 
|
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 |
205.188.116.195
In Reply to: RE: and if 60" of plasma ain't big enough... posted by Joe Murphy Jr on September 11, 2007 at 21:16:32
There is no way a 60-inch plasma screen can compete with my 100 inch diagonal screen running using a Panasonic projector. The cost of the projector and fixed-frame screen is nominal compared with the cost of a plasma screen approaching that size.
The cost of a 100-inch plasma screen is 70K. I'm taling 1.5 K for my setup so we are dealing with a cost factor of 40 or even 50:1. One has to be really fascinated with the 1-piece technology to pay that sort of price premium, and a room that could accommodate a 100-inch plasma screen is probably pretty much dedicated to theater setup using a plasma screen that size is surely big enough for a front projector setup. One doesn't walk into a room with a 100-inch plasma screen and say "Goodness, I didn't even see there was a TV in this room." In contrast, (no pun intended) the front projector setup could be all but invisible when not in use.
I think the 100-inch diagonal measure is a size that will become increasingly popular as it fits a more or less normal-sized room (figure a 13-ft lens-to-screen distance) woith only 8 ft ceilings, occupying a wall space just over 4 x 7 ft, and gets the screen up high enough for pleasant viewing with space for front speakers etc beneath. I suppose if one has 9- or 10-ft ceilings in a house, one could go ito a 120"+ diagonal screen which would take up about 5 ft of vertical space and about a 9 ft width-- the same size as a regulation ping pong table LOL.
The puzzle I have been trying to unravel is that given the drastic cost differential between really big-screen plasma versus front projector, why haven't more people opted for the projector option. Many of the earlier problems with front-screen projectors, such as the room had to be nearly completely dark to get adequate contrast, have been all but completely resolved, and there is nothing quite like seeing a movie on a real cloth screen as opposed to through what amounts to a glass "window".
I bhope to eventually change a lot of people's minds in this department.
David
Follow Ups:
we have been watching movies on a 110” FP for the last 10 years starting with a Sony CRT FP with 7” tubes then gradually move to an LCD FP, which is a Sony as well. However, I do have an HD 42” plasma and an HD 57” CRT that my kids used to play games and watch HD programming via cable. The only way I would switch to plasma or LCD/DLP flat panel display to watch, movies if they are on a 110” size and can afford it. Otherwise I will wait until then, as I am very happy with results in my present HT set-up.
If it's the immersion factor, obviously a 100" image beats a smaller size screen -- regardless of technology. If it's the 3D/life-like look, plasma is still the holder of that title -- again, regardless of technology.
If the cost for Panasonic's 103" plasma and their projector (with a 100" screen) were the same, I think we'd be looking at a unanimous decision when it came time to put money down. And I seriously doubt there'd be many going home with the 2-piece option.
I may jump back into the 1080p market with an "inexpensive" (?) 70" display to backup the dropdown screen for "casual" viewing. Paying 25cents/hour to watch CNN just seems wasteful.
Of course, I need to get a good feel for rear projection/flat panel technologies and reliability (e.g. maintenance costs, including new bulbs), before I take the plunge.
Even if one bought a new $500 bulb every 2000 hours (mine is rated for 4000), a PJ still usually ends up being much cheaper (and larger) than a plasma, or even an LCD, of anywhere near the same size. So your $0.25/hour can be worked out to alot more for the latter choices. $/hr a PJ is still very economical, especially considering the size of screen.
That said, it still doesn't take away from the fact that PJ's are generally only suitable for dedicated (very good light control mainly) rooms.
Personally if I had money falling outta my pockets, I'd still have a PJ in my dedicated room and I guess plasma's or LCD's elsewhere (I currently have one smallish LCD in the bar area of my room and three CRT TV's). Would I replace them with newer technology if I had nothing else to spend money on, sure, why not.
and find an excuse to replace it with a brighter, 1080p projector. It was near-SOTA when I first purchased it but many generations of FP later....
Different technologies have different pluses and minuses. If I was interested in a 100" screen, I'ld get a FP.
I'm looking for 65-70". At those sizes, plasma and FP (1080p) are in the same price range. Note: There may be some cheap 1080p projectors coming soon.
Why not go FP?
1) I don't want to have to rewire my room to accommodate FP.
2) Ambient light IS still an issue.
3) Screens are butt ugly when not in use, and retractable isn't feasible.
4) I actually prefer the look of plasma over FP
I admit, that these things are personal preferences and choices, and can easily see others preferring other directions, but that's OK too.
Just my 2 cents,
Jack
OK, plasma may have a longer life, but the flat panel big screen DLP and LCD models use basically the same bulb technology employed in a DLP or LCD projector. As a consequence I don't see average cost per hour of viewing as really any different for flat panel DLP and LCD screens than for projectors. Owners of LCD and DLP flat panel screens are probably looking at calling a service tech when the bulb goes south. Generally bulbs are user replacable on projectors and prices of replacements have come down gradually. Do manufacturers spec bulb life on LCD and DLP panels like projectors?
As I understand it many plasma panels tend to gradually lose pixels over time and once enough pixels are lost to be noticable and bothersome, the entire set is toast. There used to be a gradual but significant decline in brightness of plasma sets after 2000 hours or so, but apparently the manufacturers have upped this number to over 10,000 hours.
The numbers you are using for plasmas are from what, ten years ago? Just about every plasma in production today has a 60,000 hours to half-brightness rating. Several of the majors are now stating 100,000 hours.
Losing pixels? Either the plasma is perfect, nearly perfect (a pixel or two stuck on or off) or suffers from a serious flaw (an entire section is out). This describes close to 98% of plasmas made today.
FWIW, the replacement bulb on my 60" SXRD cost me $250 + shipping. I'm still on my original with about 4K hrs (guesstimate). That's not an issue for me.
BTW, DLPs are not "flat panels", being neither flat nor panels-they are rear projection sets. I can't watch them due to rainbows.
Frozen/dead/stuck pixels are more of a problem when buying (return policies are critical)-I haven't talked to anyone who had a clean plasma, and then lost alot (or any) pixels during use. Last I heard, current (big brand) plasmas had a half life of about 40K-50K. New ones are *claiming* 100K.
I have nothing against FP persoanlly, especially since 1080p ones are getting cheaper. That said, their requirements do preclude their use by many people.
Jack
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
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 ]
