2010: The Year OLED TV Makes Contact?

[Woochifer]

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]

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! ) But, you'd still be wrong if you actually bother to read my posts. Nice try though.

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.

[pixelthis]

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.

[zepman1]

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.

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]

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.

[Woochifer]

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.

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!

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.

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.

[Woochifer]

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.

[pixelthis]

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.

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.

[pixelthis]

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.

[GMichael]

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.

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]

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.

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!

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.

[

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

[Smokey]

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/e..._OU=51&PK=yssp

[zepman1]

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.

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]

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!

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

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

Not if the TVs themselves cost twice as much.

[Woochifer]

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/e..._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!

[pixelthis]

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

[pixelthis]

]

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!

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

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

[Mr Peabody]

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]

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.

Any phosper based system will get dimmer as time goes by.
Phosper gets used up as it glows.
Unk as to how much of a concern this is tho.

[zepman1]

]

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]

[QUOTE]

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.

[zepman1]

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]

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]

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!

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






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. [/QUOTE]

[pixelthis]

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