How much better are plasma TVs these days?

[Isocene]

l

 

[Koing]

How far do you sit back from yoru tv? Do you watch much 1080p stuff? If you sit close enough you will see a difference with 1080p sources.

Koing

 

[Isocene]

l

 

[bobdole369]

Plasma's are not the bees knees anymore. LCD is winning the fight and Plasma is more expensive to produce. Your set still has value, but I don't know how much. I don't think you would see visually TOO much of a diff from your current set. We have one of the panny pro 50" in our office (2 actually the th50-9uk I think. ) 1368x768 native rez (on ours) still so even if 1080p is accepted as an input its downconverted to the panel rez.

It's truly the best TV I have ever seen. THat includes some really nice panels I've come across.

I would stick with the plasma for a bit. I wouldn't move to LCD's potential issues (slow response, inaccurate colors, low bulb life, fragility, viewing angle).

 

[kalrith]

At 8 feet you might notice 1080p, and at 12 feet you very likely will not. TVs have definitely improved, but I'm not sure how much (if any) of an improvement you'll get for only $1,000. If I were you, I'd keep enjoying that TV until you can pony up the money for a nice 58-60" 1080p set like this one.

 

[Isocene]

l

 

[mharr7]

Originally posted by: bobdole369
Plasma's are not the bees knees anymore. LCD is winning the fight and Plasma is more expensive to produce. Your set still has value, but I don't know how much. I don't think you would see visually TOO much of a diff from your current set. We have one of the panny pro 50" in our office (2 actually the th50-9uk I think. ) 1368x768 native rez (on ours) still so even if 1080p is accepted as an input its downconverted to the panel rez.

It's truly the best TV I have ever seen. THat includes some really nice panels I've come across.

I would stick with the plasma for a bit. I wouldn't move to LCD's potential issues (slow response, inaccurate colors, low bulb life, fragility, viewing angle).

It depends on what you're talking about "winning the fight." If you mean by sales, yes, LCD is winning.... If you are talking about Better Picture, then Plasma wins, especially a nicer set.
I'm looking for a tv, and my number 1 criteria is picture, therefore Plasma wins the fight for me. And most of the negatives that the old plasmas had back in the day, are no longer an issue.

 

[Falloutboy]

sorry plasma my 50" plasma Pany 720P that I got for $750 before xmas still beats any 50" LCD i've seen under 2k and if you get over 2k your in the range of the higher end plasmas which blow basically everything away. granted I don't really have anything to feed it 1080p so there was no point to get it, + the fact i site about 10ft away.

 

[bobdole369]

It depends on what you're talking about "winning the fight."

Sales.

 

[Riverhound777]

Originally posted by: bobdole369

It depends on what you're talking about "winning the fight."

Sales.

I think the main reason LCD wins in sales is due to the minimum size for plasmas. There are a lot of people buying LCDs in the 30-40 inch range that give it the lead in sales. But I wonder if you take the sales figures in the 50"+ size who wins.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Both plasmas I've owned in the past few years are better than both LCDs I've owned. Picture just feels richer to me.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: kalrith
At 8 feet you might notice 1080p, and at 12 feet you very likely will not. TVs have definitely improved, but I'm not sure how much (if any) of an improvement you'll get for only $1,000. If I were you, I'd keep enjoying that TV until you can pony up the money for a nice 58-60" 1080p set like this one.

Is that better than the G10 series screensize notwithstanding?

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: Riverhound777

Originally posted by: bobdole369

It depends on what you're talking about "winning the fight."

Sales.

I think the main reason LCD wins in sales is due to the minimum size for plasmas. There are a lot of people buying LCDs in the 30-40 inch range that give it the lead in sales. But I wonder if you take the sales figures in the 50"+ size who wins.

That is a very good point. For example, my friend wanted to spend $500 on a TV, and his wife didn't want him to get anything larger than a 32". Plasma wasn't even a contender for them.

I still wouldn't be surprised if LCD led the sales around the 50" range, but there aren't too many LCDs above 52". I think one big reason for LCDs leading in sales is their higher brightness. Many people choose a TV based on how good it looks on the huge wall of TVs at a big-box store. Studies have shown that people think that the brightest TVs (i.e. LCDs) look the best in that situation. I've personally heard many people comment that plasmas look dull compared to the LCDs in a big-box store, and it's probably because of the lower brightness. Hopefully the newer plasmas with higher brightness will allow their "torch" modes to compete with that of LCDs. It's sad that it should even matter that a TV have the ability to light up an entire room, but it seems to have a big impact on what people choose. There are also still some stigmas that still go with plasmas (burn-in, short life, etc.) even though those are non-issues these days.

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: kalrith
At 8 feet you might notice 1080p, and at 12 feet you very likely will not. TVs have definitely improved, but I'm not sure how much (if any) of an improvement you'll get for only $1,000. If I were you, I'd keep enjoying that TV until you can pony up the money for a nice 58-60" 1080p set like this one.

Is that better than the G10 series screensize notwithstanding?

Not at all. I haven't kept up with TVs whatsoever since I bought my Pioneer 5080 a year and a half ago, so I just pulled the one above from a quick Amazon search. I hadn't heard of the G10 series before your post. Here's an excerpt from the HDGuru review of it:

Don?t be lured by the lower closeout price of the last year?s PZ800, the superior performance of this new model is well worth the added cost.

With Pioneer out of the plasma game and the 50" G10 at only $1590 on Amazon, that seems like a great choice. The 54" is due out in May, so that might be worth waiting for. Just for reference a 54" is 16.8% larger than a 50". According to CNET the list price is supposed to be $400 more ($2399 compared to $1999) than the 50".

 

[Rio Rebel]

I think the original answer still stands - for $1000, you're not going to get something dramatic enough to replace a working 720p 4 year old plasma, watching from 8-12 feet away.

As to the LCD vs. Plasma debate, it usually boils down to 1) what you already bought, and 2) how much light is in the room, that decides how adamantly you hold your position.

 

[rivethead]

There are also still some stigmas that still go with plasmas (burn-in, short life, etc.) even though those are non-issues these days.

I've posted this point before on other threads, but I still think it doesn't get enough attention and press (and...in honor of Earth Day I'll say it again): plasmas suck a lot more juice than LCDs and also create a lot more heat. And IMHO, that stigma still lives.

It's kind of pointless to compare the purchase price of a plasma vs an LCD when you end up spending an extra $10-$20 on your electric bill each month to operate a plasma (cost is probably more in warmer climates where you run your AC 10 months out of the year like in Austin, TX where I am). Over the life of the unit that will add up.

That's one of the big things that excite me about the new LED models....they're 40% more efficient than LCDs.

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: rivethead

There are also still some stigmas that still go with plasmas (burn-in, short life, etc.) even though those are non-issues these days.

I've posted this point before on other threads, but I still think it doesn't get enough attention and press (and...in honor of Earth Day I'll say it again): plasmas suck a lot more juice than LCDs and also create a lot more heat. And IMHO, that stigma still lives.

It's kind of pointless to compare the purchase price of a plasma vs an LCD when you end up spending an extra $10-$20 on your electric bill each month to operate a plasma (cost is probably more in warmer climates where you run your AC 10 months out of the year like in Austin, TX where I am). Over the life of the unit that will add up.

That's one of the big things that excite me about the new LED models....they're 40% more efficient than LCDs.

According to CNET reviews my 50" plasma (Pioneer 5080) uses 228.56 W when calibrated, which I have done. The Sony Bravia KDL-52XBR7 uses 161.1 W when calibrated. My TV is probably on for an average of 4-5 hours every day, but let's use 6 hours to ensure that I'm not lowballing that number. By using 67.46 W extra for 6 hours a day 365 days a year, my electric bill would increase a whopping 78 cents every month!!! Even if I had the thing on 24/7, the difference in the electric bill between the plasma and LCD would be $3.12 per month. Considering that my $1,900 plasma outperformed LCDs that cost $1,000 more, I'd have to run the TV 24/7 for 26 years before I'd break even because of the extra electricity costs.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: bobdole369
Plasma's are not the bees knees anymore. LCD is winning the fight and Plasma is more expensive to produce. Your set still has value, but I don't know how much. I don't think you would see visually TOO much of a diff from your current set. We have one of the panny pro 50" in our office (2 actually the th50-9uk I think. ) 1368x768 native rez (on ours) still so even if 1080p is accepted as an input its downconverted to the panel rez.

It's truly the best TV I have ever seen. THat includes some really nice panels I've come across.

I would stick with the plasma for a bit. I wouldn't move to LCD's potential issues (slow response, inaccurate colors, low bulb life, fragility, viewing angle).

:laugh:

LCD is winning the sales sure, but that's only due to the marketing and uninformed consumer (and for that matter stores using "torch mode", and their employees trying to sell the higher profit margin panels instead). Now, regarding PQ plasma is still where it's at, although LCD is now only about 1-2 generations behind the top plasmas. Look at CNET (or any other A/V "top tv" list) and you'll see the top 2 sets are plasma, then an LCD, then a projection set, and finally an LED LCD. Oh, and while we are on the subject the 54 inch Panny G10 is 1/2 the price of the 55 inch Sony XBR8 and about the same price as Samsungs 46 inch 7000 series. So, better PQ and 1/2 the price for a screen that is *only* one inch smaller than the Sony, or better PQ with 8 inches more on the diagonal and about the same price (although it's cheaper by a few hundred). Remind me again how LCD is winning in any arena except selling to the uneducated, uninformed public by sales people who are also uneducated, uninformed, have products not in ideal viewing situations, using torch mode, and try to sell as many high profit margin sets (which tend to be the LCD's)?

Plasma is only more expensive at sub 50 inch ranges (and I've seen that number as low as 42 inches which is confirmed by the G10 prices for the 42 incher). Above that plasma is cheaper, better color accuracy, blacker blacks, and overall better PQ.

 

[dawgtuff]

I've waited a long time to go to HDTV. I've researched and finally decided on a plasma. Last December I bought a Samsung 50",720p for $780 at Walmart. I tweaked the color and was completely amazed at the picture. I have freinds with DLP's and LCD's, and theirs don't compare. However, the input makes a big difference. I use Direct Dish, but some of the HD broadcasts are better than others. To me, it looks like the hardware(HDTV's) are better than the signal given to them.Also, my contrast ratio is much higher than your's and I'm sure there's other improvements......hope this helps.