 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
How would you rate the image quality of similar level sets, using the above technologies? Assuming decent viewing angle and reasonably dark room. Seems to me that tube sets (high quality ones like the XBR800's from sony) still look the best, but projection and plasma are not far behind. Do most people agree with this, or have newer Plasma screens surpassed everything now?
Follow Ups:
...I'm the integrated system's engineer/manager at the local HIFI store. I have to deal with plasmas, front and rear projectors, and direct view CRT's every day. I know what the current stuff is and looks like...we display it and sell it.Ok, now that that's out of the way...
Rear projection gives you the most screen size for the buck...no doubt about it. I'll also allow that RP has come a long way in the last few years. When properly setup the better sets can look pretty nice. Spend enough hours looking at a truely good direct view HD CRT set and [if you're me] all of a sudden the RP sets look a whole bunch less appealing. I understand that you typically get a much bigger picture with a RP set, but to me size is not a deal breaker.
You can get a nice 55" RP HD set for about $2500. For the same $2500 you can look at 34" direct view CRT's. The DV looks better...it just does [assuming both the RP and DV are setup "well", and are quality displays]. Ok, so the question is does the DV look better enough to justify spending the same $$$ on a smaller picture? To me, yes...just my opinion.
The newer plasmas have pictures that look like the old ones, but better. No revoloution here, just evoloution. You can thank the advances in scan rate conversion, as much as anything, for the improvment in the picture you see on plasma's [or any fixed pixel device, for that matter]. I've compaired a current production Fujitsu/Hitachi [same factory] 1024x1024 plasma to a Loewe Aconda [HD 1080i signal, via RGBHV]...we carry both brands in our store. I think the Loewe is a fair shot better, IMO. That's not to say the plasma dosent look nice...it does. For most, plasma's main selling point is "wow, it's thin". That's ok...sometimes you need thin. You can put a plasma in places a bulky heavy DV could never dream of going.
Fixed pixel is generally considered to lag behind CRT in absoloute picture quality. That is the consensus in the upper end of the CE industry, and I agree with it. That said, the gap is closing and will most likely continue to. Texas Instruments has a 2nd generation single-chip 16x9 DLP chip that boasts greater black level and overall contrast than the previous chip, which looked pretty nice in it's own right [in the right projector]. Modern 3chip DLP's look wonderful [and are amazingly bright!], their price is most decidedly not wonderful. Hopefully, one day, that will change. CRT's are big, heavy, expensive to buy and setup, and have their own list of picture quality issues like convergence, edge distortion, low light output and uneven light output. That, along with the progress of DLP has left CRT barely clinging on to it's status as "top dog" in the projector/monitor world.
Ok...so what I'm finnaly getting at is that with all this in mind, you have to make a choice about what kind of video monitor to buy. You have to balance picture size, cost, picture quality [to your eyes], and interaction with the room. Just because I'm willing to give up a fair amount of picture size to get a better picture [without spending 5 figures or more] dosen't make anyone wrong if they make a different decision.
To relate this to something I'm personally much more passionate about [I don't own a TV of any kind]...I have a Hovland HP100 preamp. I think the Hovland is great...the best I've heard. I'm sure there's a Krell owner/fan out there that'll tell me that his KCT is a fair shot better than my HP100. He will never convince me of anything of the kind! Does that make him wrong, nope [well, maybe just a little ;-)].
:-)
Steve
Steve, thanks for the interesting post. It's always nice to hear from someone who has experience like yours.Still, I find myself absolutely puzzled by comments that CRTs still have the edge in picture quality, when compared to plasmas. To my eyes this just isn't so (and I'm talking about the best of the newer plasmas - Fujitsu 5002/Pioneer Elite/Panasonic plasmas). I've made a point of seeing every display I can, and a well set-up plasma beats the pants off of every other display every time. I can't help but note that most people who see plasmas in the store (or in my home) have the same reaction (and it's not just to the thin size, it's a reaction to the picture quality).
I watched the Olympics every day in HD on an ISF'd Loewe Aconda at my work, and while it was excellent, it never dropped my jaw, never made my mind think "real" as the same images displayed on the good plasmas.
A while back I was in a nice AV store, marvelling at an HD feed on the Fujitsu 5002 50" plasma. The salesman said "Yeah, nice picture, and great form factor...CRT still has the best picture though.." which he backed up with the "black levels" argument. "Hold on for a sec" I said. "Please show me a CRT with a better, more realistic image than I'm seeing on this plasma." The store was full of pricey gear. "Uhhmmm.." he wondered, and pointed to a Loewe screen playing the same HD feed. "That's just about the best TV you can buy!"
What the heck? The Fuji plasma picture was clearly better, more realistic. I pointed this out the the salesman..I mean, details and tiny text was clearly readable on the plasma was soft on the Loewe (thank you "perfect geometry"). People around us had no problem picking the plasma as producing a significantly more realistic image.I left wondering if the guy actually uses his eyes to form his opinions. And I continue to scratch my head at notions that plasmas are behind CRT in image quality, when in fact I've never seen a CRT image as realistic as the one from a good plasma. Where are these mythical CRTs?
Rich H.
Hey Rich,Well...I'll allow that that I may have become a touch [or more] jaded by having to deal with stuff day in, day out. To me a plasma still looks like the "stereotypical" plasma...just better. Perhaps I'm focusing in on the downsides of the technology and not allowing myself to enjoy the show?
I know what a plasmas shortcommings are, and I'd bet that I'm "semi-subconsciously" discounting them because I can still see the problems, while at the same time not objecting to the shortcommings of CRT because "that's the way it's always been". I'll agree that geometry and uneven light output are big strikes against CRT...maybe I'm too forgiving of those problems?
You've got me real curious. We dont have a HD [1024x1024] plasma in the store today...destroyed in a lightening strike/surge and havn't received the new display. When it get's set back up, I'm gonna spend some of my time compairing the two.
Thanks for the input...I really do appreciate it.
:-)
Steve
I'm pretty unimpressed with the 1024x1024 ALiS plasmas. In fact, I think the "enhanced" definition Panasonic 42WD5UY beats most any comparable ALiS plasma I've seen. I'd caution against using the ALiS technology plasmas as a yardstick.A better comparison would be the Panny 42HD5UY (true HD capable) or 50HD5UY, the Pioneer 5030HD or non-consumer 503CMX, or the Fujitsu 5004 or 4229 (? I think that's right). Maybe an NEC. The Sampos, Samsungs, and Phillips can't hold a candle these displays IMO.
There are trade-offs, no matter which way you go with a HD display. Dollar for dollar, a properly calibrated CRT RP is probably the best bang for the buck. But HD on a great plasma looks not like a TV, it looks like a window onto the world. To my eyes.
BTW, I auditioned the Hovland (beautiful piece of gear) but found it, despite its gorgeous top end, to be less dynamic and not as good in the bass as I wanted for my system. I kept my Joule-Electra, and eventually bought a First Sound Presence Deluxe Mk II with NOS tubes. That doesn't mean one of us was wrong. :-)
Hey Steve,It sure is difficult to come to firm conclusions about picture quality in these discussions. Not just because it's so subjective, but because it's hard to see many displays of any type set up with proper care. I wouldn't want to make my judgements on picture quality based only on what I'd seen in stores. Luckily, I have friends in the AV business who have careful set-ups, and in my film post production facilitites I have access to displays of all types, professionally calibrated. That's why I feel a little more confidence that I am comparing the different display technologies on a somewhat even playing field.
I must say that, as good as I thought the Panasonic plasma looked in the store set-ups, once I'd intalled one with care in my home (good power/cables/DVD player etc.) the picture available was significantly better than I'd ever seen. I still rarely encounter a plasma in a store that approaches the picture quality I'm getting at home. I'm sure this is true of all types of displays.
Rich H.
Be careful with your judgement using ALiS type displays (1024x1024). These use a psuedo 60hz interlaced method of imaging and many people who've looked at 858x480 progressive "lower definition" plasmas and the ALiS displays have preferred the image quality of the 858x480 res displays.Tom §.
Plasma sets have a lot going for them -- bright picture, reasonable color (a bit orange where color should be red) and excellent resolution. But, they suffer from fairly severe motion artifact, and problems with detail in shaddows and odd colors in darker scenes, obvious pixel structure at viewing distances of up to 10 feet, and annoying noise in solid areas (looks like millions of agitated ants).
That said, I like plasmas a lot. I would have bought one but for other considerations: 1) I hate stretch mode for 4:3 pictures and I've seen burn-in on a set that was only occasionally used in 4:3 mode; 2) I have seen sets with a bad pixel (dead - not too bad, always on - really annoying),so I am not confident about their reliability ($5,000 for an extended warranty also suggested that dealer expected problems); and 3)I am concerned about the amount of heat these sets generate.
1) I hate stretch mode for 4:3 pictures and I've seen burn-in on a set that was only occasionally used in 4:3 modeIf a plasma set is run hard with the white level turned all the way up (as it most likely is on a showroom floor) then there is a higher chance of creating image retention. *However*, turning the white level down to a reasonable level goes a long way in reducing the chance of image retention. Also keep in mind there is also the temporary burn-in effect as well. This can be alleviated with an image reversal pattern or a scrolling white bar (I think running the same 4:3 material with reversal would be more effective). BTW, thanks for mentioning which model it was that you saw this on. [/sarcasm]
2) I have seen sets with a bad pixel (dead - not too bad, always on - really annoying),so I am not confident about their reliability ($5,000 for an extended warranty also suggested that dealer expected problems)Stuck pixels were a problem with earlier plasma models. I'm not talking about last years models but the models long before that. The manufacturing process has tremendously improved since that time and this (and last) years models have virtually no reports of stuck pixels. As for the dealer, the amount that he's asking for doesn't indicate his confidence level. Even then, $5000 can get you another plasma display right now with over a thousand dollars to spare.
3)I am concerned about the amount of heat these sets generate.
And CRT's don't generate buttloads of heat as well? GMAFB!
(a bit orange where color should be red) and excellent resolution. But, they suffer from fairly severe motion artifact, and problems with detail in shaddows and odd colors in darker scenes, obvious pixel structure at viewing distances of up to 10 feet, and annoying noise in solid areas (looks like millions of agitated ants).
Let's take this one step at a time:
Color "problems": This is not an inherent problem of plasma technology. The color gamut of ntsc material isn't real difficult to achieve and nearly every plasma display currently produced can achieve this color gamut w/o problem. The real issue here is color adjustment. Even then plasmas aren't the only display that can have misadjusted color. There are a *shitload* of consumer CRT televisions with severe red push problems in their color decoders as well as incorrect white color temperature.
Motion artifacts, blockiness in dark areas: In nearly every case that I've seen of this nature, it has been verified to be on the source material itself (using a dvd-rom and a CRT color monitor). Believe it or not, plasmas are making the SHIT transfer quality of quite a few DVD movies more visible (especially those with EE). Even the HD feeds you see on showroom floors have motion artifacts due to the compression used. I'm willing to concede that plasma models from 3-4 years ago may have suffered from motion artifacts due to unrefined drive methods and poor scalar circuitry. However, this is not a problem with current plasma sets.
Pixel structure: hell, I could see the shadow mask seperation on my 27" CRT from 6 feet away. I can also see the pixel structure on my 18" 1280x1028 LCD monitor. If you *look* for pixel structure you will find it on every display. I even saw it while looking at dark scenes on a RP DLP (a 1st gen single chip panasonic unit).
In a nutshell, plasma displays have improved tremendously in the last few years and this years models from the big consumer names (panasonic, NEC, fuji, pioneer) have shown that plasmas are now competitive with CRTs in the image quality department and may even be better due to no geometry problems.
Tom §.
Did I say plasmas have poor pictures? I was merely pointing out things that I have noticed in current models that a prospective purchaser should consider. Overall, I prefer the picture of plasmas over direct view sets and all RPTVs with 7" CRTs.The burn-in problem I saw on a Fujitsu 5002 which had been adjusted using a Video Essentials DVD. The stuck pixel on a current model 50" Panasonic, dead pixels on a Dream Vision 50". A friend had a different 50" Dream Vision that died and had to be replaced because of problems with overheating. The generous extended warranty was offered for a 50" Pioneer Elite. I don't know if statistically speaking, plasmas are unreliable, but these are personal observations that did not inspire confidence.
I don't know how you "verified" in every instance that motion artifacts were the problem with the source. In any event, I don't have access to perfect sources, I have to live with what is available, and I see all of these problems. I like the overall color achievable with plasmas, but I see posterization problems in dark scenes. I guess you are lucky if you don't notice them. I agree that the pixel issue is really a matter of what you compare plasmas to -- DLP pictures have a greater percentage of fill so pixel structure is less evident and CRT pixel structure is often less apparent because the image has less resolution.
Whether these problems when balanced against the undeniable virtues of plasmas (great edge to edge detail, perfect geometry, high brightness level, vivid and solid looking images with high quality sources, etc.) make plasmas the best choice is entirely subjective. I suggest that a prospective purchaser take along an "acid test" DVD that exposes plasmas weak spot which is dark scenes with lots of detail. The sci-fi mystery thriller "Dark City" would be a good choice.
As for the non-picture issues, I've notice the heat in a small room when a friend installed a plasma; this was not a problem with the 53" direct view it replaced. Since that 50" plasma drew something like 800 watts, vs. something like 350 for the direct view, the additional power consumption had to be either in the form of additional light output (the plasma may put out a bit more light) or heat.
I apologize for giving the impression that plasmas have poor picture quality. That is not the case. I think they are currently at the very top of the pile, but they are far from perfect. I was merely pointing out the weaknesses I notice; the strengths should be obvious at first glance.
***I think they are currently at the very top of the pile***How can anything that can't do black and is severely limited in screen size be at the top of any pile? Or did you mean poop?
***How can anything that can't do black and is severely limited in screen size be at the top of any pile? Or did you mean poop?***Because 1: size ain't everything and 2: Newer plasmas CAN do excellent black levels (those based on the Panasonic glass especially). Yes the CRT can still pull out the last iota of detail in low black levels. But, of course, CRTs have compromises too don't they? Please show me a CRT-based display (including your projector) that displays perfect focus/geometry/convergence and lack of blooming - and a totally still, utterly "jiggle-free" image. Oh, that's impossible for CRT displays? I see...how can you live with such flaws :-)
Rich H.
It seems that we're essentially in agreement on most points. At first read your post seemed like another jab at plasma based on problems with early production models.Yeah, the 50" plasmas do have quite a bit of power dissipation. I think I was limiting my perspective to 42" models where power dissipation ratings are almost half that of 50" models.
As for verifying the artifacts in the source material: I just took the DVD over to the DVD-ROM drive in my comp and looked at the same scene using the 18" LCD and 15" CRT monitors I have.
Tom §.
Tubes are the brightest. A really good plasma display ($10-15K range) is as sharp and rivals tubes in brightness. Front projection systems are fine IF you have the budget for a really good one AND a room in which it can be used (I don't have a room in which one could be used easily as the video area has a 13-foot high vaulted ceiling, and I have no easy way to get power / signals to the projector).So - I chose an RPTV because I could get the screen size needed. I looked at, compared, and did some testing with: Hitachi, Panasonic, Mitsubishi, Sony, and Pioneer Elite. You will find that RPTVs are not created equal even among different models of a single manufacturer.
You will also find that most RPTV's setup in a showroom are NOT setup very well. Make sure the controls (color temperature, brightness, contrast, sharpness, color controls, etc.) are set at a "neutral" position and have the color temperature set at 6500K if possible.
Most of the RPTVs will be set with the color temperature in the "high" range (about 9000K), because they look brighter and "snappier." Most will probably have the contrast and sharpness cranked up as well so they're real "eye grabbers" from across the showroom floor. But, this won't be the way you will probably want it setup, do don't demo the equipment until it is setup the way you will be using it.
Many sets do not have a setting specified as 6500K, but often call it something else like "low," or whatever, probably the sales person won't know either - but, so many TV's so little time to become compentent at what you're doing...
Once you have them almost setup equally, then you can begin to compare them. Do a "walk around" of each RPTV to see the visual off-axis illumination fall off. From about 10-feet away from the screen, and at about a 60 degree off-axis angle, walk parallel to the screen and note the entire viewing field where the picture looks, to your eyes, bright enough to be viewable.
Look at the "grain" of the screen up close and then from viewing distance - especially in white areas. You will find marked differences in screens in both off-axis illumination and grain. Then look at color reproduction especially in whites, and gray areas. Most RPTVs will not be neutral but will have a "push" towards a color. For, example, the high end Mitsubishis I looked at (in fact all three that I looked at) had a slight magenta tint (minus green or plus red and blue, however you want to look at it), making greys slightly pink, and greens slightly grey.
This could not be tuned out by increasing the green as then you get color crossover where shadows have one tint, mid tone areas are neutral, and highlights have a different tint. This can only be addressed by a system calibration.
After 4 weeks of carefully looking at and comparing the manufacturers listed, I ended up with a Pioneer Elite RPTV because out of the box it had the most neutral color, had the best color reproduction, and while not the absolute brightest, it had the finest grain screen with the widest angle of view. It is possible to sit 20-25 degrees off-axis with it and not notice a great reduction in illumination. It is acceptibly sharp (looks great with HDTV signals or DVDs), and has a built-in line doubler so you never see raster lines with a standard NTSC feed. Works for me...
Despite seeing some great plasma displays... which look fabulous when the picture isn't moving! Every plasma I have seen so far has motion artifacts that are very noticeable.Rear Projection still has the "off center" problem but looks fine I suppose if you're sitting directly in fron twith the lights out.
Front proejction is just too darn expensive. $5000 minimum and more like $15000 to get less detail than a $2000 tube.
I noticed you mentioned that before. Sure not true with mine. The room is only 12' wide, but you can see perfectly from anywhere in the room, so +/- 6' off center for a ~4' wide screen. That's not bad at all, larger viewing space than you get with a "tiny" tube. It's the vertical field of view which is *extremely* limited, I mean CRITICAL. The lighting does not have to be anywhere near as dim as for most (all?) projectors to prevent washout. Around here, a plasma almost the same size as my RPTV costs more than 6 times as much for little benefit except great cool factor.Plus, we must remember all RPTV's aren't created equal. The ones we use at work are about $50k each (3 per room) and I still haven't seen anything better for resolution and clarity...need a dedicated *clean* projection room for these though. They are much brighter than our similar-cost front projection systems. I'm only mentioning this because RPTV gets knocked for being a poor-cousin less capable technology, when it's not really if you can afford the proper setup (good/large mirrors and optics are very expensive).
Both my neighbors have newer Mitsubishi big screens.
One is postioned badly so when the sun is out the screen is completely washed out.
The other has has his placed on a angle so the viewing area is about 20 feet across. If you don't get there early and get a seat on the sofa facing it, forget it. Late arrivals usually end up sitting on the floor in front of it.Lastly I find the picture very soft, nothing like my Pansonic 36" HDTV or the plasmas I've seen.
Lot's of people like the RPTVs so ....
I know what you mean, but any display will get washed out to some degree in sunlight. As for very soft, you ought to see the way the RPTV's (esp. for some reason the Pioneer Elite series) are usually set up at dealers...will burn your eyeballs out. I would bet the soft display is probably set up that way. Actually, most people have them set up too brightly. You have to train yourself to what is proper (proper calibration I mean), it is not what you're used to, and certainly not like a computer screen. It is nice to be able to calibrate the units at least, you can do a not too bad setup yourself though. Assume that at least 99% of displays are not set up correctly, especially at dealers. If they were, gotta admit, people would not be impressed until they had a further appreciation of what they were seeing.
Lots of issues and basic differences here...to the point of almost being apples and oranges.I think that most folks will agree that CRT is still tops for both direct view and front projection.
That's not to say that CRT has no downside. Low light output, outer edge distortion, size, and weight are the major problems.
DLP and plasma are interesting new technologies, however they suffer from two major downfalls. Lack of ability to due true black [especially in DLP] is a real problem. DLP will probably never get past this one. A CRT does black by drawing "nothing" in that space, therefore making that area of the image as "black" as the light in the room will allow. A DLP does "black" via brute power...it throws all its got at a pixel and makes a sorta real dark grey. A DLP would have to "turn off" a mirror to do black in the same sort of way the CRT does...and it cant do that. The second problem is both plasma and DLP are fixed pixel displays. A fixed pixel will almost certainly look [much] worse than a CRT, UNLESS the image shown is at the native resoloution of the panel, and the panel is of a high resoloution. An example would be that 1080i HDTV looks great on a 1024x1024 plasma...almost [sorta] as good as a good CRT...however put a NTSC signal on the two and the plasma falls WAY behind.
If I were gonna spend the $$$ on a HDTV today, it'd be a 30-38" direct view CRT. Plasma is overpriced and of maringal picture quality, and projection is either real expensive or bad looking [often both at once].
:-)
Steve
steveK. The Plasma Has othr problems. It is very nosy when the unit is ued above a certain height ( above sea level) you can hear the oscillator and the noise from the power supply.
"Plasma is overpriced and of marginal picture quality,"
Overpriced...ok...pretty subjective. "Marginal picture quality?"
Wow, that is so far from my experience I have to chime in. Every single person who has watched images on my plasma has remarked that it was the best image they'd ever seen, and that there was a realism, three-dimensionality and tactile quality to the images that they'd never encountered before in a TV. Want to guess what type of TV's those people own? Yes, the mighty CRT! (Many of my guests have serious home-theater CRTs).If plasma technology isn't "up to snuff," and CRTs are technically superior, why are people so amazed by plasma images? I'll tell ya:
because the advantage in black level detail CRTs still maintain is slipping as plasmas get better. And because the last iota of black detail, while desirable, does not tell the whole story when it comes to how a monitor actually looks in practice.The black levels on many current plasmas, notibly those from the Panasonic line, are measurably and subjectively competative with CRT (although CRT still edges out plasma for detail in the lowest levels of black). But to obsess about the last level of black detail is to miss the areas in which plasmas naturally excell. A CRT will never display the type of precision - re geometry, convergence etc. that you'll get with a fixed pixel device like a plasma. I've seen HDTV signals displayed side by side on a Loewe Aconda (heralded as among the best consumer CRTs available) and on Panasonic and Fujitsu plasmas. There were details that the Loewe just could not render with realistic precision. In an HDTV hockey feed, the text on player's shirts and on advertisements around the rink remained sharp and easily readable on the plasmas. On the Loewe, despite it's HDTV resolution, tiny text was blurred beyond readability. A CRT ray gun attempting to focus electrons on a phosphor screen from a distance just isn't as precise as a fixed pixel display. In fact, after living with a plasma and it's wonderfully sharp, steady image, I find CRTs irritating to watch; all that flicker, the scan lines, the constantly jiggling image, bleeding color edges etc (yes, even on calibrated units). As well, I and many others find good plasmas have a "natural" light quality - one that allows me to feel I'm seeing "real" light cast upon "real" objects. In contrast, even the best CRTs have a fake electric glow that never allows my eyes to forget they are watching a TV.
And, again, technical numbers don't tell the whole story about a display. My plasma is not HD res, being only 852 x 480 pixels. Yet HD signals look sharper and more realistic on this plasma than on virtually every HD-res CRT I've seen. The perfect precision of those pixels will do that kind of magic.
I've seen many great home theater set-ups. I work in film with high-end, pro-calibrated RPTVs, Front Projectors, as well as pro CRT monitors, (we also have the highly regarded Loewe CRTs). None of these provide as compelling a viewing experience as my plasma. Every single time I turn it on, without fail, I'm blown away.
So, my advice: try and see a plasma in a competent, uncompromised set-up (i.e not one in a store using a split feed and sloppy color/aspect ration settings). Once you see this, I bet you'll find a level of realism to the image that other technologies lack.
Yeah, I'm a blabbering plasma convert. But that's because, until I encountered a great plasma, I would never have believed such realism was possible from a "TV."
Rich H.
***None of these provide as compelling a viewing experience as my plasma.***I wouldn't use a plasma if someone gave it to me.
> > I wouldn't use a plasma if someone gave it to me.Wanna send me that junk someone might be giving ya?
TIA
Where do I sign? The only problem is, I'll need to get an apartment after my wife divorces me, then there will be those pesky alimony and child support payments every month, and of course there's that annoying need to eat and stay warm. But other than that, I'm sold!
Yep, I agree, the price of these things suck big time. Like much of high-end audio, you've either got to be rich or an obsessive fool to buy a plasma at this point. Count me the latter. I don't watch a lot of TV, but I am a movie nut. Once I saw some of my DVDs on a plasma I was hooked. I actually saved for a year to get one, during which time I investigated every other option (CRT/RPTV/FP) to see if I could find a cheaper, still satisfying picture. Unfortunately for me I found the picture quality of certain plasmas to be unique. My bank account hates me. My wife thought it was nuts, right up until we finally installed it. She was an instant convert. In fact, until recently she hasn't been able to stay awake for a full video movie at our home for, I dunno, maybe ten years. Now she actually stays attentive through whole movies because, she says, she finds the picture riveting.But I'd have to say it isn't only me. Everyone who sees this thing in action is simply amazed by the picture quality. It's just so realistic and three-dimensional. A pal who owns has a dedicated Home Theater room, with a very good DLP front projector, saw the Fifth Element on my 42" plasma and was stunned. "My projector is good...but it just doesn't do THIS," he said.
(BTW, what is it with women falling asleep during movies at home? Almost every guy I know says his wife/girlfriend often falls asleep when they try to watch videos at night).
Rich H.
(Sorry, these are the ramblings of a plasma convert. I'm sure owners of good RPTVs have many of the same positives about they're experience).
That way I can get into all the coolest gear and not worried about getting yakked at by my spouse . . .
...it's the content???? ;-)FWIW, my SO falls asleep regularly during movie watching. EVen his favorites.
I'm almost a plasma convert. I wish I had a 50" on my wall. Sigh...someday.
With controlled lighting and impeccable sources, a properly ISF-calibrated RPTV can look stunning. I know. Plus it's fairly light for the size of picture -- my 47" widescreen Panny (47WX49) weighs all of 125 pounds and is on casters so that it's easily movable . . .
I was holding off... I think some people haven't been looking at the current stuff, and are basing opinions on the way things used to be. Current RPTV can be excellent, if you want reasonable size and brightness. Not to mention a great price in comparison. If you look at RPTV in dealer's showrooms you aren't likely to be impressed, they don't set them up even half right, and they have lots of easy to adjust settings that don't take a lot of skill to make much better than stock.
i was never interested in rptv before, but i did get one and i'm very pleased with it.when you consider size, quality, price, you are getting the most realistic picture for your money, and the quality is good.
don't plazma tv's deteriorate over time. that was a real turn off for me, to know that the picture quality, the brightness would continue to go down over time.
i prefer things to break in and get better over time.
Gotta agree with Tom. You will certainly have to recalibrate your RPTV within 3 years, yearly if fussy (I will be). The way I see it, these devices, every type, will be virtually worthless in 5 years, so the long term is moot. They may still work, but will anybody want them? See what's coming around the corner in display tech, very interesting, some of it is new adaptation of older tech, so should be brought to market quickly and reasonably cheaply. And projector prices are plummeting, though not quite as convenient to set up as other types, and still kinda dim in comparison.
don't plazma tv's deteriorate over time. that was a real turn off for me, to know that the picture quality, the brightness would continue to go down over time.And you actually think that doesn't happen with direct view and rear projection CRT's? You don't think that doesn't happen with DLP and LCD front and rear projection lamps? What is happening in all those cases? (hint: phosphors are burning.....)
i prefer things to break in and get better over time.
Direct view and rear projection CRT's slowly drift in geometry, convergence, color temperature, and do lose light output. *Think* for a moment. Even an ISF tech will tell you that convergence and geometry will need to be retuned within a few years of calibration.
Most every plasma display has a rated brightness half life of at least 20,000 hours with some manufacturers stating a half life of 50,000 hours. For 20000 hours, if you watch 4 hours a day every day, that's a little over 13 years and even then you *still* have useful light output at the end of that lifetime. Yes, they do "wear out" but so does every other display technology. At least with plasma and LCD, you don't drift in convergence and geometry due to the displays being fixed pixel.
Tom §.
Keep lighting the way, Tom :-)Rich H.
Personally, I plan to replace my 32" direct view with a plasma in perhaps 3-5 years, once a) some of the format wars & standards have been settled, b) they come down further in price and c) my financial situation allows it. The RPTV will come next & later.
....and see the current generation of plasma's from pioneer, nec, fuji, and panasonic. You may reconsider your generalizations.Tom §.
I agree about the lastest plasma displays.There are still some minor black level and shadow detail issues, but the better plasmas you mention are looking pretty darned nice. Lightyears better than they did two years ago. Panasonic (and Fujitsu which uses Panny glass) has very pleasing blacks and contrast. The On line prices foe the Pannys is way down, under 4K for the 42" ED.
I like CRT direct view, but they're soooooo little for much impact as "home theater" and they'er heavy. REALLY heavy.
Front projection CRT is still "King of the Hill", but nothing beats plasma's WOW factor. By next fall (2003), I believe the black levels on plasma monitors will equal FP CRT or be so close that it won't matter. All display types are at their best after calibration with Video Essentials or Avia, given about 100 hours of use and then calibrated by an ISF certified technician. If you're going to spend big bucks on your display, you might as well have it put out the best picture quality that it can.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
