geekhack

geekhack Community => Other Geeky Stuff => Topic started by: instantkamera on Mon, 20 September 2010, 08:28:11

Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 20 September 2010, 08:28:11
Not making a poll since I would prefer some justification and discussion on specific models etc.

SO, if you were in the market for a new Television/entertainment display, what would you buy and why?

- LCD (if so, which backlight tech?)
- Plasma
- DLP/other Rear Pj.
- (front) Projector
- CRT
- Other

Just a bit of info, I am currently looking at two displays and Im not sure which one I will be going with (if either).

One is an LCD (CCFL), the other is a Plasma. Both are highly regarded.

Note, this is not about computer monitor technology, so please don't make arguments about monitors here (aside from the performance of a given display with an HTPC).
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: itlnstln on Mon, 20 September 2010, 08:56:10
LED-backlit LCD.

I have a DLP with an LED light engine, and I really like it other than the viewing angle issues.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 20 September 2010, 09:11:20
Quote from: itlnstln;224861
LED-backlit LCD.

I have a DLP with an LED light engine, and I really like it other than the viewing angle issues.


Any reason why?

It is a technology I'm not currently considering as by all accounts the viewing angles are worse and uniformity/flashlighting is generally far worse. Good LEDs are few and far between and CCFL is far better value at present.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: vils on Mon, 20 September 2010, 09:15:32
Quote from: instantkamera;224862
Any reason why?

It is a technology I'm not currently considering as by all accounts the viewing angles are worse and uniformity/flashlighting is generally far worse. Good LEDs are few and far between and CCFL is far better value at present.

LCD has no burn-in issues as plasma does. LED backligthing is more even and black gets blacker. It also uses less power.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: itlnstln on Mon, 20 September 2010, 09:17:22
What vils said.  You also get longer life from LEDs.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: iMav on Mon, 20 September 2010, 09:20:36
Another vote for LED-backlit LCD.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 20 September 2010, 09:31:36
Quote from: vils;224863
LCD has no burn-in issues as plasma does. LED backligthing is more even and black gets blacker. It also uses less power.

burn-in is a non issue and IR is greatly reduced with the new sets as well.

Plasma has generally better motion and motion resolution (most offer a full 1080 lies of res in a full motion scene).

If you read other forums (AVS), you will hear tell of far more uniformity and flashlighting issues with LED than a good CCFL.

Plasmas generally have the best black levels.

Plasmas are more reflective, but most LED backlit are glossy (uggh, why??).

Im still not convinced on LED, does anyone own a set?

I care about:

- fairly accurate motion with no "soap opera" effect.

- solid black level performance with a uniform screen and good colour (I don't need the best blacks, but they have to be very good without other compromises and accurate colour).

- gaming - no lag. Again I don't need the BEST, but I can't deal with noticeable lag.

- size (52-60 inch)


I dont care about power-consumption, and the TV should have a decent 5 year life. I figure in that time I will have money for the latest and greatest.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: frvrngn on Mon, 20 September 2010, 09:41:31
Where will it be used?  

Will there be adequate light source control?  (blinds on windows, any reflection issues, over head lights, etc.)

What are you mainly using the TV for?  Sports, Movies, Sitcoms, Games

Dedicated theater setup with front and center seating or living room with chairs all around at many angles?

Plasma and LCD both have their pros and cons, but a lot depends on how and where it will be used.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: itlnstln on Mon, 20 September 2010, 09:48:46
I think as long as you go with a direct backlight LED display (especially one with local dimming), you shouldn't have a problem, and the Vizios I have seen, as well as some Samsungs, didn't have any of the problems you mentioned.  I don't own one, however, so I don't get to stare at one everyday.  That said, while I like AVS, they have a tendency to spread panic there a lot, and you get a lot of "me too" posters that overplay some problems.  So much so, that I don't go there anymore unless I have a problem that I am trying to research.  The best thing to do is go to a high-end A/V store and look for yourself.  I wouldn't get too caught up in technology differences, just go to the store and pick the TV you like the best.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: itlnstln on Mon, 20 September 2010, 09:57:40
I'm glad my GF likes my 61-incher.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 20 September 2010, 09:59:29
Quote from: frvrngn;224867
Where will it be used?  

Will there be adequate light source control?  (blinds on windows, any reflection issues, over head lights, etc.)

What are you mainly using the TV for?  Sports, Movies, Sitcoms, Games

Dedicated theater setup with front and center seating or living room with chairs all around at many angles?

Plasma and LCD both have their pros and cons, but a lot depends on how and where it will be used.

fairly well controlled light-wise. Basement with small windows that are easily covered and dont allow a ton of light to begin with. Small recessed pot lighting with dimmers. I feel like a plasma would be no issue here, especially one with a  decent AR filter.

In order of importance:

- Bluray movies

- Gaming on my PS3 with no (noticeable) lag (I am NOT a hardcore gamer though).

- HDTV via cable provider, as few SD channels as possible.

- upscaled DVDs


Just to be clear, I have done A LOT of research on displays and am fairly confident that I am looking at two of the better sets in my price range (~$2000CAD), but I did want some feedback from you guys, being a fairly geeky forum and all. I am really curious to hear about specific models.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 20 September 2010, 10:09:24
Quote from: itlnstln;224869
I think as long as you go with a direct backlight LED display (especially one with local dimming), you shouldn't have a problem, and the Vizios I have seen, as well as some Samsungs, didn't have any of the problems you mentioned.  I don't own one, however, so I don't get to stare at one everyday.  That said, while I like AVS, they have a tendency to spread panic there a lot, and you get a lot of "me too" posters that overplay some problems.  So much so, that I don't go there anymore unless I have a problem that I am trying to research.  The best thing to do is go to a high-end A/V store and look for yourself.  I wouldn't get too caught up in technology differences, just go to the store and pick the TV you like the best.


I HAVE heard good things about vizios.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: frvrngn on Mon, 20 September 2010, 10:10:11
If you want the best in movie performance - Plasma.  Best blacks, best motion control.

basement setting is ideal for Plasma as you can make it as dark as you want.  You may still want some ambient lighting behind the screen at very low levels.

With the newest plasma screens you dont need to worry as much about IR.  Most screens have any number of ways to combat it from imperceptible pixel orbiters to scrolling white bars to "wipe" the screen clean if needed.  I would not game on one for hours on end, especially if it has static icons, but for short to medium gaming sessions you should be fine.

I would break in the screen properly before doing too much gaming.  After that, look up some base calibration specs on AVS for your model, get something like Video Essentials and do it yourself, or just tweak it to your liking.  For breaking it in you can do a slideshow of colored slides that you can download for free from AVS or other sites or you can just do the easy way of playing the Cartoon Channel on vivid/store/way too bright mode.  That actually works quite well with the random motion and bright color palette.  

Just out of curiosity what models of Plasma and LCD are you looking at?
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 20 September 2010, 10:12:30
panny 54G25

Sony 60EX500
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Lanx on Mon, 20 September 2010, 15:59:50
ppl who say
"plasma has burn in issues"
have info from 2001... yea
if you say movies? then you have to go plasma, if you say movies and big screen? then plasma
really LCD should only be regulated to rooms that get 18hours of direct sunlight a day or for the bedroom.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Rajagra on Mon, 20 September 2010, 16:18:59
I can't help but feel that every step the manufacturers make to reduce screen burn in is matched by broadcasters' determination to put permanent Digital Onscreen Graphics on show.

Also, don't most plasma makers recommend you set the brightness and contrast low for the first 100-200 hours of use? Do you think that is really a way of breaking in the TV? Isn't it more likely to be a way of recalibrating the user's taste so they keep those settings low? Clever trick, I think.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: itlnstln on Mon, 20 September 2010, 16:46:41
I fully calibrate new displays as soon as I get them.  Out-of-the box settings typically suck.  Usually, brightness and contrast settings are way too high.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Voixdelion on Mon, 20 September 2010, 19:38:52
Another here for LED backlit - Specifically Samsung 8000 series I think.  The 240Ghz technology whatsisit (supposedly- according to the salesman who seemed pretty well informed -  it is the thing that is responsible for my staring at it agog with wonder and awe.  I think its to do with the motion issue)  is absolutely GORGEOUS.  Stunning, really. That is what I decided would be next TV, but thats a ways off still.

 Been in love ever since I saw one on display and spent about 45 minutes staring at the video of the store wanting to reach in the screen and tap myself on the shoulder. It was quite amazing.  Skinny *****, at about 1/2".  Was told it even more energy efficient than the LCD's too.  

Picture was easily the best compared to anything else.  Sony had a nice offering, but the Samsung was better by a decent notable margin, and I am disenchanted with them anyways for their fall from grace in reliability and longevity.  By contrast, I've seen my 10 year old SyncMaster for sale used at a surprisingly high amount even as recently as last year and still love mine... I only wish it were bigger.   I bought that at the time when I was pretty exclusively a fan of Sony and I was struggling with the idea that I liked the picture on the Samsung better (and I do mean STRUGGLED; I stood there for about two hours in the aisle comparing picture between the Sony I would have bought and the 170MP before conceding that I was about to buy an electronic item that didn't say SONY on it for the first time in more than a decade.)  Despite the trepidation that it might not prove as trustworthy, it was just too pretty to pass up; Now it even seems that Samsung has taken up where Sony left off in terms of manufacturing quality.  My Samsung LCD is easily viewable from all sorts of angles, up down or sideways.  This is something Samsung has done better than anyone else as far as I can tell - I have grown used to it, and always forget when looking at other LCD's that the angle matters until I get annoyed and have to adjust something.  I had to schlep it to a friends briefly once, and there was much commentary on what a beauty she was even at 17", and I doubt anyone even realized how old it is.

I like the picture on the plasma's, but they suck up waaay to much electricity. My bill is high enough already that I am thinking about ways to get off the grid.  Plus they get REALLY hot, which makes me think that the electronics inside are not going to take that kind of punishment well after awhile.  Nice picture though.

Won't be going in for the whole 3D tv thing, though.  I think there is very little that needs to be 3-D on tv, if anything.  Anybody think that is gonna take off or what?
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Rajagra on Mon, 20 September 2010, 20:26:03
Quote from: Voixdelion;225024
Won't be going in for the whole 3D tv thing, though.  I think there is very little that needs to be 3-D on tv, if anything.  Anybody think that is gonna take off or what?


When Internet porn is mostly 3D, TV will follow suit.

I can't see it being truly successful until they get rid of the glasses though. It's bad enough trying to find the remote without something else to look for.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Voixdelion on Mon, 20 September 2010, 20:30:37
Also just my two cents on 2 things in the OP:  

1- CRT is plenty pretty but I think gone the way of the Dinosaur just because of the bulk issue.  My mom got her widescreen flatscreen crt Bravia for a song when Frye's was trying to get rid of em. It was actually on the ground, on a bottom shelf but both my Mom and I were attracted to the picture such that we both independently ended up in front of it despite that we weren't even shopping for a tv that day.  The thing actually dropped another $130 bucks off the price in the two days between our deciding she should snag it and the time she could arrange for it to be delivered, hence saving even more.  She had been toying with the idea of getting an HD but hadn't jumped in on the skinny sets because the picture left something to be desired on the LCD's and the Plasma was too hoggy on the juice.  Since the TV was going into a spot that wouldn't matter about the depth of the set anyway, it was the perfect solution.  (Plus she has the peace of mind that even if someone thief breaks in there's no way in hell that set is going anywhere unless they brought a crew of 4 to pick it up.  Its a BEAST easily over 2 maybe  even  3 hundred pounds.  A 1080p HD set with gorgeous picture and excellent sound quality for under 500 bucks with anti-theft built in.  Not bad for an impulse buy. )

If you have the space and aren't needing it to be easily moved and can actually find one for sale, I've never heard any complaints about CRTs picture-wise.  But when they begin aging they do start to darken or what have you.  They are a chunk of change cheaper than the comparable LCD variety in the same size, but End of Life in tech which may be problematic for longevity maintenance.  

2- Projection screen tvs are always leaving something to be desired in terms of clarity. I have not yet seen a projection screen tv that even comes close to the picture quality of any CRT.  The main benefit, I think, is a size/cost ratio advantage over the other options, but it is a tradeoff since it will never match the picture quality of its rivals.  What you save in $ will cost in clarity.  I would rather a CRT than projection every time.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Voixdelion on Mon, 20 September 2010, 20:35:20
Quote from: Rajagra;225029
When Internet porn is mostly 3D, TV will follow suit.

I can't see it being truly successful until they get rid of the glasses though. It's bad enough trying to find the remote without something else to look for.


EEeeeewww!- gives new meaning to the phrase "Comin' atchya!"

Plus I read that some people have motion sickness issues/headache. and some percentage of people can't actually use the glasses at all due to the fact that its taxing on the synapses to sync images in the brain.  Frankly, I just don't think it all that nifty or adds much unless its specifically designed to be a blockbuster special effects bonanza.  Even then, it still needs story, so I think 3DTV I don't need, maybe don't even want.  Certainly not in porn.  Ugh.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Lanx on Mon, 20 September 2010, 20:44:02
roger ebert on 3d
"IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION. When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows against the horizon”? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing."

seeing this i agree, and even tho he's a critic, i mean he has prolly logged more movie hours than 10 of the laziest couch potatoes.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: microsoft windows on Mon, 20 September 2010, 20:50:33
I would recommend getting a used TV. There's a lot of great stuff out by the side of the road there that people just throw away. I bet you could probably get 5 working televisions if you took a good look around town.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Arc'xer on Mon, 20 September 2010, 22:57:54
Quote from: Voixdelion;225024
Another here for LED backlit - Specifically Samsung 8000 series I think.  The 240Ghz technology whatsisit (supposedly- according to the salesman who seemed pretty well informed -  it is the thing that is responsible for my staring at it agog with wonder and awe.  I think its to do with the motion issue)  is absolutely GORGEOUS.  Stunning, really. That is what I decided would be next TV, but thats a ways off still.


Ah, good ole' salesman, trying to "help". Most refresh rate technologies are lies to the consumers, using motion interpolation. There is black frame insertion and the other one is the motion predictor which often gives the soap opera effect.

Black screen insertion adds a black screen in place of the real refresh i.e. 120hz or 1000/120 = 8.33ms, a black frame is added that gives an illusion of smoother motion by tricking your eyes with the black frame and when the next frame hits your eyes it looks sharp, clear, and new. Ironically this motion interpolation is preferred by most people because it mimics the CRT refresh rate in reverse. See a CRT image decays and so the image is refreshed and redrawn so it pretty much stays in your eyes fresh so it look good.

The next one is probably more true to being an interpolation than the previous. It literally cuts out parts of the frame and draws them ahead in a new made image. For example a soccer player kicking a ball, there would literally be a fake leg in between frames. People call it a soap opera because they are seeing the frames being created individually and are acting as anomalies which people can see. And it's ironic because most people will say the human eye can't see more than 30 frames per second or whatever it is that bull**** myth that keeps popping around. And what's more this motion interpolate adds a ****load of input lag.

Only the 3D TVs with shutters are real 120hz accepting a 120hz signal from a source but not all 3D TVs are real some use tricks for 3D.

Most TVs are still actually 60hz(60Hz signal/30FPS) with 240hz motion interpolation. See 60Hz is 1000/60 = 16.68 millisecond(rounded up), the image is redrawn 60 times a second and the millisecond is the pixel update time. This is different from response time which is the amount of time it takes a pixel to change state for example a CRT of good quality usually operates in the low microsecond even nanoseconds.

See most broadcast frame rates are 30 frames per second. So in essence, each frame is being redrawn twice because 30FPS is 1000/30 = 33.33ms so there is an additional update per unique frame.

The reason why 120, 240, 480 are used is because they are equal divisors of lower frame rates. If real then there is a big difference compared to motion interpolation. The sad thing is most people have never experienced higher refresh rates than 90, so many people are so used to 60Hz.

Let's take 240Hz for example. Let's say you had a television with real 240Hz; let's go ahead and say it's an OLED television with ultra-low microsecond response time.

Let's clear something up:

1. Response time is simply the amount of time it takes the pixels to change state. i.e. say a high-end CRT it's electron gun operates in 10-20 nanoseconds but the phosphor say takes 150-200 microseconds to change state, ignoring phosphor decay FYI.

2.Refresh rate is the amount of times an image is drawn and or redrawn and also dictates the pixels change state of a frame. i.e. 90FPS(1000/90 = 11.1ms) with say 90Hz, so every 11.1 millisecond the pixels change state or should I say every 11.1ms an image is drawn or refreshed(if we used 180Hz, twice as much as 90 then it would refresh at 5.57ms), while the pixels themselves are able to change state as fast as say 120 microseconds.

First 1000/240 = 4.68ms(rounded up), this means that every about 4 milliseconds a frame is drawn or refreshed.

Let's say your watching a blu-ray film at 24P(24 frames per second; progressive scan); 240/24 = 10. The first frame is a unique frame, the next 9 frames are refreshes of the original. 10 refreshes x 24 frames = 240. If we used 30/60 as common then it's 2 refreshes x 30 = 60.

The whole divisor thing also works in another way. Say you had 480 frames per second in a game but your monitor is 120hz. If you get 480/120 = 4, so in essence your seeing 120 frames per second of 1/4th tears of 480. So even though your not seeing 480 frames per second individually or complete, your still seeing 1/4th of 480 frames per second clustered into 120 complete frames. Which is why serious/hardcore/pro gamers don't use v-sync because the game's feeling still changes despite not having complete frames both the game and the feeling of the mouse.

So in essence refresh rate is not just a to show a single image but also acts as a divider to less or more frames. So with less an equal say 30 and 120, there is enough refresh rate to show a complete frame and thus the images are simply refreshed. But if you have more than the refresh rate the complete frames drawn by the GPU are simply cut up and you see tearing in game because your only seeing a partial frame.

But now if you add more frame rates your opening up a whole new can of worms. Because it just makes things so much better but that is more so to gaming rather than films as higher frame rates slows down the film due to the way they are shot.

If your wondering redrawing the image with say a 30FPS source and 120hz, the image is updated more often despite being lower frame rate. And thus there is a smoother transition in between frames. Though the transition is more smoother with actual individual frames 120 with 120, even with less and equal it's still benefits the movements.

Quote from: Voixdelion;225024
Won't be going in for the whole 3D tv thing, though.  I think there is very little that needs to be 3-D on tv, if anything.  Anybody think that is gonna take off or what?


3D television is a good thing but not for obvious reasons.

First my view on 3D is that it is a gimmick, not fake. Just not my thing nor is it gonna be popular.

But it's a good thing because it pisses the living **** out of manufacturers because people complain that LCDs response time are too slow and causing issues. So it forces manufacturer to go to OLED or risk losing money. In fact most people don't realize just how much response time LCD monitors/televisions have they see 2-5 GtG, WtW, and BtB but what about the other colors. Those numbers are anywhere between 15-100+ms depending on color and that is on top of the 60Hz standard refresh rate so 16.68ms + response time.

It forces manufacturers to introduce higher refresh rates, for far too long refresh rates have been ignored. Even just a few refresh rates higher makes a difference, just going from 60 to 75 or 75 to 85 is noticeable. Though I'd say 90Hz should have been more standard because it's equal to the 30FPS when watching movies and clips online and whatnot.

It was only until last year 2009, that the first 120hz LCD monitors and later on in 2010 more LCD monitors and a few televisions with real refresh rates came out. It's like, really that goddamn long?. CRTs have had very high refresh rates in particular to high-end consumer CRTs even at respectable resolutions.

Do you know how many would have killed just to have say 90Hz on a 2560x1600 or 1920x1080/1200 monitor. Just a little extra bit that makes a difference.

A great example is this 1280x1024 Hanns-G LCD monitor I bought back in like '07 or so. Unfortunately it was a HORRIBLE TN panel but it had 85Hz over VGA. And it felt a lot smoother than LCD I had previously used. So just that little extra helped. It might have been an utterly horrible panel that had black levels so crushed you could run in front of me in a game that is dark and I wouldn't see you. But the refresh rate more than made up for it.

So the whole 3D is a last hurrah for the manufacturers to gouge people with LCDs before moving into OLED. LCDs have been manufactured for so long that moving into OLED is gonna cost them so much money so they'd rather eek out the last few dollars before people realize just how bad LCDs are.

Also I noticed a lot of talk on LEDs. I wanted to point something out to those who think LEDs are different. They aren't in fact some people believe LEDs are something new and don't realize it's just a backlight. Not just that but I've even read of salesman lying to consumers saying LED = OLED when it's not absolutely not.

LED is simply a backlight like CCFL. LEDs do not improve anything except power consumption and being thinner. The most common use is edge-lit which is the same **** as CCFL light.

LEDs don't improve the monitor images. In fact it can actually harm the image because the white point of the LEDs is usually around 9300K which makes the whites bluer rather than the more standard 6500K white point that is used in calibration for monitors.

The other method is local dimming. Now this method does make a difference and certainly helps a lot. But your not gonna see this on LED monitors and it's usually priced at a premium. But it's still not gonna be a complete solution.

But again LEDs aren't gonna help with image quality.

Remember they are still LCDs, they are still indirect lit. No matter what you do to improve the light it's still gonna bleed through. So no real blacks, it's gonna be grey and black crushed due to the inherent flaws in LCD panels.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Voixdelion on Tue, 21 September 2010, 00:37:13
I actually need to re-read that again to get my head around it, I'm not  quite getting about the refresh rates but thats not the first  explanation of that which has gone over my head, so it's probably my  comprehension at issue, not the explanation.  But I picked up a couple  things that struck a familiar chord from the discussion I had with the  salesman.

"Local dimming" was the issue of note. Which means I was looking at an  8500 series tv, not 8000 apparently.  I do know that it was a true  backlit (as opposed to edge lit) with localized dimming and I just  wanted to reach right into the screen it looked so real.  According to  ad specs Samsung has something called "Auto Motion Plus frame  interpolation technology that has a true 240Hz  refresh rate"  - this is what I was trying to reference originally.   Is this good? It looked good...  actually it looked spectacular.

 I'm not clear on whether the 8500 is the same as the 9000 series since I  didn't research it other than to figure out what it was I'd seen. It  was several thousand dollars so I wouldn't be in the market for one of  these right now, but I wanted to note what it was for when I was ready  to start  checking things off the wish list.   Til then I am actually still quite  pleased with the picture quality on my Sony Trinitron CRT.  I'd still be  singing SONY's praises if they hadn't had so many reliability problems  and such a bad attitude towards us loyal customers who have been paying a  premium for their products for years.  I wouldn't have started  complaining if the 35" I bought in 98 would have kept working at least  through '06, or even if the 36" I bought used to replace it had worked  at all when I got it home. I'm not using the one I got to replace that  one much, but I'm kind of afraid I'll kill it if I do, and  I can't  afford the Sammy yet.  Its not as HD spiffy as my mom's Bravia - which  kicks ass - but its good enough for me till I can afford something like  that Samsung.  It looked 3D without the glasses. (and I never really considered that whole wasted dimension thing, but it's an excellent point.)  If I'm gonna get a new set that costs a good chunk of  change anyway, I don't think I'd be happy with something less expensive  now that I've seen that one.  Samsung has at least earned my respect  with the experience I've had with my syncmaster.  I like their cell  phones too.  


So actually yes  - why not get a used tv as suggested?  Especially if considering CRT since tons of people are dumping theirs in favor of the flatter kind.  Good quality to be found for cheap I would think...Recently Chad picked up a nearly new 46" HD LCD thing for 4 or 5 hundred on craigslist from someone who was either desperately in need of cash or found one that "fell off a truck."
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Arc'xer on Tue, 21 September 2010, 03:59:51
There is no way a television can have 240Hz/480Hz/600Hz as of right now.

This is a great explanation especially of how plasmas work. http://www.best-3dtvs.com/guides/what-does-600hz-sub-field-drive-mean/ (http://www.best-3dtvs.com/guides/what-does-600hz-sub-field-drive-mean/)

Basically with plasmas the refresh rate is decoupled from the pixel update. So in essence there is two different refresh rate except one draws the image. The other just refreshes the pixels independently of that image. One of the reasons why burn-in doesn't happen much because the image is being constantly forced to refresh kinda like a CRT except the CRT has an upper hand in that the refresh rate of the image is able to be increased and not just stay stuck at 60hz. Albeit the plasmas constant update independent of refresh rate is rather interesting in combating phosphor decay and flickering.

There is absolutely no way the bandwidth exists to provide 240Hz nor especially 480Hz. To have said display you need to have some sort of prototype like the SED/FED monitors which unfortunately the technology seems to be pretty dead due to legal issues and monetary issues. Or some old school high-end CRT probably with a 400-500+Mhz ramdac or professional display but most likely being CRT. And both would probably be very low resolutions.

What you are seeing is a motion interpolation doing one of two things. Black frame insertion or the interpolation of new frames in between transition period.

Black frame insertion is the reverse of a standard refresh rate so it acts more like a standard style CRT refresh rate. People prefer this because for a very small period of time your eyes are shown black and it forces your eyes to re-adjust to the next image, making the next image look fresh and with less blur. It was also done earlier on to give LCD liquid crystals time to fully change state or at least have them be ready for the next frame. Despite LCDs being incapable of true blacks, surprisingly they can change states of black quickly.

On a standard refresh rate with decay say a CRT or non sample-and-hold technology. The image fades until it is rescanned hence refreshed or a new image is drawn.

Unless a black image is shown on a CRT then it doesn't fade completely away.

BFI, works the opposite by refreshing the display on a standard 60Hz(16.68ms). But on the 120hz i.e. 8.36ms it's a black frame. So while the LCD displays 120 frames, 60 are just black and the other 60 are real.

The other one the interpolater literally pulls sections of the images to create new images. So when something happens it fills up the area in between the transitions. So 120Hz Motion Plus is really 60 real frames, with 60 guessed frames. With the guessed frames being once every 8.36ms apart.

A real refresh rate is redrawing the image or drawing a new image. It's meant to make the transitioning periods between frame rates appear more life-like. Remember while light isn't technically instantaneous neither are displays so a refresh rate a real one is merely trying to provide a more updated image.

So let's say you get a real 120hz display, 120 divides evenly into many standard signals like Blu-ray 24p, standard signal 30p. It literally refreshes the image truthfully i.e. 1000/120 = 8.33ms so it updates twice as fast as a 60hz display. The effect is more pronounced when you approach or reach 120 frames per second.

Because instead of dividing say a television channel 30p, 4 times. 1 unique frame drawn, 3 refreshes once every 8.33ms despite the frame rate being 30FPS(33.33ms) the unique images are spread across 120Hz and so to fully provide a per 1000ms(1 second) 30 frame rate. The unique frame is first drawn then refreshed until the next unique frame is drawn based on the refresh rate as said above.

But when you have 120FPS/120hz, your now drawing a unique frame every 8.33ms, instead of just refreshing the same unique image until the time for the next unique frame comes in.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Arc'xer on Tue, 21 September 2010, 04:21:56
This is an interesting video I found a while back explaining quite a lot.

http://vimeo.com/3132775 (http://vimeo.com/3132775)

Basically we use gimmicks to alleviate issues with response time. Or should I say the inherent flaws in LCDs that cannot be fixed. Maybe blue phase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Phase_Mode_LCD), but with OLED right around the corner gonna be tough.

Frame rates as in the video is another raising the frame rates is another good option. Albeit they need to fix the issue with slow-mo and higher frame rates for the source.

Sheer fact is it's 2010 LCDs have been around since the 60s-70s in prototypes and commercially available since late-80s. And yet they still cannot be fixed and they've subdivided the market into segments of different panels(TN, MVA, IPS etc.etc.) and made consumers into fools.

Some people don't care but the ones that do care i.e. the rare informed consumer pays attention to these things. I'm not  trying to completely bash LCD technology it has it's fine points but it's like come on. Even after all these years you still sell people 6bit+2bit dithering panels, that mimics RGBA and even then most consumer panels stay within 60-79% RGBA coverage. And if you want to reach at least true 100% RGBA, you not only pay a premium but have a slower response time and even then your blacks are still grey and crushed, no matter what an indirect light will bleed on some level.

So while LCDs have advanced a lot and are quite close, there are still those who choose to understand and continue to wonder why there isn't anything better.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: itlnstln on Tue, 21 September 2010, 07:54:38
Jesus, this isn't an essay contest.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Rajagra on Tue, 21 September 2010, 09:35:55
Seems to me most of the benefits of increased frame rates are pure hype. Unless the source material is recorded at those rates. Motion prediction is simply unneeded except to create an illusion of better quality (when it is lucky enough to work.) And black frame insertion? How cynical is that?

Everyone seems to ignore one important fact. Human eyes are good at detecting brief flashes of light. You can see a flashgun go off even if it only lasts 1/10,000s. But they are not good at detecting the opposite - if a light was shone in your eyes continuously but blocked for 1/10,000s, you wouldn't notice it. That's a consequence of the bleaching effect that underlies vision.

So I maintain that if you have a 30Hz screen and 60Hz source video, you can add together the bright areas from 2 adjacent frames, show 30 of those combo frames per second (so a footballer kicking would have one leg shown twice in one frame) and it would look nearly as good as a true 60Hz screen.

Personally, I think even that is irrelevant. I still passionately hate seeing the strobing effect that comes from high shutter speeds. If the frame rate is 30Hz, just use a 1/30 shutter speed FFS, the smoothing effect looks infinitely better than showing a 1/1000s snapshot taken every 1/30s. Sure still frames are less 'detailed', but are we recording photos or video? The answer should tell you what looks better. High shutter speeds are sampling very little of the whole timescale, slow shutter speeds are sampling more, if not all of the time.

Another idea I've been toying with is how to best treat captured video, with a mind on how it can be converted between different frame rates and resolutions later. I think the key lies in how the data is compressed - and let's face it, compression is going to happen one way or another. When you record something, you are sampling reality, with infinite resolution and frame rate, and recording it with very finite resolution and frame rate. I think the trick is to stop treating the information as a series of images. Instead, treat the view of reality over time as a 3D space, with two dimensions representing those of the captured view, and the 3rd dimension representing time. Imagine a series of frames put onto slides which are then stacked - that is the kind of 3D object I mean. What needs to be done is to use a compression method that treats the recorded frames as samples of the 3D object. Mathematically compress what you think the 3D object is, not the individual samples. That way you end up with compressed data independent of resolution and frame rate info altogether. You can later display it at any resolution and frame rate your equipment supports, though it will obviously be best if you match the original sampling method.

Did someone say something about essays?
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: itlnstln on Tue, 21 September 2010, 09:36:58
Well, maybe it is.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Arc'xer on Tue, 21 September 2010, 12:12:46
Quote from: Rajagra;225135
Seems to me most of the benefits of increased frame rates are pure hype. Unless the source material is recorded at those rates. Motion prediction is simply unneeded except to create an illusion of better quality (when it is lucky enough to work.) And black frame insertion? How cynical is that?


I was actually trying to say that we benefit more from real refresh rate rather than fake.

This is one of the reasons why I like 3D televisions. But not for 3D just for 2D enhancement. Why buy a real 120hz refresh rate monitor/television only to use it for 60Hz viewing.

And I'm not merely speaking gaming wise, I mean everything wise gets a benefit.

For the future, I'd rather see a stroboscopic refresh rate, were the entire frame is drawn/refreshed at once. Instead of the whole progressive scan or interlacing. That way there is a smoother transition between frames whether unique frames or refresh frame.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Tue, 21 September 2010, 12:18:40
basically, if I could afford the 65" VT25 (panny 3d plasma) that would be end of story. I cant though.

I dont want an LED backlit tv that has more flaws than a CCFL - which is most of them - despite what "salesguys" will tell you. LED is just a backlight technology. CCFL is perfectly capable, the numbers on the sony 60EX500 im looking at rival plasmas for black level and have great contrast.
I dont want 240HZ of fake motion, and I would prefer something that doesnt require 3:2 pulldown (the panny im looking at does 48hz for 24p content, but I heard it's flicker is noticeable).

So ... im not buying till December, Ill def keep my eyes peeled for any new sets coming out.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: TheSoulhunter on Tue, 21 September 2010, 14:45:29
Huge, solid black level, uniform screen, good color, no lag?
That's basically where plasmas are better than LCDs...

LCD user here btw,
but that's just because I need the higher resolution (PC),
and also because I can't (don't want to...) afford a Kuro!
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: didjamatic on Tue, 21 September 2010, 15:14:42
Beats my 32" CRT in an Entertainment cabinet.  I'm a lackie when it comes to home audio/video.

EDIT: Ever had to move an extremely large CRT TV?  Myself and 3 other guys injured ourselves (really) moving a single TV for a nice elderly man who was moving in our neighborhood.  It was the biggest CRT I've ever seen, AT LEAST 42" - I didn't even know they existed that big.  The freaking stand was barely movable with 2 guys.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: microsoft windows on Tue, 21 September 2010, 18:45:43
You should've got a forklift for that. Or towed it with a tractor.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Mercen_505 on Tue, 21 September 2010, 19:48:25
Throw some heavy curtains over the windows, mount a HD projector, and rock out to a massive screen. Mine's 93" diagonal. You get some benefits besides the obvious:

+ Excellent scaler means anything you put on it looks fantastic. I've got an HTPC (serving up MAME, emulators, and rips), Wii, Dreamcast, PS2, and Xbox hooked to it, and everything looks gorgeous.

+ No lag. No ghosting.

+ HD content looks ****ing nuts when it's covering your entire wall. Truly.

But...

- Requires infrequent maintenance. Keep those filters clean!

- Bulbs need replacement ~ every 3000 hours of use. That's a long time, but still...

- Ambient light degrades the picture, but not as much as you might imagine.

- Once you go projector, you never go back. Seriously; never.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Wed, 22 September 2010, 06:25:27
Quote from: Mercen_505;225273
Throw some heavy curtains over the windows, mount a HD projector, and rock out to a massive screen. Mine's 93" diagonal. You get some benefits besides the obvious:

+ Excellent scaler means anything you put on it looks fantastic. I've got an HTPC (serving up MAME, emulators, and rips), Wii, Dreamcast, PS2, and Xbox hooked to it, and everything looks gorgeous.

+ No lag. No ghosting.

+ HD content looks ****ing nuts when it's covering your entire wall. Truly.

But...

- Requires infrequent maintenance. Keep those filters clean!

- Bulbs need replacement ~ every 3000 hours of use. That's a long time, but still...

- Ambient light degrades the picture, but not as much as you might imagine.

- Once you go projector, you never go back. Seriously; never.


Can't do yet my friend ...

yet.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Wed, 22 September 2010, 06:30:22
Quote from: ripster;225206
Threads like this depress me.  I have a Sharp 32" LCD that my wife forces us to keep in an Entertainment cabinet.


HATE entertainment cabinets, almost as much as I hate fireplaces with tvs mounted above them.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: itlnstln on Wed, 22 September 2010, 06:46:03
Quote from: instantkamera;225326
HATE entertainment cabinets, almost as much as I hate fireplaces with tvs mounted above them.


Agreed 100%.  Especially the fireplace part.  I couldn't think of a worse place for a television.  Chiropractors might like it, though, with all the neck-strain patients they must get.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Voixdelion on Wed, 22 September 2010, 14:29:07
Quote from: didjamatic;225211
Beats my 32" CRT in an Entertainment cabinet.  I'm a lackie when it comes to home audio/video.

EDIT: Ever had to move an extremely large CRT TV?  Myself and 3 other guys injured ourselves (really) moving a single TV for a nice elderly man who was moving in our neighborhood.  It was the biggest CRT I've ever seen, AT LEAST 42" - I didn't even know they existed that big.  The freaking stand was barely movable with 2 guys.


Takes a dolly and 3 or 4 smallish puny people to move my Trinitrons (2 if one is my boyfriend + someone willing to risk a hernia...)  Having moved several times since I got the first and acquiring the other to replace it plus another to replace the replacement, at least we are getting it down to a science.  Gorgeous picture, though.  And people are practically leaving em on the street lately...  Got the 36" (might be HD capable for resolution, but no tuner) last summer for a hundred bucks and found a volunteer with an SUV with removable rear seat to help fetch it.  Good deal.  

I can say I've never been anything but delighted looking at it, but I don't do anything in blu-ray, just dvd.  In fact, I don't think I've ever watched a blu-ray disc anywhere else either.    We do watch Smallville in 1080p on Moms tv though.  I really have to watch the HD version since the regular looks like crap comparatively on the HD screen vs the regular tv.  It actually too bad Sony stopped with the making things to last since I've never felt the need to upgrade from that picture-wise and would be content for quite some time.  That Samsung is a pipe-dream which will be well out of reach for a while....  

Have fun shopping, though.  Let us know what you finally come up with as your choice.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Wed, 22 September 2010, 15:29:34
Quote from: ripster;225485
You should marry my wife.

We do have a very nice fireplace.  Got my cord stacked and ready to go for the winter.  And a dog.  And hot rum.  And a copy of a 1000 page book (Pillars of the Earth).  And a very nice wife (except for that entertainment cabinet thing).


Thanks but Im perfectly happy with my wife.

We have a new house that lacks a fireplace (as most houses had a fireplace consuming precious space in the basement), but with central air and a brand new furnace. And a dog. And any alcoholic beverage you can imagine. And many books, both digital and hard-copy. My wife is pro-big-tv-over-50"-in-dedicated-"cave" (aka anti-32"-in-entertainment-stand) too as she watches HNIC with me all winter, hence my search :P
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: itlnstln on Wed, 22 September 2010, 15:44:48
Quote from: instantkamera;225491
HNIC


???

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:5hw5rPofg6OnDM:http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff275/suharOne/hnic.jpg&t=1)
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: itlnstln on Wed, 22 September 2010, 15:56:15
I didn't realize he was from Canada.  I used to watch ESPN's version of Hockey Night, but since ESPN dropped the NHL and I live in TX, it's a real treat to watch hockey at all.  VS is OK (and pretty much have all the old ESPN staff), but they don't play anywhere near as many games as ESPN did back in the day.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Thu, 23 September 2010, 07:27:31
Quote from: ripster;225502
Next she woulda said, "Honey, let's go downstairs and watch some curling".


We're Canadian, How else would we get our rocks off? HURRY HAAAAAAAAAAAARD!
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: itlnstln on Thu, 23 September 2010, 07:54:28
Well done.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: ricercar on Thu, 23 September 2010, 15:23:36
Quote from: ripster;225485
You should marry my wife.


Been there. Done that. ...
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: firestorm on Tue, 28 September 2010, 12:04:02
Great thread.  On other forums, I usually come in a couple days late to raise the flag for plasmas.  Sometimes I fear that plasma will die off, or become a niche product, just based on the threads I come across.

What I love about plasma is, it doesn't rely on tricks for anything and they're typically slightly cheaper.  There are no lag issues; no motion blur issues; no soap opera effect; nothing of the sort.  The only feature that is remotely within that realm that is at all useful for plasma (IMHO) is 3:2 pull down to avoid telecine judder.  But that is true of any TV and that judder is something every person is accustomed to seeing.  Most people don't realize (or care) that it is an "issue".  IIRC, it's not even an issue if you have a 1080p/24 source and a 1080p/24 capable display.

As already mentioned, LCD excels in small displays and in rooms with extraordinary amounts of ambient light and poor light control.  They are also better for computer displays.

FWIW, when I first powered on our Panasonic TH-50PZ80U, it immediately displayed a question asking whether we were in a "Home" or "Store".  It was essentially asking whether to default to break-in settings or "torched" (aka Store) mode where settings are set to an extreme to give the most vibrant picture in stores.  At that time, Panasonic recommended 100 hours to break-in, but I now believe that wasn't necessary.  Regardless, we have never had any Image Retention, let alone burn-in.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: NamelessPFG on Tue, 28 September 2010, 13:08:48
If I had an unlimited budget: Rear-projection laser DLP, like the Mitsubishi LaserVue L65-A90.

If I didn't: Aperture grille HD CRT, likely a Sony Trinitron WEGA XBR960 if I can find one.

The main things I want are no/negligible input lag, excellent all-round image quality, no resolution rescaling artifacts, and if by the slightest chance possible, a SCART or RGB21 input for my classic consoles.

Also, for PC use, it is important that displays that support higher refresh rates actually accept input signals that refresh that high. If I have a PC that can run a game at 120 FPS, I expect to see all 120 frames per second on that monitor. Unfortunately, HDTVs don't seem to take that into account-not even the L65-A90.

Existing media made for 29.5 or 60 FPS, such as movies, are not that much of a concern to me.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: microsoft windows on Tue, 28 September 2010, 14:27:25
Quote from: instantkamera;225491
Thanks but Im perfectly happy with my wife.

We have a new house that lacks a fireplace (as most houses had a fireplace consuming precious space in the basement), but with central air and a brand new furnace. And a dog. And any alcoholic beverage you can imagine. And many books, both digital and hard-copy. My wife is pro-big-tv-over-50"-in-dedicated-"cave" (aka anti-32"-in-entertainment-stand) too as she watches HNIC with me all winter, hence my search :P


Quote from: instantkamera;225700
We're Canadian, How else would we get our rocks off? HURRY HAAAAAAAAAAAARD!


If you live up in Canada, why do you bother with air conditioning? I'd definitely rather have a fireplace up there!
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Thu, 30 September 2010, 11:47:16
Quote from: microsoft windows;227691
If you live up in Canada, why do you bother with air conditioning? I'd definitely rather have a fireplace up there!


Thanks, I'll make sure install one toot sweet.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Megaweapon on Thu, 30 September 2010, 12:41:09
Quote from: ripster;227692
Endurance is key to winning.


Which is why I am not enamored of plasma screen.  The simple fact is:  They get darker over time.  This is not acceptable to me.

Projectors:  Picture quality only exceeds that of similarly priced panel TVs on the extremely high end models.  Plus I have a small living room, so I don't need a 1200" TV.

Non-LED LCD:  Bad black levels.  Next!

Partial-LED LCD:  Bad black levels.  Next!

Full LED LCD w. local dimming:  This is where it's at right now, AFAICT.  It seems to have the price/performance locked up.

I am currently in the process of redoing my living room while I wait for the LG Infinia 55LE8500 (http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/lg-infinia-55le8500/4505-6482_7-33957044.html) to drop solidly below $2000.

My suggestion to someone shopping for a TV:  Just disregard everything related to 120Hz refresh and 3D.  You will waste a lot of time reading about this stuff only to discover that 120Hz can be turned off if you don't like it and 3D isn't ready for prime time.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: firestorm on Thu, 30 September 2010, 16:04:19
I haven't looked in a couple years, but AFAIK the typical "half life" (i.e. time before a display reaches half brightness) was around 100,000 (~30 years.)  That's the case with the Panny's anyway.  They fade no quicker than, perhaps less than, the old CRTs we were all accustomed to in the past.  LCD's generally have offered a comparable life span, with one distinct difference.  The rating is usually when you might expect the backlight to burn out altogether.  Personally, I doubt I would own a TV long enough to notice or encounter failure.  I don't run my plasma at full brightness either, so there is a fair number of years that loss of output could be accommodated.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Rajagra on Thu, 30 September 2010, 17:45:09
Quote from: Megaweapon;228436
3D isn't ready for prime time.

A little something to help you all decide.


Vrrshooom, vwooom, mwaaaaaoooohm,...


I think I'll pass for now.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Megaweapon on Thu, 30 September 2010, 18:52:45
Quote from: firestorm;228538
I haven't looked in a couple years, but AFAIK the typical "half life" (i.e. time before a display reaches half brightness) was around 100,000 (~30 years.)


Meanwhile, in the real world:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10462105-1.html

"According to our measurements, the models with 1,500 hours both reproduced black at 0.023 footlamberts; the 500-hour models measured 0.008."

They go on to establish that this is not just a measurable difference:

"In dark scenes from "The Dark Knight" on Blu-ray, the 500-hour V10 clearly displayed a darker shade of black than the 1,500-hour G10, leading to more-realistic reproduction of nighttime city-scapes in Chapters 2 and 8, for example, the rooftop parlay in Chapter 8, and the silhouette of Bruce Wayne as he enters the room in Chapter 18. The difference was also visible in letterbox bars, albeit less so, in numerous brighter scenes."
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: a_fluffy_kitten on Thu, 30 September 2010, 18:56:01
Science has shown that this complex and contentious issue can be simplified down to this:

The TV you buy for your mom:  an LCD

The TV you buy for yourself: a Plasma
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Fri, 01 October 2010, 06:55:10
Quote from: Megaweapon;228574
Meanwhile, in the real world:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10462105-1.html

"According to our measurements, the models with 1,500 hours both reproduced black at 0.023 footlamberts; the 500-hour models measured 0.008."

They go on to establish that this is not just a measurable difference:

"In dark scenes from "The Dark Knight" on Blu-ray, the 500-hour V10 clearly displayed a darker shade of black than the 1,500-hour G10, leading to more-realistic reproduction of nighttime city-scapes in Chapters 2 and 8, for example, the rooftop parlay in Chapter 8, and the silhouette of Bruce Wayne as he enters the room in Chapter 18. The difference was also visible in letterbox bars, albeit less so, in numerous brighter scenes."

dude, if you had any idea what you were reading you would realize that this is a test on the infamous "rising black levels" of panasonic's plasmas, which are said to lighten (the opposite of DARKEN) up to 3x their initial level. It is worth noting that the black levels will still be as good or better than the best competing LCD sets.

The main issue is their RAPID rise (as demonstrated, there was a huge difference after only 1500 hours, making the change somewhat noticeable). This issue has been fixed in the bulk of their sets as far as I (and cnet) know.

edit:

They still rise, just slower. again, the final resting point is still considered excellent in the LCD world.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: frvrngn on Fri, 01 October 2010, 07:59:32
I was wondering how long it would be until the Panny black level rising issue would come up...  I have a Panny plasma and the levels Did rise.  Quite dramatically too.  Dark scenes suddenly were not so dark.  

All that being said, I compared my TV next to my neighbors Toshiba Regza LCD (non LED) and I have to say that my levels were just as good, if not still better than his set which was only a month old.  Am I upset about the dramatic black level shift?  Yes.  I would be much happier if Panny owned up to it in the first place instead of blowing all of us off.  Now that they are being sued, I will be curious as to what happens.  Am I still happy with my picture quality?  Yes.  That really is the bottom line.  I would be really upset had I bought a KURO and this happened.  For the price I paid on my set, I really cant complain much (bought back when Bing was 30% off).  

The new CNET test is a little bothersome though.  If the new models are still doing this (Panny claims to have fixed the issue for new panels) then I would probably hesitate a little in buying a top of the line set from them.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Fri, 01 October 2010, 08:33:17
Quote from: frvrngn;228658

The new CNET test is a little bothersome though.  If the new models are still doing this (Panny claims to have fixed the issue for new panels) then I would probably hesitate a little in buying a top of the line set from them.

That is not the new test.


THIS IS. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20014089-1.html?tag=mncol;1n)

Quote
After about 1,650 hours of on-time logged on our TC-P50G20 review sample, and 920 on our TC-P50VT25, we have measured no loss in black level, or "minimum luminance level" (MLL) as the kids from a certain forum like to say. At the average daily rate of 5.2 hours of on-time per TV, that works out to about 318 and 177 days, respectively.
The 1,650-hour mark is somewhat significant because it's higher than the both the 1000 and 1500 hour marks after which, with Panasonic's 2009 plasmas, we measured losses.

That is why I said in my last post:

Quote
This issue has been fixed in the bulk of their sets as far as I (and cnet) know.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: frvrngn on Fri, 01 October 2010, 11:04:14
Ah, thanks for clarifying that.  At least Panny stepped up on the new sets.  Maybe something will come of the suit for us that have the old panels that have issues.  I would be happy with a credit of some sort towards a new panel if they have fixed the issue.  I could then move this TV to the play room or bedroom where the black levels dont matter as much.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Fri, 01 October 2010, 11:16:11
good luck. Even the "fixed" panels rise, just far slower (and hopefully not as noticeably).
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 06 December 2010, 19:30:47
update: bought a panny 54" VT25 (their flagship model, yes it happens to be 3d).

Reasons for buying:

- TRUE motion resolution: Plasma in general trumps LCD in this aspect due to LCD's technological limitations when dealing with motion at a low frame rate (sample and hold). LCD's methods of dealing with this all result in undesirable artefacts etc.

- low input lag: I dont play a TON of games, but the ones I do play are "fast-twitch" type games, online FPS etc. This set has one of the lowest input lags of any model this year.

- 24p film cadence handling: This set handles 24p at 96hz. I watch a lot of film, so this was high on the list.

Known issues: Floating blacks, Rising black levels. Im not worried about the former until I really see it, which I never have (I have tested this TV extensively in varied conditions). The latter doesnt bother me either, since even after rising, they are likely to be on par with the next best competitor.

Other products I considered and why I didn't buy them:

- LG 60PK550 - nice big 60" set, gotten great reviews and is CHEEAP. Unfortunately suffers from: pour quality control (don't care, but it at BB and return it 4 times if you have to), reflections to the max (again, don't care, I have a true man-cave) and horrid input lag (deal breaker).

- Samsung PN 54 or 58C8000 - 58" is a nice size over 54", but is more expensive. Suffers from: buzzing (a deal breaker since I couldnt find one at a place that would allow returns w/o restocking fee, and buzzing seems to be a design flaw that is highly likely to occur). Poor customer service.

Since the panny was available at a good price, to took the plunge. Ill update with my findings when I take delivery.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: microsoft windows on Mon, 06 December 2010, 19:31:12
Get an old TV. They're cheaper.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 06 December 2010, 20:04:34
brilliant idea, why didn't I think of that?? Oh yeah, the thread is titled "NEW TV ..." as in, "MW, keep your old, ****ty hardware to yourself".
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: msiegel on Mon, 06 December 2010, 20:11:46
Quote from: instantkamera;258364
brilliant idea


hey, one man's old crappy tv is another man's new crappy tv :)
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: RickyJ on Mon, 06 December 2010, 20:20:07
I've got a 42" Panasonic plasma, and if I didn't just read about the black level changing over time I'd probably never have noticed it.  I do know that when I first started using it I had to jack up the brightness on my PC and 360 because it was too dark.  However, after a few months I turned on my PC's HDMI output for the tv and saw that it wasn't super dark anymore.

Still the best TV I've ever seen (use 120Hz Samsung/Sharp LCD's at work).  Motion is pretty good (supposed to have all 1080 horizontal lines under motion), though I do get some ghosting from my 360.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Pylon on Mon, 06 December 2010, 20:58:47
I was just about to post "dumpster dive an old 42" CRT" when I noticed that MS Windows posted pretty much the same thing.

They get thrown out all the time. I saw a reasonably sized non-flat Trinitron today on the curb today not too far from my house, and I see other ones all the time.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: godly_music on Mon, 06 December 2010, 21:05:15
I would buy a good LCD. Burn-in is just not something I wanna deal with, it's symptom of a technology that needs to be improved.

BUT.. actually I wouldn't buy a TV at all. Ever again. There's only ****e on TV. I can watch movies on my widescreen monitor.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 06 December 2010, 21:14:15
Quote from: RickyJ;258373
I've got a 42" Panasonic plasma, and if I didn't just read about the black level changing over time I'd probably never have noticed it.  I do know that when I first started using it I had to jack up the brightness on my PC and 360 because it was too dark.  However, after a few months I turned on my PC's HDMI output for the tv and saw that it wasn't super dark anymore.

Still the best TV I've ever seen (use 120Hz Samsung/Sharp LCD's at work).  Motion is pretty good (supposed to have all 1080 horizontal lines under motion), though I do get some ghosting from my 360.


it's possible the ghosting is from phosphor lag (the VT series are supposed to have super fast phosphors. The appearance of motion blur is generally not on CRT/plasma UNLESS it is inherent in the source.

It's not generally recommended that you crank everything up on a plasma, even though burn-in is virtually a non-issue now, I have never heard of anyone needing to do this (unless they are in a super bright room, a place where plasmas admittedly do not "shine" - they arent as bad as some would have you believe though).
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 06 December 2010, 21:56:39
Quote from: Pylon;258384
I was just about to post "dumpster dive an old 42" CRT" when I noticed that MS Windows posted pretty much the same thing.

They get thrown out all the time. I saw a reasonably sized non-flat Trinitron today on the curb today not too far from my house, and I see other ones all the time.


a) 42" is too small.
b) I have never seen a 42" trinitron, the biggest I know of is the 40xbr800, which is still a wicked TV and it is doubtful that people are straight up junking these in droves (since anyone that bought one knows the substantial investment the forked to get one, and likely understands that there is still a market for these in working order).
c) You dont "dumpster dive" a trinitron over 32" unless you travel in packs, or want a hernia. I just got rid of a 32" that weighed at least 125lbs (32" FD trinition).
d) If you are referring to CRT RPTV, **** that. They are garbage, so they can rightfully stay there, should I happen across one in a dumpster.



Quote from: godly_music;258389
I would buy a good LCD. Burn-in is just not something I wanna deal with, it's symptom of a technology that needs to be improved.

BUT.. actually I wouldn't buy a TV at all. Ever again. There's only ****e on TV. I can watch movies on my widescreen monitor.


The technology HAS improved, burn-in is non issue.

What is the difference between a "TV" and a "monitor"? Today's televisions are hooked up to much more varied sources than traditional cable/sat/ota television broadcasts.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Pylon on Mon, 06 December 2010, 22:02:31
Quote from: instantkamera;258417
a) 42" is too small.
b) I have never seen a 42" trinitron, the biggest I know of is the 40xbr800, which is still a wicked TV and it is doubtful that people are straight up junking these in droves (since anyone that bought one knows the substantial investment the forked to get one, and likely understands that there is still a market for these in working order).
c) You dont "dumpster dive" a trinitron over 32" unless you travel in packs, or want a hernia. I just got rid of a 32" that weighed at least 125lbs (32" FD trinition).
d) If you are referring to CRT RPTV, **** that. They are garbage, so they can rightfully stay there, should I happen across one in a dumpster.

The technology HAS improved, burn-in is non issue.

What is the difference between a "TV" and a "monitor"? Today's televisions are hooked up to much more varied sources than traditional cable/sat/ota television broadcasts.

You're right, I sorta exaggerated, but even 30-something inch CRTs are common out there. And I should've said "curb shop". The aforementioned Trinitron was around 30-inch. And I don't know how you'd haul it home. Pick-up truck?
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: RickyJ on Mon, 06 December 2010, 22:15:26
Quote from: instantkamera;258395
it's possible the ghosting is from phosphor lag (the VT series are supposed to have super fast phosphors. The appearance of motion blur is generally not on CRT/plasma UNLESS it is inherent in the source.

It's not generally recommended that you crank everything up on a plasma, even though burn-in is virtually a non-issue now, I have never heard of anyone needing to do this (unless they are in a super bright room, a place where plasmas admittedly do not "shine" - they arent as bad as some would have you believe though).


TC-P42S1 is the model of my TV.  I didn't crank the brightness up that much actually, just a couple notches in games that were inherently dark.  Ghosting in games could very well be from the framerate dragging in my 360, I only really noticed it in certain games like Assassin's Creed 2 where it had to render huge draw distances from viewpoints.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: RoboKrikit on Mon, 06 December 2010, 22:19:05
The nice thing about dumpster diving for 42" CRTs: no diving involved. Just lift the lids; nothing else will fit. Then when you find it, you just push the dumpster home.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 06 December 2010, 22:23:56
Quote from: Pylon;258424
You're right, I sorta exaggerated, but even 30-something inch CRTs are common out there. And I should've said "curb shop". The aforementioned Trinitron was around 30-inch. And I don't know how you'd haul it home. Pick-up truck?


the 32" 4:3 FD trinny I sold not 6 months ago for $100 bucks fit into the back of a honda civic hatchback. Im pretty sure he didn't get it out in one piece. ;) The minute he told me he was going to put it in there, I told him to pay up before we moved the TV, because if I got it down there and it DIDNT fit, that would be his tough luck.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 06 December 2010, 22:24:32
Quote from: RoboKrikit;258437
The nice thing about dumpster diving for 42" CRTs: no diving involved. Just lift the lids; nothing else will fit. Then when you find it, you just push the dumpster home.


how do you get the dumpster up a flight of stairs?
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: RoboKrikit on Mon, 06 December 2010, 22:33:05
Quote from: instantkamera;258440
how do you get the dumpster up a flight of stairs?

Just drop an extension cord down to the dumpster. You could save a lot on a sound system in such a small room. There might already be some egg cartons in there to soften the acoustics.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 06 December 2010, 23:11:33
excellent idea.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: woody on Tue, 07 December 2010, 12:24:00
So is the plasma burn-in from constant picture still a problem, or they recover after a while (just a temporary memory)?
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Tue, 07 December 2010, 17:07:48
Quote from: woody;258783
So is the plasma burn-in from constant picture still a problem, or they recover after a while (just a temporary memory)?


Excellent question, I shall use this opportunity to educate some folks (hopefully), and dispel some plasma myths.

Fact: Plasmas CAN suffer from some IR (image retention). This can be witnessed when leaving up any static content on-screen for a moderately long duration (few hours will do). Think TV station logos, or static heads-up displays in games. Since these common causes of IR are generally very localized (small areas of an overall large screen), they may or may not even be visible during viewing of other content.
The key is that this is NOT permanent, it disappears fairly quickly, when viewing other content.

Fact: IR is NOT BURN-IN. Burn-in is a completely different phenomenon, although it:

a) is triggered by the same behaviour (only much more extreme)
b) LOOKS exactly the same

Both of those are reasons why the myth of burn-in is so prevalent. Burn-in is (fairly) permanent because it is uneven wearing/aging of the phosphors (which comprise each pixel). This is bad, but it is also next to impossible to experience in a typical home viewing setup as this would require hundreds of hours of wear repeatedly on the same pixels (think airport depart/arrival screens).

IR on the other hand is caused by residual charge in the pixel (technically the plasma cells that comprise the pixel) which changes the luminance characteristics of the affected cells (and thus pixels). This goes away over a period of time depending on what those pixels are asked to display next.

The important thing to remember is that IR is NOT cumulative, so once the residual charge is discharged, it is gone. It has no impact or grounds in the wear of phosphors (which is what causes the permanent burn-in).

peace.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: microsoft windows on Tue, 07 December 2010, 17:16:30
Quote from: Pylon;258424
You're right, I sorta exaggerated, but even 30-something inch CRTs are common out there. And I should've said "curb shop". The aforementioned Trinitron was around 30-inch. And I don't know how you'd haul it home. Pick-up truck?


Maybe a fork lift should do it.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Tue, 07 December 2010, 23:04:55
And here is the beast:

(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=13872&stc=1&d=1291784503)
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Brodie337 on Wed, 08 December 2010, 17:10:53
Well, I work in retail, and sell these things for a living.

Plasma was terrible in the early days, but Panasonic has been developing them VERY intensively, and its reached the stage where alot of the old plasma pitfalls are gone. Other companies like Samsung are pushing the LEDs, so this doesn't really apply to their plasmas.

They use similar or less power than the equivalent size LCD (admittedly they cant match the LEDs), and even leaving them on one channel 8 or 9 hours a day on the shop floor, I've never seen any trace of image retention or burn in.

A note on power usage that alot of people don't know:
The energy ratings (at least in Australia) are based on the maximum possible power draw. While LCDs and LEDs sit fairly close to that maximum, plasma fluctuates alot, so the ratings look worse than they really are.

Probably the best case for plasma that I can present is that maybe two thirds of the staff at our store use Panasonic Plasmas.

I'd probably try to avoid LG. The reason being that when we did sell them, we'd get ALOT of them come back for warranty. Unlike most stores, mine doesn't pay commission, which is the reason most people love to sell LG. They had HUGE margins.

I hope thats informative!

Brodie.

EDIT: ****! Didn't read the whole thread, and it comes back to bite me in the arse!
You made the right choice I think.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Wed, 08 December 2010, 17:37:27
Quote from: Brodie337;259825

A note on power usage that alot of people don't know:
The energy ratings (at least in Australia) are based on the maximum possible power draw. While LCDs and LEDs sit fairly close to that maximum, plasma fluctuates alot, so the ratings look worse than they really are.


that's the reason that plasma will loose a "bright white" contest with an LCD/LED, the ABL circuitry kicks in on a fully bright/white screen to cap power use, but this is also why plasma can have HUGE true contrast ratios with regular on-screen content.

Quote from: Brodie337;259825


EDIT: ****! Didn't read the whole thread, and it comes back to bite me in the arse!
You made the right choice I think.


I always do ;)
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: woody on Thu, 09 December 2010, 05:39:16
Thanks, instantkamera, for the plasma insights. That just confirms what I thought - the plasma technology has progressed a lot, and the image residue is reversible. Although I'd really like to see some estimates of wear time (let's say the time needed for a full bright pixel to reduce intensity down to 80%) and IR recovery time. Talking about Panasonic, they seem to be the only player left.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Thu, 09 December 2010, 07:07:50
Quote from: woody;260044
Thanks, instantkamera, for the plasma insights. That just confirms what I thought - the plasma technology has progressed a lot, and the image residue is reversible. Although I'd really like to see some estimates of wear time (let's say the time needed for a full bright pixel to reduce intensity down to 80%) and IR recovery time. Talking about Panasonic, they seem to be the only player left.


no problem. The discharge time of residual charge would likely vary with whatever content those cells are asked to create afterwards. I really dont know any further technical details on that. I think that the avg time to "erase" IR is around 1-2 hours judging by the experiences of others I have read.

Three players remain in the plasma market: LG, Samsung, Panasonic. Don't take that as a sign of anything, all three are quite well invested in making the panels. Panny acquired several Pioneer patents, and will likely be using those in the near future to improve the already great black levels etc.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: AndrewZorn on Thu, 09 December 2010, 08:39:13
EDIT so, you already got a TV.  Don't read this then, but I'll leave it in case anyone else is following.
Should have read the thread.

Quote
I'll chime in without reading the thread.

I recently went for LED BACK-lit (not edge) local-dimming LCD (47LH90).  After months I decided this was the best technology.

As much as I like plasma in theory:
- Burn-in IS still an issue.  I know the difference between it and IR, and no matter how many times people say it won't happen, cases still pop up.  Go read at AVSforum.  It isn't as bad as most make it out to be, but watch a lot of 2.35:1 content and you may start to see the effects.  I didn't want to have to worry about how I used my TV.
- Plasma manufacturers.  Panasonic is the only one I could consider.  Their (then-current, probably still current, G10/20, V25) line of displays has a serious problem that I could not look past: faked black levels.  Their displays are blackest (like, good plasma black) only for the first couple hundred hours.  Then the display gets brighter and brighter, as planned, so it will not kill itself like any other display would.  This is a programmed feature, not a mistake, and it sells TVs.  After the honeymoon period, you have worse blacks than a locally-dimmed LCD (which are pretty damned black).  Oh, and all the good black levels only happen when the screen is 100% black...  There are YouTube videos of a single white pixel raising the black level of the entire screen.  Again, check out AVSforum.

Even if you don't play games, I'd suggest looking at input lag too.  All the post-processing going on lately in most TVs means a ~100ms lag between video and audio.  The Panasonic plasmas are the best at avoiding this, too bad they had their other big flaw.  I finally found the 47LH90 which had very low lag (and at a very low price, it is an older model, but still better than any edge-lit LCD, and cheaper than any 2010 local-dimming).

If I could have secured a Kuro display for around $1500 I would have chose that instead, it is the way plasma should be.  But the current market forced me to go with what I consider an inferior technology... but hey, LC-LED-LCD is pretty nice too, my TV uses about the same amount of power as my LCD monitor.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Thu, 09 December 2010, 16:01:52
Quote from: AndrewZorn;260102
EDIT so, you already got a TV.  Don't read this then, but I'll leave it in case anyone else is following.
Should have read the thread.


Yeah I covered every one of those points in this thread I think. Im a member at avsforum and have been for years.
In the end, someone would be doing themselves a grave disservice in finalizing a decision without trying the sets that interest them.

LCD happens to have flaws I can't get past, main one being motion, another being viewing angles. The LH90 IS a well liked set, if I recall, ChadB has it ranked very high. Im glad you like your set.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: AndrewZorn on Thu, 09 December 2010, 17:06:40
Good luck on your Panasonic as well.  The VT25 did seem in a league above the G20 (which was in the price range I was looking at) and I hear the issues there are not nearly what they are in the lower sets.  The VT25 does actually seem to reflect Panasonic's acquisition of Pioneer/Kuro technology.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Thu, 09 December 2010, 19:07:47
Quote from: AndrewZorn;260332
Good luck on your Panasonic as well.  The VT25 did seem in a league above the G20 (which was in the price range I was looking at) and I hear the issues there are not nearly what they are in the lower sets.  The VT25 does actually seem to reflect Panasonic's acquisition of Pioneer/Kuro technology.


I get it tomorrow, so after I run the break-in slides, Ill post my initial impression. I think in the end, despite any flaws, it's going to be amazing. I mean, a full HDTV over 50" that can hang on the wall. If that's my biggest problem in life, Im doing ok. :)
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: woody on Fri, 10 December 2010, 04:04:04
It will be interesting whether it will have change in blacks after the 1000 or so hours.

I did a thorough investigation of Panasonic models (Samsung and LG are on my blacklist), and I couldn't find a proper one for me. And I don't even watch TV.

That being said, is there a good device that has HDMI, component, composite, S-video, VGA inputs and converts them to DVI? If I could feed those inputs into a DVI monitor, I won't need TV at all.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: PAINKILLER on Fri, 10 December 2010, 04:53:37
Quote from: woody;260526

That being said, is there a good device that has HDMI, component, composite, S-video, VGA inputs and converts them to DVI? If I could feed those inputs into a DVI monitor, I won't need TV at all.


Well... a PC. Add a capture card and whatever else you need and forget about TV sets for good. I replaced my old TV with a multipurpose HTPC (TV, Wi-Fi router, home server, general purpose PC). I can watch TV either online or via a DVB-T tuner. So if you already have a monitor that you like, you don't need to buy a separate machine that only adds functionality which you can easily and better add with a PC instead.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: firestorm on Fri, 10 December 2010, 06:23:17
Quote from: woody;260526
That being said, is there a good device that has HDMI, component, composite, S-video, VGA inputs and converts them to DVI? If I could feed those inputs into a DVI monitor, I won't need TV at all.


Of course there is, but you may have to settle for an HDMI output.  HDMI and DVI are protocol compatible.  Aside from DVI not carrying audio, the only other difference is the connector.  The problem you may encounter is HDCP enabled content, as DVI doesn't conform to the HDCP standard

You could use a video switch with scaling or conversion.  Scalers or converters can be expensive though, and a large part of the market is commercial applications (i.e. incredibly expensive.)

Many newer A/V receivers have upscaling.  I don't think any of them are exactly cheap however.

Of course, if you're going to do this, you would likely get the best results from a 16:9 display with a 1920x1080 native resolution.  There shouldn't be an issue regardless, but being the cautious person I am, I would probably try connecting an HDMI source directly to the screen in question first.  An HDMI to DVI adapter or cable is relatively inexpensive, thus a small risk.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: woody on Sat, 11 December 2010, 05:18:18
I use a small TV with plethora of inputs for old consoles, computers, etc. That's what I'd like to replace with my main PC monitor, which has spare DVI input, but it seems the cost of an external scaler doesn't make it - the TV will continue serving it's purpose. I don't watch any TV on it.

About capture card - that will be too painful with Linux and will enforce dependency on the PC being turned on, and eventually crappy.

Thanks so far for suggestions.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: keyb_gr on Sat, 11 December 2010, 09:24:44
Quote from: Brodie337;259825
I'd probably try to avoid LG. The reason being that when we did sell them, we'd get ALOT of them come back for warranty.

They have a reputation for being nice RF interference sources, too. Big margins, huh?

Panasonic plasmas were bad several years ago, too, but it seems they wised up and now use a conductive mask or somesuch - you pretty much have to put a plasma panel in a Faraday cage, else it'll emit loads of RF garbage throughout the mediumwave and lower shortwave ranges (what do you expect hot ionized gas to do - besides, the circuitry required essentially is RF power stuff, too). Basically I don't listen to MW and 160m/80m in the evening when the TV is running (one of the known bad models maybe 7..8 m from the antenna), plasma buzzing isn't that enjoyable.

Of course even the older sets had a CE mark. Shows how inadequate EMI standards are (those effective here don't even test below 30 MHz, and only check for emissions into the mains, not so much the direct radiation characteristic for plasmas). Well, at least conformance is only considered an indication, so that if a device causes harmful interference or has problems with common RF levels, the manufacturer can be charged anyway.

When going to a store looking for a new TV, I'd always bring an AM/FM/SW portable along. That can serve as an indication of whether the beauty is more than just skin-deep.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: phillip on Sat, 11 December 2010, 12:30:01
you bought a panasonic vt25?  excellent choice :D
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: woody on Sun, 12 December 2010, 18:13:09
I passed by a big Panasonic plasma in a shop today. By some chance, there was no input so the letters "HDMI1" were displayed as OSD in the upper left, with a small greyish rectangle behind. There was a lot of noise in this image - is this some anti-IR measure or "normal" for the set?
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: microsoft windows on Sun, 12 December 2010, 18:14:09
A lot of TV systems use screen-savers, especially Plasma's and CRT's. That could be what it was.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: AndrewZorn on Sun, 12 December 2010, 20:46:51
Quote from: woody;261893
I passed by a big Panasonic plasma in a shop today. By some chance, there was no input so the letters "HDMI1" were displayed as OSD in the upper left, with a small greyish rectangle behind. There was a lot of noise in this image - is this some anti-IR measure or "normal" for the set?

I'm not totally sure what you are describing, but plasma TVs do have visible noise when compared to other display technologies.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: CodeChef on Sun, 12 December 2010, 21:31:57
Did you already decide or can I spew Plasma-fanboyism all over this thread?
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: AndrewZorn on Sun, 12 December 2010, 22:02:46
He already got a plasma.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: woody on Mon, 13 December 2010, 05:28:35
Quote from: AndrewZorn;261969
I'm not totally sure what you are describing, but plasma TVs do have visible noise when compared to other display technologies.

Yes, visible noise. In terrible quantities. I'll try to find some other static images in shops, just to check this.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Half-Saint on Tue, 14 December 2010, 01:03:22
I bought me a Sony 40EX500 this weekend and it's spectacular. The only  downside is that it can't play .mkv files which is a real shame. I hope they fix this with a firmware update some day.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Voixdelion on Sat, 18 December 2010, 23:01:51
My friend has a tendency to fall asleep in front of the plasma tv - apparently he recently discovered that it now has "Adult Swim" burned into the corner of the screen... LOL!
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: microsoft windows on Mon, 20 December 2010, 15:23:31
Quote from: Half-Saint;262686
I bought me a Sony 40EX500 this weekend and it's spectacular. The only  downside is that it can't play .mkv files which is a real shame. I hope they fix this with a firmware update some day.


Probably the easiest thing to do there would be to hook the television up to a computer and play the files that way.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Fri, 24 December 2010, 15:57:33
Quote from: Half-Saint;262686
I bought me a Sony 40EX500 this weekend and it's spectacular. The only  downside is that it can't play .mkv files which is a real shame. I hope they fix this with a firmware update some day.


i was looking at the 60" ... bottom line, I cant stand LCD motion, and the bigger it is, the worse it looks.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Fri, 24 December 2010, 15:59:52
Quote from: woody;261893
I passed by a big Panasonic plasma in a shop today. By some chance, there was no input so the letters "HDMI1" were displayed as OSD in the upper left, with a small greyish rectangle behind. There was a lot of noise in this image - is this some anti-IR measure or "normal" for the set?


It could have been a low end set, or it could have been dithering, were you 3 inches from the screen?
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Fri, 24 December 2010, 16:08:33
BTW all, I got my set, ran break-in slides for 100hrs. mixed "calibration" using THX mode, setting from the panny thread at avs, and the AVS calibration disk. Long story short: LOVE.

Using a rogers HD-pVR and PS3 for content for now. Blurays look out of this world (true film cadence 24p @ 96hz is noticeably ****ing AWESOME). Upressed SD content looks better than on most sets I have seen.

the area, with SOME light.

(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b40/instantkamera/resize_DSC_0096.jpg)

A shot from Baraka (the best looking content I have EVER seen, period). This was handheld in low light so it's not as good as it could have been...

(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b40/instantkamera/resize_DSC_0098.jpg)


the WHOLE basement, I have a lot of space left to use for something ...

(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b40/instantkamera/resize_DSC_0099.jpg)
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: db_Iodine on Fri, 24 December 2010, 16:38:57
That setup is screaming for better speakers.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Fri, 24 December 2010, 17:20:57
Quote from: db_Iodine;268426
That setup is screaming for better speakers.


next thing on the list. the z-5500 are actually quite adequate for film though. They best pretty well any HTIB going, save for those that are actually discrete components packaged as an "HTIB". They do fall quite short for music.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: woody on Fri, 24 December 2010, 17:47:23
Quote from: instantkamera;268413
It could have been a low end set, or it could have been dithering, were you 3 inches from the screen?

Don't think it was low-end, and definitely not dither. And yes, I was basically shoving my nose in the screen.
Haven't had a chance to check again somewhere else. Will try to remember and post if I do.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: phillip on Sat, 25 December 2010, 09:43:33
You definitely need some real speakers.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Sat, 25 December 2010, 12:19:22
Quote from: phillip;268662
You definitely need some real speakers.


I think we established that already.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: keyb_gr on Sat, 25 December 2010, 13:22:19
Not only speakers, room acoustics typically need some work, too. They should definitely be checked. Problems in the higher-frequency areas usually are tackled relatively easily, bass is another story.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Sat, 25 December 2010, 13:57:12
Quote from: ripster;268748
Bass is easy.  Keep installing subwoofers until your ears bleed.


check!


FYI, before anyone goes crazy of the disparity between room - screen - sound, let me just clarify. The sound is a hold over from a 650sq ft apt in Montreal (where I had a 32" 4:3 480i crt). I realize I need better, but that basement you see is attached to a house, which I recently acquired. As a new home owner, Im lucky to have been able to purchase things to go IN the home (and no, I didnt put it all on credit). The sound (and likely acoustic treatments) will come in time.

thanks all for looking/commenting.
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: instantkamera on Sat, 25 December 2010, 13:58:37
Quote from: ripster;268668
Mirage for surrounds are awesome.  Not the teeny tiny ones though.  Get the biggest your SO will allow.
Show Image
(http://www.blogcdn.com/hd.engadget.com/media/2008/07/20080724-mirage.jpg)


oh and rip, I dont have a problem with the SO ;) I get two rooms in the house. This one, and my office :P
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: iMav on Sat, 25 December 2010, 14:23:41
Quote from: instantkamera;268756
oh and rip, I dont have a problem with the SO ;) I get two rooms in the house. This one, and my office :P
I've got my home office...aside from that, I "get" the garage and work shop.  (both of which I neglect all too often)
 
(I do enjoy writing off my home office space for tax purposes every year)
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: Voixdelion on Wed, 29 December 2010, 10:58:18
Quote from: keyb_gr;268746
Not only speakers, room acoustics typically need some work, too. They should definitely be checked. Problems in the higher-frequency areas usually are tackled relatively easily, bass is another story.
 
What does one do to deal with bass that is significantly a little too much  (and sometimes much more than a little too much) while the rest of the range is at a quiet or normal volume?  

I have this problem on my Sony surround that I bought with the TV ages ago where I often find myself turning off the subwoofer completely because dialogue will be fine but explosions or low frequency sounds (like a large truck driving by in traffic) are then like an earthquake or thundering in the room.  But if you make the low end not so earth-shattering it becomes impossible to hear what people are saying.  This makes it impossible to watch a movie late at night without headphones if someone wants to sleep in the next room (and truthfully,  if its late enough, I'm even a little concerned about the neighbors).  

Is this something on my end or is it in the mix of whatever I'm watching?  It seems like there are separate audio tracks where the "background" is just levelled much higher on certain things.  This happens often enough that I am wondering if its the hardware or what?  Is it a product of the surround sound?
Title: New TV: LCD vs. Plasma vs. ??
Post by: keyb_gr on Thu, 30 December 2010, 17:30:21
Quote from: Voixdelion;270303
What does one do to deal with bass that is significantly a little too much  (and sometimes much more than a little too much) while the rest of the range is at a quiet or normal volume?

Welcome to the wonderful world of room modes.  

First of all, you did adjust subwoofer volume when setting things up, right? Needs a bunch of sine test tones, from about 150 Hz down to 20 Hz or so (most easily generated on the computer with Audacity or whatever; the CD that I have starts at 10 Hz intervals, then goes to 5 Hz under 100 Hz, and 3 Hz under 40 Hz). A logarithmic sweep of that range tends to be quite useful, too. They say a pro will adjust for 10 dB too much and a layman for 20 dB, so make sure to do a check with music in both plain 2.0 and 2.1 or whatever.

The test tones will probably reveal a rollercoaster ride in terms of frequency response, but that's pretty much normal for an untreated room. An old trick then is to place the subwoofer in the listening spot (including height) and walk around in the room, looking for a spot that minimizes resonances (sweep is useful here). Then place the subwoofer right there. Reciprocity FTW. :)
At this point there may still be some unevenness in the crossover frequency range (which should be set up as low as the fronts will reasonably allow). The subwoofer's phase control may take care of that. Theory says things will go funny if main-sub distance exceeds half a wavelength, which is hardly 1.2 m / 4' at 150 Hz, so keep that in mind as well (that's not to say that you couldn't get a good result otherwise but consistency across the room is likely to vary).

As a rule of thumb, room mode excitation is maximum near the borders (walls) and minimum in the center. Unfortunately many subwoofers need a bit of help from nearby walls which happen to increase levels as well. Sub construction also figures in here - a downfire sub is to be considered an effects device as it deliberately gets the speaker as close to the next surface (floor) as possible.

If you've got some really nasty resonances, some Helmholtz absorbers tuned to the offending frequencies may bring relief.

It is always a good idea to make sure that the floor isn't excited by the sub. Some types resonate very well and may require some concrete blocks or similar (box filled with sand, whatever) under anything emitting bass.

The pros will tell you that a single subwoofer in a room is an exercise in futility anyway. Ideally you'd have a double-bass array (DBA), or at least a single-bass array (SBA), such that the bass is emitted at the front and "sucked in" at the back without being able to build up resonance. Now only a few of us will want to pay for a bunch of subwoofers, but even two of them can already be used to improve frequency response and consistency across the room.