why would ANYONE buy plasma

[Guest]

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😱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?
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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!

 

[THUMPer]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.
>

 

[user]

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.)

 

[Guest]

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.


???

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.
==============================

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.
>