Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
Chrispy_ wrote:Plasma screens are very expensive to run and not as bright as LCD's
tanker27 wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:Plasma screens are very expensive to run and not as bright as LCD's
I have to disagree. I bought my Samsung Plasma (51" smart tv & 3d 1080p) last year for less than any current LED for the same capabilities. And as Ned pointed out a good set of curtains and facing away from glare or lighting sources and a Plasma does very well.
I love my Plasma and get comments about it all the time. I will do my darndest to keep it running.
Chrispy_ wrote:I'll counter your argument that the cost per year for a plasma vs LCD is negligible for most people. Maybe when LCD first started becoming more popular, they consumed far less energy than plasmas, but that's not really the case now. I'm pretty sure that a lot of plasmas are Energy Star rated. I've never had a problem with my 2007 Panny 50PZ700U's brightness, either. I know it's purely anecdotal, but I've never seen an LCD that looks as good as my 6 year old plasma, at least at the same price range. Dollar for dollar, it was the best "bang for your buck" set available, and it's still kicking ass.Plasma screens are very expensive to run and not as bright as LCD's
Chrispy_ wrote:I think that's also part of the problem. Since LCD's are cheaper to produce, it's in a store's interest to sell the cheaper sets, as they'll sell more of them. One of the ways to do so is to "sabotage" the image quality of the few plasmas that are actually on display. They'll tweak the calibration of the LCDs until the cows come home to look good in the store, and either poorly calibrate the plasmas, or not at all. Also, it's not exactly wise to base your purchasing decision strictly on how something looks in the store. The brightness and color settings are going to be jacked up just so they catch your eye....the LCD's actually look better...alonside similar spec plasmas in your typical high-street store.
MadManOriginal wrote:A less expensive item might sell more volume because it's less expensive but that's no reason to sabotage the image of a more expensive item - they'd still be happy to sell the more expensive one.
Dizik wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:I'll counter your argument that the cost per year for a plasma vs LCD is negligible for most people. Maybe when LCD first started becoming more popular, they consumed far less energy than plasmas, but that's not really the case now. I'm pretty sure that a lot of plasmas are Energy Star rated. I've never had a problem with my 2007 Panny 50PZ700U's brightness, either. I know it's purely anecdotal, but I've never seen an LCD that looks as good as my 6 year old plasma, at least at the same price range. Dollar for dollar, it was the best "bang for your buck" set available, and it's still kicking ass.Plasma screens are very expensive to run and not as bright as LCD'sChrispy_ wrote:I think that's also part of the problem. Since LCD's are cheaper to produce, it's in a store's interest to sell the cheaper sets, as they'll sell more of them. One of the ways to do so is to "sabotage" the image quality of the few plasmas that are actually on display. They'll tweak the calibration of the LCDs until the cows come home to look good in the store, and either poorly calibrate the plasmas, or not at all. Also, it's not exactly wise to base your purchasing decision strictly on how something looks in the store. The brightness and color settings are going to be jacked up just so they catch your eye....the LCD's actually look better...alonside similar spec plasmas in your typical high-street store.
JohnC wrote:OLEDs really need to come out soon, at similar price points.
Flying Fox wrote:Mass mediocrity trumps high quality I guess (the new generation all grew up on lossy MP3s without knowing better ).
I.S.T. wrote:tanker27 wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:Plasma screens are very expensive to run and not as bright as LCD's
I have to disagree. I bought my Samsung Plasma (51" smart tv & 3d 1080p) last year for less than any current LED for the same capabilities. And as Ned pointed out a good set of curtains and facing away from glare or lighting sources and a Plasma does very well.
I love my Plasma and get comments about it all the time. I will do my darndest to keep it running.
He was referring to power consumption, not the price of the TV itself.
Savyg wrote:There is FLAC and its lossless frends. And no more excuses now as flash memory storage is much cheaper than the 512MB - 2GB MP3 player/iPod days.Flying Fox wrote:Mass mediocrity trumps high quality I guess (the new generation all grew up on lossy MP3s without knowing better ).
Or maybe they just don't want to carry around a stack of CDs which will inevitably deteriorate and become useless.
CB5000 wrote:What about those Pannys with 640Hz(!)?I can't stand plasma displays because it flickers. Most people can't see the flicker but I can see it and it causes massive headaches. For me led is just simply better even if the picture quality isn't as good. At least I won't feel like vomiting after watching a movie.
I remember having to crank up the refresh rates back in the day of CRT monitors to 100Hz... even 85Hz wasn't enough, and 60-75hz was just torture...
Even plasma screen rated at 100Hz still look very flickery to me..
Flying Fox wrote:There is FLAC and its lossless frends. And no more excuses now as flash memory storage is much cheaper than the 512MB - 2GB MP3 player/iPod days.
Captain Ned wrote:MadManOriginal wrote:A less expensive item might sell more volume because it's less expensive but that's no reason to sabotage the image of a more expensive item - they'd still be happy to sell the more expensive one.
Depends on what mfgs are paying what spiffs.
Savyg wrote:Flying Fox wrote:There is FLAC and its lossless frends. And no more excuses now as flash memory storage is much cheaper than the 512MB - 2GB MP3 player/iPod days.
If you can buy music straight off the internet that way from the stores you prefer, cool. Sadly I can not.
To be honest, I don't know why anyone would care unless they've spent thousands on their sound system.
Chrispy_ wrote:I'm basing my actual opinions on Plasmas vs LCD's having worked with 50-60", top-of-the range plasmas from Pioneer, Panasonic and NEC over the last decade or so. Only very recently (last couple of years) have I decided that LCD's are the way forwards for everyday viewing;
Power consumption of large plasmas is truly shocking - around three times higher than your typical LCD. Yes, I know new plasmas are much better, but we're still talking about >200W versus <100W in the 50" range.
Boardrooms do not have curtains and I do not like my living room to be in a perpetual blackout state, which also means that a plasma needs to be run at maximum wattage to match the lower-brightness, eco-settings of an LCD.
Plasma vs LCD is an apples to oranges comparison, that much I know; What strikes me as prominent with the current generations is that the LCD tech has matched all the previous advantages plasma had over LCD, and yet still carries all of its existing advantages over plasma. Short of cost reasons on a 60" display or larger, I am being biased (by my love for watching a movie in a very dark room) if I try and defend plasmas. Things like lower weight and physical thickness, are all just icing on the cake, so to speak.
cynan wrote:If you want a movie-centric display in a moderately light controlled environment, plasmas probably win. For more casual viewing, especially in bright rooms, LCDs have the edge. TO me, everything else is secondary.
ChronoReverse wrote:I'm actually thinking of getting a plasma precisely because of hockey. Everything else looks fine on my LCD but hockey's clean ice surface brings out every single flaw.