What is Digg?Sponsored by Norton 2010
Kimbo Slice vs. a caterpillar. Who would win? view!
everyclickmatters.com - The question has finally been answered, and we've got it on tape. See the showdown.
456 Comments
- eramos, on 02/14/2009, -15/+357Plasma makes up 99% of the universe. So plasma is here to stay.
- telebacon, on 02/14/2009, -36/+214Plasma consumed too much power anyways.
- zooplibob, on 02/14/2009, -6/+134Uhhh, I have a 46" Panasonic plasma. During the totally white scenes it can pull around 500 max, and during dark scenes (like 75% of most movies) it was around 200 watts. So on average it uses about 350 watts.
An average 47" LCD pulls around 280 watts, so the difference is only 70 watts. If you watch 4 hours a day, 365 days a year, it will cost (gasp) over $12 to use a plasma (assuming 12 cent/kwh)!! I'd say that is worth the infinitely better picture quality and viewing angles, wouldnt you? - sanman, on 02/14/2009, -3/+110let me put it more clearly:
Darmok and Vizio on the ocean
Shaka when the plasma industry fell - zerofoo, on 02/14/2009, -2/+103My boss's 50" Pioneer Kuro has an amazing picture.
Cheap plasmas like my $900 50" Samsung have very nice dark blacks. That's hard to get from a $900 LCD. I figure the cheap plasma will hold me over until OLED becomes cheap enough. - poordavey, on 02/14/2009, -10/+97Its really sad to see companies backing down on plasma. The so-called downsides that scare consumers away aren't as bad as they are chocked up to be.
1. Burn-In. Almost all current plasmas have pixel rotators built in, cutting down on the ease of experiencing PERMANENT burn-in by a huge amount. If you leave a DVD menu up on the screen for a half-hour, you're still going to see a shadow, but this isn't permanenent. Run the built-in tool and it will disappear. Don't be stupid and leave things on for that long. ISF calibrated plasmas will also be harder to get burn in on.
2. Energy. Yes. They consume 20% more (on average) power than comparable size LCDs. But get your plasma ISF calibrated (it can be costly, but the energy savings makes up for it. I know Best Buy sells them for $200 and they are actually done by ISF certified technicians), and it will almost cut that power consumption in half, and give you a more true picture, although it will be less bright.
3. Weight. They are usually heavier than LCDs, and especially with Samsung and Sonys 2009 models coming out nearly 1" thick, the gap will grow. But this does not make them more difficult to mount on a wall. The weight difference isn't that great. Most decent quality hardware can support much more weight than is necessary. Don't buy plastic ***** from wal-mart and you're fine.
4. Resolution. 42" 720p plasma? Yes. They exist. If you're really really really cheap. Panasonic also has 42" 1090p sets. You will see 720p plasmas beyond 50", and you CAN tell the difference at all sizes above 42".
5. Heat. It goes along with power consumption. Feel a ISF calibrated TV in a shop some time. Then feel an identical uncalibrated plasma next to it. Its a huge difference.
Yes, the Pioneer Elites are twice as expensive as similiar sized Pannies and Samsungs, but they are better TVs. I can see why they want to bow out though, there isn't a huge market for a $6000 TV when Panasonic has one that looks DAMN good for $2500. I wish they would market some lower-end plasmas though. I would buy them.
As for getting a DLP over an LCD or a Plasma....they aren't bright enough to put in a naturally lit room, and aren't ideal for wider viewing angles. That, and the bulbs aren't exactly cheap. I'm not saying i'm a Plasma fanatic, I'm a big LCD fan as well, but this rant was purely for the purpose of defending the plasma technology. - jrm125, on 02/14/2009, -8/+82Here's what I know:
My plasma TV's picture kicks the ass of all my friends with an LCD.
It draws alotta juice...but if you want a superior picture, it's the way to go. Panasonic is still in the market and that's all that matters. - fuzzynyanko, on 02/14/2009, -2/+65I saw a Pioneer Kuro at a store and was amazed at the picture. Only problem was that I didn't have $4000 to spend on it
- RidesAPaleHorse, on 02/14/2009, -10/+69And pumped out far too much heat. And was around twice as heavy than LCD, meaning harder to hang on the wall.
- mmittimm, on 02/14/2009, -5/+64I AM AN EXPERT AND MY PREFERENCE IS THE RIGHT ONE.
- Kronos6948, on 02/14/2009, -1/+49Sony, His arms wide?
- diggydougie, on 02/14/2009, -3/+51No, it is mostly a vacuum.
- Stalks, on 02/14/2009, -2/+48Plasma pixels aren't square so 1024x768 is correct for the 16:9 aspect ratio.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 02/14/2009, -0/+44Plasma makes up 99% of the matter* in the universe.
- tacojohn48, on 02/14/2009, -0/+41You are all such nerds. I feel right at home.
- dreid, on 02/14/2009, -1/+39but it sounds soooooo cool
- badqat, on 02/14/2009, -3/+40Dead once OLED is affordable and made in larger sizes.
- TeeBaagz, on 02/14/2009, -26/+63This is disappointing news. Plasma is unquestionably the better technology compared to LCD. I was hoping to get a Pioneer Elite in the near future.
- YEEK, on 02/14/2009, -7/+43My 34 inch widescreen flat Sony CRT will kick any LCD or Plasma's butt.
Just don't try to move it. - inactive, on 02/14/2009, -0/+35Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel.
- dice4death, on 02/14/2009, -0/+34Temba, his arms open.
- TeeBaagz, on 02/14/2009, -4/+38Because most people don't live in a dark cave 24/7.
- lordmike, on 02/14/2009, -1/+34Projectors are great until you have to replace their proprietary bulbs, which can cost almost as much as the projector itself... it's not unheard of to have an $800 replacement for a simple bulb.
- blakbot, on 02/14/2009, -14/+46I'm soooo confuse-ed........
- plundstedt, on 02/14/2009, -16/+41"Meanwhile, most 42-inch plasmas (the most common size) have a sub-high-def resolution of 1024 by 768 pixels."
I have NEVER seen a 42-inch plasma display a resolution less than 1280x720, which is still HD - pete6677, on 02/14/2009, -3/+27No matter what some people say, big screen LCDs look wierd, especially with dark colors.
- DigitalisAkujin, on 02/14/2009, -1/+25What the ***** does it matter if I buy it now? Who cares what wins? It's not like it becomes "incompatible" in the future. You can always hook up screens to anything.
- placidinsanity, on 02/14/2009, -4/+28If you look at the specifications for 720p plasma displays, they state that they display 1024x768 and accept 720p signal. Go to Best Buy or Amazon and you'll find this to be true for most (if not all) 720p plasma models.
- Ajajadude, on 02/14/2009, -2/+26So obscure...and that's why I'm so sad that I know what you're talking about...
- inactive, on 02/14/2009, -0/+23Yes, and OLED will also be killed by something too. Once in a while, you just have to take the plunge. If you do it at the start of a technology, it's expensive and lacks support. If you get it later, it's often cheaper and with support, but something bigger is on the horizon.
- geodescent, on 02/14/2009, -0/+23Wouldn't something, even projected, look better at 1080p?
- TeeBaagz, on 02/14/2009, -8/+282 buries...
I guess there are at least 2 people who must not know that plasma is indeed better picture quality and performance than LCD (shrug). - Rudegar, on 02/14/2009, -1/+21sorry plasma your vibrant colours cause burn in on my eyes
:S - soulpatch, on 02/14/2009, -4/+24buried for the arrogance against the Samsung plasma - which is better than any LCD.
- Coffeedemon, on 02/14/2009, -0/+20"he's a big fan of paying a little more and getting a better product"
Since you just said he sells them, I'm not surprised. - JigoroKano, on 02/14/2009, -1/+20720p in a 200+ inch picture? You're going to have to sit like 50 feet away for that to not look worse than 1080p.
- freehunter, on 02/14/2009, -1/+20I can understand not reading the article, but the description clearly says that vizio has stopped making them as well.
- duggdowncatisad, on 02/14/2009, -2/+21Because people don't buy TVs to watch them, they buy TVs as penis extenders to prove how awesome they are, so if it's "outdated" it's worthless.
- inactive, on 02/14/2009, -2/+20Awesome, and holy *****, i'm watching that episode right now.
- evil-doer, on 02/14/2009, -1/+19i wish SED would finally come out
- srturner47, on 02/14/2009, -0/+17Truly sad. I've always preferred Plasmas. However, I don't see Panasonic and others bowing out of the Plasma market anytime soon, so there is hope!
- Seidoger, on 02/14/2009, -1/+18In my book, and increase of 6$ a month on electricity bill only because you changed your TV is a lot.
- UnWeave, on 02/14/2009, -3/+20$6/month? For one appliance? That *is* a lot of energy. I mean it's probably not going to break the bank, but it is a big difference, in terms of energy.
- Mylf, on 02/14/2009, -5/+22I initially stayed away from plasma because of burn-in. And I have to admit the color on some plasmas is outstanding. Just the same, I'm quite satisfied with my samsung lcd
- alpharaptor, on 02/14/2009, -2/+19not a complete vacuum, particles are constantly popping in and out.
- kotatsu, on 02/14/2009, -0/+17As the owner of a 1080p 50" Pioneer KURO plasma this saddens me. I can only hope that by the time I am ready to replace my TV, LCD will have advanced enough to equal my plasma's picture quality.
- directrix13, on 02/14/2009, -0/+17And just for completeness, the kind you like is called matte.
- zooplibob, on 02/14/2009, -1/+17Yeah I dont get why people are disagreeing that the picture quality of a plasma is better. Its all about the black levels, and every LCD Ive seen sucks in that regard.
To see for yourself, turn off all the lights and put the LCD on a black screen. If you can tell where the screen ends and the border starts, thats whats wrong with your black levels. - poordavey, on 02/14/2009, -4/+20The power was sort of painful. The 42" panasonics were listed at pulling 600-700 watts. Although, if you saw one ISF calibrated, it almost cut that in half, and gave a more true picture, although less bright.
- inactive, on 02/14/2009, -0/+16OLED has been "6 months away" for the last 5 years.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 462 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is