Is 2-D Plasma still improving?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
I have not heard of any breakthrough. The mission for Plasma makers seems to have been to reduce the power consumption to catch up to LCDs. And to make then thin just as well.
There is no replacement for Pioneer Elite.
Panasonic is probably the most reliable choice there, now that they have mostly fixed their increasing black level with use.
There is no replacement for Pioneer Elite.
Panasonic is probably the most reliable choice there, now that they have mostly fixed their increasing black level with use.
A couple of years ago Panasonic started using an oblong gas bubble with more plasma that burns brighter. When Pioneer went out of the business, they bought the infinite black technology from them. They have improved the diffusers that reject ambient light and cut down on glare a bit in recent years. Other than that, what Amir said: thinner, more efficient. But plasmas don't need much improvement, the best of them are still ahead of the latest LEDs, though the best Sonys from last year came very, very close. I disagree about the Elite. That was a wonderful TV, but it has been replaced. 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
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
Thanks! As long as that TV does a great job at 2-d picture, I will be checking it out when it comes out.
No, but LCD is fading fast. LED is the same technology with a different light source that is brighter and allows the production of very thin panels, two things which are very popular. As that technology evolves and the R&D is paid for, LCDs will be less and less worth manufacturing, even in the smaller sizes. Plasma still delivers a superior picture for less than LED, though those margins are getting pretty narrow at the top, and is demonstrably superior in 3D, where its refresh rate gets 300 frames per second per eye through active glasses, delivering much smoother motion and more natural sense of depth. LED really only has two advantages: 1) Luminance 2) Efficiency. Everything else is marketing. Like I said before, the best Sonys in the last couple of years have gotten very close. Their depth and black levels are almost there. Motion control is very good in 3D. But they're still slightly lower performance for a higher price. Samsung LEDs? Candy-colored light boxes with all the subtlety and depth of a Katy Perry video. The attraction is understandable, but they are definitely not for film buffs.
One man's humble opinion, from inside the store...
Tim
Happy to have an expert blessing - after some search I recently bought a TX-P50G Panasonic. It was considerably less expensive than the 3D V series and at less in Europe we can get the top model of the G series without 3D.
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 ...
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...
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
Did the eco brigades learn about your ARC REF 600's? May be I should hide my VTLs!
There's not much margin in TVs, period, except at the high end. I think it's the bright picture and the marketing. Plasmas have been quietly excellent, with no big news to tout in advertising, for quite a few years. LCD/LEDs have gone from 60hz to 120hz to 240hz and thinner and thinner. Lots to talk about there. And brightness is like volume; the brighter TV appears to be clearer, sharper, etc. Never mind that if you run it that bright in a domestic environment, even a fairly bright one, it will be too much.
Tim
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.
2. Total brightness is less than LCDs. In bright rooms, or to deal with screen reflections, you can pump up LCD brightness really high, giving you a nice and high contrast image. Contrast is a function of maximum brightness to minimum. If minimum brightness is raised due to factors mentioned, you must correspondingly increase the maximum brightness to compensate.
3. There is no ill effect in running an LCD as bright and high contrast as you want. The backlight doesn't care what image you are watching. In contrast, Plasma is like CRT in that light is emitted from the pixels so pushing them harder can reduce their life.
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.
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.
2. Total brightness is less than LCDs. In bright rooms, or to deal with screen reflections, you can pump up LCD brightness really high, giving you a nice and high contrast image. Contrast is a function of maximum brightness to minimum. If minimum brightness is raised due to factors mentioned, you must correspondingly increase the maximum brightness to compensate.
3. There is no ill effect in running an LCD as bright and high contrast as you want. The backlight doesn't care what image you are watching. In contrast, Plasma is like CRT in that light is emitted from the pixels so pushing them harder can reduce their life.
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 was with you until you got here, Amir, and I think it just goes a bit too far. Windows shining directly on the plasma screen? Not good. Extremely bright rooms with lots of windows and little ability to dim them (no shades, blinds, curtains), or for people who just want to watch in such rooms in broad daylight with the curtains thrown open? Sure. 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
Although 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?
When I was searching for a TV, I was told that plasmas have much better brightness uniformity than other technologies - is it true?
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.
I do not consider the living room for most people a place for serious movie watching. Casual, yes. Serious? No. Most of us multi-task, with the lights on and such when watching TV in family room.
The amount of movie watching our TV gets relative to full number of ours it is on, is probably 10%. I don't optimize for the 10%. But if you do, sure, go ahead.
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 more
. 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.
Another thing Plasma does well is viewing angle. LCDs change performance as you move off center point. So if your normal seating position is anything more than +-30 degrees, you will likely get better performance with Plasma in that regard. Note that the further you sit back, the smaller the angle.
I'm with micro on this one. I have my plasma turned down quite a bit. Cranked all the way up it's too bright for my room, even with a couple of lamps on and the lights on in the adjacent kitchen. I haven't seen this problem. Yes, plasmas are dark compared to LCDs when they're both cranked all the way up in a showroom. But in our speaker studio, where the lighting is just a bit brighter than a typical domestic environment, we set a TOL Sony, Samsung and Panasonic to the same brightness level, so customers can see how they would compare at home. There, the Panasonic doesn't look dull, the Samsung 9000 looks washed out. That's what I see, anyway. YMMV.
Tim
Tim
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |