 
|
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 |
In Reply to: Re: I guess I'd better clarify a few things... posted by larryI on September 27, 2002 at 05:24:16:
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 §.
Follow Ups:
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 §.
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
