2010: The Year OLED TV Makes Contact? [Archive]

Woochifer

05-15-2009, 02:04 PM

OLED has been touted for years as one of those magic bullet technologies that will eventually render all existing TV technologies obsolete. Because all current TV technologies have major inherent shortcomings of some kind, it leaves the market open to a new technology that overcomes these existing limitations.

The promise of OLED technology is that it can deliver TVs that are thinner, lighter, and more energy efficient than anything currently on the market, with superior picture quality and performance. And because the screens are less complex than LCDs, OLED panels can eventually be manufactured at a lower cost. Nice concept, but it remains something off in the future.

Up to this point, OLED has been the HDTV equivalent of vaporware -- the only model currently on the market is an 11" portable model by Sony that sells for $2,500. Last year's CES had some larger demo models between 20" and 27" from Samsung and Sony, which raised speculation that production models were just around the corner. Fast forward to this year, the CES OLED demos presented some larger demo models, but no word on when production models would come out.

A BUSY WEEK
But, now it looks like things are starting to heat up, with some of the big players more actively competing to introduce larger sized OLED TVs next year. Just this week, lots of announcements.

First off, Panasonic announced a partnership with Sumitomo Chemical (http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2009/05/12/report-panasonic-sumitomo-teaming-on-oled-tvs/) in which they claim to have resolved some of the current longevity and performance issues with OLED, and outlined a timetable in which they will have jointly developed 40" OLED TVs on the market before the end of 2010. Panasonic had previously been tight-lipped about its OLED plans, but they now seem determined to be first to market with OLED TVs in this screen size. The linked article speculates that Panasonic is looking to transition directly from plasma to OLED, and bypass large format LCDs altogether, which gives them incentive to push harder on advancing OLED tech.

Also this week, Samsung and LG announced an OLED R&D joint venture (http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/05/15/samsung-and-lg-cooperating-on-oled-randd/). This is on top of the joint venture that LG had already inked last month with OLED pioneer Kodak (http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/03/19/lg-teams-with-kodak-for-future-oled-devices?icid=sphere_blogsmith_inpage_engadgethd). These Korean electronics giants are fierce competitors on the LCD and plasma side, and both have been actively developing OLED TVs independently. A joint venture would potentially accelerate the pace of development. Samsung displayed a 40" demo model (http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/30/samsung-drops-jaws-with-40-inch-1080p-oled-display?icid=sphere_blogsmith_inpage_engadgethd) late last year, and there are rumors that they will have a 27" production model out sometime this year. LG previously announced that they would have a 32" OLED TV out in 2010.

Despite being first to market with a production OLED TV, there has been growing speculation about Sony's mixed signals on OLED. They've displayed 27" prototypes for more than a year, but announced nothing new. This week, it seems that these rumors (and presumably the newly announced development activity by competitors) prodded Sony to respond that they will "steadily cultivate" OLED and that nothing about their plans has changed. Home Theatre Choice (http://www.homecinemachoice.com/blogs/team%20hcc/sony%20says%20it%20will%20steadily%20cultivate%20o led%20technology%2020in%20screen%20expected%20summ er%2008%200) indicated that Sony will release a 20" OLED model in September.

So, it looks like the race is on and manufacturers are targeting 2010 as the starting point for OLED. Even though large format OLED screens are poised to reach market soon, it remains to be seen whether OLED lives up to the hype. Early reports indicate that OLED has been hung up by short screen life, issues with color accuracy, and issues with production yields. But, with these rapid-fire announcements this week, it seems that manufacturers are confident that they can at least minimize these lingering issues by the time their initial models come out.

Woochifer

05-15-2009, 05:29 PM

Speaking of fast moving developments ...

SED was once mentioned along side OLED as a potential future successor TV tech, with both Canon and Toshiba collaborating on a joint venture, and even displaying prototype displays for years. SED technology is conceptually closer to traditional CRTs than OLED, and while it cannot replicate the thinness of OLED (or OLED's flexibility and translucency) some people who've seen SED demos claim that it blows everything else away, including OLED. In 2007, it was thought that SED was dead in the water when Toshiba pulled out of the joint venture, and Canon stopped all SED development after they got embroiled in a patent lawsuit.

Well, turns out that Canon prevailed in the lawsuit earlier this year, and it was reported last week that they've now filed a couple of patent applications (http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/05/06/new-us-patents-filed-is-canon-trying-to-revitalize-sed-displays/) for SED technologies. This fuels speculation on whether SED TVs are now back in play. At one point in time, SED TVs were purportedly closer to production than OLED, and Canon (or Toshiba, can't remember) was supposedly readying a 55" production model until they got hit with the patent lawsuit. With 2010 targeted for the debut of large format OLED TVs, are SED TVs also poised to make their market entrance as well?

Smokey

05-15-2009, 10:00 PM

With 2010 targeted for the debut of large format OLED TVs, are SED TVs also poised to make their market entrance as well?

If OLED do launch next year, then SED might be coming little too late to the game. With OLED technology being much thinner and consuming less energy that SED, the market will probably move to former direction. As it is happening now between LCD and Plasma.

blackraven

05-15-2009, 10:30 PM

For those who dont know about SED TV here's a link

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/sed-tv.htm

Mr Peabody

05-17-2009, 04:48 PM

Sounds like something to keep the elves busy in the shop :)

pixelthis

05-17-2009, 10:19 PM

Sounds like something to keep the elves busy in the shop :)

Not a nice thing to call asian factory workers;-)
OLED is going to be it, that is if we surrive the current unopleasantness
(we could all be eating roots next year).
I KNOW PQ is key for this group, myself included, but OLED beats SED in
several pratical areas.
SED is basically "fixed" plasma.
OLED screens can be rolled up, produced in different shapes easily, and when developed
in the future, nano based paint will allow a screen to be painted on a wall.
Economies of scale are teh only thing holding up OLED, get those right and screen life becomes secondary, because at a cheap price they will be easily replaced.
All current tech is a stopgap, OLED is what they will be using in the future.:1:

bobsticks

05-23-2009, 03:27 PM

I can't wait for the opportunity to buy another $11,000 television...

Mr Peabody

05-23-2009, 08:39 PM

I can't wait for the opportunity to buy another $11,000 television...

* "another?" You mean to say you paid that for the first one? Right though, when Plasma hit you couldn't hardly find one for less than $10k. I wonder how many of those are still in service and that was before HDCP and HDMI.

GTF

06-20-2009, 11:18 AM

Woochifer

06-21-2009, 12:29 PM

Any idea if the new OLED TV will finally be free of the motion issues of every LCD TV I see?
No matter what brand, 60hz, 120hz, we're so special brand of LCD they still can't compare to a CRT for fast motion.
I am stuck with my SONY XBR tube until then.

Every screen tech out there has an achilles heel of some sort, and OLED is no exception. With CRT, the issue was its bulk and subsequent limited screen size, and that has basically killed CRT in the market. Didn't matter that CRT remained the highest performing screen tech when the major manufacturers discontinued their CRT lines, consumers want a thin flat big screen.

Right now, the biggest issue with OLED is its screen life, particularly with specific color shades. But, given how young a technology it is, this will probably be readily resolved fairly shortly. That Sumitomo technology that Panasonic licensed has supposedly solved that problem, but we won't know for sure until their OLED sets actually hit the market next year.

OLED supposedly has shorter response times and deeper blacks than plasma, along with brighter images and lower energy consumption than LCD. On paper, this is a winning combination. But, as I said, everything's merely speculation until the actual production sets start coming out.

pixelthis

06-21-2009, 11:17 PM

Every screen tech out there has an achilles heel of some sort, and OLED is no exception. With CRT, the issue was its bulk and subsequent limited screen size, and that has basically killed CRT in the market. Didn't matter that CRT remained the highest performing screen tech when the major manufacturers discontinued their CRT lines, consumers want a thin flat big screen.

"Highest performing tech on the market"?
Merely your opinion.
CRT was inherently limited in size and brightness, the pixels were made out of phosper
and were the primary source of illumination.
MAKE THEM SMALLER FOR HIGHER RES AND YOU GOT LESS LIGHT OUTPUT.
CRT was the ultimate veiwing source...
until the ninties

Right now, the biggest issue with OLED is its screen life, particularly with specific color shades. But, given how young a technology it is, this will probably be readily resolved fairly shortly. That Sumitomo technology that Panasonic licensed has supposedly solved that problem, but we won't know for sure until their OLED sets actually hit the market next year.

A few years behind Sony as usual, and probably full of bugs.
HOW much does the propaganda arm of Pannys marketing dept pay you, anyhoo?
Every one of your posts mentions them.

OLED supposedly has shorter response times and deeper blacks than plasma, along with brighter images and lower energy consumption than LCD. On paper, this is a winning combination. But, as I said, everything's merely speculation until the actual production sets start coming out.

There is no "speculation" about it, OLED has not "deeper" blacks, it has perfect
blacks, since the pixels are the source of light, there is no light when they are off,
therefore perfect blacks, somewhat like CRT.
A properly made LED blacklight can greatly enhance the blacks of LCD today
btw, no need to wait for OLED for a great picture.:1:

Feanor

06-22-2009, 05:40 AM

pixelthis

06-22-2009, 02:49 PM

Feanor

06-22-2009, 05:46 PM

I saw a Sharp aquos on the QVC shopping channel for 795 (five monthly payments)
for a 1080p 42in.
Vizio is a good "el cheapo" model, get nothing but praise for mine.
Can prob get a 42" for less than 800 now, more likely. :1:

Vizio isn't available up in my northern parts. Insignias, (Best Buy), turn up here once in while.

I'm buying nothing until my CRT koinks. By then I hope to get a 46" 1080p model. Sorry, I know you're an LCD advcate, but of the older technologies I think plasma will best suit my needs. For instance THIS (http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926HDS0010115724&catid=23249) Panasonic from Bestbuy.ca.

Mr Peabody

06-22-2009, 07:08 PM

Reticuli

06-22-2009, 10:42 PM

As an early adopter of a stereoscopic head mounted display that uses OLEDs, I can tell you longevity is a major issues, as is pixel brightness/contrast variations. And fixing these with newer technologies is very expensive. I don't know what people are complaining about with ghosting in LCD, though. Even 60hz capable modern LCDs don't have ANY ghosting. I was also waiting for FET/SED and will wait to see how the prices turn out compared to OLED. Aside from the fixed-grain pattern issue of a non-dying OLED, it does indeed have film-like color contrast, though. If the normal brightness with complete blacks is good enough without requiring an overall boost (which washes everything out) and the pixel variation is solved, OLED can look better than CRT. The idea of having to buy insurance on your display like people do with plasma, though, just in case you get one that might die in a year might turn people off. Once you get to the economies of scale you guys are talking about is when you finally start finding out about reliability. They're not going to build a hundred thousand displays and run them for a year to find out how many of them burn out a quarter of the right sides.

Feanor

06-23-2009, 07:25 AM

I don't know what's under the hood of Pro Scan but Costco has been selling them at crazy prices like a 46" LCD for $429.00 U.S.

I didn't check the settings I didn't care at the time but walking through Best Buy I saw an Insignia LCD they were using for a Wii game console and it looked terrible, very bright with the colors washed out. Wii is standard Def but the picture was so bad it really stuck out in my mind.

Up here in the GWN, Costco isn't offering that ProSan. In fact the cheapest 46" 1080p they've got is THIS (http://www.costco.ca/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=10320103&whse=BCCA&Ne=4000000&eCat=BCCA|79|2341|3316&N=4008767&Mo=18&pos=0&No=8&Nr=P_CatalogName:BCCA&cat=3316&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-CA&Sp=C&ec=BCCA-EC13271-Cat2341&topnav=) Sceptre LCD for C$1000. They don't offer any 46"+ 1080p plasmas under C$2000, surprisingly, but I maybe they think like Pixelthis when it comes to plasma.

BB.ca isn't advertising any Insignias at the moment.

Woochifer

06-23-2009, 10:47 AM

"Highest performing tech on the market"?
Merely your opinion.
CRT was inherently limited in size and brightness, the pixels were made out of phosper
and were the primary source of illumination.
MAKE THEM SMALLER FOR HIGHER RES AND YOU GOT LESS LIGHT OUTPUT.
CRT was the ultimate veiwing source...
until the ninties

I'd already mentioned the size limitation. But, on all the other performance parameters, CRTs performed better than any of the flat panel techs. Unless you're trying to use your TV as a tanning salon, maximum light output is irrelevant if the calibrated levels on a CRT already exceed the reference levels.

A few years behind Sony as usual, and probably full of bugs.

Behind Sony only because they never bothered to rush out an 11" model to the market, which BTW still costs $2,500 and has a screen life less than half that of a typical LCD or plasma TV. Sony supposedly only has a 20" OLED TV in the works, while Samsung, LG, and Panny are looking to get larger models onto the market beginning late this year and into next year. (try reading the original post in this thread)

Every one of your posts mentions them.

Have you actually read all 5,800+ of my posts? Obviously not.

There is no "speculation" about it, OLED has not "deeper" blacks, it has perfect
blacks, since the pixels are the source of light, there is no light when they are off,
therefore perfect blacks, somewhat like CRT.
A properly made LED blacklight can greatly enhance the blacks of LCD today
btw, no need to wait for OLED for a great picture.:1:

And OLED has the promise of an even better picture, without all the inherent drawbacks and bandaids of LCD.

Woochifer

06-23-2009, 11:32 AM

Practical advice, please, Wooch.

That is the relevance of OLED or LED for that matter for a poor person like me who might be replacing a CRT in the next year of so?? Frankly it looks like diddly zip to me.

My budget is limited and my video requirement is best I can get within my budget. However I'm not a video performance perfectionist, I'd trade some performance for reliability and practicality.

So ... do you have a practical recommendation for 46 - 50" HDTV? I don't watch sports and I don't required high brightness since my TH room is in a dingy basement.

If maximum brightness is not an issue, then I would look into an entry level plasma. In the U.S., a 50" plasma will start around $800 for a 720p model and about $1,200 for a 1080p. Last year, there were also 46" 1080p plasmas going for around $1,000, and 1080p 42" models going for around $800. Both Panasonic and Samsung make very good plasma TVs in those price ranges, and Panasonic has had the lowest three-year failure rate among all TVs. LG's plasma sets are a slight step down in picture quality, but they generally less expensive.

LCD models are also available around that price range, but in the lower price points, the picture quality is not as good as what you'd get with an equally priced plasma set. Sony and Samsung are the ones you should start with if you want to go with LCD. Higher end models with 120 Hz refresh rates and/or LED backlighting are definitely a step up in picture quality, but you obviously pay more.

Up here in the GWN, Costco isn't offering that ProSan. In fact the cheapest 46" 1080p they've got is THIS Sceptre LCD for C$1000. They don't offer any 46"+ 1080p plasmas under C$2000, surprisingly, but I maybe they think like Pixelthis when it comes to plasma.

BB.ca isn't advertising any Insignias at the moment.

That right, forgot that you're dealing with Canadian retailers. I remember that the Costco specials were not available up there. Too bad. At least Costco is constantly rotating their inventory, and you never know what will show up on any given week (see my thread on the $69 Denon universal players).

Beware of off-brand companies like Proscan and Sceptre. Their warranty support is typically a lot narrower than what you get from a name brand company, and once you're out of the warranty period, you might be totally out of luck if the TV breaks since these companies usually do not maintain spare parts inventories or service manuals.

The current trend is for off-brand companies to license defunct brand names for their TVs, which just adds to the confusion for consumers. Proscan, for example, used to be the high end label for RCA. But, now Proscan is just a label that Thomson (RCA's parent company) licensed to an otherwise anonymous outsource manufacturer. Same thing goes for Westinghouse, Polaroid, Sylvania, and Curtis Mathes TVs -- all of these former U.S. manufacturing stalwarts are nothing more than licensed labels for overseas companies selling low end products.

pixelthis

06-23-2009, 01:27 PM

Vizio isn't available up in my northern parts. Insignias, (Best Buy), turn up here once in while.

I'm buying nothing until my CRT koinks. By then I hope to get a 46" 1080p model. Sorry, I know you're an LCD advcate, but of the older technologies I think plasma will best suit my needs. For instance THIS (http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926HDS0010115724&catid=23249) Panasonic from Bestbuy.ca.

Better hurry, there are only a few manufacturers left.
One thing that is going to kill plasma more than anything is ssomething called economies of scale.
There are technical reasons it will never be produced in the quanties you can produce LCD.
And nobodies going to pay 1200 bucks for a 46" plasma when you can get a LCD for
800, which is the way prices are heading.
With the expensive glass tubes and other paraphenelia required for plasma there is only so cheap that it can get.
With LCD the floors teh limit on price.:1:

pixelthis

06-23-2009, 01:38 PM

I'd already mentioned the size limitation. But, on all the other performance parameters, CRTs performed better than any of the flat panel techs. Unless you're trying to use your TV as a tanning salon, maximum light output is irrelevant if the calibrated levels on a CRT already exceed the reference levels.

The usual doublespeak. If the thing is so dim you can't see it it is not a viable option.
CRT was around for decades and the best it got was a huge 42" console that weighed hundreds of pounds.
Its not that the thousands of engineers working on CRT over the decades were stupid,
the tech itself was limited, and used only out of nessesity

Behind Sony only because they never bothered to rush out an 11" model to the market, which BTW still costs $2,500 and has a screen life less than half that of a typical LCD or plasma TV. Sony supposedly only has a 20" OLED TV in the works, while Samsung, LG, and Panny are looking to get larger models onto the market beginning late this year and into next year. (try reading the original post in this thread)

Sure its a novelty item, but at least its something

Have you actually read all 5,800+ of my posts? Obviously not.

My bad, almost all of your posts mention PANASONIC

And OLED has the promise of an even better picture, without all the inherent drawbacks and bandaids of LCD.

GREAT PROPAGANDA, mention the "baindaids" of LCD, which are actually just the cost of doing buisiness, and fail to mention the massive amout of "bandaids" required
just to keep a picture from burning in on a plasma, the format of choice from your buddies at Panasonic, who are one of the two or three makers of this defunct format
that is heading for its rightfull place in the tech boneyard.:1:

Woochifer

06-23-2009, 01:41 PM

I don't know what's under the hood of Pro Scan but Costco has been selling them at crazy prices like a 46" LCD for $429.00 U.S.

I didn't check the settings I didn't care at the time but walking through Best Buy I saw an Insignia LCD they were using for a Wii game console and it looked terrible, very bright with the colors washed out. Wii is standard Def but the picture was so bad it really stuck out in my mind.

Probably watching the default setting. Before anyone evaluates any TV, they need to tinker with the settings to see what the actual picture quality looks like when the image is adjusted closer to reference levels. The default settings are all over the place, and more often than not look like what you describe -- way too bright, inaccurate colors, bloomed out lines, etc. Even sets made by the same manufacturer can have huge differences in the default picture settings between different models.

As mentioned above, Proscan is basically a label that got licensed and slapped onto an off-brand TV. Shrewd (if not entirely honest) move given that Proscan was RCA's premium brand up until about 10 years ago, and many consumers who don't regularly shop for TVs might think they're getting a top level TV for that bargain price.

BTW, that $330 Costco price on the Proscan is for a 32" TV, and they have a 40" Proscan model selling for $500 this month.

Woochifer

06-23-2009, 02:04 PM

The usual doublespeak. If the thing is so dim you can't see it it is not a viable option.
CRT was around for decades and the best it got was a huge 42" console that weighed hundreds of pounds.
Its not that the thousands of engineers working on CRT over the decades were stupid,
the tech itself was limited, and used only out of nessesity

Yeah, and that bulk is why consumers didn't buy them at that size. Performance of flat panel TVs are only now even getting close to what CRTs offered up. That's why professional studios still use CRTs. And even now, fixed-pixel flat panels generally do a piss poor job of rescaling SD sources, which is what many channels still use.

My bad, almost all of your posts mention PANASONIC

Wow, you actually corrected yourself! (See that wasn't so bad! :lol: ) But, you'd still be wrong if you actually bother to read my posts. Nice try though. :out:

GREAT PROPAGANDA, mention the "baindaids" of LCD, which are actually just the cost of doing buisiness, and fail to mention the massive amout of "bandaids" required
just to keep a picture from burning in on a plasma, the format of choice from your buddies at Panasonic, who are one of the two or three makers of this defunct format
that is heading for its rightfull place in the tech boneyard.:1:

More wishful thinking on your part. :out:

Cost of doing business? Actually, bandaids like motion interpolation and scanning backlights were put into high end LCD TVs just so their motion resolution and contrast performance could come close to what entry level plasma TVs already delivered at half the price. Burn in on plasmas is a nonissue with newer models because of improvements to the panel design itself.

Are you saying that an LCD's picture quality is so good that OLED's no longer needed?

Feanor

06-23-2009, 02:48 PM

Better hurry, there are only a few manufacturers left.
One thing that is going to kill plasma more than anything is ssomething called economies of scale.
There are technical reasons it will never be produced in the quanties you can produce LCD.
And nobodies going to pay 1200 bucks for a 46" plasma when you can get a LCD for
800, which is the way prices are heading.
With the expensive glass tubes and other paraphenelia required for plasma there is only so cheap that it can get.
With LCD the floors teh limit on price.:1:

Here's the thing, Pix. When I look around at my local options, the LCDs are not cheaper than the plasmas.

Mr Peabody

06-23-2009, 07:06 PM

Woochifer

06-23-2009, 07:26 PM

I'm afraid you are right, I could have sworn one of my email had a 46" but I only found the $499.00 40" which is still a cheap set at that size.

You can add to the list of ressorected names the Sansui brand. I saw a Sansui TV at Wal-Mart over the weekend.

Yeah, Sansui, Sylvania, and Philips are now all brands owned/licensed by Funai. In the case of Philips, Funai only makes the Philips-branded TVs sold in North America, while Philips still makes their own TVs for markets elsewhere in the world. As if things weren't confusing enough.

pixelthis

06-23-2009, 08:39 PM

Yeah, and that bulk is why consumers didn't buy them at that size. Performance of flat panel TVs are only now even getting close to what CRTs offered up. That's why professional studios still use CRTs. And even now, fixed-pixel flat panels generally do a piss poor job of rescaling SD sources, which is what many channels still use.

I get so tired of you CRT worshipers.
Like a stone ax was all a caveman had, so was CRT the only thing we had.
Lead lined to keep from killing the users with X-RAYS, bulky, short lived.
GOOD RIDDANCE

Wow, you actually corrected yourself! (See that wasn't so bad! :lol: ) But, you'd still be wrong if you actually bother to read my posts. Nice try though. :out:

GIVE UP, practically anybody who reads this site on a regular basis knows you're a Panny shill

Cost of doing business? Actually, bandaids like motion interpolation and scanning backlights were put into high end LCD TVs just so their motion resolution and contrast performance could come close to what entry level plasma TVs already delivered at half the price. Burn in on plasmas is a nonissue with newer models because of improvements to the panel design itself.

Inprovements in the PANEL design?
Special circuits that have the picture jumping around like a grasshopper, the picture cycles on and off, and while you can't see it, it cuts visible brightness by fifty percent.
AND A HOST OF OTHER "BANDAIDS" that try to fix an inherently flawed design

Are you saying that an LCD's picture quality is so good that OLED's no longer needed?

I AM SAYING THAT the best aspect of picture is having a picture.
Which LCD will have long after the last plasma has bitten the dust.
You and a host of other Panny shills are just trying to keep sales up so they can recoup
some of the cash they spent on that shiny new plasma tv factory.
As for LCD THE ANSWER USED TO BE no it probably can't reach OLED standards,
but with new LED backlights it can get a lot closer than plasma ever will.:1:

pixelthis

06-23-2009, 08:47 PM

Here's the thing, Pix. When I look around at my local options, the LCDs are not cheaper than the plasmas.

Sometimes a plasma is cheaper, because they are trying to prop up sales.
When I went to SAMS to help a friend buy a set(SAMSUNG) the Pioneer plasma
was the dimmest, fuzziest of the bunch.
I heard one guy say "I thought plasma had a better picture".
To the objective observer LCD is the only way to go.
Why do people still praise plasma?
Just a guess, but since they use phosper(the reason for their burn-in issues) hence they will resemble the color of a CRT more closely, which is what most grew up with.:1:

zepman1

06-24-2009, 05:15 AM

Sometimes a plasma is cheaper, because they are trying to prop up sales.
When I went to SAMS to help a friend buy a set(SAMSUNG) the Pioneer plasma
was the dimmest, fuzziest of the bunch.
I heard one guy say "I thought plasma had a better picture".
To the objective observer LCD is the only way to go.
Why do people still praise plasma?
Just a guess, but since they use phosper(the reason for their burn-in issues) hence they will resemble the color of a CRT more closely, which is what most grew up with.:1:

Plasma has been cheaper for sometime, and is generally always cheaper than LCD these days. There are certainly benefits to LCD panels, but I don't know how anyone could really think LCD picture looks better than plasma. I mean if you are comparing similarly priced sets, the difference in black levels, motion resolution, and contrast isn't even that close. Other than energy savings and brightness what benefits does LCD provide?

And in most situations brightness is irrelevent because on my plasma, the brightness is set at around 50-60% when properly calibrated. On my LCD it is properly set at around 45%. The extra brightness of LCD panels is only useful if you like watching it in nuclear holocaust mode.

Colors should be calibrated to the HDTV spec and in a perfect world would be the same on all tv's. Plasma colors look better because of the superior contrast.

Groundbeef

06-24-2009, 09:03 AM

Woochifer

06-24-2009, 10:18 AM

I get so tired of you CRT worshipers.
Like a stone ax was all a caveman had, so was CRT the only thing we had.
Lead lined to keep from killing the users with X-RAYS, bulky, short lived.
GOOD RIDDANCE

Yet, CRTs are still used in high end applications where performance matters and WAF doesn't.

GIVE UP, practically anybody who reads this site on a regular basis knows you're a Panny shill

Actually, the regulars on this site can see that when facts aren't on your side, out come Pixie's baseless accusations and personal attacks. Case in point.

Inprovements in the PANEL design?
Special circuits that have the picture jumping around like a grasshopper, the picture cycles on and off, and while you can't see it, it cuts visible brightness by fifty percent.
AND A HOST OF OTHER "BANDAIDS" that try to fix an inherently flawed design

Uh, yeah ... check the calendar, it's 2009 y'know? Plasma panels have gone through many improvements over the last few years. The so-called bandaids that you talk about aren't even relevant to the newest plasma models. Try citing some updated info before going to the burn-in card for the umpteenth time, and try actually watching a plasma TV up close rather than through a security camera feed. At least this time you're not talking about metal shipping containers. :out:

I AM SAYING THAT the best aspect of picture is having a picture.

That explains why the Panny plasmas have had a better reliability record than all of the LCD brands?

And boy are you a poster child to talk about reliability, since all you ever do is switch out your TV every few months! :rolleyes:

You and a host of other Panny shills are just trying to keep sales up so they can recoup
some of the cash they spent on that shiny new plasma tv factory.

Why would I care what they spent on their plants? I already bought my TV, and everybody else on this board who bought a Panny plasma within the last couple of years seems quite content. You're the only one here that obsesses about where Panasonic invests their money, and the only one that seems to have a problem with people who are happy with their TVs.

As for LCD THE ANSWER USED TO BE no it probably can't reach OLED standards,
but with new LED backlights it can get a lot closer than plasma ever will.:1:

Even with LED backlighting, LCDs still cannot match the contrast of high end plasmas. And as pointed out in reviews of the high end Sonys and Samsungs, scanning LED-backlighting has the side effect of further narrowing an LCD's already narrow viewing angle. I doubt that's "closer" to OLED. :out:

Woochifer

06-24-2009, 10:43 AM

Plasma has been cheaper for sometime, and is generally always cheaper than LCD these days. There are certainly benefits to LCD panels, but I don't know how anyone could really think LCD picture looks better than plasma. I mean if you are comparing similarly priced sets, the difference in black levels, motion resolution, and contrast isn't even that close. Other than energy savings and brightness what benefits does LCD provide?

And in most situations brightness is irrelevent because on my plasma, the brightness is set at around 50-60% when properly calibrated. On my LCD it is properly set at around 45%. The extra brightness of LCD panels is only useful if you like watching it in nuclear holocaust mode.

Colors should be calibrated to the HDTV spec and in a perfect world would be the same on all tv's. Plasma colors look better because of the superior contrast.

That's because most people watch their TVs at home, rather in flood-lit warehouse clubs. If you're used to watching a calibrated screen, which I had been for the better part of 7 years, the benefits of plasma are very apparent after adjusting the picture out of the torch mode. The newer higher end LCDs are much improved over what I saw a couple of years ago, but at the same time, the plasma performance has greatly improved as well.

Also, the approaches that LCD TVs have used to improve the contrast and motion resolution performance can also do nasty things to the picture. For example, motion interpolation (referred to as Motionflow, and other names) bumps the motion resolution up closer to plasma levels, but it also makes film images look like they were shot on a camcorder. You can switch the motion interpolation off, but that brings the motion resolution back down as well.

One irony is that the newest thin-panel plasmas have nearly doubled the maximum light output, while the strobing CCFLs used on many of the new "240 Hz" LCDs have the side effect of reducing the light output by about 50%.

I was at my parents house this weekend. They have a Sony LCD. I had set the brightness down a bit after I visited the last time. Apparently they didn't like it, and set it to factory maximum.

I had to wear my sunglasses AND put on sunscreen. If that screen lasts another year I'll be suprised.

My in-laws have their Samsung set the same way. It's a brightly lit room, but that high brightness setting just blurs the images and I've noticed color banding on their set as well. Of course, they didn't know they weren't watching HD either until I pointed out which channels on their dish were in HD. :cool:

pixelthis

06-24-2009, 12:57 PM

pixelthis

06-24-2009, 01:00 PM

I was at my parents house this weekend. They have a Sony LCD. I had set the brightness down a bit after I visited the last time. Apparently they didn't like it, and set it to factory maximum.

I had to wear my sunglasses AND put on sunscreen. If that screen lasts another year I'll be suprised.

You can run a LCD at full blast and it will last 20 years at least, prob 27.
OLDER people like their TV BRIGHT, and I am beginning to understand why.
Outside in the daylight I don't need my glasses at all.:1:

GMichael

06-24-2009, 01:06 PM

You can run a LCD at full blast and it will last 20 years at least, prob 27.
OLDER people like their TV BRIGHT, and I am beginning to understand why.
Outside in the daylight I don't need my glasses at all.:1:

If you are going to be watching your TV while outside, then LCD is the way to go. Is that what you mean by a normally lit room? Sky lights or florescent bulbs?
My dad seems to love watching his plasma on his deck surrounded on three sides by sliding glass doors. How bright does it need to be? Have you had your eyes checked lately?

pixelthis

06-24-2009, 01:23 PM

Yet, CRTs are still used in high end applications where performance matters and WAF doesn't.

This is more a matter of economics rather than anything else.
Most businesses use stuff till it breaks.
I knew several that were still using 286 computers in the ninties.
These CRT's will be replaced as they break, and as HD becomes more common

Actually, the regulars on this site can see that when facts aren't on your side, out come Pixie's baseless accusations and personal attacks. Case in point.

Truth is its not a "personal" attack to sttate the facts, and tehefact is that you are a Panny shill.
You even have mentioned them quite a bit on this thread, quite a bit of gall to state that something is untrue and be openly doing it at the same time

Uh, yeah ... check the calendar, it's 2009 y'know? Plasma panels have gone through many improvements over the last few years. The so-called bandaids that you talk about aren't even relevant to the newest plasma models. Try citing some updated info before going to the burn-in card for the umpteenth time, and try actually watching a plasma TV up close rather than through a security camera feed. At least this time you're not talking about metal shipping containers. :out:

Not "relevant"?
Try running one without the anti-burn in circuits on and see how relevant they are.
And there are a few things even bandaids wont fix, like phosper fade after a few years
and gas leakage.
Just like CRT you will have to adjust brightness up as the phosper fades, because as it shines it is used.
When you can't do that anymore the set will be dead

That explains why the Panny plasmas have had a better reliability record than all of the LCD brands?

Panny has a better record than any brand as far as qc goes, BUT IN A FEW YEARS TO A DECADE YOU WILL FIND OUT THAT EVEN THEY HAVE LIMITATIONS
(hey, I thought you didnt mention these guys)

And boy are you a poster child to talk about reliability, since all you ever do is switch out your TV every few months! :rolleyes:

Reliability is very important to me, since relatives and friends usually get my older gear,
be hard to face them if I SOLD THEM JUNK.

Why would I care what they spent on their plants? I already bought my TV, and everybody else on this board who bought a Panny plasma within the last couple of years seems quite content. You're the only one here that obsesses about where Panasonic invests their money, and the only one that seems to have a problem with people who are happy with their TVs.

JUST STATING THEIR MOTIVATIONS FOR PLANTING SHILLS LIKE YOU ALL OVER THE NET TO talk about the non-existent "inferiority" of LCD and supposed
"superiority" of plasma, main one of which seems to be a slightly better black level,
and even that is overtaken by new LED models.
And with a bunch of skewed "facts", either untrue or irrelevant.
Not that it matters, most like their TV in a lit family room, they like their TV brighter than a plasma can deliver without serious burn-in.
Thats why there are only a few makers of plasma left, Panny wouldn't be making them if they didn't have a new factory to amorartize.
Which is why plasma is DEAD

Even with LED backlighting, LCDs still cannot match the contrast of high end plasmas. And as pointed out in reviews of the high end Sonys and Samsungs, scanning LED-backlighting has the side effect of further narrowing an LCD's already narrow viewing angle. I doubt that's "closer" to OLED. :out:[

178 DEGREES IS HARDLY "NARROW", and that is a rare application of LED AND YOU KNOW IT.
Intelligent backlighting beats the pants off of plasma without sacrificing brightness,
and is going to be the final nail in plasmas coffin:1:

Smokey

06-24-2009, 08:55 PM

Even with LED backlighting, LCDs still cannot match the contrast of high end plasmas.

I don't know Wooch, but that might be an over statement. With LED backlighting LCD that have localized dimming capabilty, their contrast does rival the best of Plasma TVs.

ConsumerReports did an evaluation of two LED LCD TVs, and I quote:

"The 55-inch Samsung LN55A950 and the 46-inch Sony Bravia KDL-46XBR8, rival plasma sets in their ability to display the deep, inky blacks that give images cinematic appeal."

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-computers/tvs-services/hdtv/lcd-tvs/led-backlight/overview/led-backlight-ov.htm?Extkey=SY95PI0&CMP=KNC-CROVMYSSP&HBX_OU=51&PK=yssp

zepman1

06-25-2009, 05:36 AM

Brightness is not irrelavant, because burn in can occur even at 50%.
You must be watching that set in the dark.
And black levels on new LED powered backlights are far superior to anything a plasma
can provide, ever.
If you want to watch TV in a normally lit room, or even one with a backlight, LCD has plasma beat, also on lifespan of the set, as you will find out.:1:

Unless you're talking about plasma tv's made 5 years ago burn in is a complete non-issue. I have seen no eveidence of burn in or image retention after gaming or watching tv with the black sidebars.

Brightness is properly set with home theater calibration discs, under typical ambient lighting, enough to do some light reading. TV brightness is set accordingly and is around 60% if I recall. With room lights turned all the way up, brightness is still more than adequate with no adjustment. Room lighting is on dimmers, so completely adjustable. I own an 50" LCD as well, and the plasma performs just as well in brightly lit conditions. If you have sunlight coming in shining the tv, then yes, the LCD is better. But if I want to watch tv during the day (rare) I will pull the shade anyhow.

Black levels of LED backlit LCDs are actually very comparable to high end plasmas, but to say they are far superior is an exxageration on your part. But hell, I spent a lot less on my plasma than the LED backlit tvs cost, and my black levels are superb.

The new plasma panels have something like a 20 year lifespan if you watch it 8 hours a day. I watch probably 2 hours a day on average, so I should get 80 years out of my panel. Hopefully by then I will be dead, so it won't be an issue for me.

I bought a plasma because the picture is better than anything a comparably priced LCD can provide, and it isn't even that close. I could care less about your mythical burn-in and life span issues. You keep worrying about those for me, and I will just enjoy watching my the spectacular picture my plasma provides. Let me know when the phospors are all burned out, I'm sure it will be any day now.

Woochifer

06-25-2009, 10:11 AM

This is more a matter of economics rather than anything else.
Most businesses use stuff till it breaks.
I knew several that were still using 286 computers in the ninties.
These CRT's will be replaced as they break, and as HD becomes more common

How would it be a matter of economics when I was referring to high end applications where performance matters above all? The reason why so many mastering studios and broadcast facilities have not switched out their CRTs is because the flat panel alternatives are still a step down in picture quality.

Truth is its not a "personal" attack to sttate the facts, and tehefact is that you are a Panny shill.
You even have mentioned them quite a bit on this thread, quite a bit of gall to state that something is untrue and be openly doing it at the same time

The fact is that you resort to the usual name calling when you don't have anything constructive to add to a discussion. Calling someone a shill is not fact because it's nothing more than your slanted opinion.

BTW, I mention Panny in this thread because their OLED plans are relevant to the original topic. And just in case your reading comprehension has taken a turn for the worse, you notice that the OLED plans for other manufacturers were mentioned as well?

Not "relevant"?
Try running one without the anti-burn in circuits on and see how relevant they are.
And there are a few things even bandaids wont fix, like phosper fade after a few years
and gas leakage.
Just like CRT you will have to adjust brightness up as the phosper fades, because as it shines it is used.
When you can't do that anymore the set will be dead

Again, check the calendar. The date might surprise you. Time moves on, but apparently the info you cite doesn't.

Panny has a better record than any brand as far as qc goes, BUT IN A FEW YEARS TO A DECADE YOU WILL FIND OUT THAT EVEN THEY HAVE LIMITATIONS

And for consumers like you who throw out their TVs before the warranty even expires, why is this important to you?

Reliability is very important to me, since relatives and friends usually get my older gear,
be hard to face them if I SOLD THEM JUNK.

But, not important enough to keep it for yourself.

JUST STATING THEIR MOTIVATIONS FOR PLANTING SHILLS LIKE YOU ALL OVER THE NET TO talk about the non-existent "inferiority" of LCD and supposed
"superiority" of plasma, main one of which seems to be a slightly better black level,
and even that is overtaken by new LED models.

The performance advantage of plasma has been bourne out in test after test. LED models have merely matched the contrast levels of plasma sets that cost half as much. Claiming that Panny is "planting shills ... all over the net" is nothing more than sour grapes. Heaven forbid if a happy customer has to keep quiet about their purchase because some conspiracy-spouting LCD/Vizio fanboy will accuse them of shilling! :out:

And with a bunch of skewed "facts", either untrue or irrelevant.

Untruth is something you know quite a bit about, given how often you state it.

Not that it matters, most like their TV in a lit family room, they like their TV brighter than a plasma can deliver without serious burn-in.

And in a typical lit family room, the plasma picture will still look better.

Thats why there are only a few makers of plasma left, Panny wouldn't be making them if they didn't have a new factory to amorartize.

There never were a lot of plasma manufacturers to begin with. Panasonic wouldn't be making plasma TVs if they didn't also sell millions of them every year.

Which is why plasma is DEAD

:out:

178 DEGREES IS HARDLY "NARROW", and that is a rare application of LED AND YOU KNOW IT.

Multiple reviews of the Samsung and Sony LED TVs have noted the color shifts that occur when sitting off-angle. 178 degrees is a spec for where a visible picture occurs, but the picture quality begins to decline well before that and even sooner on the scanning LED-lit TVs.

Intelligent backlighting beats the pants off of plasma without sacrificing brightness,
and is going to be the final nail in plasmas coffin:1:

Not if the TVs themselves cost twice as much. :3:

Woochifer

06-25-2009, 10:25 AM

I don't know Wooch, but that might be an over statement. With LED backlighting LCD that have localized dimming capabilty, their contrast does rival the best of Plasma TVs.

ConsumerReports did an evaluation of two LED LCD TVs, and I quote:

"The 55-inch Samsung LN55A950 and the 46-inch Sony Bravia KDL-46XBR8, rival plasma sets in their ability to display the deep, inky blacks that give images cinematic appeal."

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-computers/tvs-services/hdtv/lcd-tvs/led-backlight/overview/led-backlight-ov.htm?Extkey=SY95PI0&CMP=KNC-CROVMYSSP&HBX_OU=51&PK=yssp

Those TVs also cost about twice as much as a plasma set with roughly equal performance. CR does not base their rankings on any benchmark tests, and the tests I recall still showed these LED sets falling short of the top performing plasmas.

Unless you're talking about plasma tv's made 5 years ago burn in is a complete non-issue. I have seen no eveidence of burn in or image retention after gaming or watching tv with the black sidebars.

Actually, pix is typically talking about TVs from 10 years ago. He still resurrects the long defunct burn-in argument, but at least this time he refrained from talking about how plasma TVs have to come in metal containers! :out:

pixelthis

06-25-2009, 12:28 PM

If you are going to be watching your TV while outside, then LCD is the way to go. Is that what you mean by a normally lit room? Sky lights or florescent bulbs?
My dad seems to love watching his plasma on his deck surrounded on three sides by sliding glass doors. How bright does it need to be? Have you had your eyes checked lately?

wHAT I "mean" is that the old eyes aint what they used to be, in other words the more light the better I see.
STILL RUN MY lcd AT 45% THO:1:

pixelthis

06-25-2009, 01:44 PM

]
How would it be a matter of economics when I was referring to high end applications where performance matters above all? The reason why so many mastering studios and broadcast facilities have not switched out their CRTs is because the flat panel alternatives are still a step down in picture quality.

The "reason" most havent switched over from CRT is money, there are several flat panels that are better, but most such businesses are just that... business.
They dont get rid of anything unless its usuless or broken.
At the hospital where I work the CRT is a distant memory.
Doctors need an accurate display when doing endoscophy, etc.
And teh IS guy I talk to has told me that the doctors and techs love the new flat screens

The fact is that you resort to the usual name calling when you don't have anything constructive to add to a discussion. Calling someone a shill is not fact because it's nothing more than your slanted opinion.

I'll let the "facts" speak for themselves.
And teh fact is that you are a panny shill

BTW, I mention Panny in this thread because their OLED plans are relevant to the original topic. And just in case your reading comprehension has taken a turn for the worse, you notice that the OLED plans for other manufacturers were mentioned as well?

Go back through the thread and count how many times you mentioned Panny as opposed to other brands

Again, check the calendar. The date might surprise you. Time moves on, but apparently the info you cite doesn't.

As opposed to the "info" you cite, which is either wrong or misleading.
You keep talking about picture res dropping during motion on a progressive screen,
this doesnt happen

And for consumers like you who throw out their TVs before the warranty even expires, why is this important to you?

I have already answered this, besides a well built Tv is usually designed well in other areas

The performance advantage of plasma has been bourne out in test after test. LED models have merely matched the contrast levels of plasma sets that cost half as much. Claiming that Panny is "planting shills ... all over the net" is nothing more than sour grapes. Heaven forbid if a happy customer has to keep quiet about their purchase because some conspiracy-spouting LCD/Vizio fanboy will accuse them of shilling! :out:

Sour grapes?
In case you haven't noticed my side is winning.
There are only like two plasma manufacturers left, and they are getting harder and harder to find.
The vote is in, and LCD is the winner.
And as LED backlights become more prevalent plasma is going to continue to lose ground

And in a typical lit family room, the plasma picture will still look better.

SO WHERE ARE ALL OF THOSE PLASMA BUYERS?

There never were a lot of plasma manufacturers to begin with. Panasonic wouldn't be making plasma TVs if they didn't also sell millions of them every year.

I WILL MAKE YOU THIS GUARENTEE, as soon as Panny can get out of plasma without losing face...THEY WILL:1:

Multiple reviews of the Samsung and Sony LED TVs have noted the color shifts that occur when sitting off-angle. 178 degrees is a spec for where a visible picture occurs, but the picture quality begins to decline well before that and even sooner on the scanning LED-lit TVs.

I JUST SAW ONE OF THOSE, and since you insist on sitting 90 defrees to the side of a picture I checked this.
The picture looked just as good almost to the point of not being able to see it:1:

Mr Peabody

06-25-2009, 06:59 PM

Is there any truth to the charge that Plasma sets will dim in brightness after so much time? I watch my TV with a bright vivid picture, it's my eyes. So any dimming is a big concern for me. I haven't sat and watched a Samsung or Sony LCD but the sets that I have seen just has sort of an unnatural look to them. It's hard to put into words, it's like you are watching a light or projection, is maybe a lack of depth. It's not the projection because I don't get this from old RPTV or DLP. I did see a Samsung LED/LCD at Sears when I was getting my hot water heater, briefly. It did look like there was potential. I have a Sharp Aquos 26". It's only 720p. The picture is good for LCD but I get that sense I was describing from that set and it is supposed to be one of the better brands. Of course, LCD has probably progressed a lot sense my Aquos was current.

I'll have to get a picture of the family watching TV, the wife and kids gathered around watching with their sunglasses on. I'd have to think sunglasses would cast some influence on the picture perceived :) So much for their opinion on any test disc.

pixelthis

06-25-2009, 07:46 PM

zepman1

06-26-2009, 04:53 AM

]

SO WHERE ARE ALL OF THOSE PLASMA BUYERS?

I know lots of people with plasmas, they are the people who actually care about getting the best picture and haven't bought into all the myths (burn-in). Others simply don't care, or do not even realize plasma is better. Kind of like all those people that buy Bose. Its expensive, and they sell a lot, so it must be the best right? I know a lot of people like this too.

Nothing wrong with either viewpoint in my mind. LCD has come a long way in picture quality, and plasma has eliminated all the issues it had (energy use, burn-in, weight, panel life). Both are good choices for different reasons. Although I still cannot understand how picture quality is even a point of contention. Most people though (just like high end audio) don't know the difference between the two and just don't care. LCD used to be a lot cheaper so I think people are more familiar with it and go that route more often then not, unless picture quality is the prime concern.

Talk to a salesman at any mid to high end electronics store and ask them what you should get. They will all tell you the same thing, and it isn't going to be LCD. They are probably just Panasonic shills though...

Mr. Peabody:

Phosphor dimming is still an issue with plasma, sort of. New panels are said to have a useful life of around 100,000 hours. At 8 hours a day of watching tv, this is 34 years. This is described as the point at which brightness is decreased to 50%. Since brightness is typically calibrated around 50-60% on plasmas, you have room to adjust it upwards over time, if needed. Most people should easily get 25 years out of the panel.

I use mine maybe 2 hours a day, so in theory it will last me 137 years. By that time, I will be dead, and other components will have failed long ago. Panel life used to be MUCH shorter than this but that has changed in recent years.

pixelthis

06-26-2009, 01:52 PM

[QUOTE=zepman1]I know lots of people with plasmas, they are the people who actually care about getting the best picture and haven't bought into all the myths (burn-in). Others simply don't care, or do not even realize plasma is better. Kind of like all those people that buy Bose. Its expensive, and they sell a lot, so it must be the best right? I know a lot of people like this too.

I am somebody whio cares about getting the best "picture", which is why I don't care for the dim, fuzzy picture of a plasma.
Why do most like plasma? Its phosper based, which is what they are used to.
It looks like what they think a set should look like

Nothing wrong with either viewpoint in my mind. LCD has come a long way in picture quality, and plasma has eliminated all the issues it had (energy use, burn-in, weight, panel life). Both are good choices for different reasons. Although I still cannot understand how picture quality is even a point of contention. Most people though (just like high end audio) don't know the difference between the two and just don't care. LCD used to be a lot cheaper so I think people are more familiar with it and go that route more often then not, unless picture quality is the prime concern.

I know the "difference" and care a great deal, and LCD is what I PREFER.
You don't understand how PQ is an "issue" and I agree, LCD beats the pants of of plasma.
Pq is a prime concern, so is having a picture.
All of these projections of plasma life are rediculous, made by marketing types who know you wont keep your set that long.
Another glass tube based tech (CRT) rarely lasted more than 10 to 15 years, and with plasma you have to keep a volitile gas in, and phosper aging is optimistic to say the least.
Ever seen a CRT with 20 years on it, much less 34?

Talk to a salesman at any mid to high end electronics store and ask them what you should get. They will all tell you the same thing, and it isn't going to be LCD. They are probably just Panasonic shills though...

Probably getting a spiff to push a slow selling product.
Most "salesmen", even in high end stores, tend to be clueless, and their offering something is a good reason not to buy it.
I heard one salesman tell an old farmer type that sure, he could save some money with a display LCD, but being on display a year it was almost "used" up.
I never beleive anything a salesman tells me except the price

Mr. Peabody:

Phosphor dimming is still an issue with plasma, sort of. New panels are said to have a useful life of around 100,000 hours. At 8 hours a day of watching tv, this is 34 years. This is described as the point at which brightness is decreased to 50%. Since brightness is typically calibrated around 50-60% on plasmas, you have room to adjust it upwards over time, if needed. Most people should easily get 25 years out of the panel.

BALONEY.
Plasma tube making is more complicated than CRT manufacture, have we ever gotten one of those to last 34 years?
Why is a complicated plasma glass envelope supposed to last 34 years but a simple
flouresent tube that has been made for decades will last at most 20?

I use mine maybe 2 hours a day, so in theory it will last me 137 years. By that time, I will be dead, and other components will have failed long ago. Panel life used to be MUCH shorter than this but that has changed in recent years.

Try ten years.
MAYBE.:1:

zepman1

06-29-2009, 05:09 AM

Another glass tube based tech (CRT) rarely lasted more than 10 to 15 years, and with plasma you have to keep a volitile gas in, and phosper aging is optimistic to say the least.
Ever seen a CRT with 20 years on it, much less 34?

Yes, my parents own a CRT with 20 years on it. I have a CRT with 15 years on it, and it still going strong. What exactly qualifies you to debate the panel life of plasma panels? I'll take the word of the experts and the scientists, I am guessing they know more about it than you do. I know plenty of people with "old" plasma technology that is approaching ten years old, and there is still plenty of brightness. Other components in the tv will fail before the panel does, just like on LCD, so the panel life is really irrelevant.

Will it last 34 years, as it would be projected to? Who knows? I really don't care. If the engineers who say it will last that long are terribly wrong, and are off by a factor of 3, thats still 11 years, I really don't care. I am sure something new will have emerged (OLED?) that I will rather have anyhow.

I still don't get what is so "dim" about a plasma picture? All plasma televisions can be calibrated to the HDTV spec for brightness, with about 30-50% to spare with typical lighting conditions. Why would anyone want it brighter than this, as it degrades the picture quality?

I'm not going to continue any argument on picture quality as it is pointless with you. I have yet to hear anyone else (HT magazines, professional reviewers, salesman at high end electronics stores, videophiles, etc.) who prefers LCD based on picture quality alone. Like I said, I own both LCD and plamsa there is very little comparison betweeen the two.

luvtolisten

06-29-2009, 09:03 AM

Stats and specs are nice, but I go by real life experience. I know twice as many people who own LCD's as Plasmas. The people with LCD's have no problems, none.Some (not all)of the people I know with Plasmas have had problems. I own a LCD. 2 1/2 years ago I bought it, tweaked the picture to my liking and haven't had to do a thing to it since.
As far as prices go, in my town, Plasmas are cheaper, so it's not price that make people pick LCD, it's reliability. Word of mouth is the best marketing tool of all.

OLED has the best display I have ever seen. BUT, it means nothing unless they have found a solution to it's lifespan.

pixelthis

06-29-2009, 09:37 PM

How would it be a matter of economics when I was referring to high end applications where performance matters above all? The reason why so many mastering studios and broadcast facilities have not switched out their CRTs is because the flat panel alternatives are still a step down in picture quality.

Its a matter of economics.
They would love to dump their old CRT stuff, but in czase you havent noticed its a
recession going on, and business is tight fisted anyway.
THEY ARE NOT HANGING ONTO THESE OBSOLETE DINOS
out of some misguided "love", and teh "better" PQ is your opinion.
Its the opinion of someone who has watched phosper based video devices his whole life and think he knows how video is supposed to look.
Trust me, pros' arent that misguided

The fact is that you resort to the usual name calling when you don't have anything constructive to add to a discussion. Calling someone a shill is not fact because it's nothing more than your slanted opinion.

No, its a fact.
No one was around when the asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, but its pretty easy to figure out whats what when the facts are presented.
And the fact is that you worship at the feet of all things panny.
Calling BERNIE madeoff one of the biggest con artists ever is not name calling,
its a fact

BTW, I mention Panny in this thread because their OLED plans are relevant to the original topic. And just in case your reading comprehension has taken a turn for the worse, you notice that the OLED plans for other manufacturers were mentioned as well?

In relation to Panasonic, and in comparison to panasonic.
You never mention anything without bringing up Panny or you bring up Panny
and then mention something else in passing.
If its not propaganda but delusional behaviour then its really pathetic

Again, check the calendar. The date might surprise you. Time moves on, but apparently the info you cite doesn't.
Looks who talking mr CRT worshiper

And for consumers like you who throw out their TVs before the warranty even expires, why is this important to you?

Why is it important to you that its important to me?
I might not keep a car two years but I dont want to have to do a valve job in that time

But, not important enough to keep it for yourself.

Video Q is actually important to me, not just a way to exercise my nurosis by
showing everyone how superiour I am by advocating something "trendy".
I took a three year course in electronics, mostly obsolete info but I did take it, and have read hundreds of hours info on the web, which is why I know you are full of beans when you talk about measuring resolution during movement, etc
My first HDTV had crts and component only.
And then they came out with DVI, then LCD got affordable in a hurry.
Then I saw how great BLU looked on a 1080p screen, had to have it,
and three HDMI inputs solved my obsolete receiver video switching prob,
so the 42" 1080p was a done deal at 900 bucks (700 now)

The performance advantage of plasma has been bourne out in test after test. LED models have merely matched the contrast levels of plasma sets that cost half as much. Claiming that Panny is "planting shills ... all over the net" is nothing more than sour grapes. Heaven forbid if a happy customer has to keep quiet about their purchase because some conspiracy-spouting LCD/Vizio fanboy will accuse them of shilling! :out:

hEAVEN FORBID.
There is "happy" and fanatic.
I dont talk about Vizio all of the time because , while I LOVE IT, ITS STILL A VIDEO MONITOR.
I bought a TV, you act like you married one.

Untruth is something you know quite a bit about, given how often you state it.

You are the unqualifed expert on "untruth"(and quite a few other things)

And in a typical lit family room, the plasma picture will still look better.

your opinion for the last time.
Its not just me, LCD is the clear winner in the market for a simple reason, most prefer it.
You can talk till you're blue in the face but most will never prefer the dim fuzzy pic of a
plasma tv, ever, which is why they are disapearing from the market.
Like turntables they do give snobs a chance to look down their nose at the great unwashed, however.

There never were a lot of plasma manufacturers to begin with. Panasonic wouldn't be making plasma TVs if they didn't also sell millions of them every year.

They wouldn't be selling them at all if they could get out of it.
The fact that the sales figures seem "huge" to you speaks vollumes about what you know ,
about anything.
Three years and plasmas gone, if they last that long:1:

:out:

Multiple reviews of the Samsung and Sony LED TVs have noted the color shifts that occur when sitting off-angle. 178 degrees is a spec for where a visible picture occurs, but the picture quality begins to decline well before that and even sooner on the scanning LED-lit TVs.

Not if the TVs themselves cost twice as much. :3:[/QUOTE]

pixelthis

06-29-2009, 09:49 PM

BTW there is a reason that there are only a few plasma makers.
Plasma is complicated to make, and they wanted to be the OEM'S.
Problem is that LCD got cheaper faster than a lot thought it would.
You used to have to make 47 to get one good one.
Now they are pretty cheap, you say a plasma is "half" the price of an LCD?
When a 42" is 700 bucks?
You can get a 42" 1080p plasma for 350 bucks? HMMM.
Anyway the contractors can bow out, but the OEM is stuck with the means of production
Which means selling a tech that has no place in the world becomes like a Dilbert cartoon.
They decided to go for the "quality" crowd, probably figured that if they thought a turntable was "better" than a CD player they could be convinced of anything.
Too bad most go by their eyes, they look at a plasma and an LCD and choose the LCD
AUTOMATICALLY:1:

zepman1

06-30-2009, 04:43 AM

Now they are pretty cheap, you say a plasma is "half" the price of an LCD?

This wasn't my statement, but if you want to compare apples to apples: A 1080P 50" Plasma (Samsung/Panasonic) is around $1300. A comparable picture from an LCD panel would require LED backlighting to achieve the contrast and black levels of the plasma (motion resolution would still be better on the plasma, unless you only watch still images). A 1080P 46" Samsung LED is over $2100 for a smaller screen and comparable picture quality. I don't know that they make 50" screens in LED, but the 55" is over $3k.

The $1300 plasma blows away a similarly priced LCD in every facet except for energy usage, and that difference isn't what it used to be. The make some exceptional LED tv's from what I have seen, I don't dispute that. Its just you can have the same picture for a lot less money. That may change down the road, but I have a feeling something new altogether with replace both technologies (OLED?).

pixelthis

06-30-2009, 09:29 AM

This wasn't my statement, but if you want to compare apples to apples: A 1080P 50" Plasma (Samsung/Panasonic) is around $1300. A comparable picture from an LCD panel would require LED backlighting to achieve the contrast and black levels of the plasma (motion resolution would still be better on the plasma, unless you only watch still images). A 1080P 46" Samsung LED is over $2100 for a smaller screen and comparable picture quality. I don't know that they make 50" screens in LED, but the 55" is over $3k.

The $1300 plasma blows away a similarly priced LCD in every facet except for energy usage, and that difference isn't what it used to be. The make some exceptional LED tv's from what I have seen, I don't dispute that. Its just you can have the same picture for a lot less money. That may change down the road, but I have a feeling something new altogether with replace both technologies (OLED?).

So in other words you are saying that the picture from a plasma "blows away" the picture from an LCD , which is your opinion, and it would take a 3k lcd to equal a 1300 plasma.
All of this is just your opinion of course.
Dealing with you plasma fanatics is Kafkaesq to say the least.
You make assumptions and think your taste in picture should be key.
Truth is LCD beats plasma on both price and picture, which is why plasma will exit stage left very shortly.:1:

zepman1

06-30-2009, 09:56 AM

So in other words you are saying that the picture from a plasma "blows away" the picture from an LCD , which is your opinion, and it would take a 3k lcd to equal a 1300 plasma.

You make assumptions and think your taste in picture should be key.

You are a good reader, I will give you that. Yes, of course that's what I said, although I did not exactly say the $3k was comparable as that is for a 55" screen. IMO, of course, the picture quality of current LCD and plasma models is very comparable except for black level/contrast issue (which is a BIG issue). And the only LCD's I have seen that can approach this level are the LED models. The "blows away" comment was meant more as an exxageration of the truth, as you are so fond of doing yourself.

Its not assumptions, and its not only my "taste". This is the consensus of every home theater magazine and reviewer out there. But if your eye tells you something else, more power to you and enjoy what you have. I'm done here.

Woochifer

06-30-2009, 06:22 PM

]

The "reason" most havent switched over from CRT is money, there are several flat panels that are better, but most such businesses are just that... business.
They dont get rid of anything unless its usuless or broken.
At the hospital where I work the CRT is a distant memory.
Doctors need an accurate display when doing endoscophy, etc.
And teh IS guy I talk to has told me that the doctors and techs love the new flat screens

Like I said, mastering studios and productions facilities are where performance matters. Cost is not an issue if the replacement technology improves the performance. The monitoring speakers, the editing decks, and the software gets upgraded all the time in those applications, so it's not the cost that keeps high end users on CRTs.

I'll let the "facts" speak for themselves.
And teh fact is that you are a panny shill

Repeating a slated opinion over and over is more symptomatic of mental illness than fact.

:out:

Go back through the thread and count how many times you mentioned Panny as opposed to other brands

Panasonic is the brand that I have at home, so why would I mention it less often than brands that I'm less familiar with?

As opposed to the "info" you cite, which is either wrong or misleading.
You keep talking about picture res dropping during motion on a progressive screen,
this doesnt happen

The points on motion resolution are factual, and bourne out in test after test. I've cited the results many times, and it's been ignored by you just as often.

I have already answered this, besides a well built Tv is usually designed well in other areas

So by your logic, Panasonic's top-ranked reliability is an indicator of their TVs being "usually designed well in other areas"?

Sour grapes?
In case you haven't noticed my side is winning.

Not if you actually care about picture quality.

There are only like two plasma manufacturers left, and they are getting harder and harder to find.

Sam's Club isn't the only place to buy a TV, y'know. Best Buy alone carries more than 50 plasma models. Go into a high end demo room like at Magnolia, and the plasmas make up more than half of the demo units.

SO WHERE ARE ALL OF THOSE PLASMA BUYERS?

Check this board and other enthusiast sites, you'll find plenty of them. Just about every time you pushed people towards LCD on these threads, they wind up buying a plasma.

I WILL MAKE YOU THIS GUARENTEE, as soon as Panny can get out of plasma without losing face...THEY WILL:1:

How many years will that be? Panny will be onto OLED, along with everybody else, by that time. In the meantime, Panny's flat panel manufacturing market share has been growing -- last year, they moved up from #5 to #3 in flat panel unit shipments.

I JUST SAW ONE OF THOSE, and since you insist on sitting 90 defrees to the side of a picture I checked this.
The picture looked just as good almost to the point of not being able to see it:1:

Yeah, and you don't calibrate your set, and think that the stretch mode looks great too. :out:

BTW, how very rational of you to respond to this post TWICE. Short-term memory issues? :out:

pixelthis

06-30-2009, 09:30 PM

Like I said, mastering studios and productions facilities are where performance matters. Cost is not an issue if the replacement technology improves the performance. The monitoring speakers, the editing decks, and the software gets upgraded all the time in those applications, so it's not the cost that keeps high end users on CRTs.

Its THE COST

Repeating a slated opinion over and over is more symptomatic of mental illness than fact.

denying a fact over and over doesnt change the fact

Panasonic is the brand that I have at home, so why would I mention it less often than brands that I'm less familiar with?

From your posts you arent very familar with any type of display tech

The points on motion resolution are factual, and bourne out in test after test. I've cited the results many times, and it's been ignored by you just as often.

You can cite them all you want to, and while you cite them cite the number of angels
that can dance on the head of a pin.
Its all BS, no way to accurately measure resolution while a picture has movement,
nor is there any need to

Not if you actually care about picture quality.

Which I care about more than being trendy

Sam's Club isn't the only place to buy a TV, y'know. Best Buy alone carries more than 50 plasma models. Go into a high end demo room like at Magnolia, and the plasmas make up more than half of the demo units.

Guess they have to have them somewhere

Check this board and other enthusiast sites, you'll find plenty of them. Just about every time you pushed people towards LCD on these threads, they wind up buying a plasma.

Not enough to keep plasma alive.
The delusions of "enthusiaists" are well known, 300 buck power cords, 20,000
record players, anything that their fragil ego thinks sets them apart from the "crowd"

How many years will that be? Panny will be onto OLED, along with everybody else, by that time. In the meantime, Panny's flat panel manufacturing market share has been growing -- last year, they moved up from #5 to #3 in flat panel unit shipments.

Does that include LCD? HMMM?

Yeah, and you don't calibrate your set, and think that the stretch mode looks great too. :out:

I calibrate my set myself.
You can "calibrate" something all day long but eventually it boils down to what you like.
And "strech" mode? Where do you get this crap?
I just posted on another thread that I have my tv box set to 480i so I can watch
material in 4:3, like its intended.

BTW, how very rational of you to respond to this post TWICE. Short-term memory issues? :out:

You dont seem to be listening.:1:

Woochifer

07-01-2009, 04:23 PM

Its THE COST

Again, cost is not an issue for professional and other high end applications. If a studio will routinely shell out tens of thousands to upgrade the other studio equipment and software on a regular basis, the only reason they don't switch out to flat panels is because the performance still isn't up to their standards.

denying a fact over and over doesnt change the fact

Repetition does not turn opinion into fact, but that doesn't stop you from trying. :out:

From your posts you arent very familar with any type of display tech

Right, and all that time you spend at Sam's Club makes you an expert. :rolleyes:

You can cite them all you want to, and while you cite them cite the number of angels
that can dance on the head of a pin.
Its all BS, no way to accurately measure resolution while a picture has movement,
nor is there any need to

BS to you, only because the conclusions don't support your biases. The tests simply quantify what experts had been noting for years regarding LCD's deficient motion performance. The motion resolution tests have already become industry standard. Even LCD manufacturers like Sony and Samsung have been citing the motion resolution test results for their LED LCDs, since the models with local dimming backlights perform well on those tests.

Which I care about more than being trendy

So, now picture quality is trendy to you?

Not enough to keep plasma alive.
The delusions of "enthusiaists" are well known, 300 buck power cords, 20,000
record players, anything that their fragil ego thinks sets them apart from the "crowd"

Plasma is coming off a record year in terms of both unit shipments and sales growth,so it's hardly just "enthusiasts" that are buying them. No fragile egos, just the common sense to pay much less for a TV that still performs better than LCD TVs that cost twice as much.

Does that include LCD? HMMM?

It includes everything, but keep in mind even without a complete LCD lineup (i.e, no 1080p models, no 120 Hz models, no models larger than 32"), Panasonic is growing its market share. And its plasma growth last year outpaced the growth for the entire LCD market.

I calibrate my set myself.

Using what? Without a color filter and a calibration disc, you have no valid benchmark to start with. And obviously your eyes aren't exactly reliable if don't notice things like color shifting on LCD TVs. The images below come from Displaymate's recent HDTV test, which showed that the color shifting on the LCDs begin when the viewer moves as little as one foot off-center.

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut_files/image006.jpg
Panasonic plasma at 0 degree angle
http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut_files/image007.jpg
Panasonic plasma at 45 degree angle

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut_files/image008.jpg
Sony LCD at 0 degree angle
http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut_files/image009.jpg
Sony LCD at 45 degree angle

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut.htm

The shocking conclusion is that only one person at a time can see accurate color reproduction on a direct-view LCD HDTV, even on top-of-the-line units from the top manufacturers. Even when viewers are seated close together side-by-side, each person will see a different picture with noticeably different coloration. On the other hand, Plasma displays deliver very close to true 180 degree (±90 degree) viewing, the same as traditional CRT monitors. There is very little change in brightness, contrast, hue, or color saturation over the entire 180 degree viewing area.

You can "calibrate" something all day long but eventually it boils down to what you like.

Calibrations don't take all day long. I've never spent more than 15 minutes doing a TV calibration, even using the three color filter tests from Video Essentials. You set it, tweak it, and leave it. Having that reference baseline is where you have to start, otherwise the calibration is nothing more than an uneducated guess.

And "strech" mode? Where do you get this crap?

From your prior posts, where'd indicated that's how you watch your TV.

I just posted on another thread that I have my tv box set to 480i so I can watch
material in 4:3, like its intended.

That's an improvement. Congrats.

You dont seem to be listening.:1:

And you couldn't figure out that you'd already responded once before. :thumbsup:

Mr Peabody

07-01-2009, 06:41 PM

zepman1

07-02-2009, 06:04 AM

Woochifer

07-02-2009, 03:21 PM

LCD or Plasma? This is a pretty recent article and seems to fall in line with what Wooch has been saying. And, also addresses a few of Pix's claims.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-computers/tvs-services/tvs/tv-guide/types/tv-display-technologies/lcd-or-plasma/lcd-or-plasma.htm

It's not just CR. The vast majority of professional reviewers and review sites have come to the same conclusions -- the differences are narrowing, and both screen techs have worked at minimizing their respective design drawbacks. But, as things stand right now, plasma is still the way to go in most cases if you want the best overall picture quality for the money.

The Displaymate article that I posted confirms what I've been saying for months -- the various fixes that LCD sets has been incorporating into the newer models solve old problems but introduce new ones in the process.

For example, going with 120/240 Hz motion interpolation indeed brings the motion resolution closer to plasma levels, but it also makes film-based sources look like they got shot on a camcorder Using sequential LED backlighting with local dimming brings the motion resolution and the contrast up to plasma levels, but it further narrows the already narrow viewing angle AND it has the side effect of blurring out many of the details in dark scenes (for example, the Displaymate article noted that a starfield scene from 2001 got completely blanked out when the local dimming was turned on). In addition, that article and other reviews have noted that sequential LED backlights also have the effect of creating haloing artifacts when bright images appear close to dark areas.

Everything's a tradeoff, and plasma's not perfect either. That's why I started this thread in the first place, because perhaps OLED (or SED) will finally give us a screen tech that's clearly superior in all facets, without the compromises inherent in all the current screen techs. The first large format OLED sets are due out next year, so we'll have an answer to that very shortly.

Mr Peabody

07-02-2009, 09:28 PM

Woochifer

07-03-2009, 11:01 AM

The CR article pretty much recommended the 120hz but I thought there was a thread started here that shed bad light on that feature, like you mentioned Wooch. Hopefully the ole DLP will hang in there until we have a definitive technology or two. If I was buying for my HT I would buy plasma, if I was buying for the living room it would be LCD. The wife likes the curtains open most of the time in the living room and the kiddies like the video games.

The primary issue with 120 Hz LCD is with the motion interpolation feature, which just about every professional reviewer prefers to disable. As I said, the motion interpolation makes film images look like they were shot on video. The 120 Hz refresh rate alone does slightly raise the motion resolution, but it still falls well short of plasma TVs without the motion interpolation switched on. With the interpolation turned on, the motion resolution is much improved, but the picture just looks bizarre at best.

120 Hz TVs can also smooth out the juddering on film-based images caused by 3:2 pulldown. But, here too you need to be careful because only the newer 120 Hz models correctly use the 5:5 frame repeating necessary to reduce the judder. Among the 2008 models, my understanding is that only Sony did this correctly.

I'm with you on hoping that we will have a more definitive screen option available soon.

pixelthis

07-03-2009, 08:21 PM

Again, cost is not an issue for professional and other high end applications. If a studio will routinely shell out tens of thousands to upgrade the other studio equipment and software on a regular basis, the only reason they don't switch out to flat panels is because the performance still isn't up to their standards.

Repetition does not turn opinion into fact, but that doesn't stop you from trying. :out:

And a fact is not disapear by wishing , but you keep trying.
Bottom line is key in most business decisions

Right, and all that time you spend at Sam's Club makes you an expert. :rolleyes:

Do ya know, they dont carry plasma anymore?

BS to you, only because the conclusions don't support your biases. The tests simply quantify what experts had been noting for years regarding LCD's deficient motion performance. The motion resolution tests have already become industry standard. Even LCD manufacturers like Sony and Samsung have been citing the motion resolution test results for their LED LCDs, since the models with local dimming backlights perform well on those tests.

Doesnt change anything, your "motion res" tests are just extrapolated hokum.
A test pattern is the only way to get an accurate res measurement.
But that wouldnt help your biases any now would it

So, now picture quality is trendy to you?

Picture q is what its all about, not bragging because I have a certain display tech

Plasma is coming off a record year in terms of both unit shipments and sales growth,so it's hardly just "enthusiasts" that are buying them. No fragile egos, just the common sense to pay much less for a TV that still performs better than LCD TVs that cost twice as much.

What a maroon.
A 1080p 42" LCD can be had for 700 bucks.
Are you actually saying a 1080p plasma is 350?
MAYBE AT THE CLOSEOUT SALE...

It includes everything, but keep in mind even without a complete LCD lineup (i.e, no 1080p models, no 120 Hz models, no models larger than 32"), Panasonic is growing its market share. And its plasma growth last year outpaced the growth for the entire LCD market.

DOESNT change the ultimate fate of plasma, the only spot in its future is in the attic
next to the eight track tape player

Using what? Without a color filter and a calibration disc, you have no valid benchmark to start with. And obviously your eyes aren't exactly reliable if don't notice things like color shifting on LCD TVs. The images below come from Displaymate's recent HDTV test, which showed that the color shifting on the LCDs begin when the viewer moves as little as one foot off-center.

I dont notice "color" shifting on any set because IT DOESNT EXIST.
The change in picture is due to a number of things but teh color stays pretty much constant

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut_files/image006.jpg
Panasonic plasma at 0 degree angle
http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut_files/image007.jpg
Panasonic plasma at 45 degree angle

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut_files/image008.jpg
Sony LCD at 0 degree angle
http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut_files/image009.jpg
Sony LCD at 45 degree angle

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut.htm

Calibrations don't take all day long. I've never spent more than 15 minutes doing a TV calibration, even using the three color filter tests from Video Essentials. You set it, tweak it, and leave it. Having that reference baseline is where you have to start, otherwise the calibration is nothing more than an uneducated guess.

MAN , are you so scared of your own observation that everything has to be calibrated?
Most sets these days are very close, and people are going to adjust the set to their liking anyway.
DON'T TELL ME, YOU'RE one of those guys that watch an unpleasant picture because thats the way its "supposed" to be?

And you couldn't figure out that you'd already responded once before. :thumbsup:

You werent paying attention last time:1:

pixelthis

07-03-2009, 08:25 PM

Thanks. Pretty much confirms what everyone has been saying and Pix refuses to believe:

Plamsa is cheaper, lifespan the same, plasma has better picture unless you have no control over bright viewing conditions, plasma uses more energy, plasma has better viewing angle. I think the burn in issue is overstated, as I do a lot of things that you supposedly shouldn't do, and yet have no issues with it or image retention.

Consumer reports = Panasonic Shill

Consumer reports came right down the middle on the subject.
You think plasma is better? Buy one, its your money.
As it will be when you replace it.:1:

Woochifer

07-04-2009, 01:27 PM

And a fact is not disapear by wishing , but you keep trying.
Bottom line is key in most business decisions

Facts don't disappear. Your opinions never were facts to begin with.

Do ya know, they dont carry plasma anymore?

And Best Buy, Costco, countless others DO. All this means is that you can't make any credible observations about plasma, given that you haven't even seen any of the currently available models. Of course, all your info dates back to the last century anyway, so this doesn't change anything.

A test pattern is the only way to get an accurate res measurement.

What do you think the motion resolution tests are based on? :out:

Picture q is what its all about, not bragging because I have a certain display tech

Why do you think plasma owners focus on the picture quality? Nobody brags about owning a plasma TV just because it's a plasma. You're the only one on this board that obsesses about the tech itself, regardless of actual picture quality.

What a maroon.
A 1080p 42" LCD can be had for 700 bucks.
Are you actually saying a 1080p plasma is 350?
MAYBE AT THE CLOSEOUT SALE...

And the picture quality on those $700 LCD fall far short of what a plasma in the same price class delivers. Even last year, 42" 1080p plasmas were already selling for under $800.

The only LCD TVs that come close to even a low end plasma's motion resolution and contrast are the sequential LED models, and those sets DO cost twice as much. The only person talking about $350 plasmas is you. More deflection and distraction from you.

DOESNT change the ultimate fate of plasma, the only spot in its future is in the attic
next to the eight track tape player

Same spot that LCDs will occupy once higher performing technologies ramp up. Or are you now saying that OLED is no longer the future?

I dont notice "color" shifting on any set because IT DOESNT EXIST.

Typical reaction from you -- deny that something exists even after the iron clad proof is dangled in front of you. The image shifting has been confirmed in countless reviews and observations on this and other boards. The pictures I posted are proof positive that LCDs shift their colors when the viewing angle changes. Pictures don't lie, but a certain pixie on this board has told many of them. :out:

The change in picture is due to a number of things but teh color stays pretty much constant

Only the plasma sets are "pretty much constant" from wide angles. The LCD's colors on those 45 degree images look far from constant to me. Doubt that it looks constant to anyone else who doesn't view the world through LCD fanboy lenses either. :out:

MAN , are you so scared of your own observation that everything has to be calibrated?

So, the fact that I calibrate my sets using calibration discs and color filters is now a point of attack for you? I guess that to you ignorance is a virtue.

I thought you said that you "calibrate" your TVs, yet you can't even tell (or won't admit) that color shifting occurs on LCD sets when viewing from an off angle. A calibration disc with a color filter would point this out right away. Is that why you're so scared of using calibration discs?

Most sets these days are very close, and people are going to adjust the set to their liking anyway.

The default settings are far from close, sometimes even among TVs made by the same company. Of course people adjust their set to their liking. As I've said over and over, the whole purpose of a calibration is having a CONSISTENT starting point.

DON'T TELL ME, YOU'RE one of those guys that watch an unpleasant picture because thats the way its "supposed" to be?

If DVDs, Blu-rays, and HDTV broadcasts are optimized to the same reference standards used in the DVE and Avia discs, then why would they purposely master the video output so that it looks "unpleasant"? In my experience, a calibrated picture on a decent plasma set is anything but "unpleasant." Unpleasant is watching the horrid picture quality on a cheap LCD TV at a warehouse club in the torch mode.

You werent paying attention last time:1:

Pretty lame spin job, given that I hadn't even responded yet before you double posted. If anyone's not paying attention, it's someone who can't even figure out that he's responding to the SAME POST TWICE IN A ROW! :out:

GTF

07-05-2009, 06:23 AM

pixelthis reminds me of a past poster who was a fan boy of giant boom box type speakers.
Focus or something. So LOUD so CLEAR he had each speaker in a separate room.
LCD TV's remind me of the difference in film.
Agfa great colors. Rich not bright. Extremly pleasing.
Kodak the most neutral.
Fuji Over bright artificial looking picture's. For the WOW crowd.
Not true to real. Over blown bright colors. Very fake lookng.
Just like an LCD TV.
I don't know how he can be so blind to all the motion problems.
Just because a picture is bright and phony looking didn't might it better.
The biggest problem with every LCD I've looked at is the horrible focus shifting on fast moving scenes.
I could never be happy with any LCD TV I've looked in multiply stores.
The motion problem is disgusting.
I don't know how or why people can put up with that?
It's worse then the rainbow effect on DLP TV's.
BTW the also have the same type motion issues.
Just not as annoying.
It was enough though to cause me to buy the ancient, archaic, heavy, Hugh,
smaller picture SONY KV34XBR NO motion issues at all.

Mr Peabody

07-05-2009, 10:22 AM

GTF

07-05-2009, 10:40 AM

From my research when I was first mesmerized by the Samsung DLP TV's
I almost bought one of them until I saw the rainbow effect.
It turns out that not everybody can see it.
I am one of the unlucky one's.
I can.
Too bad. 70 lbs as opposed to 201lbs.

pixelthis

07-05-2009, 08:45 PM

Either the "rainbow effect" is something that only certain people are susceptible to or it's not an issue any more. No one in my family sees it on my Tosh nor has any one else who has viewed my set. Or, maybe certain brands.

I have never seen it either.
DLP is the way to go if PQ is key for you.
You can get a 60" Mitshu DLP for less than 1600, stand included, the pic will blow the doors off of both LCD and plasma, although LED LCD will give it a run for the money,
although nothing will beat that price.:1:

pixelthis

07-05-2009, 08:49 PM

GTF

07-06-2009, 04:27 PM

No, just hernia issues, short life issues, visible pixle structure issues.
I have never seen any "motion" issues on any LCD, or any other kind of set.
A lot of these "issues" come from the material itself, a camera temporarily out of focus during fast moving sceens.
SCREEN CAPTURES ARE NOT VERY good as a rule but I think I will post a few.:1:

Well Pixel I am jealous. I unfortunately can see the motion issue's you don't.
My son has a LCD computer monitor and even though it is both smaller in overall size.
MUCH lighter. I stick with my old archaic CDR monitor.
Even as a kid he notices the difference between CRT and LCD monitor.
Your very fortunate you can't see all the motion issue's with LCD.
When I first saw the rainbow effect with DLP TV's I thought it was a very slick special effect Samsung put onto their demo disc to show off their color Platte.
Wow was I wrong.
Watching sports on an LCD TV is like riding a looping roller coaster.
While I love the motion induced feeling riding the coaster,
That is not what I want when I watch TV.

Maybe by the time my CRT TV dies they'll finally have a suitable replacement.

pixelthis

07-06-2009, 07:38 PM

Well Pixel I am jealous. I unfortunately can see the motion issue's you don't.
My son has a LCD computer monitor and even though it is both smaller in overall size.
MUCH lighter. I stick with my old archaic CDR monitor.
Even as a kid he notices the difference between CRT and LCD monitor.
Your very fortunate you can't see all the motion issue's with LCD.
When I first saw the rainbow effect with DLP TV's I thought it was a very slick special effect Samsung put onto their demo disc to show off their color Platte.
Wow was I wrong.
Watching sports on an LCD TV is like riding a looping roller coaster.
While I love the motion induced feeling riding the coaster,
That is not what I want when I watch TV.

Maybe by the time my CRT TV dies they'll finally have a suitable replacement.

Well, I hope you are not using a laptop for comparison.
I dont like the pq on laps either, which is why I use my 42" Vizio for the computer.
You are right about one thing, your CRT IS archaic.:1:

GTF

07-07-2009, 06:01 AM

Well, I hope you are not using a laptop for comparison.
I dont like the pq on laps either, which is why I use my 42" Vizio for the computer.
You are right about one thing, your CRT IS archaic.:1:

My son uses a very nice HP LCD monitor.
I have given thought to pick one up for photo work.
But for everyday use it isn't as nice as my archaic, ancient CRT 21" SONY G520.
It took him a while to adjust to the slowness of motion compared to his old
archaic, ancient CRT monitor.

Woochifer

07-10-2009, 04:24 PM

Either the "rainbow effect" is something that only certain people are susceptible to or it's not an issue any more. No one in my family sees it on my Tosh nor has any one else who has viewed my set. Or, maybe certain brands.

That rainbow effect was visible with older TVs that used the earlier DLP chips. It does not occur with the higher end sets that use a three-chip DLP setup. Not sure if the rainbow effect is still an issue with the newer single-chip DLP sets. Yet another reason why OLED and/or SED can't arrive soon enough.

GTF

07-11-2009, 04:21 AM

That rainbow effect was visible with older TVs that used the earlier DLP chips. It does not occur with the higher end sets that use a three-chip DLP setup. Not sure if the rainbow effect is still an issue with the newer single-chip DLP sets. Yet another reason why OLED and/or SED can't arrive soon enough.

I haven't seen a DLP direct view TV with 3 chips.
I've only read about 3 chip DLP being used in highend projector sets.
Besides even DLP has motion issues.

Woochifer

07-11-2009, 10:08 AM

I haven't seen a DLP direct view TV with 3 chips.
I've only read about 3 chip DLP being used in highend projector sets.
Besides even DLP has motion issues.

You might be right. I just rechecked the spec sheet on Mitsubishi's Laservue and didn't see any mention of a three-chip setup.

Mr Peabody

07-11-2009, 11:52 AM

Do you know if the Toshiba DLP with The TI Mustang was a single chip?

pixelthis

07-11-2009, 09:39 PM

Do you know if the Toshiba DLP with The TI Mustang was a single chip?

Probably.
I dont know how a three chip could have rainbows anyway, as they are a function of the color wheel, and that is done away with in three chip models(one color for each chip)
If your set is more than a few years old it has a single chip.
Anyway the ideal setup is three chips, one for each primary color, but that was too expensive(in other words TI was charging too much).
Having seen the handwriting on the wall(spelling DEATH) I guess they decided
to try with the three chip, which gets rid of the hated color wheel, so the had a three for one sale, and Mitshu went for it.:1:

Feanor

07-12-2009, 03:17 AM

Here's the thing, Pix. When I look around at my local options, the LCDs are not cheaper than the plasmas.

Well, here's an update. Whilst making a quick shopping trip to Costco for paper towels and glucosomine I spotted a Vizio 47" 1080 120 Hz for C$1200.

This is the first time I've see a Vizio in Canada, (not that I've looked really hard). This model above is still not listed at Costco.ca, so maybe it's a one-off shippment. In any case, in this market the it looks like a relative bargain, although at Costco I can still get a Sanyo 50" 1080 plasma (http://www.costco.ca/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=10317195&whse=BCCA&Ne=4000000&eCat=BCCA|79|2341&N=4008769&Mo=11&No=5&Nr=P_CatalogName:BCCA&cat=3314&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-CA&Sp=C&topnav=)for $1300 that I stll might prefer.

However my roof needs a $2500 repair so I'll be kissing off the TV for a while yet.

StevenSurprenant

07-12-2009, 08:04 AM

The images below come from Displaymate's recent HDTV test, which showed that the color shifting on the LCDs begin when the viewer moves as little as one foot off-center.

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut_files/image006.jpg
Panasonic plasma at 0 degree angle
http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut_files/image007.jpg
Panasonic plasma at 45 degree angle

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut_files/image008.jpg
Sony LCD at 0 degree angle
http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut_files/image009.jpg
Sony LCD at 45 degree angle

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut.htm

I'm really not jumping into this fray, but I have an LCD TV and from the side it doesn't look faded like the images from displaymate.com. There is a little fading, but it is very slight.

As one person said, ( I read it somewhere ), the picture quality coming into the set is greater than the differences between plasma and LCD. This is what I find to be generally true.

Technically plasma has the better picture, but in the real world, the differences are slight, too slight to argue about.

Neither tecnology is perfect.

Woochifer

07-12-2009, 09:38 AM

I'm really not jumping into this fray, but I have an LCD TV and from the side it doesn't look faded like the images from displaymate.com. There is a little fading, but it is very slight.

The Displaymate comparison was done in a controlled setting, in which all of the sets were professionally calibrated. It's not about what someone says they see from their TV at home, it's about how these LCD and plasma TVs directly compare to one another when the viewing conditions are as identical as possible (a condition that you hardly ever see at a retail store). In fact, the article indicated that the color shifts are even more pronounced in person than on the photos. These pictures are only a part of what the article noted about the viewing angle. The comparison also used benchmark measurements and viewing tests with jury panelists. The color shifts went above the visually detectable threshold beginning around 15 degrees.

It should be noted that the primary color shift thresholds differed between the different LCD TVs in the test. The Sony had huge color shifting in the primary red color, and that was bourne out in the photos. Also, the Sharp LCD in the test differed significantly from the Sony and Samsung -- it had barely detectable color shifts in the red and green primary colors, but significant color shifts with mixed patterns. In all likelihood, I would guess that this had to do with Sharp's usage of IPS LCD panels, whereas Sony and Samsung often use PVA LCD panels.

As one person said, ( I read it somewhere ), the picture quality coming into the set is greater than the differences between plasma and LCD. This is what I find to be generally true.

Agreed, but video sources are chosen independent of the display. Regardless of whether I chose LCD or plasma, I would still use the same HD satellite receiver and BD player.

Neither tecnology is perfect.

Which is exactly why I started this thread ... to talk about OLED.

pixelthis

07-12-2009, 09:25 PM

I'm really not jumping into this fray, but I have an LCD TV and from the side it doesn't look faded like the images from displaymate.com. There is a little fading, but it is very slight.

As one person said, ( I read it somewhere ), the picture quality coming into the set is greater than the differences between plasma and LCD. This is what I find to be generally true.

Technically plasma has the better picture, but in the real world, the differences are slight, too slight to argue about.

Neither tecnology is perfect.

The reason for that is that its a rigged test, quoted by a panny shill.
Very subtle propaganda, LCD is the "gang that never shoots straight,
if there is praise its faint, and mentioned right next to something thats dreadfully wrong.
Plasma, on the other hand is absolutely perfect, nothing wrong with that form factor,
nosireeebob!
For instance , off angle watching is mentioned, without nary a thought given to
the massive glare and brightness issues of plasma which makes them virtually unwatchable in a decently lit room.
Oh, you can turn up the brightness on a plasma, if you want to risk burn-in.
Just more propaganda from wooch, constantly bleating away about the perfect
veiwing device, a plasma tube.
Whose shortcomings he will find out about the hard way.:1:

StevenSurprenant

07-13-2009, 03:43 AM

Very subtle propaganda, LCD is the "gang that never shoots straight,

All I know is that it doesn't seem to be like that test with the TV's I have seen.

With LCD TV's smaller than 32 inch, I have seen that effect (even worse than the pictures above) on the vertical axis and with LCD computer monitors. I saw this effect even worse with Samsungs first LED LCD TV. It was so bad that moving your head slightly caused the picture to fade dramatically. Their newer LED LCD TV's were much better.

My main LCD TV is in my living room and many times I watch it from the kitchen where the computer is. I am about 2 feet from the front of the screen and 20 feet off to the right with the TV slightly angled toward me and the picture is good, nothing like the examples given. That's greater than 45 degrees. My other LCD is in the bedroom and it is more like the examples given in the other post. They are both from Samsung, but the one in the living room is much better with off angle viewing.

Oh well, people have been arguing about this since LCD's have first come out. Then of course, the CRT crowd says that Plasma is inferior to CRT.

Frankly, I think they are all pretty good and the differences are too slight to even argue about this.

I do know this, I have seen calibrated plasma TV's in the stores and they look much worse than the other TV's in torch mode. At home, torch mode is almost unwatchable. It just seems to me that maybe in a totally dark room, plasma might be better, but in a bright room, LCD is better. It could go either way, depending on the model?

But like Woochifer said, this thread was about OLED which promises to be even better than either technology. I have never seen one, but I know that there is a problem with life expectancy, at least for the moment.

Let's not forget laser and SED. Laser claims to have a much greater color spectrum than plasma while using less power. SED is still in the closet pending legal issues. All the while, 3D TV is looming over the horizon.

This discussion reminds me of back in the day when people would argue whether Ford, Chrysler, or Chevy were the fastest cars. Looking back, it didn't amount to squat. One model might have been faster in the quarter mile while another had a higher top end. Then the new models came out and that might change. It went back and forth.

Wait another 10 or 20 years and people will say that the TV's of today were terrible and almost unwatchable in comparison to the newer technology.

When TV's can fool me into thinking that I am looking through a window is when I will say that it is good. Until then, we are arguing about the superiority of inferior technology.

Woochifer

07-13-2009, 06:25 PM

The reason for that is that its a rigged test, quoted by a panny shill.

Obviously didn't read the article, did you?

Very subtle propaganda, LCD is the "gang that never shoots straight,
if there is praise its faint, and mentioned right next to something thats dreadfully wrong.
Plasma, on the other hand is absolutely perfect, nothing wrong with that form factor,
nosireeebob!

Shoulda checked post #59 before you started with another factually challeged rant. :out:

For instance , off angle watching is mentioned, without nary a thought given to
the massive glare and brightness issues of plasma which makes them virtually unwatchable in a decently lit room.

The anti-glare coatings on the newer plasmas make this a non-issue. And if glare is such a problem, then why is Samsung now going with glossy screens on many of their LCD models?

The off-angle viewing issue with LCDs is long standing, and implementing LED backlighting seems to have just made it worse.

Oh, you can turn up the brightness on a plasma, if you want to risk burn-in.

Not an issue. Try shopping somewhere outside of Sam's Club once in a while if you want proof that plasma TVs are no longer shipped in metal containers.

Just more propaganda from wooch, constantly bleating away about the perfect
veiwing device, a plasma tube.

If I thought plasma was perfect, why would I start a thread about OLED TVs? :idea:

Whose shortcomings he will find out about the hard way.:1:

Pretty sad when all you're reduced to is pleading for people's TVs to break. :out:

pixelthis

07-13-2009, 08:44 PM

Obviously didn't read the article, did you?
SURE, and it claims to measure something that changes with every setup configuration.
No way to accuratly tell what off axis viewing is like in every situation

Shoulda checked post #59 before you started with another factually challeged rant. :out:
Keep getting facts confused dont we?

The anti-glare coatings on the newer plasmas make this a non-issue. And if glare is such a problem, then why is Samsung now going with glossy screens on many of their LCD models?

Maybe they are going after the plasma tv buyer, since they seem to like glossy
unviewable sctreens.
Next they are releasing an LCD so dim you cant see it in the dark, that should
grab a lot of plasma buyers

The off-angle viewing issue with LCDs is long standing, and implementing LED backlighting seems to have just made it worse.

ACTUALLY, no.
I actually watched one of these (a sharp) and noticed hardly any dec5rease in PQ
AT ALL STANDING OFF AXIS

Not an issue. Try shopping somewhere outside of Sam's Club once in a while if you want proof that plasma TVs are no longer shipped in metal containers.

Do they ship your meds in metal containers? I DONT RECALL SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THAT , although until recently plasmas were shipped in metal containers
because they tended to break quite a bit

If I thought plasma was perfect, why would I start a thread about OLED TVs? :idea:

YOU got me, I guess a brokem clock is right once or twice a day

Pretty sad when all you're reduced to is pleading for people's TVs to break. :out:

And where is that mentioned? Imagining things again?
Your plasma wont have to break for you to regret the purchase, not by a long shot.
PHOSPER degrades over time and use, your picture will change, most likely not
for the better, and when it does I wont even say I told you so (well, maybe one or two times).:1:

bobsticks

07-14-2009, 06:51 PM

Wooch, you and I have been e-acquaintances for some time now and i have always appreciated your moldy wordsmithing lo these many years...which i regard as the highest quality, especially for a Panny-shill.

By the way, I was a pannyshill once until I got kicked out of the sorority house.

Woochifer

07-14-2009, 07:07 PM

SURE, and it claims to measure something that changes with every setup configuration.
No way to accuratly tell what off axis viewing is like in every situation

Changing the subject as usual. A setup configuration will only change how the image shifts off-axis, but the fact remains that it does change and quite drastically at that. Moving the red and green tints around doesn't prevent image shifting from occurring. In addition, the contrast measurements at 45 degrees showed a decrease of 75%+, and the setup configuration does nothing to mitigate that. Compare this with the plasmas which showed virtually no change on both the color and contrast off-axis measurements.

Keep getting facts confused dont we?

Nope, you just keep lying about what people actually say in order to prolong your little trolling exercises. Quoting people accurately would actually force you to shut up. :lol:

Maybe they are going after the plasma tv buyer, since they seem to like glossy
unviewable sctreens.

No, they're just going in the same direction as the LCD monitor and notebook computer market, which has been shifting towards glossy screens for years.

Next they are releasing an LCD so dim you cant see it in the dark, that should
grab a lot of plasma buyers

Blacked out screens on low level details already occur with those top of the line local dimming LED models. I doubt any plasma owner would want to pay big bucks for that.

ACTUALLY, no.
I actually watched one of these (a sharp) and noticed hardly any dec5rease in PQ
AT ALL STANDING OFF AXIS

Is this something you confirmed with a calibration disc, or are you just guessing yet again? The measured test results don't lie, but your uncontrolled blatherings often do.

Do they ship your meds in metal containers? I DONT RECALL SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THAT , although until recently plasmas were shipped in metal containers
because they tended to break quite a bit

So anything that occurred more than a decade ago is now "recent" in your view? You know we're in the 21st century, or is that news to you?

YOU got me, I guess a brokem clock is right once or twice a day

In other words, you LIED when you claimed that I said that plasma was perfect.

And where is that mentioned? Imagining things again?
Your plasma wont have to break for you to regret the purchase, not by a long shot.
PHOSPER degrades over time and use, your picture will change, most likely not
for the better, and when it does I wont even say I told you so (well, maybe one or two times).:1:

Blah blah blah. Just can't bring yourself to accept that plasma owners are quite happy with their TVs, eh? You're getting quite desperate here. :out:

Woochifer

07-14-2009, 07:09 PM

Mr Peabody

07-14-2009, 08:39 PM

Wooch, if your gun is stuck, I believe they have medicine for that now.

Smokey

07-14-2009, 08:49 PM

Well, my gun is not jammed :D

Everybody is getting greenies, including Pixelman for pushing Wooch's buttons.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

07-14-2009, 09:57 PM

(Sir T sneaks in and looks about and proclaims) I see Wooch and the pixelated one is still goin at it. Some tings never change, Wooch knows what he is talking about, and the pixelated one does not.

Pixel, you make some outrageous claims that are just not supported by the science. I hate to tell you to go back to school, but they threw you out because you cannot keep up with the class. Tsk, tsk.....

Groundbeef

07-16-2009, 11:41 AM

Pix is the SHAM-WOW guy for Vizio. I bet he even wears the hands free headset around the house. Randomly shouts out "NO BURN IN-EVER!!!!"

Luvin Da Blues

07-16-2009, 12:05 PM

Pix is the SHAM-WOW guy for Vizio. I bet he even wears the hands free headset around the house. Randomly shouts out "NO BURN IN-EVER!!!!"

I would think there must be sumptin' burnin' I his pipe to offer up those comments of his.

Mr Peabody

07-16-2009, 07:04 PM

What's up GB? You've been away or we just haven't managed being on the same thread in a while.

pixelthis

07-16-2009, 09:42 PM

(Sir T sneaks in and looks about and proclaims) I see Wooch and the pixelated one is still goin at it. Some tings never change, Wooch knows what he is talking about, and the pixelated one does not.

Most propagandistas do, they just choose to never mention the truth

Pixel, you make some outrageous claims that are just not supported by the science. I hate to tell you to go back to school, but they threw you out because you cannot keep up with the class. Tsk, tsk.....

Your body surriving with so little brain power is not supported by science either.
Where have you been talky? get sent to juvi for pushing the principles car into the school swimming pool?:1:

pixelthis

07-16-2009, 09:53 PM

Changing the subject as usual. A setup configuration will only change how the image shifts off-axis, but the fact remains that it does change and quite drastically at that. Moving the red and green tints around doesn't prevent image shifting from occurring. In addition, the contrast measurements at 45 degrees showed a decrease of 75%+, and the setup configuration does nothing to mitigate that. Compare this with the plasmas which showed virtually no change on both the color and contrast off-axis measurements.

No home video setup is the same , and conditions such as lighting always affect off axis viewing

Nope, you just keep lying about what people actually say in order to prolong your little trolling exercises. Quoting people accurately would actually force you to shut up. :lol:

Everybody on this site knows just how much of a propagandist for panny you are.
I rest my case

No, they're just going in the same direction as the LCD monitor and notebook computer market, which has been shifting towards glossy screens for years.

Sorry, I forgot that you have absolutelu no sense of humour whatsoever.
Which is too bad, bacause when that plasma contraption goes south you'll need one

Blacked out screens on low level details already occur with those top of the line local dimming LED models. I doubt any plasma owner would want to pay big bucks for that.
If you are talking about the perfect black level from LED backlight models, then you are probably right, since what plasma owners do makes very little sense anyway.

Is this something you confirmed with a calibration disc, or are you just guessing yet again? The measured test results don't lie, but your uncontrolled blatherings often do.

There you go, talking about frabicated test results again.
No, I JUST EYEBALLED IT, but it looked really good.
Not that it matters, I sit IN FRONT of a TV when I watch it

So anything that occurred more than a decade ago is now "recent" in your view? You know we're in the 21st century, or is that news to you?

YOU KNOW A BETTER TECH HAS SUPERSEDED plasma dont you?
Its called LCD.

In other words, you LIED when you claimed that I said that plasma was perfect.
I said that you [I]thought [I] plasma was perfect

Blah blah blah. Just can't bring yourself to accept that plasma owners are quite happy with their TVs, eh? You're getting quite desperate here. :out:[/QUOTE]

I am glad that plasma owners are happy with there dim, phosper based tech, which they
think is good because it resembles what they are used to.
They will be dragged kicking and screaming into teh future sooner or later:1:

pixelthis

07-16-2009, 09:59 PM

Pix is the SHAM-WOW guy for Vizio. I bet he even wears the hands free headset around the house. Randomly shouts out "NO BURN IN-EVER!!!!"

THIS from the guy whose plasma cost 2500 bucks to fix, and them turned around and bought another one.
"No burn in ever" is certainly something you can't claim.
Jealous?:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible

07-17-2009, 03:33 PM

Your body surriving with so little brain power is not supported by science either.
Where have you been talky? get sent to juvi for pushing the principles car into the school swimming pool?:1:

You have had no problem surviving with no brain, so it just goes to show how little brain power it takes to debate you.

bobsticks

07-17-2009, 04:39 PM

Pix is the SHAM-WOW guy for Vizio. I bet he even wears the hands free headset around the house. Randomly shouts out "NO BURN IN-EVER!!!!"

Pix beats up hookers?

Mr Peabody

07-17-2009, 10:39 PM

So when Wooch uses published tests they are fabricated but when Pix uses them, such as trumped up DBT's, what are they, then?

pixelthis

07-19-2009, 10:42 PM

So when Wooch uses published tests they are fabricated but when Pix uses them, such as trumped up DBT's, what are they, then?

Wooch uses mostly "tests" from a site called display mate, and since the colors
on that site are panny blue, you can guess who owns the company.
And nonsense is nonsense , no matter where it comes from( like motion resolution,
which is impossible to accurrately measure).
Basically the mantra of sites like these are all the same...
LCD BAD...PLASMA GOOD.
Never mind that a 1080p plasma, using phosper, is going to be very dim, since the
individual elements are so small(two million of em, they have to be).
And never mind that the newer LCD sets give a combination of black levels and
a bright picture, thanks to LED backlights, that beat the pants off of anything plasma.
And never mind that response times are down to 5 milisecs, which makes motion blur impossible, the normal blurring that takes place during normal photograpy is always going to be shown as a fault of theCD panel, never mind that the same motion blur also shows up on plasma, CRT, etc.
But I dont know why I ARGUE , THE BATTLE HAS BEEN WON,
plasma is about to go the way of the passenger pigeon.
You can get a 50" 720p lcd for less than 900 bucks, sure its a Sanyo, hardly
a stellar brand, but Hier and Vizio are pretty good, and both are selling 32"
sets for under 400 bucks.
The main job of Panny and its shill sites, and faithfull troops like wooch,
is to appeal to the innate snobbery of a lot of "HT" fans, keep plasma sales
high enough to make back some of the amounts of money Panny has invested in
what is basically an obsolete format.
Considering the dropping of plasma by most, they are facing an uphill battle,
especially among the more informed, who are just waiting for either LED backed LCD
to lower in price, or OLED to become market ready.
ME, I am just praying I hit the lottery so I can get one of the LED sets,
what I see of them proves that they have beaten a longstanding problem with
all of the new display techs, "light leak", which hurts blacks(yes, its also a problem for plasma).:1:

Mr Peabody

07-20-2009, 06:47 AM

Pix, I don't know whether motion can be accurately measured or not but at least you are open to the possibility that there are things that cannot be measured and that is especially true in audio.

pixelthis

07-20-2009, 10:13 PM

Pix, I don't know whether motion can be accurately measured or not but at least you are open to the possibility that there are things that cannot be measured and that is especially true in audio.

I know what you're getting at, the old running gun battle we have over certain
audio add-ons.
Its not that, its just that a picture on a video screen is so many frames a second,
"motion resolution" means measuring the resolution of each frame and getting an average,
so basically you wind up measuring still frames again.
This whole motion resoultion measurement was expressly designed as a "test"
that LCD, by its nature, would fail.
In other words it was meant to make LCD look bad.
The truth is that the resolution of a picture doesnt change during movement by any appreciable amount, at least not on progressive images, thats why everybody went to progressive images.
Motion resolution is a statistic, an average, and could be measured by any number
of ways to make the numbers come up any way you want.
And you know what SAM CLEMMENS said about statistics.
Even if you could measure any difference in resolution between moving and still images,
no one could tell with the naked eye.
In other words its just propaganda, bringing up a worthless "measurement" that means absolutly nothing while glossing over the massive problems with plasma screens.
And where does wooch get these test results?
From panny backed websites, which are so blatant that they trim their sites in panny
"blue".
So consider the source.
As for your power cord issue, if it makes you happy, waste your money, but there is no instrumentality that would explain any improvement issuing from changing a power cord.:1:

GTF

07-21-2009, 10:44 AM

I know what you're getting at, the old running gun battle we have over certain
audio add-ons.
Its not that, its just that a picture on a video screen is so many frames a second,
"motion resolution" means measuring the resolution of each frame and getting an average,
so basically you wind up measuring still frames again.
This whole motion resoultion measurement was expressly designed as a "test"
that LCD, by its nature, would fail.
In other words it was meant to make LCD look bad.
The truth is that the resolution of a picture doesnt change during movement by any appreciable amount, at least not on progressive images, thats why everybody went to progressive images.
Motion resolution is a statistic, an average, and could be measured by any number
of ways to make the numbers come up any way you want.
And you know what SAM CLEMMENS said about statistics.
Even if you could measure any difference in resolution between moving and still images,
no one could tell with the naked eye.
In other words its just propaganda, bringing up a worthless "measurement" that means absolutly nothing while glossing over the massive problems with plasma screens.
And where does wooch get these test results?
From panny backed websites, which are so blatant that they trim their sites in panny
"blue".
So consider the source.
As for your power cord issue, if it makes you happy, waste your money, but there is no instrumentality that would explain any improvement issuing from changing a power cord.:1:

Come on Pixl.
I have no axe to grind. I have been looking for a flat panel TV for years that doesn't make me want to turn it off and go back to an ancient CRT.
I haven't seen one yet.
Yes if I only watch slow motion shows. No action scenes, no sports just pretty picture's of flowers and such an LCD would be wonderful.
But I watch football. Auto racing, action movie's and LCD's have always have motion issue's. I am not anti LCD Nor am I pro Plasma.
I have been actively looking for a flat panel TV to replace my CRT TV.
I also know that CRT isn't perfect either. I am not attacking any technology.
BUT! I want a TV that doesn't go in and out of focus with fast moving scene's like my CRT doesn't. LCD doesn't live up to that. Maybe it never will.
Another problem with both format's is the color black.
To keep the unknowing happy they have made the color black mostly one shade.
Too black. Not enough shades of black to look, well I hate to say it.
BUT they don't look like a CRT again.
They have become to black. Without proper shades of black.
They have gotten much better then what they used to be but nowhere near the correct black shading of a CRT.
Motion issues. Not enough shading of black.
Flat panel TV's have a long way to go yet.

When is it going to happen?

pixelthis

07-21-2009, 11:24 AM

Come on Pixl.
I have no axe to grind. I have been looking for a flat panel TV for years that doesn't make me want to turn it off and go back to an ancient CRT.
I haven't seen one yet.
Yes if I only watch slow motion shows. No action scenes, no sports just pretty picture's of flowers and such an LCD would be wonderful.
But I watch football. Auto racing, action movie's and LCD's have always have motion issue's. I am not anti LCD Nor am I pro Plasma.
I have been actively looking for a flat panel TV to replace my CRT TV.
I also know that CRT isn't perfect either. I am not attacking any technology.
BUT! I want a TV that doesn't go in and out of focus with fast moving scene's like my CRT doesn't. LCD doesn't live up to that. Maybe it never will.
Another problem with both format's is the color black.
To keep the unknowing happy they have made the color black mostly one shade.
Too black. Not enough shades of black to look, well I hate to say it.
BUT they don't look like a CRT again.
They have become to black. Without proper shades of black.
They have gotten much better then what they used to be but nowhere near the correct black shading of a CRT.
Motion issues. Not enough shading of black.
Flat panel TV's have a long way to go yet.

When is it going to happen?

Its happening now.
Black level is a big problem with any system that uses a backlight, the blacks are lit
as well as everything else.
When plasma came out it was a CRT world, and plasma was razzed for its poor blacks.
I still think they are poor, lcd aint too great either, but I think both form factors are closer
than most do.
But there has been a change, mainly the LED backlight, which has replaced the
flourescent backlight in higher end LCD sets.
There are two types, edge lit and adaptive(the best type).
Since the adaptive literally cuts off light from black areas there is little or no light "leak"
from these, this is a huge advance, and its starting to "leak down" to cheaper sets
(37" at Sears for 2200 bucks).
I ALWAYS KNEW THIS WAS THE CURE FOR POOR BLACKS IN lLCD,
which is why I favored LCD from the start, not to mention the problmatic design of a plasma, a thin glass envelope full of gas, emitting UV as welll as IR, as well as visible light,
this is a solution that wont work for plasma, and if you see these new LED sets
you know that while they still dont beat crt (it will take OLED to do that) they have come a long way, the blacks on these sets are stunning, to say the least.
As for motion blur, I have heard about this but have never seen anything resembling
it on any of the LCD sets (3) that I have owned.
And with a 5 ms response time I shouldnt.
I HAVE seen some blur, but this is from proccessing coming from the source,
and I have seen it on CRT RPTV, CRT direct view , etc, and not making excuses
for LCD but I think this is a bit overblown.
With HDTV and mpeg proccessing on the fly you will see this, at least until
computing power increases, I just think that plasma is more forgiving of this.
Most of the complaints come from watching sports, which are done in real time.
If you want a plasma more power to you, enjoy it, but extended warrenties
are higher on plasma for a reason.
Some think PQ is all important, and it is important, but the most important aspect of PQ
is having a picture, and this is why I go with LCD rather than DLP or plasma
(althiough I have considered DLP)
PLASMA is more troublesome than most realize, requiring 30,000 volts through a
volatle gas in a thin envelope, the gas being there because you cant make a
vaccume tube that thin.
And forget about the 20 year lifespan predicted for plasma sets, in sixty years
of CRT manufacture we never got one to last much more than 15 years,
most didnt make it past 10, a lot died in 5 to 10.
But what kills me is the zombie attitude of a lot of plasma owners.
A poster this site, groundbeef, had a 2500 dollar failure on his plasma, which at the
time wasnt that old, he turned around and bought another!
I think the picture is better on LCD but that is a personal taste, but I would still buy LCD
even if I thought the plasma had a better pic.
The use of phosper alone in plasma is going to limit light output and lifespan, by a huge factor.
And apparently a lot of people agree with me.:1:

Woochifer

07-24-2009, 05:08 PM

No home video setup is the same , and conditions such as lighting always affect off axis viewing

Viewing conditions do not change the fact that LCD TVs have measurable off-axis color shifting and significantly degraded off-axis contrast, while plasmas do not.

Everybody on this site knows just how much of a propagandist for panny you are.
I rest my case

Congrats. The voices inside your head make for quite an impartial jury as to what "everybody on this site" knows. :out:

Sorry, I forgot that you have absolutelu no sense of humour whatsoever.
Which is too bad, bacause when that plasma contraption goes south you'll need one

You seem to have forgotten that unintentional humor is your specialty. Irony apparently isn't, given that my "contraption" has a lower failure rate than yours. :lol:

If you are talking about the perfect black level from LED backlight models, then you are probably right, since what plasma owners do makes very little sense anyway.

Try reading the article. It specifically notes that the LED Samsung in the test fails to display low level picture elements once they go below a certain threshold.

There you go, talking about frabicated test results again.

What would you know about the test results, given that you haven't bothered reading them? "frabicated" refers to your oh-so-objective viewings at Sam's and Walmart, and certainly not a test where everything is documented and conducted under controlled testing conditions.

No, I JUST EYEBALLED IT, but it looked really good.

Eyeballing isn't the same as a verifiable test under controlled conditions. And considering your hostility towards the use of calibration discs, your purported ability to "eyeball" is laughable at best.

Not that it matters, I sit IN FRONT of a TV when I watch it

That presumes that you're always watching TV alone. Color shifting becomes visible starting around 15 degrees for every LCD TV in the test.

YOU KNOW A BETTER TECH HAS SUPERSEDED plasma dont you?
Its called LCD.

Better in what respect? Certainly not in picture quality.

I said that you [I]thought [I] plasma was perfect

And that would be a lie, given that in this very thread I said that plasma was not perfect.

I am glad that plasma owners are happy with there dim, phosper based tech, which they
think is good because it resembles what they are used to.

We're happy with them because they offer up the best picture quality for the money.

They will be dragged kicking and screaming into teh future sooner or later:1:

Right, when OLED or SED or whatever tech is ready to go next time I'm ready to buy a TV, I'll gladly buy one.

Woochifer

07-24-2009, 05:30 PM

So when Wooch uses published tests they are fabricated but when Pix uses them, such as trumped up DBT's, what are they, then?

Consistency was never one of pixie's strongsuits. :out:

Pix, I don't know whether motion can be accurately measured or not but at least you are open to the possibility that there are things that cannot be measured and that is especially true in audio.

Pix denies that motion resolution can be measured because most LCDs perform poorly in that measure. Motion resolution is very easily measured using a monoscoping test pattern. CNET, Home Theater, HDTV Test, and other review sites use this test pattern in their motion resolution tests, and it's what Sony and Samsung use to report the motion resolution on their LCD TVs (where the local dimming LED models do very well).

Pix is the SHAM-WOW guy for Vizio. I bet he even wears the hands free headset around the house. Randomly shouts out "NO BURN IN-EVER!!!!"

Good one! You'll actually get a greenie for this one, even if you pimp for 'em ...

(Sir T sneaks in and looks about and proclaims) I see Wooch and the pixelated one is still goin at it. Some tings never change, Wooch knows what he is talking about, and the pixelated one does not.

Pixel, you make some outrageous claims that are just not supported by the science. I hate to tell you to go back to school, but they threw you out because you cannot keep up with the class. Tsk, tsk.....

OMG, where you been T? Good to see you checking in, just as I was checking out for a couple of weeks ...

pixelthis

07-25-2009, 10:32 PM

Viewing conditions do not change the fact that LCD TVs have measurable off-axis color shifting and significantly degraded off-axis contrast, while plasmas do not.

Nope, plasma is just so dim you need a telescope to see one

Congrats. The voices inside your head make for quite an impartial jury as to what "everybody on this site" knows. :out:

At least their is something inside my head, tap ypur noggin and theres this
odd ringing sound...

You seem to have forgotten that unintentional humor is your specialty. Irony apparently isn't, given that my "contraption" has a lower failure rate than yours. :lol:

Which is why a service contract costs more I guess, think they know something you dont?
OH YEAH, you think you know everything.

Try reading the article. It specifically notes that the LED Samsung in the test fails to display low level picture elements once they go below a certain threshold.

There is no way to tell this except to eyeball it and guess, typical of stuff you
swear by

What would you know about the test results, given that you haven't bothered reading them? "frabicated" refers to your oh-so-objective viewings at Sam's and Walmart, and certainly not a test where everything is documented and conducted under controlled testing conditions.

The people making up those "conditions" are biased, the entire purpose of these "tests"
is to slam LCD and promote Plasma.
If you can set the parameters of a "test" you can make it say just about anything you want.
Thats why "tests" displaying LCD'S STRENGHTS are never performed , just "tests" showing up imagined weakness.
AND still people line up to buy LCD while plasma is dying on the vine.
If LCD is just as crappy and sorry as you state, what do these people know that the great
Wooch doesnt?
I thought you knew everything

Eyeballing isn't the same as a verifiable test under controlled conditions. And considering your hostility towards the use of calibration discs, your purported ability to "eyeball" is laughable at best.

I have no "hostility" towards calibration discs, but they have no place in most peoples world.
MEANWHILE you cite the "eyeballed" motion resolution as gospel

That presumes that you're always watching TV alone. Color shifting becomes visible starting around 15 degrees for every LCD TV in the test.

AND THIS HAS NO PRACTICAL meaning in the real world.
AND YOU KNOW IT.
Plasma is so dim youi have to dim the lights to watch one, which one do you think people consider the worse(hint, they are choosing LCD)?

Better in what respect? Certainly not in picture quality.
pq AND JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE

And that would be a lie, given that in this very thread I said that plasma was not perfect.
Good for you, now we just have to finish the deprogramming....

We're happy with them because they offer up the best picture quality for the money.

You're happy with plasma because the phosper produces the type of picture you are used to.
Thats the type of picture you've always seen, so to you thats whats "normal"

Right, when OLED or SED or whatever tech is ready to go next time I'm ready to buy a TV, I'll gladly buy one.
Thats great, because you'll NEED ONE:1::dita:

drmorgan

07-27-2009, 11:24 PM

Some seemingly objective data here:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/22/lgs-240hz-lh90-led-tv-series-priced-global-release-dates-still/

The best picture is the one that is the fastest to refresh.. and 240 is four times the normal, plus it uses full LED so this one seems to be the most advanced I found... This was an April article..

Good critique and comments..

http://gizmodo.com/5271493/giz-explains-whats-so-great-about-led+backlit-lcds

Here is some 'shoot out' between several... The link will take you to the complete article...

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut.htm

Introduction
If you were shopping for a large-screen HDTV just a few years ago you would have seen mostly Rear Projection HDTVs, based primarily on DLP, LCD and LCoS technologies, plus a fair number of pricey direct-view Plasmas, and maybe a few very expensive direct-view LCDs. It’s amazing how the TV industry has abruptly toggled into an entirely different lineup. Now you’ll see mostly direct-view LCDs together with a small number of Plasmas. If you look in some back corner you may find a few attractively priced Rear Projection DLP HDTVs. CRT and LCoS technologies are now dead for HDTVs, and Rear Projection is “a dead man walking.”

Scientifically, it’s hard to understand why this happened because CRT, LCoS and DLP offered the highest picture quality at the lowest price, while direct-view large-screen LCDs have historically offered the lowest picture quality at the highest price. This seems to be the result of a series of consumer misconceptions together with some high powered industry marketing. Of course, all of the display technologies have improved dramatically over the last few years, so we decided to revisit this topic and do a new in-depth Shoot-Out comparison and analysis of LCD and Plasma technologies to find out how they are currently performing.

Figure 1 shows 11 HDTVs in the DisplayMate Technologies Demo Lab. Included are two Plasmas, eight LCDs, and one CRT Sony Professional HD Trinitron Studio Monitor, which was used as the reference standard. This was an in-depth scientific study that included precise calibrations, comprehensive spectroradiometer measurements, and a large number of jury panelists that viewed test patterns, test photos, and lots of high quality High Definition video material. The Shoot-Out was a large operation that was jointly produced by DisplayMate Technologies (www.displaymate.com) in collaboration with Insight Media (www.insightmedia.info), however, all of the technical analysis was done by the author.

The HDTVs included models from the top-tier brands of (alphabetically) LG, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp and Sony - from the mid-line to top-of-the-line models. All of the units were from the 2008 model year. Differences between the 2008 and 2009 models are primarily in their marketing hype. For this article we will concentrate on three flagship top-of-the line LCD models from Samsung (LN-T5281F), Sharp (LC-52D92U) and Sony (KDL-52XBR4), and a flagship top-of-the-line Plasma unit from Panasonic Professional (TH-50PF10UK). By concentrating on the top-of-the-line models from the market leaders we are assured of examining the state-of-the-art for each display technology and each manufacturer.

drmorgan

07-27-2009, 11:27 PM

More on types of LED.. and for my $ Vizio is in the race..

Not surprisingly, Vizio has just broken the LED price barrier. On Monday, the company announced that beginning this September it would ship the VF551XVT, a 55-inch LCD model using LED backlighting. The price: $2,200, or $1,000 less than Samsung’s smaller 46-inch LED-lit television. It looks like Samsung’s strategy to make its LED-based LCD TVs a premium product may have a short life.
........
While LCD TVs take the vast percentage of flat-panel sales, LCD manufacturers have been playing catchup when it comes to picture quality. The industry has been introducing technological tweaks to improve LCD’s ability to handle motion, increase contrast, and display colors more accurately.

But according to a new study by DisplayMate Technologies and supported by Insight Media (a consultancy), LCD as a technology continues to come up short when compared to its competitors.

DisplayMate tested 2008 top-of-the-line LCD sets from Samsung, Sharp, and Sony, and a top-of-the-line plasma display from Panasonic. The company’s aim was not to single out specific models but to look for issues common across the technologies.

DisplayMate’s owner, Dr. Raymond Soneira, pulls no punches in describing the effect of picture enhancement technologies employed by all TV manufacturers. Using names like Dynamic Backlight, Dynamic Contrast, Dynamic Black, Dynamic White, and Dynamic Color, Dr. Soneira says that they are all “essentially marketing gimmicks. They all reduce picture quality and accuracy and introduce ugly image artifacts.”

Dr. Soneira was particularly critical of LCD TVs’ inability to maintain picture quality when the sets were viewed from an angle. Contrary to industry claims, his tests showed that LCD picture quality (accurate colors, brightness, and contrast) deteriorated as soon as someone sat just 10 degrees off center.

------

Money talks, but in a recession it shouts. As consumers cut their spending, the retailers and brands that benefit are those that are perceived to offer the best value and lowest prices.

That consciousness has now benefited Vizio, the maker of LCD TVs known for their value per dollar and cut prices.

During the first quarter of 2009, Vizio’s share of the LCD market in North America soared; the company is now the top seller of LCD TVs, expanding its share by 79 percent compared with the first quarter of 2008, and by 21 percent versus the last quarter of 2008.

The losers are Samsung, which slipped to the No. 2 slot for LCD sales, and Sony, at No. 3.

In plasma, Panasonic retained its dominance, with a 39 percent share of that business. Samsung had 27 percent, while LG was third at 12 percent.

-----------

Can Vizio Maintain Its Price Advantage?
By ERIC A. TAUB
It’s coming up on crunch time for HDTV manufacturers who have relied on low prices to drive sales.

According to a new report from the iSuppli research firm, the price differences between similarly configured LCD sets from major and minor TV makers is dropping. And that puts pressure on the smaller companies, which have less ability than larger manufacturers to absorb losses and engage in long-term price wars.

ISuppli learned that prices for 40- to 42-inch 1080p LCD sets with a 60Hz refresh rate have dropped considerably. Last year, that sort of TV from Samsung cost $1,416; today it’s $920. Sony’s version has dropped to $1,098, from $1,455, while LG’s has gone to $1,099, from $1,650.

More important is the spread between the prices of the major players and that of its low-price nemesis, Vizio. Last year, LG’s TV was 52 percent more expensive than Vizio’s similar set; today that difference has dropped to 34 percent.

Samsung’s price differential was 31 percent; now it’s 12 percent. And Toshiba’s version dropped to 10 percent cheaper than Vizio’s, from 15 percent more expensive. Sony’s price difference stayed the same, at 34 percent.

RM: Note, the 120 refresh rate is much better.. Vizio is turning out to be not only an innovator, but also a value.

Mr Peabody

07-28-2009, 05:21 AM

Too bad Vizio wasn't included in the shoot out, it would have been interesting to see how they held up with a display that is so significantly cheaper than the leading brands.

drmorgan

07-29-2009, 09:23 AM

Too bad Vizio wasn't included in the shoot out, it would have been interesting to see how they held up with a display that is so significantly cheaper than the leading brands.

You're right... they look like a decent value and reports by real users sat they have brought features and value together at an affordable price point. On the other hand these sets have not been out long enough to demonstrate reliability.

The 'shoot' out probably depends on who was willing to submit sets or similar.

Was checking for someone not on fast internet about his Akai set glitches to discover a lot of products from Samsung (who made the Akai), have very bad after warranty issues which crop up again after repairs are made because they apparently don't go back and redo mistakes (gads GM philosophy is everywhere).

I recall reading that Vizio was a low overhead outfit out of Irvine. CA. (LA Times), Anyone know where Vizio subcontractors are located?

I hate to see so much stuff that looks great wind up not so after the check clears.

E-Stat

07-29-2009, 10:38 AM

You're right... they look like a decent value and reports by real users sat they have brought features and value together at an affordable price point. On the other hand these sets have not been out long enough to demonstrate reliability.
That's going to take a while, but I'll let you know since I have two of them. One gets pretty regular use in the bedroom. I've generally had good luck with TVs over the years. The large Samsung DLP has been trouble free (except for one bulb replacement) over the past four and a half years. I have a Magnavox CRT in the office that is fourteen years old!

rw

E-Stat

07-29-2009, 11:04 AM

That presumes that you're always watching TV alone. Color shifting becomes visible starting around 15 degrees for every LCD TV in the test.
Both of mine certainly do. Fortunately, they are used in bedroom locations where wide dispersion isn't critical. In the family room, however, it would be quite noticeable for viewers four and five who are off-axis.

rw

drmorgan

07-30-2009, 08:27 AM

That's going to take a while, but I'll let you know since I have two of them. One gets pretty regular use in the bedroom. I've generally had good luck with TVs over the years. The large Samsung DLP has been trouble free (except for one bulb replacement) over the past four and a half years. I have a Magnavox CRT in the office that is fourteen years old!

rw

I'll second the DLP reliability from Samsung now 6 years old. Also has reasonable side views and access for the kids games.

CRT's from Sony were still going when given away but the last one, a fairly new wide screen no one wants at 172 lbs. In quake country. (seemed appealing at the Circuit City liquidator sale).

According to one technical article, OLED's advantage with energy use is offset by a short life in retention of color shades. Panasonic licensed Sumitomo technology that supposedly solved that problem, but we won't know how long till they've been in market for years.

I'm advising friends give Panasonic Plasma a look due to lower cost compared to the better LCD's because they 'seem' better, although I'm typing on a seven year old 23" LCD Cinema Display (Apple) that has a 170 degree view angle and exceptional color and refresh (perhaps the video card). 3.9k was a kings ransom then, but not a glitch and slightly better blacks than the new, improved edition at 900. cost.

Cannon is expected to launch SED TV's that were on hold due to litigation. A Toshiba or Cannon were seen by one of our engineers and claims it is THE best of all. Look for sets to debut in 2010 under one of their brands.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

07-31-2009, 05:14 PM

You're right... they look like a decent value and reports by real users sat they have brought features and value together at an affordable price point. On the other hand these sets have not been out long enough to demonstrate reliability.

It's not only reliability that is an issue, performance is more a problem with these sets.

The 'shoot' out probably depends on who was willing to submit sets or similar.

Vizio much like Bose does not like to see their products next to others, or compared with others. As long as their televisions stand alone, it look fairly good(even the newer ones). Once you sit it next to a Sony, Panasonic or Samsung, its flaws become much more apparent.

Was checking for someone not on fast internet about his Akai set glitches to discover a lot of products from Samsung (who made the Akai), have very bad after warranty issues which crop up again after repairs are made because they apparently don't go back and redo mistakes (gads GM philosophy is everywhere).

Samsung also makes horrible Blu-ray players as well. They are slow with firmware upgrades, and their customer service sucks horse hoofs.

I recall reading that Vizio was a low overhead outfit out of Irvine. CA. (LA Times), Anyone know where Vizio subcontractors are located?

They are usually located in China, and it is not just one, they have many. They source their parts from all over China, and none of their current televisions are designed from the ground up. Panels come from one place, parts come from whomever has them at the time, and chip programming is off the shelf standard. This is why their televisions finish at the bottom of the heap in terms of performance. Even their customer service is farmed out to another company. They also do not like paying their liscening fees. All of this adds up to a way of selling televisions cheaper than their competitors(a benefit that is quickly disappearing)

I hate to see so much stuff that looks great wind up not so after the check clears.

Looks great is pretty relative.

Mr Peabody

07-31-2009, 08:24 PM

My experience with Samsung wasn't bad at all. The BD-P1200 was a good performer, lacked features being a 2nd gen player but I have two and they are still playing and the picture is great. With customer service all I had to do is call and they sent me the firmware update on disc. Marantz sucked in commparison, I was basically on my own to figure out how to download the firmware and I had to figure it out because they wouldn't send a disc and the dips on the phone didn't know anything. Now Samsung's 1500 is not nearly the machine the 1200 is but it retails at $180.00 too. Although Marantz customer service sucks, I do prefer their picture quality over either of the Samsung's I've tried. Samsung does need to get up to speed on the Java script though, even after the latest firmware update it still won't play the Disney movie Space Chimps.

I'm not likely to buy Marantz any more or anything under the parent umbrella, performance is one thing but it goes hand in hand with support.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

07-31-2009, 09:53 PM