# LCD or plasma?



## THRiLL KiLL (Dec 5, 2010)

for Christmas i am planning on updating my old tube tv to a 42" flat screen.

I have $650 to play with, but i am planning on mounting it to the wall, so let say i have $600.

I am planning on buying it local as i am afraid what ups would do to one in shipping. 


the question is should i go lcd or plasma. 

I know i cant afford led.

I game, but mainly on my pc. 

Mostly i am looking to watch movies and tv (no sports)

I dont have cable (hulu\netflix ftw)

I dont watch bluerays. 


I am thinking plasma,  but i dont know the specs to look for or manufacture...

any feedback would be appreciated!


----------



## theonedub (Dec 5, 2010)

Bright room or dark room? Plasma loves to glare with bright lights whereas LCD do better. Just another thing to consider.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 5, 2010)

600hz sounds fun. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889187151


----------



## DaMulta (Dec 5, 2010)

You can get a 120 DLP projection 1080p 60'' for 599 from dell just saying......


----------



## Volkszorn88 (Dec 5, 2010)

Personally, I would go with the LCD.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Dec 5, 2010)

definetly plasma if its a dark room.... way better contrast in the blacks.


----------



## Bo$$ (Dec 5, 2010)

LCD, slightly better all rounder


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Dec 5, 2010)

I say go for this...LG 42" 1080p 120Hz LCD HDTV 42LD520
Don't wall mount it at all....Save up and get a Stand that you can mount it on..
and don't worry they come in a box inside of a box inside of a box...UPS can do what they want and they are fine


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 5, 2010)

I recommend the Panasonic Viera 42" S2 series.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 5, 2010)

LCD. 

Plasmas still burn in.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Dec 5, 2010)

Wile E said:


> LCD.
> 
> Plasmas still burn in.



lies. maybe after 4 days....


image retention is not burn in, and its fixed in a minute or 2.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 5, 2010)

Wile E said:


> LCD.
> 
> Plasmas still burn in.



you don't have to burn them in anymore.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 5, 2010)

around here LCD is considerd shit tons better than plasma.



easily fixable or not, the image retention still sucks.

LCD's are lighter, less power hungry, less heat, and quite often look better... brighter is not better, imo and thats all plasmas seem to do better is light up the room.


----------



## theonedub (Dec 5, 2010)

Plasma is still the King of black levels, with LED LCDs quickly catching up. Nothing sucks worse than trying to watch a dark movie on an LCD- even in a completely dark room with the backlight nearly off.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 5, 2010)

theonedub said:


> Plasma is still the King of black levels, with LED LCDs quickly catching up. Nothing sucks worse than trying to watch a dark movie on an LCD- even in a completely dark room with the backlight nearly off.



you talking HDTV on VA or IPS panel, or a TN computer monitor LCD?


----------



## Hayder_Master (Dec 5, 2010)

isn't high bright also harm the eyes too


----------



## theonedub (Dec 5, 2010)

HDTV. I dont think we are talking computer monitors here


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 5, 2010)

Plasma technology has superior color accuracy, viewing angles, contrast, motion and value. they cost more to operate but it can be marginal.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Dec 5, 2010)

Guess which ones a Plasma and which ones not









Which one has better blacks and color


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 5, 2010)

jmcslob said:


> Guess which ones a Plasma and which ones not
> http://img.techpowerup.org/101128/tv1.png
> http://img.techpowerup.org/101128/tv2.png
> Which one has better blacks and color



which Viera model is it?


----------



## Wile E (Dec 5, 2010)

slyfox2151 said:


> lies. maybe after 4 days....
> 
> 
> image retention is not burn in, and its fixed in a minute or 2.



You knew what I meant. It's just semantics. And no, it is not always fixable. My brother's 3 month old plasma has an image burnt into the corner of his screen that won't come out.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Dec 5, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> which Viera model is it?



TC-P42C2 720p....
I get it...they got better....But they also produce a lot of heat and consume a lot more power...but the point is LCD's Black is just as good just as the colors are just as good..

but Ya gotta buy a mid range LCD or better...such as the one I suggested....The S-IPS panel on those Tv's are phenomenal at a better price and power consumption to the Plasma's at the same price point...

If I'm gonna buy Plasma I'm gonna do it for size alone...and not for blacks or colors


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 5, 2010)

jmcslob said:


> TC-P42C2 720p....
> I get it...they got better....But they also produce a lot of heat and consume a lot more power...but the point is LCD's Black is just as good just as the colors are just as good..
> 
> but Ya gotta buy a mid range LCD or better...such as the one I suggested....The S-IPS panel on those Tv's are phenomenal at a better price and power consumption to the Plasma's at the same price point...
> ...



the C2 series is a entry model so comparing it to the G25 or S2 is night and day. I was going to buy a LG 32" LD450 (S-IPS) but with the panel lottery and advantages Plasma have I felt I was giving up too much. I think quality is more important than power consumption and heat. the Philips 42" PFL3704D/F7 LCD consumes more power than a Panasonic Viera 42" S2. I think power consumption will eventually be a non-issue like burn in.


----------



## HammerON (Dec 5, 2010)

My vote is for LCD. Have had a couple and really like the picture.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Dec 5, 2010)

TV Advice: Plasma, LCD or LED?

My comparison of Plasma, LCD or LED

You should care about refresh rate, response time(s) and contrast ratio/viewing angle with any LCD.  With plasmas I would suggest choosing a model in your price range from an established brand (Samsung, Panasonic, etc.) and then read some reviews (like on CNET).  Don't rely on TV speakers though...  I personally buy HDTVs from stores (on sale though) so that I can quickly return them if anything is wrong (dead pixels, etc.).


----------



## micropage7 (Dec 5, 2010)

i guess what kind of monitor you need, plasma looks better on color, but so far lcd still win on popularity
if you use this for movie or something like that that needs better color and contast and so, you could take plasma
lcd is good too, take lcd if you are on budget


----------



## Mussels (Dec 5, 2010)

how about something like this:


<46", LED backlit LCD

>46", ho ho ho santas gunna break his back delivering it cause you got plasma.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 5, 2010)

I'd consider the weight difference negligible due to the shape, you can lean a flat panel on your chest which makes lifting it a non issue... unless you have boobs.


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 5, 2010)

i have a 50" plasma samsung. I love the thing. image retention is good and any I get is easily fixed. I love how sharp colors are and everything is ncie and vivid without being to smudged. It didnt kick the shit out of the LCD's around the same price range (but it was a bit better imo). I found it to be a better display.

Though honestly this argument probably wont stop. I think of it like this. if you want something bigger then 40" and your already blowing close to a grand a few watts here or their isnt going to matter much to you. go to a store look at a few models (remember stores tune color etc to the huge bright room their in) adjust them to their default settings compair and see what looks nicer to you and buy it.


----------



## Bundy (Dec 5, 2010)

I used to have a plasma, now have LCD. Plasma did better movies (but only if the lights were out), the new LCD is much better overall because we don't have the light out and the TV is often used in the daytime.


----------



## heky (Dec 5, 2010)

Why not go for a 37" instead of 42" and buy a led lcd. Way beter contrast, blacks,...And way less power consumption than a plasma. I am also in the market for a HDTV, and i think i am gonna go for the philips led lcd 37pfl7605 with ambilight. No plasma gets close to the viewing pleasure of this baby for the same money.


----------



## n-ster (Dec 5, 2010)

Typically, a 42" Plasma consumes AT LEAST 150W more, a bit more than double that of LCD.

Lets keep it simple, 150W vs 300W. IDK how much you will use you TV, if you use it alot, and till its death, we can account for 60 000 hours of use
9 000 KW vs 18 000 KW... at ~11cents per KWh since Seattle energy is cheap I'm guessing?
990$ vs 1980$ = ~*1000$* difference in the long run


Now lets look at 3 years time, at 4 hours, 6 hours and 8 hours per day (only the diff this time)
~1100 days so 4400 hrs, 6600 hrs and 8800 hrs
0.150 KW difference --> 660 KWH, 990KWH, 1320KWH at 11c again
72.60$, 108.90$ and *145.20$*



Just to give an idea of energy costs, though I'm sure energy prices WILL climb


----------



## Triprift (Dec 5, 2010)

Solaris17 said:


> i have a 50" plasma samsung. I love the thing. image retention is good and any I get is easily fixed. I love how sharp colors are and everything is ncie and vivid without being to smudged. It didnt kick the shit out of the LCD's around the same price range (but it was a bit better imo). I found it to be a better display.
> 
> Though honestly this argument probably wont stop. I think of it like this. if you want something bigger then 40" and your already blowing close to a grand a few watts here or their isnt going to matter much to you. go to a store look at a few models (remember stores tune color etc to the huge bright room their in) adjust them to their default settings compair and see what looks nicer to you and buy it.



Well put i have both Plasma and lcd screens and personally i like the Plasma better as it seems to have more dynamic colours and better brightness levels. You do get some burn in but normally with models these days they fade very quickly. Like Sol said just check out a few models and make your mind.


----------



## BlackMagic (Dec 5, 2010)

Burn in?? Where? When? What?

That's old school thinking regarding burn in issues with decent plasmas.
I have had my Samsung 58 inch plasma for a couple of YEARS now and have no burn in at all.
It's an FPT-5884 model and is the sweetest tv I have ever owned.
I also just recently bought a Sony LCD 32 inch for a bedroom. Nice machine, very good color for an LCD, I am happy with it and everyone that sees it loves it UNTIL they see my plasma.
Then the HOLY S(*&^ talk starts. Wow is a word often used by people I have over.
And I stand back and take a good look myself and say to myself, ya' know, these people are right, what a fantastic hdtv the plasma is. There is no comparison. 
And this thing about lighting...some people here said the plasma only looks good in a dark room.
To them I say NOT REALLY, depends.
I can change the mood lighting from light to dark in my family room and this tv still looks astonishing. But I did have the thing professionally calibrated when I bought it. Cost was $350.00 and I believe it was worth it.
The technician did calibrate it for the lightest conditions of the room. He told be that would be the worse case for the tv and as it got darker in the room it would look even better. And he was right on.
Now I admit the service was expensive but you have to see the expensive equipment he brought with him. The stuff he brought over probably cost more than a new Ferrari or Bugatti. And he spent a solid hour with me, tuning to my familys liking (and his...lol).

Movies and HD channels are great, but so is regular signal transmission. It all looks good.
1080p Bluerays are crazy great. But the coolest thing I tell you about is games. I use a PS3 and I play Call of Duty Black Ops. Awesome, just flat out awesome. I also play this game on the pc. Of course it looks good on the pc but it looks super on the plasma as well.
Oh yea, one more thing. My 2 sons both had 50 inch LCDS and they went out and bought plasmas after I got mine. One bought Samsung and the other bought LG as he was a bit short on money at the time. They are both happy campers now.
Well guys, do as you will, just sharing a personal experience.


----------



## nailzer (Dec 5, 2010)

Wile E said:


> LCD.
> 
> Plasmas still burn in.



My 3 year old 50" Panasonic plasma never has.


----------



## Triprift (Dec 5, 2010)

I see it very minorly and usually fades after less than a minute.

Ive had my Plasma for a few years now so plasma tec may be better now.


----------



## qubit (Dec 5, 2010)

Plasma, for sure. You get all the CRT advantages of no motion smear, wide viewing angles (no funny colours, ya know what I mean) and deep colours with none of the downsides. Oh and it's flat. 

If you do connect your PC to it, the picture will look awesome in a way that LCD never can. 

I wish they could make the damn things small enough for desktop monitors.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Dec 5, 2010)

Lsd


----------



## qubit (Dec 5, 2010)

Nitro-Max said:


> Lsd



L*S*D? Are you sure? Think about it.


----------



## wahdangun (Dec 5, 2010)

plasma hands down, its have better image quality than LCD and better black level


----------



## n-ster (Dec 5, 2010)

qubit said:


> L*S*D? Are you sure? Think about it.



I think he did it on purpose


----------



## qubit (Dec 5, 2010)

n-ster said:


> I think he did it on purpose



Yeah, I looked at his sig after I posted it and figured it likely was on purpose, lol.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Dec 5, 2010)

Just a little mid afternoon humor guys  Im interested in this thread too as im looking to buy a new tv also and im undecided looking at them in the shops the plasma was cheaper and seemed to have a better quality picture to me. But i dont really know much about the technology or the problems. Im still happy with my old sony wega tbh but the misses wants a bigger screen. Only thing is i have a 3 year old thats mentally dissabled and he loves to bash the screen alot  so i have no choice but to wall mount.

P.S. Dont do lsd lol or any drugs for that matter!


----------



## qubit (Dec 5, 2010)

Nitro-Max said:


> Just a little mid afternoon humor guys  Im interested in this thread too as im looking to buy a new tv also and im undecided looking at them in the shops the plasma was cheaper and seemed to have a better quality picture to me. But i dont really know much about the technology or the problems. Im still happy with my old sony wega tbh but the misses wants a bigger screen. Only thing is i have a 3 year old thats mentally dissabled and he loves to bash the screen alot  so i have no choice but to wall mount.
> 
> P.S. Dont do lsd lol or any drugs for that matter!



Hey, sorry to hear about your son, dude. You can wall mount both types of TVs just the same and keep them out of harm's reach.

This forum probably doesn't have the best expertise to advise you on what type to buy (but see my clear preference for plasma earlier on and why! lol).

I did a quick google for lcd v plasma which came up with lots of useful hits. A good one of those is from avreview.co.uk that compared the two technologies.

In the end though, I think you should have a look at both kinds of sets in the shop, before committing to a technology. In particular, a couple of years ago, I saw a large Samsung LCD TV (60" I think) that had some seriously good motion smoothing technology: the shop was playing Ice Age and the TV did two awesome things:

- Removed the 25fps judder (half TV frame rate transmission) inherent in the film

- Zero motion blur!

It basically resulted in a smooth-as-silk animation and picture quality. 

I don't know the model number, but they must have even better TVs now. Check this tech out before you decide on anything

EDIT: I've just realised that the AV Review comparison is 5 years old and both technologies have improved since then, so it won't be as useful.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Dec 5, 2010)

Thanks for that  

Do we know what  sort of lifespan these things have? say in a heavy use situation? I dont watch much tv myself but my mrs and kids do.

I know a crt can last 10 years or more somtimes. I doubt you'd get that from a lcd or plasma,


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Dec 5, 2010)

*Plasma is so much better with motion*

The viewing angle actually is closer to what LCD makers seem to lie about all the time. Find me an LCD that actually has a 178 degree viewing angle. Everything looks better on Plasma and the glare thing is overrated as a flaw. With the S2 Series 50" Panasonic I don't find the glare distracting. What do I find much more distracting? Light bleed and panel non uniformity on LCDs should be considered a defect. They should not have left the factory because depending on the LCD some types of viewing material in a dark room are unwatchable.(I refer to it as blotch vision) I'm tired of dealing with rogue whiteness that aint supposed to be there and with Plasma you have none of that.

LCDs blur a lot. If you have not had experience with Plasma it will be harder to see. Once your eyes adjust to plasma and how well it moves it will be hard to unsee the blur when watching sports or any non film based content that contains its own judder from frame rate and film capture issues.

In short if you want the best movie experience with the best color accuracy, best viewing angles, best native real not bullshit contrast ratio, instant pixel response time, and an insanely bright and actually watchable image then you get a Plasma for any adult who will use it properly.

Most adults should be able to manage gaming on a Plasma without issue but if you have kids and they might be apt to leave the paused game and disappear for long periods of time or otherwise destroy your new toy then LCD is better for the family room but for the MAN CAVE Plasma is second to none!!!!!!!

If you do go the Plasma route then try to get one with 24p real cinema as it has frame multiplier that will smooth film content a bit. It will cost a bit more. Right now the cheapest 1080p model is from LG and that is going for $749.

P.S Let me just clarify further that we are talking here about movie and games here. For the overall use as a PC monitor we are stuck with LCD tech for now. I wouldn't plan on reading TPU reviews or forums on your new Plasma. Its designed for things in motion. Why waste it for such a mundane task? Having the TPU logo burned into your screen might be cool but still in the long run not too good.


----------



## mdsx1950 (Dec 5, 2010)

Go for the LCD. It will be be more value for the money.


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Dec 5, 2010)

*What Plasma do you have?*



Mussels said:


> around here LCD is considerd shit tons better than plasma.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Or did have?


----------



## theonedub (Dec 5, 2010)

Frys has an LG LED LCD for $689, which is not too far out your budget


----------



## n-ster (Dec 5, 2010)

For heavy use, LCD for sure, less heat, less energy, also easier to wall mount, no loss of brightness etc etc

OMFG LED THAT CHEAP... That is perfect for you too


----------



## THRiLL KiLL (Dec 5, 2010)

theonedub said:


> Bright room or dark room? Plasma loves to glare with bright lights whereas LCD do better. Just another thing to consider.



i would say bright room. there would always be a light on, or sun in the room, but the light sources are to the right and left of the tv so there would be no glare



DaMulta said:


> You can get a 120 DLP projection 1080p 60'' for 599 from dell just saying......



helped a friend go that route.  the technology may have changed,  but the 3 big issues i had were, 1. loud, the fans you could definlty tell they were on. 2. warm up time.  3. the bulbs have a lot less shorter of a lifespan



Mussels said:


> how about something like this:
> 
> 
> <46", LED backlit LCD
> ...



and that is one of the things i am looking at as the tv must be wall mounted




n-ster said:


> Typically, a 42" Plasma consumes AT LEAST 150W more, a bit more than double that of LCD.
> 
> Lets keep it simple, 150W vs 300W. IDK how much you will use you TV, if you use it alot, and till its death, we can account for 60 000 hours of use
> 9 000 KW vs 18 000 KW... at ~11cents per KWh since Seattle energy is cheap I'm guessing?
> ...




very very good point. 



Nitro-Max said:


> Just a little mid afternoon humor guys  Im interested in this thread too as im looking to buy a new tv also and im undecided looking at them in the shops the plasma was cheaper and seemed to have a better quality picture to me. But i dont really know much about the technology or the problems. Im still happy with my old sony wega tbh but the misses wants a bigger screen. Only thing is i have a 3 year old thats mentally dissabled and he loves to bash the screen alot  so i have no choice but to wall mount.
> 
> P.S. Dont do lsd lol or any drugs for that matter!



you are in the same boat as me, i have a blind kid who cant walk (due to a bleed in his head) . I am afraid of him in his walker mowing down the tv. up till now we have had nothing but huge console tvs.


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 5, 2010)

power consumption differences between lcd and plasma are not that big.

the numbers the plasma haters use are for a fully white plasma display which consumes more power than a black screen. lcd uses about the same power all the time. at the end of the day the difference shouldnt affect your buying decision


----------



## oily_17 (Dec 5, 2010)

n-ster said:


> Typically, a 42" Plasma consumes AT LEAST 150W more, a bit more than double that of LCD.
> 
> Lets keep it simple, 150W vs 300W. IDK how much you will use you TV, if you use it alot, and till its death, we can account for 60 000 hours of use
> 9 000 KW vs 18 000 KW... at ~11cents per KWh since Seattle energy is cheap I'm guessing?
> ...




So really, you are talking $50 a year difference in the two.A $1 a week would not make me pick one over the other.




n-ster said:


> For heavy use, LCD for sure, less heat, less energy, also easier to wall mount, no loss of brightness etc etc



How are they easier to wall mount, they all have VESA standard mounting.The energy is only $1 a week and heats the room for you.
It might be ~5 years by the time you notice any real loss of brightness and you could probably adjust it in the menu settings anyway.

EDIT: Just checked with a Kill-A-Watt and my 50" Plasma uses from ~200-280watts.Not a big lot really.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Dec 5, 2010)

personaly i'd like to hear from some led lcd tv/monitor owners 

plus i would also like to see some specs on how long leds last , 

why? 
well i have quite an expensive led torch, and one of the leds has already blown (gold lead gone inside) and it didn't get used much 

i know from personal experience that ccfl lcd tv/monitors will last a fairly long time, as long as the inverters transistors are kept cool (which some manufacturers seem to forget :shadedshu)


----------



## Nitro-Max (Dec 5, 2010)

Well i have a little 16" lcd in my kitchen on the breakfast bar But i feel i cant really go by that as it was only a cheap technika tv/dvd combo. mainly to watch whilst having breakfast etc cartoons for the kids. 

It is HD although i havent got this setup, And the picture quality isnt too bad when it comes to ghosting, Although the contrast had to be adjusted due to viewing angles. Id recomend a surround sound system or somthing simular, As i find the onboard sound isnt that good in this case it would be poor for a family living room, the volume doesnt seem to increase that well.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 5, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> the Philips 42" PFL3704D/F7 LCD consumes more power than a Panasonic Viera 42" S2. I think power consumption will eventually be a non-issue like burn in.



just so people think I am not crazy  












_power consumption is calculated 5 hours a day x 7 days a week for 12 months at 10.7 cents a kilowatt. _

also the RCA 42" L40FHD41 LCD consumes more power than a older Panasonic Viera 42" S1 Plasma. hopefully this proves not all LCD are created equal.

comparison chart.






here is a good article on common misconceptions. pay special attention to Misconception #8: Plasma TVs are plagued by problems with burn-in.


----------



## Delta6326 (Dec 6, 2010)

here is what i have to say go lcd why because i have 6 lcd tv's and a plasma. i love my lcd's much more they look great and are good price i just got a Vizio 47" 1080p was on sale and it looks great!(going in my garage) i think for you lcd is the way to go i have Vizio, Samsung, LG, Phillips, and Sony and thats the order i like them. they look great, very cheap, and all around better, can't wait for a new led

Pardon the bad lighting i used flash


----------



## JC316 (Dec 6, 2010)

I say plasma. I have two, a 50" Samsung and a 32" Vizio, both are better than most LCD's.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Dec 6, 2010)

LG 47" 1080p 120Hz LCD HDTV 47LD500


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 6, 2010)

one more thing. *don't trust your eyes!* brick and mortar stores have televisions set to factory presets like vivid which are designed to be overly bright and colorful to get your attention on the showroom floor. it's a good idea to have a couple models in your head before you enter a brick and mortar store. I recommend buying a brand name television that has been reviewed by a professional because they calibrate them to D6500K with video equipment and software then post the settings so you can experience what the director intended.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Dec 6, 2010)

someone has been reading the Display Mate inventors articles. That man is a genius with TVs. I love how he discredited Sharp's Quad Pixel technology. IT was in Max PC and he shows how it cant be in any color spectrum, lol.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Dec 6, 2010)

I have a 42" Insignia plasma, my parents have a 50" Panasonic Viera. They both blow any LCD tv I've seen to date out of the water in quality. LCD's look flat to me now, but I'd say with LED they've caught up well. I find that LCDs tend to cost more now than a plasma, and the image retention issue isn't an issue at all. My plasma retained an image for maybe 10 minutes after I turned it off for the first week, and I haven't experienced it since. Don't worry about burn-in either, pixel shift technology does an excellent job of preventing that from happening.


----------



## nailzer (Dec 6, 2010)

If you don't want glare use a lamp like this in the room the plasma TV is in.
 It's great indirect lighting that doesn't cause glare on the TV screen.






http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000L8BLT0/?tag=tec06d-20


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2010)

WarEagleAU said:


> someone has been reading the Display Mate inventors articles. That man is a genius with TVs. I love how he discredited Sharp's Quad Pixel technology. IT was in Max PC and he shows how it cant be in any color spectrum, lol.



This sounds fascinating. Do you have a link?


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2010)

People keep saying that image retention is no longer an issue, BUT IT IS. My brother's 3 month old Samsung plasma has an image burnt in to the bottom corner of the screen from hours of playing GTA4.

He had the anti-burn-in features turned on (nam escapes me) and everything. He bought it hearing similar arguments at other places about Plasma's superior picture, and now regrets it.

If you ever plan to game on it for a couple hours at a time, I suggest NOT going Plasma.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 6, 2010)

I've noticed a lot of these owners of both have had an old plasma and went to a new lcd. Plasma is back on the table because it has improved notably, particularly lately I think there's been a push for improvement. The only really fair comparison would come from someone who owned a new top end model of both, who was truly impartial.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2010)

Top end models don't always play into the budget. You can only compare models in your price range.

I'll never own a plasma until I either quit gaming altogether, or they the chance of image retention goes down to the same as LCD.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 6, 2010)

Well how do you know it hasn't already? Has there been a case on these new panasonics? The thing with your friend's burn could be anything, a problem with the model, old tech, defects, who knows.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2010)

It's a shame about the burn-in problem with plasmas when gaming, because they have a smear-free picture with movement, just like a CRT - and this is a very important parameter. LCDs on the hand are all terrible in this respect. Some are better than others, but they all smear badly.

Just try panning across a scene on a plasma and then do the same thing on an LCD. The difference will be blindingly obvious.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Well how do you know it hasn't already? Has there been a case on these new panasonics? The thing with your friend's burn could be anything, a problem with the model, old tech, defects, who knows.



It's a Panasonic U series.

And it isn't a defect. Plasmas still have a chance to burn in, period. LCD is still the only one with near 0% chance.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 6, 2010)

Wile E said:


> People keep saying that image retention is no longer an issue, BUT IT IS. My brother's 3 month old Samsung plasma has an image burnt in to the bottom corner of the screen from hours of playing GTA4.
> 
> He had the anti-burn-in features turned on (nam escapes me) and everything. He bought it hearing similar arguments at other places about Plasma's superior picture, and now regrets it.
> 
> If you ever plan to game on it for a couple hours at a time, I suggest NOT going Plasma.



the Samsung PN50C550 got a bad review recently.

*Gamers beware: serious screen burn-in problems.*

surprised to see this in 2010. Panasonic is without a doubt the leader in Plasma.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> the Samsung PN50C550 got a bad review recently.
> 
> *Gamers beware: serious screen burn-in problems.*
> 
> you get what you pay for. Panasonic is without a doubt the leader in Plasma.



It is a Panasonic U series. I was wrong. His old TV was a Samsung. I had to call him to ask him what it was.

He said he bought it because it was the only 1080p 42" Plasma he could find in stock.


----------



## Triprift (Dec 6, 2010)

I seen a clients Samsung one at work and it has mega burn in on it.

Not sure how old it is though.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 6, 2010)

Wile E said:


> It is a Panasonic U series. I was wrong. His old TV was a Samsung. I had to call him to ask him what it was.
> 
> He said he bought it because it was the only 1080p 42" Plasma he could find in stock.



if it's recent it's probably a Panasonic TC-P42U2 it's a mid level model but it shouldn't be displaying image retention this is something Panasonic has worked on the last several years. I have a Panasonic TC-P42S2 and play a lot of Call of Duty with no image retention but I did burn it in 100 hours lol


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2010)

Play 200hours of GT4 and get back to me.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 6, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Play 200hours of GT4 and get back to me.



I don't know if burning his Plasma in is going to help at this point. your supposed to set the contrast ratio and brightness to below 50% and loop a DVD that displays a red, green, blue, black, grey and white image for about 100 hours. the DVD can be found on AVForum. you don't really have to do this anymore. people who have a bad experience with Plasma technology spread it like wildfire lol there is nothing wrong with Plasma technology.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2010)

I mean image retention. Everybody calls it burn in.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Dec 6, 2010)

Wile E said:


> I mean image retention. Everybody calls it burn in.



there not the same thing.

burn in is perminent... image retention should go away within 1 hour or less depending on how bad it is... usualy its gone in 5 mins.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2010)

Oh, then it's burn in he has. Does not go away.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Dec 6, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> I don't know if burning his Plasma in is going to help at this point. your supposed to set the contrast ratio and brightness to below 50% and loop a DVD that displays a red, green, blue, black, grey and white image for about 100 hours. the DVD can be found on AVForum. you don't really have to do this anymore. people who have a bad experience with Plasma technology spread it like wildfire lol there is nothing wrong with Plasma technology.



This is definitely correct. Although I didn't use that program, I DID avoid using a dynamic contrast, and set the brightness and contrast to 50% or below.



slyfox2151 said:


> there not the same thing.
> 
> burn in is perminent... image retention should go away within 1 hour or less depending on how bad it is... usualy its gone in 5 mins.



Spot on.

I play FIFA and MLB 10: The Show constantly on my plasma, and after a week or so I noticed no image retention. Your friend must have gotten a defective unit, Wile, because between the two plasma sets my parents and myself own we've had zero problems.

I understand the bad rap that plasma sets have, but they've come a long way since their introduction.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 6, 2010)

it's breaking in a plasma television. I apologize. I use burn-in because of headphones. it's a habit. you can run the Breaking In DVD (also portable versions) for 150-200 hours. essentially what it does is age the phosphors by burning in the entire screen evenly so unintentional burn in such as network logos or 4:3 black bars does not happen.


----------



## oily_17 (Dec 6, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> it's breaking in a plasma television. I apologize. I use burn-in because of headphones. it's a habit. you can run the Breaking In DVD (also portable versions) for 150-200 hours. essentially what it does is age the phosphors by burning in the entire screen evenly so unintentional burn in such as network logos or 4:3 black bars does not happen.



You can get the Plasma Break-In Images here.

Just stick the pics on a USB stick and set your TV to run a slide-show.I used them when I first got my TV, and any IR I have noticed goes away within a few minutes.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 6, 2010)

oily_17 said:


> You can get the Plasma Break-In Images here.
> 
> Just stick the pics on a USB stick and set your TV to run a slide-show.I used them when I first got my TV, and any IR I have noticed goes away within a few minutes.



I think the DVD version has more images though


----------



## oily_17 (Dec 6, 2010)

I just used the 120 image one.Seemed to be enough for me.Will have to look for the DVD, may come in useful again.


EDIT: I just searched for the DVD version on AVS and it is only a 20 image version in a loop.The link above has a 70 or 120 image file.


----------



## THRiLL KiLL (Dec 6, 2010)

how does a tv lcd\plasma compare to a computer lcd monitor?

i watch movies and such on a crappy dell monitor (19" widescreen)  at work and at home i use a w2558hc, i dont see any blurring..


----------



## MilkyWay (Dec 6, 2010)

LED LCDs are better than regular LCDs also beware there are side lit and backlit LED LCDs.

The newfangled tech is OLED which is organic but the problem is that it doesn't last forever more like 5 years or something because it degrades.

Plasma is more for blacks and LCDs more for brightness; LCDs are better computer displays because they are more pixelated and have good response times. Most plasma tvs are 720p or lower 1080p ones do exist but are more pricey, LCDs are generally 1080p but i would only really be bothered if i was using it as a pc monitor but i wouldn't recommend a tv as a monitor.

If you can i would get an LED LCD because its newer tech but otherwise just for regular viewing and movies get a plasma.

Also note that plasma tvs are heavy.


----------



## n-ster (Dec 6, 2010)

oh someone critiqued about me saying it is harder to mount a plasma on the wall... Believe, it is not easy feat when it is that heavy lol, those much lighter LCDs are much easier to mount. Ofc, I have weak muscles and weigh only 118lbs but still LOL


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 6, 2010)

MilkyWay said:


> LED LCDs are better than regular LCDs also beware there are side lit and backlit LED LCDs.
> 
> The newfangled tech is OLED which is organic but the problem is that it doesn't last forever more like 5 years or something because it degrades.
> 
> ...



Plasma are not expensive. a couple retailers are selling my Viera 42" S2 (1080p) for $599. the Sharp 40" LC-40LE700UN and JVC 42" LT-42P300 LCD are heavier than it.


----------



## OrbitzXT (Dec 6, 2010)

I don't know if it was mentioned but I would really buy from NewEgg instead of local. You don't have to pay tax, you'll get a better price overall, shipping is sometimes free if you find a deal, and they actually ship it in good condition. At least they do here in New York. I've never had any problems. And in the event there is damage, it's not like your stuck with it. NewEgg's support is awesome and they'll take care of you. Lastly, NewEgg ships so fast that even with standard 3 day shipping you get your item in under 24 hours sometimes.


----------



## n-ster (Dec 6, 2010)

I don't know about the newer plasmas, but the older ones were a lot heavier than LCDs


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 6, 2010)

the Viera 42" S2 is VESA mount and weighs 55lbs with base. in the 40"/42" range some LCD weigh more and many weigh only 5-10lbs less. 

check out Panasonic 2011 ZT30 Wireless 3D Plasma.


----------



## choppy (Dec 6, 2010)

staying within your budget = LCD.

however, going out your budget...  i'd just wait a few months as LED's are dropping rapidly in price. 
For instance , you can pickup a Samsung 40" LED for £550 which was £800+ a couple months ago.

save a bit more, it'll be worth it


----------



## v12dock (Dec 6, 2010)

I have always thought LCDs look better than plasma


----------



## choppy (Dec 6, 2010)

i dont think anybody can REALLY tell the difference between LCD or plasma. 
personally I prefer LED as its thinner and uses less power. 

regarding plasma..what use is a tv that costs $600-700 and you have to spend 200 hours 'burning it in' . useless


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2010)

choppy said:


> i dont think anybody can REALLY tell the difference between LCD or plasma.



You're kidding?

There are considerable differences in their performance. The most obvious being viewing angles, motion smear, colour quality and flicker.

These points have been made earlier on in this thread by various posters, including myself. In the end, there are pros and cons to both technologies and there isn't a clear winner in all situations.

You might find this plasma v LCD article interesting: www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatvreviews/plasma-vs-lcd.html


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 6, 2010)

choppy said:


> i dont think anybody can REALLY tell the difference between LCD or plasma.
> personally I prefer LED as its thinner and uses less power.
> 
> regarding plasma..what use is a tv that costs $600-700 and you have to spend 200 hours 'burning it in' . useless



I can tell the difference. 

you don't have to break a plasma in. it's something people do to err on the side of caution. your patience does not go unrewarded.


----------



## choppy (Dec 6, 2010)

qubit said:


> There are considerable differences in their performance. The most obvious being viewing angles, motion smear, colour quality and flicker.



okay so maybe a handful of people out of every 100 may take this into consideration, but thats the minority. i cant see any normal person on the high street taking any of this into consideration. 

its all about money at the end of the day, which is the reason lcd's sell more quantity than plasma's


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 6, 2010)

rest assured the Plasma market isn't going anywhere.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2010)

choppy said:


> okay so maybe a handful of people out of every 100 may take this into consideration, but thats the minority. i cant see any normal person on the high street taking any of this into consideration.
> 
> its all about money at the end of the day, which is the reason lcd's sell more quantity than plasma's



If you're thinking of your average high street ignoramous, then you're probably right - I've got friends like that, lol.  But they are hardly a benchmark worth comparing against, are they?

In fact, it's because the vast majority are ignorant plebs, that us, who understand what we're looking at, get stuck with inferior products.  A good example are LCD monitors for PCs. Great in some situations, shit performance in others and we're still stuck with those problems to this day.

Shortly before CRT technology died out a few years ago, manufacturers (I think Panasonic was doing this) were looking to bring out a new, thin CRT that had the tube tightly folded over, reducing much of the bulk and weight of the traditional CRT. This would have been a great advance in CRT technology and made them lighter and very competitive, retaining their traditional advantages, while reducing the disadvantages. Unfortunately, it was never released and I've never seen any detailed info on this technology.


----------



## choppy (Dec 6, 2010)

I am also an ignorami (is that plural for ignoramus?) you speak of!

dont get me wrong, in a perfect world where i'm rich I would pay for a tv that gives me the best clarity and colour etc. 

however with the majority of folks that just isnt the case and as you say, they dont understand the tech jargon. this is where business & marketing takes over. Price is always going to be the deciding factor


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 6, 2010)

Plasma sales are up this quarter. my quote of the day.



> Just because the Bugatti Veyron doesn't outsell the Toyota Yaris doesn't mean a crapload of R&D and technological advancements didn't go into the Bugatti.


----------



## choppy (Dec 6, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> Just because the Bugatti Veyron doesn't outsell the Toyota Yaris doesn't mean a crapload of R&D and technological advancements didn't go into the Bugatti.


yes good quote I like it!

I havent said Plasma was crap, like i wouldnt say a bugatti is crap.

At the end of the day, people dont buy the best of the best, as we are not all rich. We buy the items that satisfy our needs or are a good all-rounder , usually dictated by price.

which is why a yaris sells more in quantity than a veyron. Affordability, practicality etc. Same goes with TV's and pretty much loads of other stuff


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2010)

choppy said:


> I am also an ignorami (is that plural for ignoramus?) you speak of!



"ignorami", nice.  Nah, don't put yourself down my friend.  You wouldn't be on this forum if you didn't have a clue.



choppy said:


> dont get me wrong, in a perfect world where i'm rich I would pay for a tv that gives me the best clarity and colour etc.
> 
> however with the majority of folks that just isnt the case and as you say, they dont understand the tech jargon. this is where business & marketing takes over. Price is always going to be the deciding factor



+1 

EDIT: just seen you're post about the Veryron. You know what the irony of this is? If people did aspire for this sort of top end range, it would become way more affordable as more (rich) people bought it and economies of scale kicked in. But that's wishful thinking. <sigh> Man that's an awesome car.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 6, 2010)

At the end of the day, for a $650 budget, I still say LCD is the way to go. You will get more for your money over a plasma.

The only 1080p plasma in his range is the U2 my brother has, and it isn't any better than an LCD. He would have to go down to 720p to get a good plasma at $650. He can get a 120Hz 1080p LCD for that.

1080p LCD > 720p plasma, period.


----------



## qubit (Dec 7, 2010)

Wile E said:


> 1080p LCD > 720p plasma, period.



I have to agree that resolution is critical.

In a case like this, I would either buy nothing or buy a 1080p good quality plasma TV, from a leading brand like Panasonic. My friend has such a TV and it's awesome (and I'm still green with envy).

1080p is also pretty much required to use with your PC, as the extra resolution is really needed nowadays.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

Wile E said:


> At the end of the day, for a $650 budget, I still say LCD is the way to go. You will get more for your money over a plasma.
> 
> The only 1080p plasma in his range is the U2 my brother has, and it isn't any better than an LCD. He would have to go down to 720p to get a good plasma at $650. He can get a 120Hz 1080p LCD for that.
> 
> 1080p LCD > 720p plasma, period.





BumbleBee said:


> Plasma are not expensive. a couple retailers are selling my Viera 42" S2 (1080p) for $599.



another $150 you can step up to a 42" Viera G25 model.

give your brother these settings: http://www.televisioninfo.com/conte...-50U2-Plasma-HDTV-Review-1719/Calibration.htm


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

We calibrated it with my Spyder. His calibration is fine. We actually do know about calibration and setting for proper accuracy using test patterns and such.

 And the OP gave a $650 limit with a wall mount. Sorry, but the $600 1080p 120Hz LCDs just plain look better than the low level plasmas.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

I disagree. at the 40"/42" range your not going to find a LCD or LED that looks better than a Viera S2 Plasma at $599.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 7, 2010)

Wile E said:


> At the end of the day, for a $650 budget, I still say LCD is the way to go. You will get more for your money over a plasma.
> 
> The only 1080p plasma in his range is the U2 my brother has, and it isn't any better than an LCD. He would have to go down to 720p to get a good plasma at $650. He can get a 120Hz 1080p LCD for that.
> 
> 1080p LCD > 720p plasma, period.



Actually, for his stated use in the OP, there isn't going to be a lick of difference between a 720p and 1080p television. Most people can't even discern the difference in blu-rays. The only difference he'd likely notice is on a computer desktop, which I didn't see him mention. The U2 far exceeds any LCD in that price/size in color, black levels, response time, or just overall picture quality. Then again some people prefer the overly bright and overly saturated look of some LCDs, so it really comes down to preference. And as has been said previously, if there is any ambient light go w/ a non-glossy LCD as any plasma at that price range will just have a mirror on the front.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

farlex85 said:


> Actually, for his stated use in the OP, there isn't going to be a lick of difference between a 720p and 1080p television. Most people can't even discern the difference in blu-rays. The only difference he'd likely notice is on a computer desktop, which I didn't see him mention. The U2 far exceeds any LCD in that price/size in color, black levels, response time, or just overall picture quality. Then again some people prefer the overly bright and overly saturated look of some LCDs, so it really comes down to preference. And as has been said previously, if there is any ambient light go w/ a non-glossy LCD as any plasma at that price range will just have a mirror on the front.



Are you insane? There is a HUGE difference between 720p and 1080p in movies and TV. I can't even begin to express my shock and disbeleif in this comment. You seriously need some glasses if you can't EASILY tell the difference.

And the U2 DOES NOT beat any LCD in that range. We don't like oversaturation in our TVs, and calibrate them to be as accurate as possible, not vivid. We hate that crap. 

Then there is still the fact he has an image stuck on his screen in the bottom corner. He still regrets his decision to go plasma.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 7, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Are you insane? There is a HUGE difference between 720p and 1080p in movies and TV. I can't even begin to express my shock and disbeleif in this comment. You seriously need some glasses if you can't EASILY tell the difference.
> 
> And the U2 DOES NOT beat any LCD in that range. We don't like oversaturation in our TVs, and calibrate them to be as accurate as possible, not vivid. We hate that crap.
> 
> Then there is still the fact he has an image stuck on his screen in the bottom corner. He still regrets his decision to go plasma.



Um, just check anywhere on any tech site about the difference and you'll see what I'm talking about. CNet did quite a bit on that. And no, you can't tell the difference at average distance for the size of television in a living room setting. Even for the sake of argument if you could, he said he's not using blu-ray, meaning virtually all of his source material will be at best 720p or 1080i, so.......

If you're purely talking specs, yes it does beat any LCD, and it's not even close. But like I said different strokes for different folks. 

Image retention is pretty much a non-issue for most plasmas. Of course it's possible, especially in the first few months of owning, but that's why you calibrate and don't leave stagnant images around all the time.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

Small chance of permanent image retention is still a lot worse than no chance.

And the CNet article is a full of crap. I realized it when I went from a 42" 720p to a 42" 1080p at a distance they claim shouldn't make a difference. Almost everyone I know can easily tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, unless they are 30' away from a 32" set.

And just because he doesn't have BD now, doesn't mean he wont decide to grab it after having an HDTV. And what if he starts deciding to download 1080p rips? Why limit yourself?


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 7, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Small chance of permanent image retention is still a lot worse than no chance.
> 
> And the CNet article is a full of crap. I realized it when I went from a 42" 720p to a 42" 1080p at a distance they claim shouldn't make a difference. Almost everyone I know can easily tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, unless they are 30' away from a 32" set.
> 
> And just because he doesn't have BD now, doesn't mean he wont decide to grab it after having an HDTV. And what if he starts deciding to download 1080p rips? Why limit yourself?



Hey I'm all for 1080p, go for it, I wouldn't buy a HDTV without it, I'm just imparting knowledge. You think it's a huge difference because either you sit very close, have a huge television (>50in), or just think it looks better b/c you know it's 1080p. That's not the only article out there. I'm not going to link them just do a google search. Whatever floats your boat. And again, I agree, planning for the future 1080p is the way to go. But that just isn't going to make much of a difference to him right now or possibly ever, thus it shouldn't be of primary concern.

And LCDs can have dead pixils, is that better?


----------



## Mussels (Dec 7, 2010)

we have a 40" (1360x768) and 46" (1080p) screen here, and i've tested them.


Difference between the two is clearly discernible - the 46" actually looks worse for SD content, due to the stretching at all but really far distances, with the 40 looking worse once we get blu ray content out.

Point is that the quality difference is easily discernible, whether it be the wrong size TV for the distance involved, or a lower resolution.


edit: gaming is tons better on the 46", LED backlit makes a huge difference there.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

Not all LCDs get dead pixels, but all plasmas have the chance of permanent image retention. So yeah, it is better.

And it wasn't placebo. I swapped the TV as a xmas surprise to my family 2 years ago, while nobody was home. 42", viewing distance of 15.5ft. Nobody noticed, until we played Transformers, then everybody noticed immediately.

Those charts are full of shit.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 7, 2010)

Mussels said:


> we have a 40" (1360x768) and 46" (1080p) screen here, and i've tested them.
> 
> 
> Difference between the two is clearly discernible - the 46" actually looks worse for SD content, due to the stretching at all but really far distances, with the 40 looking worse once we get blu ray content out.
> ...





Wile E said:


> Not all LCDs get dead pixels, but all plasmas have the chance of permanent image retention. So yeah, it is better.
> 
> And it wasn't placebo. I swapped the TV as a xmas surprise to my family 2 years ago, while nobody was home. 42", viewing distance of 15.5ft. Nobody noticed, until we played Transformers, then everybody noticed immediately.
> 
> Those charts are full of shit.



Ok well I guess most the internet just doesn't know what they're talking about. 

And at least image retention is controllable, you just have to be moderately careful in the first few months of owning, and there is virtually 0 chance of burn in. Dead pixels happen seemingly at random. Anyway it really, like I said, just boils down to personal preference. From what I've been able to tell most videophiles or low budget shoppers prefer plasmas, while everybody else loves LCDs. I imagine the OP will be happy stepping up from a CRT to any of those.....


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

in hindsight your brother should of broke it in. the U2 ($549) and S2 ($599) are both mid level plasma televisions in Panasonic's 2010 lineup but the quality between them is night and day even with the price difference. the U2 got a bad review.



> The Panasonic TC-P42U2 is not quite of the entry-level series, but we've certainly seen better from the venerable plasma manufacturer. Thin on features, you should at least expect solid performance. Instead, the TC-P42U2 coasts by on brand name recognition, putting in a decent showing here and there, but failing to match up to the average LCD.



the S2 got a better review and is ranked high on a couple websites.



> One of the TVs greatest strengths lies in its white brightness which measured an average luminance of 31.50. This result nears LCD TVs in brightness and points to Panasonic's desire to compete with LCD TVs in this area.
> 
> Dark Shadow Detail: Partly due to the high brightness of this plasma dark shadow detail is excellent. Panasonic plasma TVs have long been a favorite of ours in this important area.



I took another look on Google Shopping and it can be had for $592. if you can find something better I would like to know! I need another television for my living room.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

I'd rather have a 40" Samsung 630, tbh.

And I am an idiot, my TV is a 46", not 42". Still, huge difference between 720p and 1080p at 15.5', which is still supposed to be unnoticeable.


----------



## THRiLL KiLL (Dec 7, 2010)

well after much debate i am pretty sure i will be going with a plasma tv. panasonic viera, just dont know the model yet. I have still to check it out in person and that will be the deciding factor


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 7, 2010)

Wile E said:


> I'd rather have a 40" Samsung 630, tbh.
> 
> And I am an idiot, my TV is a 46", not 42". Still, huge difference between 720p and 1080p at 15.5', which is still supposed to be unnoticeable.



What's the 720 model you're comparing it to?



THRiLL KiLL said:


> well after much debate i am pretty sure i will be going with a plasma tv. panasonic viera, just dont know the model yet. I have still to check it out in person and that will be the deciding factor



The S2 bumble mentioned will likely be your best bet at that price.


----------



## BlackMagic (Dec 7, 2010)

Unless you live under a rock—in which case, you probably don't read UAV—you know that Pioneer's Kuro plasma TVs are the finest flat panels ever made. You also know that Pioneer is getting out of the plasma business altogether, much to the dismay of videophiles everywhere. 
If you want to own one of the best damn hdtvs made (IMHO of course) now is the time to grab one.
The economy is the biggest reason I guess, as not everybody can plunk down 7 grand for a tv, but...NEVER MIND, TOO LATE.

Aww, damn it all, I just found a few extra bucks in my dresser drawer.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

Pioneer is out of his budget. 

<puts down a Canadian Looney> 

a bit out of his budget.

you will be happy with the Panasonic Viera S2. out of the big three (Panasonic, Samsung, LG) Panasonic is committed to Plasma.


----------



## DRDNA (Dec 7, 2010)

I would say you get way more for the money more quality and just more with plasma! I love mine and I use for my PC monitor! Works great. 

Image burn in is VERY MUCH AN ISSUE during BREAK-IN time of the plasma then the issue goes away bye bye.... Normally any image burn in during this time can be removed with white wash type method.

I burned in my clock and calendar when I first received mine but noticed fairly fast and corrected my actions and then white washed it out ..after 3 days the image was gone and now it doesn't image burn any longer...It was around the 200 hour plus time that all signs of image burn in vanished (with in reason) also the plasma image in general was actually getting better towards the 200 hour of use time...It was the best $$$ spent on a monitor yet! 

If your lazy and don't want to break in a plasma then get LCD or LED but if you want MORE for your $$$ and can exercise some caution for the first 200 hours then go Plasma...All my movies and gaming looks way better on my 
Plasma.

Response time in games is unreal! Super duper good and noticeably so!


----------



## THRiLL KiLL (Dec 7, 2010)

BlackMagic said:


> Unless you live under a rock—in which case, you probably don't read UAV—you know that Pioneer's Kuro plasma TVs are the finest flat panels ever made. You also know that Pioneer is getting out of the plasma business altogether, much to the dismay of videophiles everywhere.
> If you want to own one of the best damn hdtvs made (IMHO of course) now is the time to grab one.
> The economy is the biggest reason I guess, as not everybody can plunk down 7 grand for a tv, but...NEVER MIND, TOO LATE.
> 
> Aww, damn it all, I just found a few extra bucks in my dresser drawer.



damn that sucks..

hows the weather in rochester? (i grew up there)


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

farlex85 said:


> What's the 720 model you're comparing it to?



The 720p Samsung from the year before. Both mid range 60Hz sets.


And here is something I haven't heard mentioned, what about half life of the plasma sets? They actually lose image quality over time. I'm sure they have gotten better, but it is still a factor.

It just seems to me that LCD is the better all around technology, especially when we start talking durability and longevity.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Dec 7, 2010)

Wile E said:


> The 720p Samsung from the year before. Both mid range 60Hz sets.
> 
> 
> And here is something I haven't heard mentioned, what about half life of the plasma sets? They actually lose image quality over time. I'm sure they have gotten better, but it is still a factor.
> ...



An estimated 80,000 to 100,000 hours to half life for plasmas as claimed by manufacturers, about the same as an LCD panel.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

The image isn't the same quality over that life. I have witnessed that first hand. The image quality degrades over time. Is that 80,000 to 100,000 hours at the same image quality?


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

Wile E said:


> The 720p Samsung from the year before. Both mid range 60Hz sets.
> 
> 
> And here is something I haven't heard mentioned, what about half life of the plasma sets? They actually lose image quality over time. I'm sure they have gotten better, but it is still a factor.
> ...



Plasma televisions have a half-life of 100,000 hours. if you watch television for 4 hours a day that's 68 years. they say the phosphors will not lose intensity until half-life but I doubt it. when the back light in LCD televisions age the colors can change.


----------



## zaqwsx (Dec 7, 2010)

I say lcd cheaper to rapair only like 3 boards. Plasmas have warm quailty that lcd dosnt but you wont really notive a diffrence. You need to spend good money for a plasma they are expensive to repair and have like 9 boards avg and consume more energy. I have a Samsumg plasma and been running fine for 3-4 years with no probelms in image quality.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> Plasma televisions have a half-life of 100,000 hours. if you watch television for 4 hours a day that's 68 years. they say the phosphors will not lose intensity until half-life but I doubt it. when the back light in LCD televisions age the colors can change.



That's rubbish. I've seen the plasma degradation with my own eyes. Plasmas lose image quality with age. Granted, this was an older set, probably 3rd gen or so, but it was evident. Consequently, that person has since moved to an lcd.

I have yet to see noticeable or at least uncorrectable degradation on an lcd.

What guarantees do they give that this problem is corrected?


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

when the phosphors lose intensity they dim. I don't think it has anything to do with image degradation.

so basically Plasma dim and LCD change color like florescent lights.

i'll be happy if my Viera S2 last 5-10 years.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> when the phosphors lose intensity they dim. I don't think it has anything to do with image degradation.
> 
> so basically Plasma dim and LCD change color like florescent lights.
> 
> i'll be happy if my Viera S2 last 5-10 years.



Yeah, theoretically LCDs can change color, but I haven't seen it happen, nor have I heard any complaints about it. I've heard plenty about plasmas losing their luster. 

I understand people say they have come a long way, but they still have these same downsides. That doesn't seem to be coming far enough along for me.


----------



## n-ster (Dec 7, 2010)

I've seen somewhere that the half-life of the U2 is 60000 hours (I'm 80% this is correct), at that point, the brightness is at 50% of it's original brightness, which is 20 years 8hrs/day

Lets use a more extreme scenario. 16 hours per day (very possible when your household is of 4 or + and you never watch together. Let us also assume the degradation is constant until half-life.

Losing 20~25% brightness will take 24~30000 hrs, so 4 to 5 years


Definitively noticeable, but not that bad


----------



## Mussels (Dec 7, 2010)

n-ster said:


> I've seen somewhere that the half-life of the U2 is 60000 hours (I'm 80% this is correct), at that point, the brightness is at 50% of it's original brightness, which is 20 years 8hrs/day
> 
> Lets use a more extreme scenario. 16 hours per day (very possible when your household is of 4 or + and you never watch together. Let us also assume the degradation is constant until half-life.
> 
> ...



i know a fairly large amount of people who break that 16 hour limit and go closer to 20, because they fall asleep watching TV, or just leave it on for the kids while they're running around doing other things.

I certainly get your point - it takes TIME, and lots of it for these issues to occur - but they WILL occur, sooner or later, depending on how you use the screen.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Yeah, theoretically LCDs can change color, but I haven't seen it happen, nor have I heard any complaints about it. I've heard plenty about plasmas losing their luster.
> 
> I understand people say they have come a long way, but they still have these same downsides. That doesn't seem to be coming far enough along for me.



they have made serious strides in Plasma technology. LCD and LED televisions have problems too. 

maybe I would care more if I spent $3000 instead of $600. if I had $3000 I probably would of bought a 47" LED television


----------



## Mussels (Dec 7, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> they have made serious strides in Plasma technology. LCD and LED televisions have problems too.
> 
> maybe I would care more if I spent $3000 instead of $600. if I had $3000 I probably would of bought a 47" LED television



LCD's are making just as big strides. LED backlit sure as hell look a ton better than those with CCFL on dark scenes, for example.


----------



## n-ster (Dec 7, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i know a fairly large amount of people who break that 16 hour limit and go closer to 20, because they fall asleep watching TV, or just leave it on for the kids while they're running around doing other things.
> 
> I certainly get your point - it takes TIME, and lots of it for these issues to occur - but they WILL occur, sooner or later, depending on how you use the screen.



Don't get me wrong, I'm on the LCD side, I'm just trying to throw numbers arounds to see the actual impact and give facts instead of just saying stuff and giving opinions only 

By the way, bout 2~3 years ago, the average half-life was 30 000 hours, so 20~25% in about 2 years is VERY noticeable and is pretty bad

The newest generation, with 100 000 hours of half-life lose 25% in ~8 years


----------



## Mussels (Dec 7, 2010)

well thats some good numbers for people to keep in consideration. the cheapest plasmas out today are likely that older tech, thats going to start fading in 2-3 years - 5 tops.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

n-ster said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm on the LCD side, I'm just trying to throw numbers arounds to see the actual impact and give facts instead of just saying stuff and giving opinions only
> 
> By the way, bout 2~3 years ago, the average half-life was 30 000 hours, so 20~25% in about 2 years is VERY noticeable and is pretty bad
> 
> The newest generation, with 100 000 hours of half-life lose 25% in ~8 years



These are the numbers I've been wanting to see.

You are right, much better. Still not good enough for me tho. I'll stay with LCD.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 7, 2010)

i just checked the service menu in my HDTV, and its had 10,405 hours of use.

I'll go find out when i got it, so i can give a 'heavy' single user figure.


edit: 3 years, one month.


I use it heavily (daily) - but its never on when i'm not watching it. i turn it off when i go to take a dump, or have a shower for example. ~3,000 hours a year for a heavy, careful user.

edit 2: that averages out to about 2.5 hours of usage a day. kinda lower than i expected, but hey i have holidays, or busy weeks where i dont use it i guess.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

I am pretty sure all Panasonic 2010 Plasma lineup are rated for 100,000 hours.



> the VIERA G25 series includes the TC-P54G25 (54-inch), the TC-P50G25 (49.9-inch), the TC-P46G25, (46-inch) and the TC-P42G25, (41.6-inch). The VIERA G25 Series featuring NeoPDP design which provides 1080p resolution, Infinite Black display with 5Million:1 native contrast ratio, 600Hz Sub-field Drive, panel life up to *100,000 hours *and lead or mercury free. The VIERA G20 Series include the TC-P54G20, (54-inch) and the TC-P50G20, (49.9-inch) have the same features as VIERA G25 series





> The S2 series include the TC-P58S2 (58-inch) and TC-P65S2 (64.8-inch), the TC-P54S2, (54-inch), TC-P50S2, (49.9-inch), TC-P46S2, (46-inch) and the TC-P42S2, (41.6-inch). The S2 series features 1080p picture resolution, VIERA Link and VIERA Image Viewer, 2Million:1 native contrast, 600Hz Sub-filed Drive and an anti-reflective filter, lead and mercury free, up to *100,000 hours* panel life, and except for 58 and 65-inch, the S2 series also featuring a Clean Touch Bezel to keep the TV from fingerprints.





> The U2 Series include the TC-P50U2 (49.9-inch) and the TC-P42U2 (41.6-inch), featuring 600Hz Sub-field Drive, VIERA Image Viewer to watch JPEG images, three HDMI connections, VIERA Link and 1080p Full HD resolution, panels are free of mercury and lead, with up to *100,000 hours* lifespan.





> The C2 Series includes the TC-P50C2, (49.9-inch) TC-P46C2 (46-inch) and the TC-P42C2 (41.6-inch) featuring 600Hz Sub-field Drive, VIERA Image Viewer, VIERA Link, Panels contains no lead or mercury with up to *100,000* lifespan


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

So wait, those figures are lifespan, not half life. So which is it?


----------



## Mussels (Dec 7, 2010)

Wile E said:


> So wait, those figures are lifespan, not half life. So which is it?



yeah, the image will have degraded by then.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

half-life. 

I don't know about the US but in Canada the Panasonic 2008, 2009 Plasma lineup is virtually non-existent at brick and mortar stores.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

How do you know it's half life. Where does it say that?


----------



## Mussels (Dec 7, 2010)

it doesnt say half life at all, thats the panels life, period.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

> * Panasonic: States in new specifications that new plasma TVs and monitors are good to 100,000 to half life.
> * Sony: Now out of the plasma market. Does not list a figure for LCD lineup.
> * Samsung: Lists 100,000 hours for plasma lineup.
> * LG: States 100,000 hours for both plasma and LCD.
> * Sharp LCD panels: States 100,000 hour life.



source.

soon I am going to hit you with my mechanical keyboard


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

Mussels said:


> it doesnt say half life at all, thats the panels life, period.



So, at only 25,000 hours, I'm looking at a 25% dimmed panel?


----------



## Mussels (Dec 7, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> source.
> 
> soon I am going to hit you with my mechanical keyboard



in that, it only states panasonic are quoting half life. the others, just panel life.


Wile E: from the sounds of it, yeah.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

I think they are talking about the same thing. give the source link I posted a read since it covers everything we have talked about.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

But he has no evidence to back that it's half-life either, and Panasonic's documentation sure doesn't mention it being half life.

And he even mentions that image retention is still a problem with static images.

We work all 3 shifts in my house, the TV is on nearly 24/7. LCD is still the more robust technology it seems.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

I watch 6 hours of television a day lol

maybe your brother can return the television or get a new one to break in properly. I don't think he is past his warranty.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

That's another thing, these aren't headphones, where breaking them in would be unobtrusive. Having to break in a TV for hours on end is ridiculous.

Maybe they should design a plasma that doesn't need it instead, or perhaps break them in before shipping them.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 7, 2010)

Just googling I'm seeing people referring to the 100,000 hours as the half life, but not the source they're getting it from.

Edit* Saw it in a press thingy.
"plasma panels to offer an effective screen half-life of 100,000 hours, or over 30 years of TV viewing"


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

you don't need to break a Plasma in hence the serious strides. I think if he had the opportunity to receive a new U2 model he would option it.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

No, if he can take it back, he's getting another LCD.

Until the burn in problem is completely non-existent, he will never get another plasma.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 7, 2010)

I was talking about breaking it in. the moral of the story is don't treat your television like you scratch your scrotum!


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

I know what you were talking about, he thinks that idea is preposterous as well, but I was commenting on 2 different topics in my post. Break in, and images burning in.

And I quite enjoy scratching my scrotum, tyvm.


----------



## n-ster (Dec 7, 2010)

100 000 hours IS HALF-LIFE

but some cheap plasmas do have 60 000 hours half-life. I just can't find if the U2 is 60 or 100 though

P.S: I scratch my scrotum very gently


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

n-ster said:


> *100 000 hours IS HALF-LIFE*



Please provide evidence.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 7, 2010)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UkqeVFhWVOcJ:www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/News/Latest%2BNews/Panasonic%2Bat%2BIFA%2B2010/Panasonic%2Bto%2BShowcase%2BFull%2BHD%2B3D%2BTechnology%2Bat%2BIFA/5752370/index.html+panasonic+2010+half+life&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Seems panasonic said it somewhere.


----------



## n-ster (Dec 7, 2010)

1- Panasonic has never done 50 000 hours half-life for one thing, it was from 30 000 to 60000 to 100 000

2- The panel life of a plasma is VERY long, at 10% brightness, it degrades less quickly and the panel technically is still "alive"

3- 100 000 hours half-life is advertised everywhere ex: In this product description (note idk if this means the U2 to be 100 000 hours or not, as this is "up to", therefore different models with different half-lives)

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Panasonic+plasma+100000+hours+half-life


----------



## caleb (Dec 7, 2010)

One thing I noticed and is pretty evil is those crisping electronics built into some LCD panels. They almost make the image look artificial and It might fool you against Plasma image that the LCD is more crisp etc. It looks fkn good but I don't think you will like the artificial movement of characters for a longer period. Who cares about its life if you'll buy a new one within 4 years.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 7, 2010)

n-ster said:


> 1- Panasonic has never done 50 000 hours half-life for one thing, it was from 30 000 to 60000 to 100 000
> 
> 2- The panel life of a plasma is VERY long, at 10% brightness, it degrades less quickly and the panel technically is still "alive"
> 
> ...


Product descriptions don't count to me, but the post above yours covered it anyway, straight from a Panasonic press release.

I still take issue with it, however, as a 50% reduction is not acceptably viewable, like they claim.

How long to a noticeable reduction?


----------



## Brilford Wimley (Dec 7, 2010)

Plasma is the 4th state of matter. Who doesn't want that?


----------



## oily_17 (Dec 7, 2010)

For some info from Panasonic about energy efficiency and life of LCD/Plasma screens, see here -

http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/271546/index.html


----------



## n-ster (Dec 7, 2010)

16 hours a day, 365.25 days a year, 100 000 hours 1/2 life, assuming it is linear:

20~25% loss of brightness(75~80% life) = 40 000 ~ 50 000 hrs

40~50K hrs divided by (16 hours a day * 365.25 days / yr) = 6.84 years ~ 8.56 years

Depending on how much brightness loss you accept, *7~8 years*




This seems acceptable to me


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 7, 2010)

oily_17 said:


> For some info from Panasonic about energy efficiency and life of LCD/Plasma screens, see here -
> 
> http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/271546/index.html



They aren't kidding about that twice as long as crt bit. In retrospect my crts died a lot. Every crt me and my friend had would fade and blur. Aside from my desk breaking under the weight of it (75lb limit), that's one of the main reason I'd pass on one of those used widescreen trinitrons. Sure it'd be mind blowingly sharp and color accurate, but only when it was brand new. The $200 used ebay ones are gonna be worn out crap.


----------



## Lionheart (Dec 7, 2010)

LED FTW


----------



## qubit (Dec 7, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> They aren't kidding about that twice as long as crt bit. In retrospect my crts died a lot. Every crt me and my friend had would fade and blur. Aside from my desk breaking under the weight of it (75lb limit), that's one of the main reason I'd pass on one of those used widescreen trinitrons. Sure it'd be mind blowingly sharp and color accurate, but only when it was brand new. The $200 used ebay ones are gonna be worn out crap.



I know exactly what you mean. The fuzziness creeps up on you and you end up thinking it's your eyes at first, which is very annoying. At least none of the newer types fail this way.


----------



## BlackMagic (Dec 7, 2010)

*Hmmm...*







Source: http://www.ultimateavmag.com/

Just saying!!!


----------



## qubit (Dec 7, 2010)

BlackMagic said:


> http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o48/SSF_BlackMagic/PlasmaorLCD.jpg
> 
> Source: http://www.ultimateavmag.com/
> 
> Just saying!!!



I think you meant the link below. You've linked to the front page and it looks like you want the article on plasma v LCD, which has slipped down the page.

www.ultimateavmag.com/content/do-you-prefer-plasma-or-lcd-tvs


----------



## Red_Machine (Dec 7, 2010)

If you mostly do standard def stuff, plasma is better as it doesn't technically have a native resolution.  LCDs do, and anything other than native res will look off, ESPECIALLY standard def.


----------



## BlackMagic (Dec 7, 2010)

qubit said:


> I think you meant the link below. You've linked to the front page and it looks like you want the article on plasma v LCD, which has slipped down the page.
> 
> www.ultimateavmag.com/content/do-you-prefer-plasma-or-lcd-tvs



Whoops, sorry.

Good catch.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Dec 7, 2010)

personally, I like LG or Samsung LCD TVS.  Even better than that is an LG or Samsung LED LCD TV 

My son has a cheapy BUSH 19" LED LCD in his bedroom.  His console looks great on it


----------



## qubit (Dec 7, 2010)

Red_Machine said:


> If you mostly do standard def stuff, plasma is better as it doesn't technically have a native resolution.  LCDs do, and anything other than native res will look off, ESPECIALLY standard def.



It actually does have a native resolution, just the same as LCD, as it has discrete gas cells for each individual colour. However, non-native resolutions tend to look better on them than LCDs.

Here's a Wikipedia article on plasma tech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_display


----------



## Red_Machine (Dec 7, 2010)

My friend has a 52" plasmascreen and she plays her SNES on it sometimes.  Apparently it looks awesome and she doesn't notice any lo-res/scaling issues like she did on her old LCD.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 7, 2010)

Red_Machine said:


> My friend has a 52" plasmascreen and she plays her SNES on it sometimes.  Apparently it looks awesome and she doesn't notice any lo-res/scaling issues like she did on her old LCD.



i just played donkey kong on a wii at 480p on a 1080p sony 46"... we noticed no scaling or blur issues either. hell we couldnt even see jaggies, looked really damn good for a wii game.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Dec 7, 2010)

Red_Machine said:


> My friend has a 52" plasmascreen and she plays her SNES on it sometimes.  Apparently it looks awesome and she doesn't notice any lo-res/scaling issues like she did on her old LCD.



Whats the SNES connected by?  RF aerial lead, RGB Scart, S-video etc ?  Because I always find standard def consoles to look very poor on modern TVs 



Mussels said:


> i just played donkey kong on a wii at 480p on a 1080p sony 46"... we noticed no scaling or blur issues either. hell we couldnt even see jaggies, looked really damn good for a wii game.



That looks like a great game.


----------



## caleb (Dec 7, 2010)

Red_Machine said:


> If you mostly do standard def stuff, plasma is better as it doesn't technically have a native resolution.  LCDs do, and anything other than native res will look off, ESPECIALLY standard def.



This is a huge problem with LCD's. Its like having a car that only runs good on Shell V-Power if you tank anything else it will be 30% its nominal performance. Sure Plasma wasn't that good at the beginning of HD evolution but now I don't see any Video quality flaw that would point to LCD choice. 
One thing that is very annoying with all these HD stuff is that nobody cares that you have ton's of VHS or digital SD camera video's of your family and they will look totally shit on a full HD LCD. A customer should instantly switch all his hardware to HD formats rerecord all your videos for best expierience and then make ur granny change her good old dvd player because nothing that you have works on it then change her TV cause its also incompatible and show her how to use a Samsung remote. 

SD worked for us for a LONG time now this HD stuff is just draining cash every time some new feature will arrive (full hd,99999Hz,3d etc). For me a new standard should be primarily as good as the old one - should support all resolutions before it in quality at least as good as CRT - and then add new possible standards. Even if supporting old ones means bottlenecking the new ones.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Dec 7, 2010)

caleb said:


> This is a huge problem with LCD's. Its like having a car that only runs good on Shell V-Power if you tank anything else it will be 30% its nominal performance. Sure Plasma wasn't that good at the beginning of HD evolution but now I don't see any Video quality flaw that would point to LCD choice.
> One thing that is very annoying with all these HD stuff is that nobody cares that you have ton's of VHS or digital SD camera video's of your family and they will look totally shit on a full HD LCD. A customer should instantly switch all his hardware to HD formats rerecord all your videos for best expierience and then make ur granny change her good old dvd player because nothing that you have works on it then change her TV cause its also incompatible and show her how to use a Samsung remote.
> 
> SD worked for us for a LONG time now this HD stuff is just draining cash every time some new feature will arrive (full hd,99999Hz,3d etc). For me a new standard should be primarily as good as the old one - should support all resolutions before it in quality at least as good as CRT - and then add new possible standards. Even if supporting old ones means bottlenecking the new ones.



If you grab a good model of LCD/Plasma to start with and dont fall for gimmicks (ie 3D) you should be ok for a few years 

I had a very nice white Samsung 40" (720p) LCD.  I grabbed it for £417 (was meant to be £700) when a major electrical store made a cock up in pricing online .  I loved that TV but upgraded it.  I only did this because I was offered £400 for it, 14 months later and only had to add a further £200 to get a 42" 1080p LG LCD TV


----------



## Red_Machine (Dec 7, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> Whats the SNES connected by?  RF aerial lead, RGB Scart, S-video etc ?  Because I always find standard def consoles to look very poor on modern TVs



Composite AV, I think.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 7, 2010)

Despite all the advancements, I still feel very annoyed by the limitations of LCDs. Hell with IPS (and even OLED) they can screw you over with a low bit model. No lcd I've used has over come the input lag. I still remember how painful it was going from the speed of a crt to the lag of a lcd. Maybe it's time panasonic crams all their plasma advances into a monitor. The better showing of non-native resolutions alone makes it ideal tech for pcs. If there's a few lingering issues with burn in or w/e then just give it another year, panasonic seems to be on a role with the advancements. It'd still come sooner than any other display alternatives.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Dec 7, 2010)

Red_Machine said:


> Composite AV, I think.



Blimey, that 'should' look terrible then!?!?!  But if it looks nice with a composite cable, tell your friend to grab a cheap RGB scart for the SNES off ebay....that should improve it even more


----------



## Red_Machine (Dec 7, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> Blimey, that 'should' look terrible then!?!?!



Like I was saying, plasma handles non-native resolutions like nothing else.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Dec 7, 2010)

Red_Machine said:


> Like I was saying, plasma handles non-native resolutions like nothing else.



So if you intend to play retro consoles/media (like VHS) a plasma TV is the way to go  (handy to know, thanks)


----------



## Red_Machine (Dec 7, 2010)

Yes indeedy.  However be aware that they output a lot of heat and are quite power-hungry, but it is worth it in my opinion.


----------



## qubit (Dec 7, 2010)

Red_Machine said:


> Like I was saying, plasma handles non-native resolutions like nothing else.



As plasma and LCD both have a fixed native resolution, it's weird how LCD handles it so much worse. I don't get this one. _<scratches head>_


----------



## Red_Machine (Dec 7, 2010)

It's the technology.  I don't understand it either, but I think it may have something to do with the versatility of plasma over liquid crystals.


----------



## Bo$$ (Dec 7, 2010)

Red_Machine said:


> Like I was saying, plasma handles non-native resolutions like nothing else.



not only plasma, my Samsung LE40A656 looks amazing even if i power it with my Netbook at like 1276x768* technology has moved in both divisions (it has something to do with the inbuilt scaling, samsungs can do this REALLY REALLY well. put any res it will look amazing). this TV was brighter and had tons  better contast than most of the comparative plasmas they had at John lewis when we were purchasing.
It can produce deep blacks that rival most Plasmas too.
at the end of the day it depends on your brand and panel they use...



* or something like that


----------



## Thatguy (Dec 8, 2010)

theonedub said:


> Plasma is still the King of black levels, with LED LCDs quickly catching up. Nothing sucks worse than trying to watch a dark movie on an LCD- even in a completely dark room with the backlight nearly off.



   no that would be projections. I'd put my projection 65 inch panasonic against any plasma on black. RPTV that is.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 8, 2010)

some Plasmas have poor blacks. you get what you pay for. I don't think your going to find any bargain panels under B brands or bang for your buck like you would with LCD but I think the prices Plasmas are right now is a bargain it self.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 8, 2010)

The current gen of LCDs scale SD content as well as plasmas.


----------



## THRiLL KiLL (Dec 13, 2010)

well i bought a plasma.  I was going to go new, but a friend gave me a deal i couldn't beat. 

He is moving to California next week, and he didnt want to pay for shipping. 

so for $150 i picked up a Pioneer  PDP-42A3HD

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/televisions/flat-panels/pioneer-PDP-42A3HD


it took a few days to get used to ( i had a 30 sony wega widescreen tube tv) 


so for now i will be using this tv. When it dies, i will defintly be sticking with plasmas. 


Thanks for all the advice!


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 13, 2010)

little too much for what I would of paid for. glad you are happy though.


----------



## THRiLL KiLL (Dec 13, 2010)

there was no burn-in on the screen, and he is/was a programmer at microsoft, so he didnt spend much time at home. 

I do realize this is 720p.


I dont have cable. 
I dont have a blue-ray player. 

I watch mainly dvds \ fan subed 720p animes\ hulu and netflix..


----------



## Chewy (Dec 27, 2010)

I've been looking up on the newer Panasonic Plasmas alot S2, G25. I'm sure thier not going bacckwards on panel life. I've seen it stated half life has been increased from 60,000 to 100,000 hours. That would be 15% dimness at 30,000 hours, possibly by than I will be upgrading anyway. 

I only plan on using it for movies and some slight gaming. Pixel orbiter is nice, from what I've read it really helps alot against IR and burn in.


 Well I'm pretty sure I will be going with the 50" Plasma. I was considering a 55" edge lit Samsung, but have fear of unevenness (in time?), and its lifespan is still unknown forsure. (15,000 hours?).

 For as much as I'm going to use it, I feel the plasma is definitely the way to go for me.


 WellI'm just saying from what I've read Plasmas and lcd have both come a long way! I'll see how the 50" S2 looks against the 55" edge lit led in store today. Though store lighting and settings are not always the best.


----------



## THRiLL KiLL (Dec 27, 2010)

you will find the LED / Plasma very comparable, if you set them back to default settings (the stores mess with them to make them look better in thier lighting).

before i got this deal, i had decided to go with the plasma, due to the price and performance.


----------



## Chewy (Dec 28, 2010)

Well I was killer tired but overall considering my choices were a 55" edge lit led/lcd or the plasma (pricing played a factor). I went with the Plasma after seeing a g25 model and a sony 60" edge lit.

 I found the led had some extra brightness around the edge specifically the bottom edge? on the Sony.. now it could of been that tv but Avatar looked so much better on the plasma. I'm sure the Plasma was set up right it, looked that perfect. 

 Well for what I'm going to use it for, I think the Plasma was the better choice. It appeared to have a better colour garment? Its mostly for movies and Im not worried about burn in much since it wont be used alot. Also from what I've read, Panasonics and Pioneers are pretty anti burn-in atm.


* Still breaking in the tv with white wash/scroll bar. Breaking in the Plasma this way helps fight IR during the life of the tv they say. http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/plasma-TV-unit.html

 I will post back if I have any issues/concerns with the plasma.


----------



## DRDNA (Dec 28, 2010)

Very nice Choice!

Breaking em in is the key...your already on it so all is good.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 28, 2010)

Chewy said:


> Well I was killer tired but overall considering my choices were a 55" edge lit led/lcd or the plasma (pricing played a factor). I went with the Plasma after seeing a g25 model and a sony 60" edge lit.
> 
> I found the led had some extra brightness around the edge specifically the bottom edge? on the Sony.. now it could of been that tv but Avatar looked so much better on the plasma. I'm sure the Plasma was set up right it, looked that perfect.
> 
> ...



I came too late. I was going to recommend the Samsung PN50C8000 3D Plasma ($1899 CAD) it's a little cheaper than Panasonic TC-P50VT25 but it scored a lot higher in fact it's one of the top 3D televisions you can buy. probably out of your budget


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 28, 2010)

Breaking In is located in this thread. there are a couple versions (DVD, Memory Card/USB). turn the Brightness and Contrast down on the Plasma to 40% and run the Break In for 200 hours or 8 days then calibrate your Plasma.


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> D panasonic seems to be on a role with the advancements.



Might be a Kuro killer early next year as well


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> LED FTW



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA


----------



## Lionheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Kwod said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA



May I ask what it is you are laughing at?


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2010)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> May I ask what it is you are laughing at?



one guess: plasma fanboy


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> May I ask what it is you are laughing at?



LED's are often the worst display type, especially "edge lit", now granted some of the more expensive ones *might *have decent screen uniformity, but to me, the idea of forking out for an expensive LED only to have backlight bleed and what have you is criminal.


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

Mussels said:


> one guess: plasma fanboy


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2010)

Kwod said:


> LED's are often the worst display type, especially "edge lit", now granted some of the more expensive ones *might *have decent screen uniformity, but to me, the idea of forking out for an expensive LED only to have backlight bleed and what have you is criminal.



i think that may be incorrect information. i've got two 24" LED and a 46" sony LED in the house, and none have backlight bleeding. the worst two are two older chimei 22" non LED LCD's


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i think that may be incorrect information. i've got two 24" LED and a 46" sony LED in the house, and none have backlight bleeding. the worst two are two older chimei 22" non LED LCD's






> Brighter corners visible in dark room, very obvious non-uniformity in 3D mode
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sony-kdl-40hx803-kdl-46hx803-20100925858.htm



vs Panasonic Plasma



> Perfect
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-tx-p42vt20b-tx-p42vt20-20101110913.htm



If you follow these reviews, you'd learn that LED often isn't as good as CCFL, but cost more.

Look for benchmark test results.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2010)

just because screens that use the tech have problems, doesnt mean the problem IS the tech.

im sure it would be very easy to find the opposite on that website - LED screens that score higher than non LED.


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

Mussels said:


> just because screens that use the tech have problems, doesnt mean the problem IS the tech.
> 
> im sure it would be very easy to find the opposite on that website - LED screens that score higher than non LED.



Anyone who follows HDTV progress knows that many of the edge lit LED can and do suffer screen uniformity issues, the simple physical placement of the lighting should set off alarm bells.

The general public believe that LED is actually the best tech, but in "most" cases, this is just plain wrong, and we also have the problem of LCD aka LED having very poor motion resolution necessitating the activating of motionflow devices which can move the picture quality into that "looks like it was shot on video" mode.

I HATE LCD above 42in's and usually only recommend people buy the best plasma's, usually a Panasonic or Samsung.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2010)

i believe that LED LCD's are the best tech, but thats possibly because i stay <40", have high electricity rates and dislike plasmas power consumption, heat, cost, and overall shittiniess in australia - the most common plasmas here seriously run 1024x768 panels. not even widescreen.

i too, dislike all the motionflow crapola current monitors use. how about giving us actual higher refresh rates instead of all this shit.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 31, 2010)

my Panasonic Viera S2 has a good lighting and it's pretty bright.



> One of the TVs greatest strengths lies in its white brightness which measured an average luminance of 31.50. This result nears LCD TVs in brightness and points to Panasonic's desire to compete with LCD TVs in this area.



Panasonic spent 2010 working on this.


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i believe that LED LCD's are the best tech, but thats possibly because i stay <40", have high electricity rates and dislike plasmas power consumption, heat, cost, and overall shittiniess in australia - the most common plasmas here seriously run 1024x768 panels. not even widescreen.
> .




You're living in the dark ages ole mate.
New plasma's, especially the energy efficient NEO and Samsung models are 1080p, use bugger all electricity, and don't generate much heat at all....and u need to remember that plasma are cheaper and bigger, so the small outlay in energy can be offset by the sticker price and the superior viewing experience of a bigger screen.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2010)

Kwod said:


> You're living in the dark ages ole mate.
> New plasma's, especially the energy efficient NEO and Samsung models are 1080p, use bugger all electricity, and don't generate much heat at all....and u need to remember that plasma are cheaper and bigger, so the small outlay in energy can be offset by the sticker price and the superior viewing experience of a bigger screen.



dark ages? in front of LED screens?  bright as.


and yes, we DO only get the old plasma tech here. i believe i stated that fairly clearly.


plasma are certainly not cheaper here.


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> my Panasonic Viera S2 has a good lighting and it's pretty bright.



Most TV's never need the extra brightness though.......most people usually have to turn it down.
My plasma is shielded by curtains, so I have excellent PQ day and night, perfect screen uniformity, and ZERO motion blur....but can't same the same about my LCD's.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 31, 2010)

Mussels said:


> dark ages? in front of LED screens?  bright as.
> 
> 
> and yes, we DO only get the old plasma tech here. i believe i stated that fairly clearly.
> ...




that's disappointing.


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

Mussels said:


> and yes, we DO only get the old plasma tech here. i believe i stated that fairly clearly.



We have the latest NEO plasma's.....1080p, so what do you mean?




> plasma are certainly not cheaper here.



U can buy a 54in NEO plasma for $1300.....try buying a 52in for that


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> that's disappointing.



Joy thru plasma


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2010)

Kwod said:


> We have the latest NEO plasma's.....1080p, so what do you mean?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



$1300 would be lucky to get a 40" here. despite the fact our dollar is better than the US atm.


also, happy new years, you past dwelling plasma lovers.


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

Mussels said:


> $1300 would be lucky to get a 40" here. despite the fact our dollar is better than the US atm.
> .



How so?...u in oz, buy online from JB.WOW and others.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2010)

Kwod said:


> How so?...u in oz, buy online from JB.WOW and others.



trust me. they cost more. i live here, i know the prices. the cheap plasmas around here are damned terrible, extremely outdated tech.


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

No one stocks 1080p plasma in Bendigo.....odd, but they've been out since 2007, and all the major cities of the world have them.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2010)

Kwod said:


> No one stocks 1080p plasma in Bendigo.....odd, but they've been out since 2007, and all the major cities of the world have them.



sure we have them. at twice the price of an LED screen.


----------



## BumbleBee (Dec 31, 2010)

Mussels said:


> sure we have them. at twice the price of an LED screen.



wow.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2010)

BumbleBee said:


> wow.



hell we only just got LED screens in time for christmas >.<


plasmas way behind here.


----------



## Kwod (Dec 31, 2010)

How much is freight from Melbourne?


----------



## Mussels (Dec 31, 2010)

Kwod said:


> How much is freight from Melbourne?



cheaper to drive there and back.


i think we're dragging this off topic a bit, as i'm not in the market for a new TV any time soon.


----------



## TRIPTEX_CAN (Dec 31, 2010)

After years of using LCDs for my home entertainment I finally came into the market again. I looked at as many TVs as I could find on display. IMO all current 120-240Hz LCD and LED TVs are annoying to watch due to an unnatural and unavoidable motion effect caused by their refresh rates. This motion issue is the absolute worst thing I've seen in new TVs. You have to see it to understand what I'm talking about but it's there. 

Eventually I started looking at plasmas and realised all my prejudice about plasma screens was misplsaced. I thought plasmas were heavy but the plasma I settled on weighs the same as the LED I was going to buy. I thought I would have glare issues since I have a wall of windows open to a mountian view in my living room but the plasma I bought is actually handling glare better then my "old" LCD. 

The plasma I bought is as thin as an LED (thinner than most LCD), has less glare than almost any other TV, has better colors and blacks that I never even thought possible, and cost almost $2000 less than an equivalent specd LED. 

IMO I couldnt have put a better TV on my wall. With that said NOT all plasmas are created equal and for $600 you might not get the quality you're looking for. In the budget price range LCD might have the edge.


----------



## Brilford Wimley (Dec 31, 2010)

TRIPTEX_CAN said:


> After years of using LCDs for my home entertainment I finally came into the market again. I looked at as many TVs as I could find on display. IMO all current 120-240Hz LCD and LED TVs are annoying to watch due to an unnatural and unavoidable motion effect caused by their refresh rates. This motion issue is the absolute worst thing I've seen in new TVs. You have to see it to understand what I'm talking about but it's there.
> 
> Eventually I started looking at plasmas and realised all my prejudice about plasma screens was misplsaced. I thought plasmas were heavy but the plasma I settled on weighs the same as the LED I was going to buy. I thought I would have glare issues since I have a wall of windows open to a mountian view in my living room but the plasma I bought is actually handling glare better then my "old" LCD.
> 
> ...


Please, don't you dare tell us the model you bought.


----------



## n-ster (Dec 31, 2010)

Yea I wanna know too lol


----------



## TRIPTEX_CAN (Jan 1, 2011)

Sorry. It's the Samsung pn58c8000. Forgot to add that.


----------



## dukercatfan (Jan 1, 2011)

I say GO PLASMA. My buddy has a 65in plasma with pc and xbox on it....WOW is all i can say....smooth awesome game play(and we burn bfbc2 and MoH up) and a friggin HUGE desktop
cheers and good luck


----------



## oily_17 (Jan 1, 2011)

TRIPTEX_CAN said:


> After years of using LCDs for my home entertainment I finally came into the market again. I looked at as many TVs as I could find on display. IMO all current 120-240Hz LCD and LED TVs are annoying to watch due to an unnatural and unavoidable motion effect caused by their refresh rates. This motion issue is the absolute worst thing I've seen in new TVs. You have to see it to understand what I'm talking about but it's there.
> 
> Eventually I started looking at plasmas and realised all my prejudice about plasma screens was misplsaced. I thought plasmas were heavy but the plasma I settled on weighs the same as the LED I was going to buy. I thought I would have glare issues since I have a wall of windows open to a mountian view in my living room but the plasma I bought is actually handling glare better then my "old" LCD.
> 
> ...





TRIPTEX_CAN said:


> Sorry. It's the Samsung pn58c8000. Forgot to add that.



A very good choice, I have the exact same TV (well the UK c7000, which is the same as the American c8000 model) and absolutely love it as well.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 1, 2011)

I was about to buy the Samsung PN50C8000 model for my living room but I decided it's a bit late in the year to buy a new television so i'm going to wait until CES (Jan 6-9) to see the 2011 lineups.

one television Panasonic is showing at CES 2011 is their flagship model the Panasonic ZT30 3D Plasma. it's the first wireless 3D television.


----------



## Kwod (Jan 1, 2011)

> Having spent many hours reviewing LED LCD HDTVs, testing a plasma was like putting on a pair of comfortable shoes. We knew there was a reason we preferred the technology and it was staring us in the face when we fired it up. Colors were more natural with good black levels that made everything pop off the screen. LED LCD HDTVs may have come a long way, but plasma is still king for more realistic images—and this wasn’t Panasonic’s best edition.
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/tv-reviews/panasonic-viera-tc-p50gt25-review/



Every professional web reviewer I read prefers plasma......but buying a no name brand is downright silly, so buy a decent NEO or Samsung and you'll have one of the best HDTV's.


----------



## Chewy (Jan 1, 2011)

Well I popped back in to see how the tread was going. I was just reading up some more. So anyone whos interested in this thread/topic should consider a read here too http://forum.blu-ray.com/plasma-tvs/154133-plasmas-best.html

 Plasmas can be the best depending on what your looking for, and in some cases like mussels.. pricing. but they go hand in hand. 

 One note on heat output. I find my new Plasma Panasonic 50" s2, has less heat output than my Sharp Aquos 37" that I bought 3 years ago. One thing I like is I paid $1300 for my sharp and 1,080 for my 50" which is far superior to previous superior  Well Sharp Aquos LCDs were one of the best back than.

 Well Plasma has gained one more "fanboy" lol. I'm just really impressed with the PQ. ITs alot better than I expected! 



 Something for BumbleBee since he also owns an s2 http://reviews.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatvreviews/panasonic-tcp50s2-review.html

  I find those settings look great. I dont have the contrast or brightness that high since my tv is still brand new.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 2, 2011)

Chewy said:


> Well I popped back in to see how the tread was going. I was just reading up some more. So anyone whos interested in this thread/topic should consider a read here too http://forum.blu-ray.com/plasma-tvs/154133-plasmas-best.html
> 
> Plasmas can be the best depending on what your looking for, and in some cases like mussels.. pricing. but they go hand in hand.
> 
> ...



i'm not a he. I read that, thank you. I thought you bought the G25 model? I am not a fan of the G25 series but I thought this was funny.


----------



## Chewy (Jan 2, 2011)

Oh I'm sorry I feel stupid now lol. Yeah the S2 D6500k guide is something to go by if you have a dark room. I found it a nice setting - the high brightness/contrast for now. Once its broken in I'll pay around some more.

 Naa I used the G25 display model nexted to the Sony edge-lit 60" as a comparison on boxing day. Since it has a similar screen to the S2 that was out of stock at that store.

 Once again, Sorry BumbeBee! Thanks for the link, funny indeed. I really like the viewing area.. works great.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 2, 2011)

both televisions have the same picture quality and motion. both televisions have the same amount of ports however the LG has 1 extra HDMI but Panasonic has a SD card slot. Panasonic strength is blacks and viewing angle. LG strength is brightness.

*Panasonic cost $1499. LG cost $3499.*


----------



## Chewy (Jan 2, 2011)

Ah I understand now. In a sense for LCD to have about the same PQ you have to spend more. Well atleast in this insistence alot more. Movie watching is my main thing on the TV. Inky Blacks look so good as does the PQ. Well off to bed I go.


----------



## Kwod (Jan 2, 2011)

Depending what Panasonic and Samsung come up with, 2011 might be the yr that plasma really destroy LCD/LED, regardless of what the average person thinks.


----------



## TRIPTEX_CAN (Jan 2, 2011)

Kwod said:


> Depending what Panasonic and Samsung come up with, 2011 might be the yr that plasma really destroy LCD/LED, regardless of what the average person thinks.



Possibly but I think the difference in price alone would have done that in 2010.


----------



## Kwod (Jan 3, 2011)

TRIPTEX_CAN said:


> Possibly but I think the difference in price alone would have done that in 2010.



It's just that LCD can't seem to dip below 0.04/05 on their black levels, and if Pana go Kuro crazy and produce some hardcore numbers, people might wake up to the fact that LCD is a stagnant technology that costs more.

There are obviously situations where an LCD is still preferable, but for everyone else, plasma will rule.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 3, 2011)

Kwod said:


> It's just that LCD can't seem to dip below 0.04/05 on their black levels, and if Pana go Kuro crazy and produce some hardcore numbers, people might wake up to the fact that LCD is a stagnant technology that costs more.
> 
> There are obviously situations where an LCD is still preferable, but for everyone else, plasma will rule.



If panasonic were to do that, those televisions would likely be similarly priced to the Kuros of old, which were somewhat comparable in price to LED's right now. It would produce the best IQ possible, but that would be overshadowed in the market by an uninformed buying populace. There is a reason Pioneer stopped producing the Kuro, although it trumped every other television on the market by a fairly wide margin, they didn't make enough money off the line. Let's face it most people just look for the deals, and people don't know crap about the things they buy. Most people I talk to these days still believe LED is a completely separate technology from LCD. And the word plasma hold a stigma that will likely never overcome the ignorance of the public.

Plasma will continue to hold a strong place for the researched and those looking for best bang for the buck, or just best bang period, but I doubt they will ever capture as much of the market as LCD's again.


----------



## DaMulta (Jan 3, 2011)

I would love a kick ass plasma, but I'm scared to death of burn ins. If I left my desktop on it for days I think I would be screwed. Or like the end of a netflix show...I could just see a big black box in the center of my screen burned in.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 3, 2011)

DaMulta said:


> I would love a kick ass plasma, but I'm scared to death of burn ins. If I left my desktop on it for days I think I would be screwed. Or like the end of a netflix show...I could just see a big black box in the center of my screen burned in.



That's the main issue I have with it. Sure, it looks great, but not if you have an image permanently burned into the screen.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 3, 2011)

DaMulta said:


> I would love a kick ass plasma, but I'm scared to death of burn ins. If I left my desktop on it for days I think I would be screwed. Or like the end of a netflix show...I could just see a big black box in the center of my screen burned in.



Yeah if you want to use your TV like a computer monitor and leave it on constantly, plasma isn't the way to go. I simply turn mine off when I walk away. Easy enough to do and all but eliminates any chance of burn in.


----------



## TRIPTEX_CAN (Jan 3, 2011)

Current high end plasmas don't suffer nearly as much from image retention as previous generations.


----------



## Kwod (Jan 3, 2011)

farlex85 said:


> If panasonic were to do that, those televisions would likely be similarly priced to the Kuros of old, .



Well TV tech seems to be dropping in price like crazy, for example, 58in NEO plasma opened in Australia at $2800 but is now $1600.

There's still plenty of growth for HDTV, especialy big ones, so future prices should be a fraction of what they are now, or they'd be more, but not excessive, at least that's what I hope.

U do wonder the point of the internet and the available information if no-one ever learns anything and is constantly duped by marketers


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 3, 2011)

Kwod said:


> Well TV tech seems to be dropping in price like crazy, for example, 58in NEO plasma opened in Australia at $2800 but is now $1600.
> 
> There's still plenty of growth for HDTV, especialy big ones, so future prices should be a fraction of what they are now, or they'd be more, but not excessive, at least that's what I hope.
> 
> U do wonder the point of the internet and the available information if no-one ever learns anything and is constantly duped by marketers



I think that's normal. the Panasonic TC-P50G25 and LG 55LE8500 only cost $1000 and $2299 now. you probably won't even see these in stores next year once the 2011 lineups are out. I had a hard time trying to find any 2009 LCD or Plasma in stores this year.


----------



## Zen_ (Jan 3, 2011)

DaMulta said:


> I would love a kick ass plasma, but I'm scared to death of burn ins. If I left my desktop on it for days I think I would be screwed. Or like the end of a netflix show...I could just see a big black box in the center of my screen burned in.



Even my low end Panasonic C2 has a pixel orbiter to prevent burn in. There's also a scrolling bar feature you can manually activate to "wipe" the screen if you're really concerned.


----------



## MRCL (Jan 3, 2011)

My Panasonic Plasma TV from three years ago didn't suffer from that burning-in problem. If the TV notices an area on the screen that doesn't change over a certain period of time, it automatically reduces contrast/shifts pixels to prevent burning in. I paused a videogame once, went away and forgot to shut off the TV, the paused image was there for over a day (a spontanious invite to spend a night with a girl can cause that). Nothing burned in. Plasma has come a long way.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 3, 2011)

DaMulta said:


> I would love a kick ass plasma, but I'm scared to death of burn ins. If I left my desktop on it for days I think I would be screwed. Or like the end of a netflix show...I could just see a big black box in the center of my screen burned in.



I don't think Plasma is a good choice for computer use, but not because of burn in. 



> Plasma technology has increased anti burn in tactics as well as computer and static signal handling. There are still issues with each depending very much on the model and manufacturer. For example, 720p plasma televisions do not handle a computer input well and product a very jaggy image on plasma's larger sizes.



there was a Samsung reviewed recently that had a serious problem with burn in even though the 550 series isn't even a mid-range television so I guess it's still model by model. 

everybody says burn in isn't a problem anymore so there must be something to it. the amount of people reporting no issues with televisions a couple years old is impressive. 

if you're still interested in a Plasma but need to be pushed take a look at these articles. Plasma vs. LCD, Plasma Misconceptions.


----------



## Zen_ (Jan 3, 2011)

> For example, 720p plasma televisions do not handle a computer input well and product a very jaggy image on plasma's larger sizes.



My 46" Panasonic C2 is 720p and it looks great with video input from my PC via HDMI. I had to create a custom resolution of 1223x688 for it to fill out the screen correctly but other than it's fine. Obviously at that resolution with such a large screen text and static image crispness does suffer but again, HD video is great.


----------



## Kwod (Jan 3, 2011)

Zen_ said:


> My 46" Panasonic C2 is 720p and it looks great with video input from my PC via HDMI. I had to create a custom resolution of 1223x688 for it to fill out the screen correctly but other than it's fine. Obviously at that resolution with such a large screen text and static image crispness does suffer but again, HD video is great.



Aren't u able to use the scaling slider in CCC rather than create a custom rez?


----------



## Kwod (Jan 3, 2011)

Burn in is rarely a prob with PANASONIC plasma, they're more expensive for a reason.
Mine has no burn in whatsoever.


----------



## Zen_ (Jan 4, 2011)

Kwod said:


> Aren't u able to use the scaling slider in CCC rather than create a custom rez?



I tried overscan and the custom resolution, the custom resolution was a little more precise.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 4, 2011)

Kwod said:


> Burn in is rarely a prob with PANASONIC plasma, they're more expensive for a reason.
> Mine has no burn in whatsoever.



Burn in is a thing of the past. That problem was sorted out a while ago.
There's an LG TV Buyers guide floating about the we somewhere that goes into an in-depth comparison of Plasma and LCDs and is very informative.

Both have pro's and cons. I personally went for a Plasma due to the initial cost savings, and i have to say, i am not disappointed with the quality especially when compared with an equally priced LCD .... Thinking about it, there was no equally priced LCD for the size TV i got.

Picture quality is excellent, great for watching movies, looks good when playing games.
When hooked up to the PC i have to get a little close to read some of the small writing (like in drop-down boxes) but i think that's due to a combination of the size and resolution as the text looks crisp close up, it's just too small to read from far away. Then again, i don;t use it for web browsing or anything other than games and movies.

It does reflect more than an LCD, but then i use it during the day (it gets dark at 6pm here) and i don't watch enough TV for the difference in power usage to be too big an issue, i certainly didn't notice my power bills going up significantly.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 5, 2011)

Zen_ said:


> Even my low end Panasonic C2 has a pixel orbiter to prevent burn in. There's also a scrolling bar feature you can manually activate to "wipe" the screen if you're really concerned.



Those only help with certain types of images. When there is a huge block of pixels the same color, pixel orbiting doesn't help. Not to mention, when you are browsing the web, it's annoying as hell.

And burned in images are not a thing of the past. It still happens in certain usages.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 5, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Those only help with certain types of images. When there is a huge block of pixels the same color, pixel orbiting doesn't help. Not to mention, when you are browsing the web, it's annoying as hell.
> 
> And burned in images are not a thing of the past. It still happens in certain usages.



It also happens to LCD to a limited extent, not to mention the "washed out" affect my LCD has after 3yrs of usage.

It is still possible to get burned in images, but it isn't as big a problem as it used to be, and then most of the time it can be corrected.

Burn in shouldn't affect your buying decision unless you are planning to do things like continually browse the web or use it soley for computer/console usage and then, you should be going LCD due to the better resolutions they offer.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 5, 2011)

No, it doesn't happen to LCD. Your washed out effect is a product of the backlight. Less an issue for me, as I have a colorimeter to compensate for the changes LCDs go thru.

And heavy console usage occurs in my house. Plasma is out.

Unfortunately, most 120/240Hz lcds look like ass, so those are out too.

I'll just have to stick it out with my 60hz Samung set until one of the techs develop further.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 5, 2011)

Wile E said:


> No, it doesn't happen to LCD. Your washed out effect is a product of the backlight. Less an issue for me, as I have a colorimeter to compensate for the changes LCDs go thru.
> 
> And heavy console usage occurs in my house. Plasma is out.
> 
> ...



ok, on LCDs it's not called Burn in rather "image Retention" and it does happen, just to a lesser extent.

Source http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/image-sticking.html
http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/image-sticking.html

Also another comprehensive guide on Plasma Vs. LCD (non bias it seems) http://www.avforums.com/forums/lg-forum/1040160-lg-tv-buyers-guide.html


----------



## Wile E (Jan 5, 2011)

That's gotta be a really shitty lcd to get an image to stick. And, it's fully reversible on all LCDs. Not the case with plasma. Some are very permanent on plasmas.

At any rate, are there any LCDs out there that don't give that TV camera effect to movies?


----------



## DaMulta (Jan 5, 2011)

There is always the choice for Active Matrix Tvs also.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 5, 2011)

Wile E said:


> That's gotta be a really shitty lcd to get an image to stick. And, it's fully reversible on all LCDs. Not the case with plasma. Some are very permanent on plasmas.
> 
> At any rate, are there any LCDs out there that don't give that TV camera effect to movies?



Usually fully reversible, and so long as you take care within the first 200hrs of plasma usage, image retention shouldn't be a problem.

I think we're arguing apples and oranges. There is no clear better choice, it all depends on what you use it for and that's what you have to consider when buying one.

"Image Retention" shouldn't be an issue, and especially not a deciding factor, so long as you are educated towards it.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 5, 2011)

Wile E said:


> No, it doesn't happen to LCD. Your washed out effect is a product of the backlight. Less an issue for me, as I have a colorimeter to compensate for the changes LCDs go thru.
> 
> And heavy console usage occurs in my house. Plasma is out.
> 
> ...



I bought a Plasma for my consoles alone. I know you had a negative experience with Plasma but don't give up on it. buy a high end model.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 5, 2011)

cant afford a high end model.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 5, 2011)

DaMulta said:


> I would love a kick ass plasma, but I'm scared to death of burn ins. If I left my desktop on it for days I think I would be screwed. Or like the end of a netflix show...I could just see a big black box in the center of my screen burned in.



Sorry, flicking back a few pages, most Plasmas come with screen-savers. The tv detects a static image and automatically puts up a blank screen with some text or an image bouncing about.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 5, 2011)

it should also be noted that Pioneer lives on in Panasonic.







Pioneer Kuro is a Plasma line that is literally the best television money can buy. last year Pioneer decided to exit the market however in 2008 they signed a partnership with Panasonic. the Panasonic Viera VT25 (3D), G25 and S2 series use the Neo PDP panel.


----------



## Bo$$ (Jan 5, 2011)

as a balanced opinion, go for gaming a LCD is slightly more advantagous


----------



## Kwod (Jan 5, 2011)

Gaming will suck on LCD is input lag is too high.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 6, 2011)

Kwod said:


> Gaming will suck on LCD is input lag is too high.



Not on IPS panels. P/MVA panels are the ones with bad input lag, due to the need for excessive overdrive and pixel processing before the image is displayed.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 6, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Not on IPS panels. P/MVA panels are the ones with bad input lag, due to the need for excessive overdrive and pixel processing before the image is displayed.



hell, i have an MVA panel on my TV and the input lag is fine for gaming.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 6, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Not on IPS panels. P/MVA panels are the ones with bad input lag, due to the need for excessive overdrive and pixel processing before the image is displayed.



how much are you looking to spend?


----------



## Kwod (Jan 6, 2011)

It's about image processing, some have game modes which disable some of the features, others don't.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 6, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> how much are you looking to spend?



Nothing right now, but I'll probably end up topping out around $1200, and need to go larger than 46".

I'm just gonna wait it out. My 46" Samsung LCD will have to do for a while. I need a new front porch first. lol.



Kwod said:


> It's about image processing, some have game modes which disable some of the features, others don't.



I know exactly what causes it, IPS panels need less to respond quickly, and therefore suffer from input lag considerably less than VA panels. And I disable most processing anyway. I hate overdrive and dynamic contrast and all that crap. Even Plasmas have some amount of image processing.


----------



## n-ster (Jan 6, 2011)

I'm in the market for a new TV. Because of this thread, and my uncle buying plasma, I will try a nice plasma TV. I'm pretty set on the Panasonic 50" G25 or GT25 (if not much more), they seem like a great TV. Unfortunately, I'll have to buy in Canada not the US, else I'd be all over the 1199$ GT25 over at amazon (or I heard w/ blu-ray player and 2 pair of glasses with Avatar it is <1450$)

Do you guys think the G25/GT25 is a good buy? This will be for 40% watching SDTV, 25% PC Gaming (Flight Simulator X and wtv else will play OK on it), 15% HD 10% SD Movies, 10% PS3 gaming (NHL 11, perhaps Assassin's creed II and Brotherhood)

How good is 3D? Are LED TVs any better/worse than plasmas for 3D?


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 6, 2011)

n-ster said:


> I'm in the market for a new TV. Because of this thread, and my uncle buying plasma, I will try a nice plasma TV. I'm pretty set on the Panasonic 50" G25 or GT25 (if not much more), they seem like a great TV. Unfortunately, I'll have to buy in Canada not the US, else I'd be all over the 1199$ GT25 over at amazon (or I heard w/ blu-ray player and 2 pair of glasses with Avatar it is <1450$)
> 
> Do you guys think the G25/GT25 is a good buy? This will be for 40% watching SDTV, 25% PC Gaming (Flight Simulator X and wtv else will play OK on it), 15% HD 10% SD Movies, 10% PS3 gaming (NHL 11, perhaps Assassin's creed II and Brotherhood)
> 
> How good is 3D? Are LED TVs any better/worse than plasmas for 3D?



please correct me if I am wrong.

if you have the money you should try and buy the VT20/25.

VT20/25

NeoPDP Panel
3D Support (Glasses included)
24p playback
RS-232C Port
ISFccc Advanced Calibration
Fast-Switching Phosphors
Subwoofer
BBE ViVA HD3D
Infinite Black Pro (Deeper Blacks)

GT20/25

NeoPDP Panel
3D Support (Glasses not included)
2D - 3D Upconversion
Infinite Black

G20/25

NeoPDP Panel
Infinite Black

you can read a review of the VT20/25 here. it should address your concerns.


----------



## n-ster (Jan 6, 2011)

I just found a GT25 for 997$ at US-appliance.com Even after 14% tax (no brokerage as it is made in mexico) it ends up <1140$ (vs 1775$ cheapest in canada tax-in)

I doubt the 1000$ difference in price for the vt25 is worth it. I have also heard that the gt25 isn't too far from the vt25 PQ wise, and certainly not by that much.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 6, 2011)

n-ster said:


> I just found a GT25 for 997$ at US-appliance.com Even after 14% tax (no brokerage as it is made in mexico) it ends up <1140$ (vs 1775$ cheapest in canada tax-in)
> 
> I doubt the 1000$ difference in price for the vt25 is worth it. I have also heard that the gt25 isn't too far from the vt25 PQ wise, and certainly not by that much.



probably not. the VT25 has deeper blacks, doesn't flicker and has settings for Pro Calibration.

Panasonic just unveiled it's 2011 lineup at CES.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-vt30-gt30-st30-3d-tv-20110106980.htm


----------



## n-ster (Jan 6, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> probably not. the VT25 has deeper blacks, doesn't flicker and has settings for Pro Calibration.
> 
> Panasonic just unveiled it's 2011 lineup at CES.
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-vt30-gt30-st30-3d-tv-20110106980.htm



you think I should wait before buying my TV or should I jump on that great GT25 at  997$ deal?


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 6, 2011)

the Panasonic Viera GT25 50" originally cost $2,099.95 USD so if you can buy it for $997 I don't think you should hesitate. Panasonic won't be launching the VT30, GT30 and ST30 series until Spring so don't expect them to come down in price anytime soon


----------



## ericpepin (Jan 14, 2011)

LCD is best....


----------



## n-ster (Jan 14, 2011)

ericpepin said:


> LCD is best....



care to explain yourself or is this just to feel better about you and your tv?


----------



## sliderider (Jan 14, 2011)

LCD definitely. Plasma has to be the worst TV technology going. It basically works like a fluorescent light tube. It has gas inside that gets excited by electricity and produces the picture but just like a fluorescent light the gas breaks down over time until it becomes unresponsive to electricity and your picture slowly becomes more and more washed out until eventually it flickers out entirely. The screens are sealed, so there's no way to recharge the gas once it's burned out and they are also sensitive to bump and drop damage so if you accidentally crack it the gas escapes and it's time to buy a new TV because replacement plasma screens are impossible to get. That's why you see broken plasma TV's for sale on ebay a lot. The owner knows they are impossible to repair so they are trying to salvage whatever money they can from it by unloading it on some sucker who doesn't know they can't be repaired. Once they stop working, there aren't enough reusable parts left to justify the shipping cost which usually runs from $100 to $200 or more because they have to be shipped by freight carrier. FedEx, UPS, and the post office won't touch anything that big.


----------



## silkstone (Jan 14, 2011)

n-ster said:


> care to explain yourself or is this just to feel better about you and your tv?



More like trolling


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 14, 2011)

ericpepin said:


> LCD is best....



Because they are more efficient produce less heat are less prone to failure and don't have people defending them after a couple of years with people saying stuff like they fixed that with this model or better...


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 14, 2011)

> Panasonic VT25 plasma wins HDTV shootout
> 
> New York independent home theater retailer Value Electronics has published the results of its annual 2010 flat-panel TV shootout, which pitted six high-end HDTVs against one another in a side-by-side comparison. The unanimous winner, as voted by the attendees of the event, was the Panasonic TC-P58VT25 plasma TV.
> 
> ...



source

you can watch a higher quality extended version of the HDTV shootout here.

Plasma is staying in my house until OLED technology become mainstream in a couple years.


----------



## freebie (Jan 14, 2011)

LED all the way if you ask me I think its so much clearer and the prices are dropping, or were before the vat increase anyway.


----------



## Peter1986C (Jan 14, 2011)

LED is also LCD. The images are formed the same way, only the backlight is different (LEDs instead of CCFL tubes). Sources: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_TV
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/led-tv-vs-plasma-tv.html


----------



## BumbleBee (Jan 14, 2011)

with Plasma you don't have to worry about blooming, halos, clouding, color accuracy, crosstalk, input lag, artifacts, motion resolution, black levels, viewing angles, price.

it can be a quest to find a LCD that meets your requirements so tell me how is that better?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 14, 2011)

Obviously both LCD and Plasma are good..
Which one is best depends on a lot of factors such as price, Room lighting and viewing needs.

Obviously not everyone is a gamer and not everyone has their TV in a room full of windows nor does everyone have or will use anything above a 720p connection.

One deciding factor for me was my TV location as it would be within 18 inches of my thermostat, when I had my Plasma the temp in my house was never right due to the heat it put off I don't have that issue with my LCD as it does not put off half the heat my Plasma does

Plus my Plasma started fading...i do realize that they fixed that in newer models but imo Plasma's don't look any better than my LCD...but then again that may be my eyesight and color perception


----------

