (42 and 46") that score Poor for power consumption.

 

[mavroxur]

Plasma TV's need to go the way of VESA Local Bus and all the other stop-gap solutions in the technology world. The only reason Plasma really caught on is because it was cheaper to make than LCD, which is not the case these days. With LCD prices dropping, and delivering better color and using a fraction of the power, the choice is becoming obvious. Contrast ratios and such did lean in their favor in a few scenarios along with a few other traits, but LCD's are just as capable, and then some, these days. And before TomsGuideRachel quotes me with her "bla bla youre missing the point, bla bla bla it's for a different audience" reply like several other folks posts, I would just like to say that it's understood that it's a subjective article, but there's is definately a line between subjective writing, and total fanboy spamming. In any case, objective writing would seem more appropriate anyhow in this situation.

 

[spiralsun1]

You all are trying to rationalize your LCD's. LCD is a computer monitor technology which became the fashion. There is absolutely no comparison to the plasmas by Panasonic. If you are a perfectionist, and want the 3-D "window" effect, you get the high contrast, perfect-color, no flat 2-d backlight lcd cue, no flat 2-d lack of contrast, no 2-d flat changes in color at different angles PLASMA.

 

[Mach5Motorsport]

[citation][nom]spiralsun1[/nom]You all are trying to rationalize your LCD's. LCD is a computer monitor technology which became the fashion.[/citation]

Wow...such insight.

btw CRT technology was in TVs Before they were used as computer monitors. As I recall, CRTs became "the fashion" for computer monitors BEFORE LCDs.

I guess what I'm saying to your LCD/Plasma comment: So friggin what?