Is plasma still the king of HDTVs
By Matt Burns 
posted May 12th 2006 2:15PM
posted May 12th 2006 2:15PM
NewTechnologyTV.com has an article about plasma's being the reigning king of HDTVs. We tend to agree with that statement, but are curous to know what you think. Plasma do offer a great picture at reasonable sizes and price. Sure, LCDs tend to be more versitale and can be made in different sizes but they do not offer the same type of picture quality that a plasma does. DLP is great technolodgy to make a very large high-def picture but again, does not offer a better picture then a quality plasma does. CRTs, a long time favorite, can produce a better picture then plasmas but top off at 34-inches; cannot be the king and be that small.
What do you folks think? Is NewTechnologyTV.com and us off our rockers today?
Nothing that I have seen yet matches a good plasma as far as clarity and depth IMO. SED seems to be the next thing that may dethrone plasma, but that may not happen for a while (per this blog).
I enjoy the podcast keep up the good work.
Any additional info about a whole house integrated HD DVR (wired or wireless)the better.
I have yet to lay my eyes upon a plasma that would rival my 60" SXRD.
If CRTs beat plasmas in terms of image quality but not in terms of size does that mean that a good CRT RPTV beats a plasma? If plasmas are so great then why aren't they used in the computer monitor market for high-end graphics work (stuff that needs to be properly color callibrated)? I'd love to get one of the LCD monitors with LED backlighting.
That all being said I'll probably get a 24" LCD for my computer work in the next few months. As for replacing my CRT RPTV I'd love to have something more invisible than the large 65" cabinet. I'm likely to do the 42" 1080p LCD route for a living room and a front projector for a dedicated HT.
CRTs offer the best picture. I don't like plasmas (personal preference) because I can see the distortion in the colors. I also don't agree with the fact that there are so few true 1920x1080 plasma displays. When the new LCDs come out, like the Sony Bravia X-Series (40" @ $4199 and 46" at $5499), we'll see some clearer pictures. Sure the black levels aren't nearly as good as plasma, but unless you have a reference point or are in a dark room, you won't notice. I also don't understand why, but plasma's to me don't represent colors well. I'm not saying the colors themselves, but gradients look horrible to me. If you look at a rainbow, or fog, I can tell where the color transition points are. Just my opinion.
I never see many plasmas that are 1080 so I dont really agree with that comment. total resolution goes to detail and they seem to lack in that area.
I think that, the SXRD notwithstanding (I agree with Armen, there), plasmas ON AVERAGE offer better picture quality than LCDs ON AVERAGE. However, some LCDs do exceed the AVERAGE plasma and rival the ABOVE AVERAGE plasma in terms of PQ. An example would be Sony's Bravia XBR 40", and Samsungs new 4692D.
Plasmas still outsell LCDs in their size ranges. That's going to change as LCD technology advances. But for now, on AVERAGE, I do agree that plasma offers a better picture for a better price. But there are always exceptions; its too hard to crown a definiive "king," and I think doing so overstates the current state of the art.
I haven't looked into it lately, but have they solved the decaying brightness problem yet? What is the average life of a current plasma tv? How much would it cost to fix/replace the backlighting?
I recently purchased an LCD. The main reason was that after seeing a plasma side by side with an LCD I noticed that the LCD eliminated just about all overhead & sunlight glare. This was a major factor since the sunlight angle/intensity shining into the store was pretty close to what I have at home.
Obviously, front projection (and everything that goes with it) is the ultimate. There's no way a plasma could equal the draw dropping ability of my 8' wide 1080p FP display.
"To Each His Own" It's obvious that everyone is partial to their own set. My 50" Pioneer Plasma looks amazing everytime I turn it on to me, and I've had it for 2+ years.
People atop this Blog always say whatever looks best to YOU, is what you'll buy.
Why is is that DLP rear projection HDTV's can be considered in large sizes but CRT-based RPTVs of equal size cannot? Ignorance or insult? I love my 65" widescreen Mitsubishi Domain.
A decent plasma beats every LCD out there and rivals the PQ of a CTR. Colors are much better reproduced on the current generation than with LCD´s, they offer much better viewing angle and response times and black levels are far better then any lcd.
To answer some of the comments/questions above: Plasmas have a limited resolution (current 42" models have 1024 x 768, while great for TV it's to limited for computer use) in order to get good resolution plasmas have to be big making them in term unusable to use as computer screens. Also plasmas are more prone to screen burn than CTR´s and LCD´s so leaving a plasma 24 hours on a windows desktop view is not very wise.
Current plasma panels have a brightness half life of 60000 hours, that?s more than 20 years when using 8 hours a day. You can´t change a backlight on a plasma as it doesn´t have any (only lcd´s have one)
About the Sony Bravia LCD´s: The reds of the sony´s are far to strong, it may look good for the average costumer but its for of from being accurate color reproduction. Also $4200 for a 40" is more than double what a good 42" plasma costs.
About glare, true LCD´s normally have less reflection than most plasma's due to the fact that most plasmas are using a glass front filter, however you obviously did not compare it to one of LG´s plasma with clear filter.
Nothing that I have seen yet matches a good Sony Xbr960 crt 1080i display, no plasma, no lcd, no lcos, no dlp, no projector, no 720p no 1080p as far as clarity and depth IMO. SED seems to be the next thing that may dethrone crt, but that may not happen for a while.
crts have the most natural colors, bar none. unlimited contrast, viewing angle, hense no stats listed on those. and response times in the nano second range, second to none for sports, no millisecond nonsense here, sure its heavy and deep and companies dont make mush on them, and its interlaced when displaying hidef, progressive for dvd.
But the best is the best, even though only 34" it is the king and nothing comes close.
Although I think SED will be the next king.
what I want though is a 42" version of sony's higher than HD res 24" computer crt monitor. that thing is awesome and all progressive or interlaced/