I'm 99% sold on Plasma...

[BorrowedTime]

Originally Posted by rybread80

LCD vs Plasma??

I believe Plasma has definitely come along way... but I still feel LCD has it's advantages. Lifespan for one... I've read articles upon articles indicating that Plasma TVs are dying way too soon.

Can anyone comment on this? Am I just reading tabloid-like garbage?

There's an entire "Sticky" that is devoted to this subject, near the top of the HDTV Discussion forums page. That's where I started on my new TV journey. It's very informative, I suggest you read it.

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by MaleManGuy

Personally... I would pay the extra $ for the 20,000 to 30,000:1 contrast ratio. Altho I wouldn't really use the PC input... the contrast ratio may be worth it to ya ;-) TV's are just $200 or so apart... at least in US pricing :-)

pc input that's what i perfer in hdtv

[omgitsmikeyc]

[QUOTE=Ectoplasm;806837]There are downfalls to both. The LCDs can have clouds in the blacks. My plasma has other issues.

My LG Plasma buzzed a lot when I first got it. QUOTE]

thats your problem in itself... you bought an lg plasma.... sry. dont let commercials and p[rice drive your buys anymore. go with quality.

[Sonny]

[QUOTE=omgitsmikeyc;820670]

Originally Posted by Ectoplasm

There are downfalls to both. The LCDs can have clouds in the blacks. My plasma has other issues.

My LG Plasma buzzed a lot when I first got it. QUOTE]

thats your problem in itself... you bought an lg plasma.... sry. dont let commercials and p[rice drive your buys anymore. go with quality.

Yeah LG plasmas are on the bottom of the "totem pole' for sure, sorry.

[Prime Minister Judas]

Disadvantages of owning plasmas with 1024/768 are not true HD, just upscaled trash!

I hate the reflection off the glass panal, makes them look like old CRT garbage TVs.

Not good for PC input, LCD much nicer for PC.

Beta HD-TV!

Dies faster.

The image on LCDs is much nicer with richer colors and bright vibrant contrasts, that of course if you buy a proper brand.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Prime Minister Judas

The image on LCDs is much nicer with richer colors and bright vibrant contrasts, that of course if you buy a proper brand.

You mean like any of these "proper brands" mentioned in these two articles.

The first one is a shoot-out between the new LED-based LCD set from Samsung and a Pioneer plasma. The LED with “smart dimming” certainly leaves most of its LCD competitors in the dust, but when put up against a good plasma, it’s game over for the LED.
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...-round-ii.html



The second article is a bigger shoot-out between LCD, LCos, plasma and DLP. There are seven sets tested altogether.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/lcds/208hdface/

These are the seven sets tested:

• Samsung HL-T6187S LED DLP RPTV
• Sharp LC-52D64U LCD HDTV
• JVC LT-47X898 LCD HDTV
• Mitsubishi WD-57833 DLP RPTV
• Sony KDS-60A3000 SXRD HDTV
• Panasonic TH-50PZ750 Plasma HDTV
• Pioneer PDP-5080HD Plasma HDTV

Now the Pioneer won this match-up, but it was both the Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas that were rated as being in a league of their own over the other sets. You can read all the opinions on the last page of the article. Here are some highlights:

But there was no doubt about it—plasma is king.
~David Birch-Jones

Deep blacks and a viewing angle that allows more than one viewer to watch are big sellers for me, which explains why I was drawn to both the Pioneer and the Panasonic. Go with either, and you'll be happy.
~John Higgins

I kept going back and forth between the two plasmas: Pioneer and Panasonic. I knew they both looked the most natural and pleasing to me, with excellent blacks as well. I couldn't decide which I preferred.
~Maureen Jensen

So the key strengths or plasma are; realism, blacks, motion resolution and colour accuracy. You may hear a lot that people with bright rooms or uncontrolled lighting will want to avoid plasma, but to quote one of the main reviewers of televisions from the HD Guru website:

So why are consumers passing on better performing plasma TVs and spending more money (per inch screen size) for poorer performing large screen LCDs? Because they produce brighter pictures and consumers mistakenly believe “brighter is better.” However, unless one lives in a retail showroom or has set up an ultra-bright, high ambient light viewing environment that mimics a showroom, the HD Guru™ cannot understand why anyone would pay more to buy a top-rated LCD set when a less expensive top-rated plasma set will outperform it while still providing up to three times more light output than necessary in any typical home environment.

[DezNutz]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

You mean like any of these "proper brands" mentioned in these two articles.

The first one is a shoot-out between the new LED-based LCD set from Samsung and a Pioneer plasma. The LED with “smart dimming” certainly leaves most of its LCD competitors in the dust, but when put up against a good plasma, it’s game over for the LED.
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...-round-ii.html

Please do not confuse LCD TV's with LED backlighting with true LED or OLED TV's.

There is only one commercially available OLED or true full LED TV, and it's specs, including contrast ratios and true blacks are at least on par with top plasmas, and by most accounts ahead.

That and it uses ALOT less power, is slimmer, does not have glare or image retention issues...

It is far from "game over" for LED tv's, it is only a matter of time before they OLED TV's are the standard HDTV and best of all the current technologies (LCD, Plasma, CRT, DLP, Lcos).

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by DezNutz

Please do not confuse LCD TV's with LED backlighting with true LED or OLED TV's.

There is only one commercially available OLED or true full LED TV, and it's specs, including contrast ratios and true blacks are at least on par with top plasmas, and by most accounts ahead.

That and it uses ALOT less power, is slimmer, does not have glare or image retention issues...

It is far from "game over" for LED tv's, it is only a matter of time before they OLED TV's are the standard HDTV and best of all the current technologies (LCD, Plasma, CRT, DLP, Lcos).

No-one is confusing anything. The set mentioned in the first article is one of the new LED-lit LCD's and it falls well short of the plasma. It was not a blanket statement at all.

OLED isn't even HD yet, in a few years when it arrives commercially we can talk about it, but until then it's an 11" SD monitor.

[btf1980]

Originally Posted by DezNutz

Please do not confuse LCD TV's with LED backlighting with true LED or OLED TV's.

There is only one commercially available OLED or true full LED TV, and it's specs, including contrast ratios and true blacks are at least on par with top plasmas, and by most accounts ahead.

That and it uses ALOT less power, is slimmer, does not have glare or image retention issues...

It is far from "game over" for LED tv's, it is only a matter of time before they OLED TV's are the standard HDTV and best of all the current technologies (LCD, Plasma, CRT, DLP, Lcos).

LED is a pipedream right now. The only commercially available OLED is from Sony, and for $2,500, you get 11 inches and a native resolution of 960x540. Honestly, what is the point of a display like that? Completely worthless. It would be interesting to see how much have been sold at retail. It would be embarrassing to see those numbers to say the least. Something like that is DOA the minute it hits the store. Apart from a few eccentric individuals who might put this in their kitchen, no one is going to buy it. It offers nothing whatsoever at that pricepoint, other than the novelty of saying you have an OLED tv. It's not a bargain, resolution stinks, and the screen is smaller than a macbook.

OLED will not be the next best thing, at least not for another 5 years, but much like SED, it will probably fizzle away. We were through this a few years ago when SED was all the rage, it's pretty much a bust now. When OLED has a myriad of options that are decent sizes, 1080p native resolution and with reasonable prices, then wake me up. Until then, I and most people will be in a deep slumber because it won't be happening anytime soon.

The latest flavor of the month is Laser TV's. I just really have to wonder how people are crowning these unproven technologies to be champions when they have not even entered the race!!

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by btf1980

LED is a pipedream right now. The only commercially available OLED is from Sony, and for $2,500, you get 11 inches and a native resolution of 960x540. Honestly, what is the point of a display like that? Completely worthless. It would be interesting to see how much have been sold at retail. It would be embarrassing to see those numbers to say the least. Something like that is DOA the minute it hits the store. Apart from a few eccentric individuals who might put this in their kitchen, no one is going to buy it. It offers nothing whatsoever at that pricepoint, other than the novelty of saying you have an OLED tv. It's not a bargain, resolution stinks, and the screen is smaller than a macbook.

OLED will not be the next best thing, at least not for another 5 years, but much like SED, it will probably fizzle away. We were through this a few years ago when SED was all the rage, it's pretty much a bust now. When OLED has a myriad of options that are decent sizes, 1080p native resolution and with reasonable prices, then wake me up. Until then, I and most people will be in a deep slumber because it won't be happening anytime soon.

The latest flavor of the month is Laser TV's. I just really have to wonder how people are crowning these unproven technologies to be champions when they have not even entered the race!!

oled are also over priced

[Sonny]

Yeah my grandkids "might" get too enjoy oled.....but I'll be dead by then.....I hope

[richteer]

Originally Posted by john_1958

oled are also over priced

New technology is always more expensive than established tech. What's your point?

[DezNutz]

Originally Posted by Sonny

Yeah my grandkids "might" get too enjoy oled.....but I'll be dead by then.....I hope

My father said the same about plasmas and LCD's, let's hope his timing estimates are as good as yours.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by DezNutz

My father said the same about plasmas and LCD's, let's hope his timing estimates are as good as yours.

HAHAHAHA

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by richteer

New technology is always more expensive than established tech. What's your point?

my point is at Sony's XEL1 11" OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) Digital Television
XEL1

Price $2,499.99*
isn't worth it the cost no matter what

[richteer]

Originally Posted by john_1958

my point is at Sony's XEL1 11" OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) Digital Television
XEL1

Price $2,499.99*
isn't worth it the cost no matter what

To you perhaps. For some people it clearly is worth the $2500 entry price. I'm not one of them though; I'd rather wait until the technology becomes more comparably priced to plasma.

The point is that just because a technology is (currently) expensive, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist or isn't worth developing.

[btf1980]

Originally Posted by richteer

New technology is always more expensive than established tech.

Not always.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by DezNutz

My father said the same about plasmas and LCD's, let's hope his timing estimates are as good as yours.

So far he's right about LCD.

[richteer]

Originally Posted by btf1980

Not always.

Perhaps not always, but it's pretty much universal. I haven't tried very hard, but I can't think of an example off the top of my head where new tech was cheaper than old, especially with high tech stuff.

Note that I'm specifically talking about new tech, not new generations of established tech.

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by richteer

To you perhaps. For some people it clearly is worth the $2500 entry price. I'm not one of them though; I'd rather wait until the technology becomes more comparably priced to plasma.

The point is that just because a technology is (currently) expensive, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist or isn't worth developing.

if it were 46" and up then i could see it but not 11" which is pathetic