The V-series Panasonic is up to the task. The new VT-30s should be coming soon, and they'll be very, very good.
Tim
Thanks for the replies, guys.
Is it worth spending the $,$$$ on the Vt-30 if one has no interest in 3d?
If you have an interest in a top-quality TV, you really don't have a choice. The top two or three tiers of every brand this year will have the 3D option whether you use it or not. If you're interested in saving a bit of money on the TV, look at Panasonic's G series, which is really close to the V. But it has 3D too...
Tim
Is plasma (as great as it is) a thing of the past?
(...)
One man's humble opinion, from inside the store...
Tim
No, but LCD is fading fast.
Tim
The sad story is that although it has an ECO mode it needs more than three times the power than the 20 years old Loewe CRT based televison it replaced
That is the reason I posted what I did
I love the picture quality of a plasma but not at the price of such high energy consumption
Interesting you say that. I was at a large video store not too long ago, and more people were flocking to Lcd than to plasma. The store was displaying the lcd more prominently, I am guessing due to their higher price tag and higher margins. I just wanted to shake some people and tell them that plasma was cheaper and better for darker rooms, but I held back.
But I guess customers are taken by the brighter picture, and assume it is better...
Due to both of these factors, I do not recommend plasma for brighter areas such as family rooms with windows. If movie watching is high on your list and you do that in darker rooms, then plasma is a better choice. Otherwise, my recommendation still is for a non-LED backlit LCD which happens to be quite cheap these days.
I want to make sure some of the deficiencies of Plasma are understood. Top ones are:
1. Control of maximum brightness in the image. While you can have small areas of bright picture, if there is a lot, plasma control circuit drops the brightness of the whole image. I find this brightness pumping annoying. It is a problem we had with CRT displays which would have been good to not have. LCDs don't have this issue although they also use dynamic brightness control in some models which has its own set of artifacts. (...)
I am not speaking of glare Tim. I am talking about maintaining contrast ratio. Plasma simply cannot pump out enough brightness across the full screen for reasons I mentioned. Go and do a comparison in even moderately lit showrooms. Watch a bright scene come and then compare it to LCD next to it. You will see how dull it gets.But plasmas are plenty bright enough for most domestic situations, and most LCDs have matte finish screens. While these mitigate the glare issue of a glossy surface, they also mute color and contrast. I find LCDs appropriate for the casual TV viewer, plasmas a better choice for the serious movie or sports watcher.
Tim
Yes, it will do that. Easiest way to see it is when it is next to an LCD which doesn't. You can see Plasma having more contrast one minute, and less. And reason for the later is that it dims down. The other way is with test patterns. It is one of those things that once you know about it, you will notice it moreAlthough the last deficiencies will not affect me - our family room is sunny and full of light, but we do not watch TV or films before 18h, I am curious about this one, as I never noticed it. I keep the brightness control of the TV set under 50% - I found the factory settings too bright . Will the pumping show in these conditions?
Uniformity is perfect relative to LCDs which have uneven backlight even in the best implementations. For that, you wind up with the problems I mentioned as there is so much power you can pump out of the pixels.When I was searching for a TV, I was told that plasmas have much better brightness uniformity than other technologies - is it true?
![]() | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |