9 Reasons We Should Save Plasma TV

[Mach5Motorsport]

[citation][nom]KyleSTL[/nom]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 = 333/293WLinkPanasonic 50" PZ850U = 164/284WLinkSony 52" XBR 7 LCD = 286/161WLinkSamsung 52" A650 LCD = 220/140WLinkOK, 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.[/citation]

You might have scrolled to the bottom of the cnet charts of each link to the costof operation. The smaller plasma units you cite cost over three times as much to power than the compared LCD units

So the plasmas cost more, more expensive to opperate on a yearly basis and are smaller screen sizes. (yeah, 50" compared to 52") still smaller.

Talk about undermining your own side of the debate. 😉

 

[mavroxur]

[citation][nom]spiralsun1[/nom]LCD is a computer monitor technology which became the fashion.[/citation]



Technically, LCD isnt't a computer monitor technology, it's a general display technology. And technically, when plasma displays were invented, their first use was on a PLATO computer terminal, when invented in 1964.

 

[Tomsguiderachel]

[citation][nom]mavroxur[/nom]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.[/citation]
Care to be more specific? I don't understand what you are saying.

Thanks.

 

[Shike]

The only LCDs that can stand up to plasma image quality today use LEDs. Unfortunately the best performing LED LCD is from Sony and costs upwards of $5K, compared to a $4K Kuro from Pioneer and the fact the Sony still performs marginally worse kills me inside. I swear this pseudo green movement is going to be the end of me. Seriously, if you're arguing over 100/200W then you need to see the bigger picture.

The story gets worse for LCDs that don't use LEDs. Their black level isn't black with them; might as well be called shades of gray. It's unfortunate, but true.

When oleds life improves enough and becomes affordable, we might see a true uprising of a techn that will surpass both LCD and plasma. Till then each respective tech as its place in the market.

 

[Guest]

I would agree with all of the pros listed in the article, and add that you need to balance those against 2 strong cons: power consumption and screen reflection. But simply listing out the key strong points of plasma vs lcd is totally irrelevant to the title of this article - plasma has great points, but it is not PERFECT. On the other hard, the closest to achieving the best of both worlds right now is probably the Sony XBR8, which is pricey but commercially available. FYI I own a Panasonic, which is absolutely wonderful other than the fact that I need to watch it with lights out.

 

[Tomsguiderachel]

[citation][nom]pan owner[/nom]I would agree with all of the pros listed in the article, and add that you need to balance those against 2 strong cons: power consumption and screen reflection. But simply listing out the key strong points of plasma vs lcd is totally irrelevant to the title of this article - plasma has great points, but it is not PERFECT. On the other hard, the closest to achieving the best of both worlds right now is probably the Sony XBR8, which is pricey but commercially available. FYI I own a Panasonic, which is absolutely wonderful other than the fact that I need to watch it with lights out.[/citation]
I own a panasonic plasma as well, though I happen to prefer to keep the lights off but added in a small back light behind the TV (it isn't wall-mounted). This way we get ambient light which seems to even improve the picture/contrast ratio.

 

[hustler539]

I think the biggest downside to plasmas are their starting size. Not many people are willing to commit to a 42" plus size. LCDs can be had for much smaller sizes to meet the needs of the consumer. I however prefer plasma for picture quality, and when building a home theater like many people do, I see no reason to pick an lcd.

 

[drshorty]

Hmm, well, personally I always noticed all the blurring and motion issues with LCD before they were even addressing them in modern LCDs(120Hz being one issue). I have bought 2 32" lcds, and they were good, but I wouldn't say they're great.

Now I've seen somebody say Samsung's LCDs are really sharp, well Samsung's plasmas are exactly the same. I did see that the Samsung models were "sharper" than some Panasonic Plasmas, but I've seen the THX certified plasmas and could see a real improvement from their lower models.

But this year, looking at LCDs, the attempts to fix the motion issues are still not comparable to what plasmas are at. Panasonic is now rolling out the G10s with NeoPDP, and with THX certification will most likely be a nearly unbeatable picture quality. With full 1080p motion resolution(which has only been achieved by 1 LCD TV model to date) 30,000 to 1 contrast ratio native(unlike LCDs which barely scathe by at 2,000, maybe 5,000 for LED backlits) and no viewing angle or backlight issues, I find it hard to believe people could really dismiss Panasonic's plasmas.

Another factor that goes for plasmas in 2009 is the cost, viera hit a new bargain level that plasmas don't generally reach. Continuing that path will probably change the course, and if you're complaining about energy costs then that's legitimate, but that doesn't take away the fact that the new plasmas coming out will have better visual quality. Personally, I wish I could get a Samsung plasma that had 1080p motion resolution, because that would be my perfect TV(as long as they keep all the good things about the A550 plasma)

But for people getting all fanboyish on this crap, really, LCDs are doing great, but Plasmas are still ahead. I mean reading comments like tilting the tv 20 degrees will damage it(go talk to somebody who actually cares about their viewing experience and not flame-wars) and bitching about how we don't actually have a real comparison(frankly, looking at all models of Plasma out today vs LCD, the general comparisons weren't inaccurate) just makes it seem like you'd rather defend LCD than be picky about what you see.

Personally, I see the motion issues with LCD, and that's the only real issue I have. I don't really mind viewing angles, or lower contrast ratios(I just don't notice them as well) but unfortunately the motion issues are what drive me to plasma. For everybody else, there's nothing you can knock Plasmas for on viewing quality. They aren't "softer"--though some models are, this is no a problem with plasma; they really do have better contrast and darker blacks; but they do legitimately consume more power, even with these new panels... but for me, that's a price I'm willing to pay.

 

[drshorty]

And I'm not saying LCD isn't good enough either, for most of what I'm watching I don't have a problem, but where I do see problem with LCD, plasma gives me what I want. If you don't think there's a problem with LCD, then it shouldn't matter enough to come in and flame plasma, but don't start going out and dismissing the authors post as if there is no legitimacy to his claims because he isn't citing specific references, because they are in general true.

 

[Guest]

Well Al Gore was the self proclaimed father of the internet, so now you can thank him for killing the plasma technology over power usage.

 

[Guest]

Let's be honest here. Are you really going to throw superior technology out the window for $19 a month on your electric bill, AT THE MOST? If power consumption is the only real argument you have then it shows just how short sighted the majority people are. Are you really struggling to save that $20 a month? If that is your problem then maybe you shouldn't be looking to by a large TV. You should be looking at your finances and figuring out how the hell you got into the mess you are in.

It is a fact that plasmas do provide better quality for less. Color reproduction for LCDs is just not there. Yes, I realize that plasmas do not offer the best color reproduction that is available, but for a flat-panel format they do. If a wanted a projection TV, I would get one. But, since that is not what I am looking for the plasma wins.

As for being cheaper to manufacture, well I am afraid everyone is right. TVs below 50" are more easily and cheaper to produce with LCD technology. As for anything above that Plasma was cheaper/easier to produce. What amazes me is that last at CES Panasonic, Samsung, and LG all stated that they were going to split the production of their LCD and Plasmas. LCDs were going to marketed for home use since typical size range for home use falls under the 50" catagory while the plasma were going to be their higher quality/larger picture commercial market.

Yes LCD technology has gotten MUCH better over the past couple of years. However, when looking at motion/color reproduction/image quality plasma has always come out on top.

Burn-in should not be an issue with ANY TV. Most plasma now come with pixel shifting built in and can be modified to change how much the pixels move from side to side. My 50" Samsung Plasma allows for 1-4 pixels shift at a specified interval. I have never had and incidents with burn-in with it on. I don't even notice the shift when it takes place. I don't know where the myth came from that LCDs don't have that problem but it does exist. I also takes quite a bit longer to take place as well.


Look, no matter how you (pardon the pun) look at it, it all boils down to what is appealing to the eye when the person buys the TV. I know plasmas have the superior image but, I will always buy what I like the best. That is why I have a Samsung 50" plasma and a Sony Bravia 52" LCD in my living room. I love them both and love the image on both of them. I did pay $500 less for the plasma and it does have a better image than the Sony. I love Left 4 Dead on it, makes me happy :c)

 

[woochifer]

Too bad I'm in agreement with Reisinger this time around, because this piece is typically rife with factual errors and gaping logical holes. Despite his fanboy devotion to plasma tech, his interpretation of market trends is nothing more than following the ignorant groupspeak that occurs in the tech press, which has been salivating over plasma's demise for years.

Reisinger claims that Panasonic is the "only major" plasma manufacturer left. Since when did LG and Samsung become bit players? All three manufacturers had year-to-year growth with plasma panels last year. Citing Vizio as some evidence of plasma's decline ignores the fact that Vizio outsourced all of their plasma TVs, and primarily focused on the LCD market because LCD's higher prices leave more room for a tier-three brand to undercut the majors.

Once again buying into whatever the lazy tech press is spoonfeeding its readers, Reisinger regurgitates the lie that plasma sales have been on the decline. Yet, last year produced record-breaking sales for plasma TVs, with year-to-year sales in the 4th quarter up by about 30%.

Reisinger talks about Panasonic's brand new NeoPDP panel, but ignores that Samsung has also introduced its own energy saving, thin plasma panel that touts an even higher native contrast ratio.

Also, in response to those posters who are talking about plasma energy consumption -- those figures only reflect the maximum power draw with a pure white test signal. The actual energy consumption on a 50" 1080p plasma is closer to around 300 watts during normal viewing. On a Pioneer plasmas, the energy consumption actually decreases by more than 30% by simply calibrating the picture. The proposed EU rules do not single out plasma, but rather any TV that does not meet their guidelines. What most of the tech press doesn't tell readers is that about 1/4 of last year's LCD TVs also did not meet the EU guidelines. With the newer energy-saving panels that just got introduced, the average power draw is now under 200 watts, which is well within the new Energy Star guidelines and within the guidelines being proposed for California.

A lot of old information is getting regurgitated, and it does consumers a major disservice, particularly those who don't like the LCD picture and don't buy into the propaganda getting tossed around on that side (e.g., most 240 Hz LCD TVs do not use a true 240 Hz screen refresh, but rather a strobing backlight that has the net effect of reducing brightness by upwards of 50%). If plasma fails, let it fail on its own merits, not because of discredited information.

 

[HC1Gunner]

When It comes to a TV, I still prefer the new 3 LED DLP's over LCD TV's. No dead pixels ever, and no burn in problem ever. Color is def. better with DLP than LCD.

Most people don't know it, but when they go to the movie theaters, they are watching DLP rear projection.

 

[Guest]

Kept my Sony XBR Widescreen 34" Tube TV forever as it simply had the best Hi-Def picture and put LCD's to shame. I finally replaced it....and the only TV that I felt worthy to replace it was the 9G Pioneer Kuro.

 

[Guest]

That "fuzzy" about plasmas seems to apply to watching crap Standard Definition TV. My Panasonic 42 inch plasma looks superb when showing HD material .. Still to my eyes better than comparable LCD.

Having said that though .. anyone else getting tired of this debate?.
I think it's time for a new one.Bring on OLED or whatever..

 

[skane1]

I have owned a Panasonic 42px80u plasma tv for about a year and a half now and it's performance has been flawless.
Before I bought my tv I spent 2 months researching and checking out all of the reviews and for $999.00 cdn I got the best performing plasma tv in that price point.I orinally wanted to go with LCD cuz my boy likes to game but I was just not happy with their overall performance at all.This tv gets used 12hrs a day 7 days a week!I only watched tv on this plasma for 200hrs and then and only then did I allow my son to use his ps3 on it and games have not posed any issues at all.I have been 100% happy with my plasma tv but like anything else something better will come along and like crt's both lcd's and plasma will be obsolete