Re: Whats wrong with this thing?

[Lou Gray]

It's plasma. LCD (panel) has a better picture, weighs a lot less, has better longevity and lower temperatures. When plasma first came out, there were no large (32"+) LCD panels, so plasma became popular. LCD panels are now getting bigger and bigger (plasma can still be found in larger sizes), but the gap is closing fast, and prices are getting lower. I am not sure you will find a 42" LCD for that (linked) price right now. Go to a larger electronics store and look at them side-by-side and judge for yourself. I think the LCD typically has a better picture.

For you people that know about this stuff, take me to school and tell me > why I shouldn't get this. > > >

[RicodJour]

Wow. Where to begin... The longevity thing - myth. Plasma TVs are rated for tens of thousands of hours, commonly 60,000. So if you consider watching TV 5 hours a day for 16 years or so to be short lived...well, you have some seriously exaggerated expectations. LCDs suck in most normal daylight viewing ambient lighting conditions - plasma is far brighter and provides a better picture unless you're in total darkness, and even then a quality plasma is directly comparable in picture quality. The weight issue, isn't one - check your numbers. The weight difference is insignificant. Lower temperatures, yeah sure, but what's the relatively minor amount of added heat really doing? It's less heat than the 400 BTU that an extra person in the room watching would add.

You didn't mention that plasma TVs have better contrast ratios, are better at generating deep blacks, and better at motion tracking. Plasmas do have issues with altitude, so if you're at a higher elevation you might want to check with the manufacturer for it's recommended operating range.

There is no way you are going to find a 42" LCD for the same price as the discount plasma that Don posted - ain't gonna happen. Not for a while. Buying discount high end TVs is one of the stupider things you can do. If you're going to wait for LCD prices to come down, you might as well wait for the OLED TVs to come out.

R

[3D Peruna]

I beg to differ... I bought an LCD - 32" Sharp Aquos. Did the research for a LONG time before buying. Worst part is that the prices are dropping like stones in a lake, so anything you buy today will be much cheaper in a couple of months. Just life.

LCD do weigh less. LCD does use about half the power. LCD does have double the lifespan. New plasmas are much better. The Sharps LCD can have the backlight replaced, but I doubt it'll be worth it when the time comes (in about 15 years). Plasma does generally have better image quality for TV watching, but high end TVs exaggerate the poor quality of most TV signals. You'll notice most over-the-air and cable looked better on a regular TV, because a regular TV is already a little fuzzy and hides signal errors. However, if you have digital TV, the picture is pretty fantastic.

A couple of other things... The "discount" brands of TV's usually have crummy image processors, occasional bad pixels (LCDs), and spec.'s that aren't quite up to snuff. Don't go cheap... Get a known brand. LG, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic... At one point there were only a couple of factories that made the actual LCD panel (the tuner and other hardware was made by the company itself). It's not the LCD itself that's the important part, but the tuner and other processing hardware. HD is important for future proofing (as much as possible), so don't get anything that isn't HDTV (I'd be sure to read the fine print regarding "HDTV Ready").

[RicodJour]

Beg to differ about what? I just went shopping today with my brother-in-law and we picked up this:

nature is such that one always prefers the things that they just bought. It's one of the techniques that an ego uses to justify buying toys. ;)

Where would that matter? The 50" weighs 90 pounds.

Where would this matter? It's comparable to a computer. If you're a super Greenie, you won't have a big ass TV in the first place. ;)

Exactly.

Well, the LCD is the important part, but the other items can make or break the TV, and they're often the items that the cut rate brands skimp on.

Right.

R

[Warm Worm]

"On average, most computer monitors have a specified contrast ratio between

500:1 and 1000:1, sometimes 1500:1. Current plasma displays are specified at a 10,000:1 contrast ratio (most are 50% lower). However, the contrast of commercial displays is measured as the ratio of a full white screen to a full black screen in a completely dark room. The simultaneous contrast of real content under normal viewing conditions is significantly lower. One of the only monitors that can display in true HDR is the BrightSide Technologies HDR monitor [ ], which has a simultaneous contrast ratio of around 200,000:1 for a brightness of 3000 cd.m-2, measured on a checkerboard image. In fact this higher contrast is equivalent to a ANSI9 contrast of 60,000:1, or about 60 times higher that the one of a TFT screen (about 1000:1). The brightness is 10 times higher that the one of the most CRT or TFT. But such display should only be useful if it needs to operate in a pitch-black room and in two seconds under bright lightning, and the eye should be able to see a full dynamic range on the display in both situations."

-Wikipedia, on High Dynamic Range Rendering (HDRR)

I work a little with HDRI in using it to illuminate my 3D scenes, and recently got a digital cam and special tripod to go further in part for that. I imagine some of you on here might also work with HDRI, although it's still fairly new.

Incidentally, unbeknownst to me of its existence, I had made a request for a feature (for an open source program I use) essentially like this:

"poor 'man's" HDRI.

Check out this nice HDRI subject:

Richard

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

"1.09mm dot pitch"

?!?!

Surely this can't be right - could they mean 0.109...?

IMO, .29 ("standard") sucks and .25 is barely passable.

3000:1 brightness? Is that correct? I'd thought 680:1 was excellent - OTOH, I don't know what units are being used. So that'd be something to check. If this unit has finageled the decimals, the brightness might only be 300:1...something to look into closely.

I've never heard the term "nit" as a color measure, only as a flea egg (as in "nit wit"). Again, something to check out. Maybe there is some info at

Overall, I'd look for a great deal more info from other sources before making any decision.

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Oh, I thought it was a computer monitor...oops!

[Edgar]

Don't know about dot pitch, but contrast ratio for a Plasma is usually very good compared to others, so 3000:1 sounds about right. Toshiba is working on some new tech that will give up to 10,000:1 ratios.

I think everything has been covered pretty well, but, I would also add that being able to see it in person makes a huge difference. All the numbers in the world don't mean anything unless you can see that you like it. Also, its an EDTV, not an HDTV, which unless you are really trying to save money then I would save a few hundred more and get the HDTV. Anything that says

780p and better would be good, this one only does TV (480i called SDTV) and DVD progressive scan (480p called EDTV) resolutions, and forget about plugging a computer into that. Other than that, I would say all the things that were once wrong with plasmas have since been corrected, except for the power draw and heat, which will always be an issue due to the tech. *** Posted via a free Usenet account from ***

[Kris Krieger]

"Edgar" wrote in news:447cc54c$0$24203$ [e-mail]:

I read the other posts after I jotted that, so I learned a few things - I guess I'm experiencing "the acceleration doe to technology"