• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

HDTVs: Why not to go Plasma?

After seeing Plasma sets in stores, I can't help but salivate at the thought of buying one. It's like LCD, except it doesn't have any ghosting or black level issues. It also comes in bigger sizes than LCD, and it's cheaper!

So other than potential longevity issues (do these really exist?) and potential burn-in problems (do these *still* really exist? can anyone testify?), is there any other reason why I shouldn't go with Plasma when I finally get an HDTV?

Thanks GAF! :D
 
To get a really good plasma they are much more expensive. The cheaper ones you see are usually only EDTV.
 
I'd say the fact that their life is pretty short, they have nasty fencing artifiacts, and I blieve poor refresh rates and low resolution would be my issues with them.

Then again, I wouldn't get an LCD either.
 
Seth C said:
I'd say the fact that their life is pretty short, they have nasty fencing artifiacts, and I blieve poor refresh rates and low resolution would be my issues with them.

Then again, I wouldn't get an LCD either.

Then what would you get? CRT's weight a ton and suffer from geometry deformations... DLP's have the "rainbow" effect. Is there anything else?
 
Ponn01 said:
To get a really good plasma they are much more expensive. The cheaper ones you see are usually only EDTV.

Yep.

Cheaper ones are only EDTV (480p max)

Vibrant colors fade after a few years.

Very prone to burn-in.
 
AtomicShroom said:
Then what would you get? CRT's weight a ton and suffer from geometry deformations... DLP's have the "rainbow" effect. Is there anything else?

well, that's precisely the reason people aren't thrilled at dropping several thousand or more dollars on an HDTV at the moment.
 
Seth C said:
I'd say the fact that their life is pretty short, they have nasty fencing artifiacts, and I blieve poor refresh rates and low resolution would be my issues with them.

Then again, I wouldn't get an LCD either.

Sounds like you are comparing first generation Plasma TV's.

Models from the last couple of years have life spans nearly the same as CRT's and have improved greatly on all the other issues you mention. Not to mention my Panasonic looks incredible above the fireplace.
 
meh, imo, with all the problems facing HDTV sets presently, LCD seems to have the least amount of negative issues. Cheap, high res and long lasting. Sounds good. Colours rock too.
 
AtomicShroom said:
Then what would you get? CRT's weight a ton and suffer from geometry deformations... DLP's have the "rainbow" effect. Is there anything else?

Go to a Circuit City or Best Buy and look at the sets and make your own judgment call. I hear a lot of "rainbow effects" on DLP sets but neither me nor my friends have seen anything like that and from what I hear it only effects certain people. This holiday would be an awesome time to get a HDTV though, especially around the holidays. The new 1080p sets are shipping but if you wanted to get a LCD or DLP TV from this gen I will almost guarantee some awesome Black Friday deals in the U.S. I've already seen the Samsung DLP set I have which I recommend up and down and all over going for about 1300 dollars (I paid over 4 grand for it a couple christmas's ago). Come Black Friday I would fully expect to see that bad boy drop under a 1000 bucks.
 
acidviper said:
Search- this argument has been fought to death

I know. But I'm short on time and don't really feel like going through a whole 10+ page thread just to find the answer I'm looking for, especially when I know someone here can just spurt it out in under a few minutes.

KeithFranklin said:
Sounds like you are comparing first generation Plasma TV's.

Models from the last couple of years have life spans nearly the same as CRT's and have improved greatly on all the other issues you mention. Not to mention my Panasonic looks incredible above the fireplace.

Though, this is what makes really puzzles me. Are people are here just rehashing info they heard long ago or are they up to date? Clearly these TVs must have improved over the past few years. Do Plasmas still suffer from burn-in and short lifespan? Hell, I'd be happy if it lasted a good 5 to 7 years. It seems to be my average TV buying rate.

bill0527 said:
Cheaper ones are only EDTV (480p max)

Do these come in 19:6 flavor? All of the plasmas I've seen were 16:9. $5000 CDN is what I'd consider cheap for a ~40" Plasma TV. I'd imagine a similarly sized LCD set would go into the 10k.
 
KeithFranklin said:
Not to mention my Panasonic looks incredible above the fireplace.
I like to have the TV that I'm watching about level with my eyes when I'm on the couch. So that means the top of the screen is about five feet off of the floor. Why do people mount them so high like you did?
 
I didn't get a Plasma because of the cost and considering how much 4:3 picture watching I do I sure as hell don't want anything that burns in at all. My parents had a RPCRT and watching 4:3 tv and playing 4:3 games on it burned horrible bars onto both sides so watching 16:9 stuff on the 16:9 set looks like shit. Even if a TV only has a 5% chance of getting burn in after 10 hours straight of a non-moving image that's still too much of a risk factor for me.
 
Straightballin said:
Wait till OLED takes off it will be worth the wait. They already have a palm computer thingy made by sony with a OLED screen on it in japan

A four-inch OLED (which does look stunning) is a long, long way from a widescreen 50" OLED :-P
 
The main reason to not get a plasma now is because a good one is expensive... AND there are some really astonishing technologies on the horizon, that should drive down cost of these screens in the market dramatically.

Thats the hope.

In the meantime, get a modest LCD screen that can double as a large computer monitor and a small HDTV.
 
Bebpo said:
I didn't get a Plasma because of the cost and considering how much 4:3 picture watching I do I sure as hell don't want anything that burns in at all. My parents had a RPCRT and watching 4:3 tv and playing 4:3 games on it burned horrible bars onto both sides so watching 16:9 stuff on the 16:9 set looks like shit. Even if a TV only has a 5% chance of getting burn in after 10 hours straight of a non-moving image that's still too much of a risk factor for me.

Well, from what I've read (just starting to do research into our first foray into HDTV), Plasmas aren't nearly as likely to burn-in as Rear Projections are.
 
You still need to worry about burn-in but I wouldn't worry the duty cycle very much. See below:

How Long Do Plasma TVs Last?

There has been much discussion recently about the life expectancy of plasma monitor/TVs. It is an interesting topic with many misconceptions and story variations. The following is what I can advise on the topic:

Misconception #1: Many retailers seem to be telling consumers that plasma monitors will only last a couple of years - which is false as you will see below.

Misconception #2: The gas plasma inside the plasma TV can be refilled or replaced when it burns out. This is false.

Misconception #3: Plasmas dont last long. Many plasma manufacturers are now listing 60,000 hours as the life span to half life - matching the life span listed by top LCD manufaturers.

So how long will a plasma last? The long and short of it is that it depends upon your daily hourly usage as well as how you use the monitor. 12 to 55 years is my new short answer.

One practical example I will cite here is the Panasonic Tau units being used by In Motion Pictures at major airports around the country. These plasma monitors have been in use now for 5 -1/2 years. The business In Motion Pictures displays images on them from 6AM until 10PM daily (16 hours). Many of these plasma TVs still look great. They never fail to catch my eye as I pass by in one airport or another to see if they are still in use. If they have lost some of their brightness level its hard to tell. These plasma displays have been used already for almost 30,000 hours and have plenty of life left. Already this use equates to 18 years for an owner that watches 3 hours of video or computer content per day.

And this is the old model!

Manufacturers figures for longevity are closely guarded but I have added some here for your review:

Panasonic: States in new specifications that their new plasma TVs and monitors are good to 60,000 to half life.

Sony: Also now states 60,000 hours to half life in their newest models.

Samsung: Lists 60,000 hours.

Pioneer: States 60,000 hours of use in their new 2005 models.

Sharp LCD panels: States 60,000 hour life.


For consumer use these numbers should be comforting. Plasma Displays are now about equivalent in longevity to LCDs, which typically state 60,000 hours or so life. Consider that these figures are a great amount more than old CRTs, which regularly post life span to half brightness at 25,000 hours. Let's put these hours in perspective. The average U.S. household watches 4 to 6 hours of television per day. Staggering. Taking a mean time manufacturer stated longevity of 50,000 hours of usage, times our average 5 hours per day we come up with over 27 years of usage.

Now, there are varying degrees of phosphor ignition along the way (the same way a CRT fades). Dissipation begins the moment you turn the set on. After 1000 hours of usage a plasma monitor should measure around 96% brightness, which is barely noticeable to the naked eye. At 15,000 to 20,000 hours the monitor should measure around 80% brightness or to say it differently, 80% of the original phosphors (gases) are being ignited.


And this is an excerpt from a whitepaper produced by Pioneer on Plasma TV technology:

Mythbusting - Just the Facts on Plasma TV Performance

Pioneer said:
First, while image retention can occur in modern plasmas, the effect is temporary. After the 48-hour torture test, all three of the plasma TVs that were tested showed clearly visible images from the game menu, whereas none of the LCD or MD rear projection- based sets showed any image retention. However, after regular video material (a DVD movie set to continuously loop) was played through the sets for 24 hours, the image completely disappeared from all three plasmas, leaving no trace. Unlike early generation plasmas, where those type of images would not go away and could actually "burn" onto the screen, modern plasma TVs enjoy a combination of more robust screen materials and subtle image-shifting technologies that have rendered this former issue moot.

Second, the accelerated aging tests show that plasma TVs maintain consistent image quality and brightness even after extending viewing. The image quality of all televisions (and all displays, for that matter) degrade somewhat over time, but in our tests plasmas results were typically within 5% of their "out of the box" performance at the conclusion of our testing. While this is not a definitive statement on product lifetimes—true lifetime tests are impossible without a several year test cycle—it is a reasonable proxy of extended performance. In fact, many plasma TV vendors now claim 60,000-hour lifetimes (translated: 8 hours of daily viewing for more than 20 years before the screen reaches half of its original brightness).

Third, when measuring black levels, the plasma TVs as a group actually outperformed the reference CRT monitor as well as the TVs using the other two technologies. The tangible benefit of this is that a deeper range of colors can be displayed, which translates into a richer overall picture.

Fourth, the viewing angles for plasma TVs were the most consistent of all the TV types tested. In other words, regardless of where you are in the room, the image quality on a plasma will look very similar. Also, even if you’re seated in a fixed position, you won’t be able to see any difference when, for example, a person walks across the screen or a football flies from one end of the screen to the other.

Fifth, although the absolute brightness of plasma TVs is lower than other TV technologies, it is the most consistent from side-to-side, making "hotspots" or "deadspots" less likely, regardless of where you view the TV from within a room. The LCD TVs and microdisplay rear projection sets that were tested had brighter pictures when viewed head on, which could make them a better choice in rooms where viewing positions are limited and the lighting cannot always be controlled (such as those with lots of natural sunlight). When tested from different angles, however, both the overall brightness and the color performance varied on the sets using LCD and microdisplay rear projection technologies.
 
AtomicShroom said:
Then what would you get? CRT's weight a ton and suffer from geometry deformations... DLP's have the "rainbow" effect. Is there anything else?


I'd get a CRT, personally. For the money (or even close to the money) they're going to have the best black levels around. I don't care about weight, or cuteness, or hanging things on my walls, or whatever else. I'm sure expensive plasmas won't suffer from resolution issues, and expensive CRTs shouldn't suffer from geometry issues if properly calibrated. But, an expensive plasma is a lot more than an expensive CRT.
 
I'd say the fact that their life is pretty short, they have nasty fencing artifiacts, and I blieve poor refresh rates and low resolution would be my issues with them.

Current models are usually around CRT life levels for half brightness I believe.

I'm not sure about this fencing artifact you are referring to? Is that just from the shitty scalars in early models?

Poor refresh rates? Nah, that's LCD.

Low resolution? Huh?
 
I came closer then I ever have this past year to buying a 32 inch samsung LCD but in the store I saw lots of nice plasma tv's they just typically costed more. The smallest size plasma it seems you can buy nowadays is a 42 inch widescreen EDTV, these are on sale at best buy right now actually for I believe 2000 dollars. Again though its EDTV and for the quickie guide remember ED = 480P which is still better then SD(480i standard definition) but most buying a tv nowadays are likely doing it for xbox 360 and later in which you'll want atleast a 720P capable television, don't let hd capable 1080i only sets fool you either. 720P/1080P or bust. No sence wasting more then 1000 dollars on a set that you don't really need.

I think I may actually hold off for now myself , I came so close but due to the best buy I checked being sold out and my wishy washy nature I just held off when I was at the store.

A 720P capable plasma set will run you 3500 and up if best buy was any indication, this is canadian dollars I'm talking and again they are 42inches and up. I'm no expert but by all accounts the newest plasma tv's are rid of the issues plagueing the original models. 60,000 hour lamp life seems common which translates into 8 hours a day for 15 years or something ridiculous. Basically the same has a CRT. Has for stepladdering jaggies/ artifacts I guess I could see that happening. The reason is that plamsa tv pixels are very large compared to say LCD pixels but if you're buying a 42 inch set you should be 6 feet away from the television anyway, especially with a brightass plasma.

It's only remaining flaw is power consumption - 370 watts compared to only 185 with the average LCD set.
 
Onix said:
Current models are usually around CRT life levels for half brightness I believe.

I'm not sure about this fencing artifact you are referring to? Is that just from the shitty scalars in early models?

Poor refresh rates? Nah, that's LCD.

Low resolution? Huh?

Fencing artifacts are something I've always noticed in plasma TVs for as long as they've existed. I don't know why it is, and most people that look at the same TV at the same time as me can't see them, but I do, and it is visually distracting. If you can't see it, better for you. I can also see the flicker in flourescent lights and monitors set below 85Hz.

The refresh rate, as I stated, was something I wasn't sure about, as was low resolution. However, it does appear that most afforadable plasmas, even today, to not resolve anywhere close to 1080 lines.

Of course, the TV technology that is best for one person may not be best for another. They all have one flaw or another, and some flaws are more distracting to one person than to another. For example, as I want a very large screen (65"), am not concerned with the space it takes up, am buying it for myself, and can situate it so that my viewing angle is straight on, a CRT works for me. Other people would have different needs or requirements.
 
AtomicShroom said:
Then what would you get? CRT's weight a ton and suffer from geometry deformations... DLP's have the "rainbow" effect. Is there anything else?

Only some people are susceptible to rainbows- most people aren't. The best way to gauge this is during really dark scenes in which their is a light source such as a streetlamp or the like. Furthermore, this phenomenom is most easily discernable in your home. Many people don't see them while on display at the store.

The easy thing to do is buy one at a store like Circuit Shitty who have a 30-day x-change period. If you see rainbows while at home, then take it back and get a plasma or LCD. Just remember that DLP's still have better black levels and overall contrast than the majority of LCD's; and are probably on par with plasmas in general. Every LCD that I've seen crushes blacks. I recently saw the Sony A20 and it had this very problem, obviously it wasn't calibrated though.

Here are some measurements that one of the calibrationists over at the AVS Forum got from an A20:

The Official Sony Grand Wega V (A20 series) Thread

umr said:
Here are some measurements I made on the one I calibrated.

On/Off contrast ratio:495:1
Gray scale accuracy 20-100 IRE: 2 Average Delta E CMC from D65
Black Level: 0.22 fL
100 IRE Level: 111 fL
Rec. 709 Gamma: Almost Exactly 2.5 over entire range

A few observations after calibration:

* Too Bright
* Excellent Colors
* Geometry Difficult To Correct
* Service Mode Adjustments Are Required To Fix Gray Scale, Color Decoder, Geometry, Enhancement and Filtering
* Deinterlacer performance is not very good

I haven't seen the new Sony A10's yet, and that's what all of the buzz is about, so definitely check them out. You might search the huge A10 thread over at AVS for more details. Lot's of happy folks it appears, but if you see any posts by umr, pay attention because he really seems to know his stuff.

LCD's don't have the rainbow problem, have great colors, and no burn-in. So, by all means, don't take any one else's word for it, see all of these technologies for yourself.

Every technology has its trade-offs. You just need to decide which ones you're willing to live with.


EDIT:

Oh I forgot, some of the Samsung DLP's have an audio-synch problem with timing natured games like Madden, baseball, or golf. Apparently Halo has the same problem. I haven't heard of anyone having audio-synch problems with the Mitsubishi or Toshiba DLPs though. In fact, the Toshis have a "game mode".
 
Fuzzy said:
I like to have the TV that I'm watching about level with my eyes when I'm on the couch. So that means the top of the screen is about five feet off of the floor. Why do people mount them so high like you did?

Well because there is a fireplace below the TV. With the tilt mount it works beautifully.
 
As an example, Best Buy's lowest priced 50" plasma still only lists this as its resolution:

16:9 WXGA (1366 x 768) pixel display with 7 widescreen modes

That's better than ED, sure, and at least it does hit the the minimum I'd ever consider (720), but it still costs $4000. I could get a 65" CRT for half that.
 
Seth C,

I'd have to look at the models you've seen. I'm actually pretty succeptable to refresh rates and artifacts. I remember seeing plenty of artifacts on older ones, but I only check out higher-end current models now - haven't seen to many problems with them.

The EDTV plasmas are normally 480p.

The HDTV plasmas are normally 720p, with 1080p just starting to come out.

Granted, very few TVs resolve 1080 currently ... just a few LCoS based front and rear projectors, and a couple of 9" CRT front projectors.
 
Onix said:
Seth C,

I'd have to look at the models you've seen. I'm actually pretty succeptable to refresh rates and artifacts. I remember seeing plenty of artifacts on older ones, but I only check out higher-end current models now - haven't seen to many problems with them.

The EDTV plasmas are normally 480p.

The HDTV plasmas are normally 720p, with 1080p just starting to come out.

Granted, very few TVs resolve 1080 currently ... just a few LCoS based front and rear projectors, and a couple of 9" CRT front projectors.

Many of the larger Mitsubishi rear-projection units have 9" guns and should resolve 1080 with no problem.
 
I picked up the Panasonic 42" Plasma TH-42PX50U for $2413 and tax at BB over the weekend and I'm lovin' it.

I don't think there's a reason not to go for plasma. They're on the 8th generation panels now, have pixel-shifters to prevent any burn-in that happened to older generation units, and have lamp life of 60,000 hours, like LCDs.

The picture definitely does the best job of representing a CRT, particularly the Panasonic's ability to reproduce black colors on-screen. More importantly, Halo 2 freakin' rocks in 480 widescreen.

I'd say go for plasma. Heck even the $1799 Panny EDTV looks hot.
 
drats. I bought a plasma hoping that I'd having a legitimate reason to change my TV after 5 years. :(

I WANT burn-in and short life spans!
 
I think I'll be getting a CRT later this year and then waiting it out for these new technologies to reach consumers.
 
Onix said:
Seth C,

I'd have to look at the models you've seen. I'm actually pretty succeptable to refresh rates and artifacts. I remember seeing plenty of artifacts on older ones, but I only check out higher-end current models now - haven't seen to many problems with them.

The EDTV plasmas are normally 480p.

The HDTV plasmas are normally 720p, with 1080p just starting to come out.
Be careful with 42" plasmas. The vast majority of "HDTV" plasmas are not even true 720p. The resolution is usually 1024x768 or something in that neighborhood. To get true 720p you usually need to go 50" or larger.
 
Ecrofirt said:
I think I'll be getting a CRT later this year and then waiting it out for these new technologies to reach consumers.


Same here. Specifically, I have a 51" HDTV currently that is suffering from defects. I bought the extended warranty, so I am hoping to exchange it and pay a little to upgrade to a 65". That will do me for a few years and by then the technology should be where I want it to be to upgrade again.
 
The new Samsung DLP's hitting most stores later this month early next are susposed to be a huge improvement. All impressions are fairly positive. There is still the rainbow effect, but most accounts put it at signicicantly less of a problem with this year's model.
 
I'd probably be getting a plasma or something if they were cheap enough for me to warrant a purchase now when I know the good technology is only two years away.

How are DLPs? And how does their size compare to that of a CRT?
 
Ecrofirt said:
I'd probably be getting a plasma or something if they were cheap enough for me to warrant a purchase now when I know the good technology is only two years away.

How are DLPs? And how does their size compare to that of a CRT?
Good technology has been two years away for the last decade or so. I remember when I first started posting here in 2002, KLee was making threads about how we were going to have nanotube displays and OLED panels for less than $1,000 in 2004. :lol

Just buy whatever you can afford and enjoy it.
 
AtomicShroom said:
After seeing Plasma sets in stores, I can't help but salivate at the thought of buying one. It's like LCD, except it doesn't have any ghosting or black level issues. It also comes in bigger sizes than LCD, and it's cheaper!

So other than potential longevity issues (do these really exist?) and potential burn-in problems (do these *still* really exist? can anyone testify?), is there any other reason why I shouldn't go with Plasma when I finally get an HDTV?

Thanks GAF! :D

I'm a Sony Wega CRT man myself.

Super Fine Pitch Display + Trinitron Tubes = :D
 
Rhindle said:
Good technology has been two years away for the last decade or so. I remember when I first started posting here in 2002, KLee was making threads about how we were going to have nanotube displays and OLED panels for less than $1,000 in 2004. :lol

Just buy whatever you can afford and enjoy it.

Intresting, since Motorola NEDs were first announced July 2003 and were said to be 2-3 years away from production at that time....

http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,2981_2436_23,00.html

TRY ANOTHER...
 
if you want to buy something *now*, not a NED (hey, pick me up one of those fancy jetpacks while you're there) :P



Just buy what looks good to you. Technology has moved on a lot since the early days. LCDs have great viewing angles, much better contrast and response times. Plasmas have less issues with burn-in (if you run them in properly), great blacks etc.

Some people just prefer the look of an LCD or plasma or CRT. I have an LCD and love it. It has a nice, filmic look to it, and the progressive display is way better than the flickery CRT I had before, with visible scan lines etc (SD set).

I just like it better. And thats all that matters, ultimately. Limit your research to facts and get to the level where you've eliminated non-starters and would be happy with whatever you buy. Then just go to a good store and take a look, using source material you pick (take a couple of DVDs or your Xbox)
 
Ponn01: said:
To get a really good plasma they are much more expensive.
I've been looking into this a lot lately - at 50" or above, size for size, LCD is more expensive then plasma. And at those sizes LCDs don't resolve 1080P either.

Ecrofirt said:
How are DLPs? And how does their size compare to that of a CRT?
Well, for me, the first thing I noticed about DLPs, LCoS, SXRD(well, I've only seen Qualia for this one, but I can't imagine lower end versions will be better) etc. is that they all have very noticeable viewing angle issues. It reminds me of LCDs back in 2000.
That said they are relatively cheap, not as bulky as CRTs and new models tend to support 1080P.
 
The only 2 disadvantages i can think of for plasmas are , price , and ..well thats it really, they have the best color, second best contrasts only beat by crt's. LCD's are nice too, but i just HATE the screendoor affect that can happen with them. LCD's dont have a default color so even black has to be made on the screen which is why their refresh from white to black is a bit slow compared to plasma. Ultimately though I think LCD will be the best choice in the future unless a breakthrough in manufacturing costs for plasma comes out.
 
DonasaurusRex said:
The only 2 disadvantages i can think of for plasmas are , price , and ..well thats it really, they have the best color, second best contrasts only beat by crt's. LCD's are nice too, but i just HATE the screendoor affect that can happen with them. LCD's dont have a default color so even black has to be made on the screen which is why their refresh from white to black is a bit slow compared to plasma. Ultimately though I think LCD will be the best choice in the future unless a breakthrough in manufacturing costs for plasma comes out.


You got that the right way round? I've only ever had a problem with screendoor on SD plasmas - they don't have a very good fill ratio so you can see the grid. LCD looks fantastic in comparison.

Unless you mean rear projection stuff, where you might not like the way the image is projected onto the screen itself.
 
Plasma is only 480p maximum ? For real ? I know lots of people who have just bought plasma tv`s to be ready for next gen. Now they won`t be able to play games in 720p anyway? :lol

Man what a mess. I`ll stick with my standard tv until there is a clear standard.
 
Gregory said:
Plasma is only 480p maximum ? For real ? I know lots of people who have just bought plasma tv`s to be ready for next gen. Now they won`t be able to play games in 720p anyway? :lol

Man what a mess. I`ll stick with my standard tv until there is a clear standard.

... do you have any reading comprehension?

Where the hell did you get that?

Plasmas have been coming out in 720p for a while now. And newest plasmas are starting to come out in 1080p.

The general rule of thumb though is that 720p is more than adequate for the next 5 years, and probably 10 years. If you're looking to buy now, 720p is the best bang for your buck.
 
Seth C said:
Many of the larger Mitsubishi rear-projection units have 9" guns and should resolve 1080 with no problem.

All 9" guns do not automatically resolve 1080p.

The top-of-the-line Mits (WS-65815, etc.) cannot handle 1080p ... as a matter of fact, they can't resolve 720p to my knowledge. They resolve 1080i, 480i, and 480p.
 
Top Bottom