Plasma's getting banned

[Kaiju]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...eco-blitz.html

Oh boy...

[brett_day]

have they not heard of calibration? a properly calibrated set will use less energy than an lcd.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by brett_day

have they not heard of calibration? a properly calibrated set will use less energy than an lcd.

Maybe the manufacturers will wake up, and make calibration less of a chore with some electronic "on board" help.

People are paying ridiculous sums to "calibration experts" just to get a decent picture from a very expensive device. It doesn't make sense.

[Kaiju]

[JimShaw]

I have been considering a plasma. Maybe I'll switch to LCD?????

[Jim L]

This is an amazing advance in plasma panel technology.

NeoPDP Plasma

<1" thick and uses much less energy than existing panels. Amazing!

[brett_day]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Maybe the manufacturers will wake up, and make calibration less of a chore with some electronic "on board" help.

People are paying ridiculous sums to "calibration experts" just to get a decent picture from a very expensive device. It doesn't make sense.

you don;t have to pay someone to come and calibrate (apart from ISF calibration) your tv, just using an in home program such as avia can help reduce the power consumption of the set

[FIDDYPOP]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Maybe the manufacturers will wake up, and make calibration less of a chore with some electronic "on board" help.

People are paying ridiculous sums to "calibration experts" just to get a decent picture from a very expensive device. It doesn't make sense.

I agree with you bro. My TV $3600 the stand was $400, after spending that amount you have to pay addotional money to get the "most" out of your set. That is BS! Espescially when the wife is like its looks good now, and I have to admit that it does look beautiful without calibration.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by brett_day

you don;t have to pay someone to come and calibrate (apart from ISF calibration) your tv, just using an in home program such as avia can help reduce the power consumption of the set

I don't think any type of calibration will reduce consumption to the level the Europeans are upset about. It takes a certain minumum amount of energy to just fire up a unit, and optimizing it will certainly cut down on wasted power...but it's probably not enough.

And I'm not impressed with "ISF" calibration. If anybody can do it, you can do it. Or the process should be automated so you can do it. Something is sideways with that whole calibration hustle, in my opinion.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by FIDDYPOP

I agree with you bro. My TV $3600 the stand was $400, after spending that amount you have to pay addotional money to get the "most" out of your set. That is BS! Espescially when the wife is like its looks good now, and I have to admit that it does look beautiful without calibration.

I just fiddle around with it every once in a while, when the mood strikes me. It looks terrific anyway.

[stockstar1138]

so.....which lcd manufactur is lobbying the EU?

[Jim L]

I just paid $250 to have my new Panny plasma calibrated.

To be honest, this TV already exceeded my expectations, but I wanted to get every bit of quality out of it that I could.

Yes, as a user, you can optimize the black level, contrast, sharpness, color saturation and tint to be more accurate, but there are multiple parameters in the service menu that you need professional equipment and knowledge to adjust correctly.

Believe me, I've had this done before on my Pioneer Elite CRT rear-project HD set. I saw the before and after difference.

And I saw a definite improvement this time on the Panny. The technician said that the THX mode is very accurate on the color parameters. But even at that, because of individual variances in each set . . .

• he could not use it to get the most accurate white-reference color temp of 6500 degrees Kelvin
• on that setting the TV couldn't reproduce blacker-than-black
• The grayscale was off too

I can confidently say now that I can see a huge improvement in contrast, blacks, and overall color accuracy. The colors looks so much more realistic than before. And blacks are very important in sci-fi and horror films. I just watched Serenity and wow! It really has an impact on the viewing experience!

Yes, $250 is a chunk of change and I'm all in favor of saving a buck. It may not be worth it to some, but I can say the difference if quite visible.

If you're saying that every manufacturer should ship each set pre-calibrated from the factory . . . I don't know if that's possible. They would have to charge more because it requires break-in and time to do a proper calibration.

I will say that the plasma calibration took less time than the one for the CRT RPTV. CRT RPTVs have certain technical limits that plasmas don't: convergence, screen geometry, overscan, and blooming that are not issues with plasmas. My recent calibration also cost half what it did years ago, so progress has been made. You should be grateful for the technology that is available to us today.

To me it was worth the $250!

[FIDDYPOP]

People are getting stupid with their '"green" attitudes. Undoubtedly saving the planet is important, but lets not get carried away. Focus on the real problem, I doubt its TV's. By the way was that article brought to us by the LCD manufacturers of the world.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by JimShaw

I have been considering a plasma. Maybe I'll switch to LCD?????

Because of the so-called high power consumption? Now way, my friend. Here is a piece I summarized awhile back on plasma vs LCD power consumption as evaluated by CR. If ~$53/year (assuming your set is on 8 hrs/day, 365 days/year). The article didn't specify, but I would imagine they had the TVs set to one of the factory preset picture modes. As mentioned earlier, a properly calibrated set will not only give you the best possible picture, but it will also cut the power usage roughly in half, if not more.

There have been more pasts than I care to remember from folks claiming the reason they didn't or won't consider a plasma is because it uses "so much more energy" than other display devices. In most of these claims, folks base their claims on the max wattage numbers cited in the various literature, which (I believe) represents power usage when one uses the display as an overhead light.

Anyway, Consumer Reports did a side-by-side comparrison of a 50" 1080p plasma versus a 52" 1080p LCD. I'll quote their test procedure:

"During testing, we measure each TV's power use when it's on and off (also known as standby mode). Then we calculate power consumption based on typical daily viewing - on for 8 hours and off for 16 hours. It's no big surprise that the bigger the screen, the more electricity a TV will use. But you might not know that plasma TVs typically use more energy than LCDs."

The total difference calculated over the course of one year? 1,159 kWh for plasma versus 667 kWh for LCD, or $53/year more to run a plasma. I don't believe it has ever been argued that plasmas don't use more energy than LCDs, but I would certainly hope that a minor $53/year is not enough to offset all of the other advantages of a plasma display.

I posted this to help educate, not to start another fanboy war. Let's hope we can keep the discussion civil and fact-based.

[quest88]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I don't think any type of calibration will reduce consumption to the level the Europeans are upset about. It takes a certain minumum amount of energy to just fire up a unit, and optimizing it will certainly cut down on wasted power...but it's probably not enough.

And I'm not impressed with "ISF" calibration. If anybody can do it, you can do it. Or the process should be automated so you can do it. Something is sideways with that whole calibration hustle, in my opinion.

There was an article I came across earlier in the week about California setting new standards for TV power consumption. I wish I bookmarked it. Maybe some of our European members can enlighten us about their power grid. I am aware that at least in the part of California I live in the power grid needs to be upgraded. I'm sure that will solve some of the power consumption issues we have here instead of going after our TV's.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by quest88

There was an article I came across earlier in the week about California setting new standards for TV power consumption. I wish I bookmarked it. Maybe some of our European members can enlighten us about their power grid. I am aware that at least in the part of California I live in the power grid needs to be upgraded. I'm sure that will solve some of the power consumption issues we have here instead of going after our TV's.

If they want to save on power here in California, they need to get some efficient air conditioning and home refrigerators into the mix. When we have heat waves here, they're not telling people to turn off their televisions...

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Jim L

I just paid $250 to have my new Panny plasma calibrated.

To be honest, this TV already exceeded my expectations, but I wanted to get every bit of quality out of it that I could.

Yes, as a user, you can optimize the black level, contrast, sharpness, color saturation and tint to be more accurate, but there are multiple parameters in the service menu that you need professional equipment and knowledge to adjust correctly.

(snip of some good comments)

To me it was worth the $250!

I've thought of having this done myself; but I have a problem with having to call in an expert (read: some dude with the right diagnostic gear) to do this.

The tools to do it can be incorporated into any television. Selling a TV with all the sing-song we hear about how great the picture looks, then calling in a mechanic to fulfill the promise, is aggravating. Especially with the huge bucks we shell out for these devices.

When I was still a practicing engineer, I saw all kinds of hustles of this stripe. I don't think you wasted your money - and I bet that set looks a lot better than when it first arrived at your home. I'm just irritated that ISF calibration is sold like witch doctor diagnostics, which it certainly isn't.

And it should be easier to set up a television than calling somebody up and handing him the equivalent of ten Blu-Ray movies to make your TV look good.

Just a rant, I guess. Glad you've honed your Panny to the sharpness it's capable of.

[DrinkMore]

I am a "green" supporter, however there are things that can bet taken to extremes. I think banning a TV because it draws more power than another tv is pretty extreme. Almost insane.

There are more pressing concerns out there right now. Let's try all the out dated appliances, HVAC systems (which use 50-60% of the homes electric), Cars and the like. Not sure how punishing the consumer fixes the problem. Especially when most tv's are watched in the evening and only for a few hours a day during OFF PEAK grid hours.

I dunno. I think people are getting crazy with this "green" stuff. The manufacturers are already improving the sets, making them thinner and using less electricity than ever before.

I think before the EU starts banning these TV's, ALL GOVERNMENT offices in the country should be using fluorescent and/or CFL lighting. Period.

[ifuwereahotdog]

But how would the government make any money off this? I bet you will see a separate tax for plasmas just like cars/trucks with big engines have a gas guzzler tax. These are some crazy times we live in.

[quest88]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

If they want to save on power here in California, they need to get some efficient air conditioning and home refrigerators into the mix. When we have heat waves here, they're not telling people to turn off their televisions...

I'm not trying to get off topic and I do agree with you but.......

If the power grid itself has outdated equipment that fails when pushed then you would think that is the first thing that should be upgraded. Then again money is the big pusher here and I'm not the power company.