Who here have a plasma for TV...

[radioactivesago]

This is for plasma users/owners ONLY:

I just want to know how long have you had your plasma before it needed repair/replacement. This is just a survey cause I'm thinking of getting one.

edit: please tell me the brand & model

[2002civic]

have had mine for 3 years with no issues...

[ICEBERG]

Pioneer 6010 HD. Had it for over year 1/2 i think. No problems what so ever.

Also had the Pioneer 5080 and gave it to my dad. He still uses it and loves it. Had that for almost 3 years and no problems..

Both with no Burn-In issues...

both going strong..

Love the pioneer KURO's...

[Carl64]

The one im watching right now we've had for 3 years, and the one upstairs we've had for two years. No problems with either, and both have amazing pictures(way better then LCD IMO).

[revelations]

Uh ya, how about something a little more scientific?

Which make?
Which model?
What year?
How many hours used?
How many times turned on/off?
How many Wii remotes tossed at screen?

I think youre better off Googling something liek this.

[radioactivesago]

Fuck off troll

[Benny]

Who here have a plasma for TV?

http://www.coderetard.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/super-retard.JPG

[Kloubek]

I have a plasma. Had it for about 3-4 years, and it was about a year old when I bought it used. Panasonic.

No signs at all of failing. I believe the actual matrix itself lasts almost indefinately - it's usually the other internals that go first...

[Old Snake]

Originally posted by Benny
Who here have a plasma for TV?

http://www.coderetard.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/super-retard.JPG

Please don't share personal pictures. :nut:

[HyperZell]

I've had a Samsung 94 series since September 2005 and it's been great. I had a problem with a lot of pink pixels appearing at certain times, but that was within the first year and after it was fixed under warranty I haven't had any problems since.

[Q-TIP]

I have had a Samsung PN50B550 50 inch plasma for a little over a year now, and while the colour is excellent I still without question prefer my Sony Z-series 46 inch LCD.

The Samsung has given me absolutely no issues, but the LCD screens with 120hz refresh rates definitely make up the gap when it comes to reproducing motion. They also use less power and tend to be brighter. Because I pretty much only watch hockey and family guy (I refuse to become an adult) I far prefer the vivid colours that the LCD can generate even if they are a tiny bit less precise.

However like I said the plasma is still a gorgeous TV and I wouldn't ever warn anyone away from a GOOD plasma. The cheaper ones tend to look a bit muddy. Any way you cut it the life expectancy of the television is far longer than you are going to want to keep it anyways.

edit* All HDTVs look like shit when watching standard def TV. If like me you have Shaw, consider moving to Bell or some other satellite provider because Shaw HD selection is really lacking.

[Mitsu3000gt]

We have 2 Panasonic plasmas, one 3 years old (720p) and one newer one (1080p). Zero problems with either. I think their brightness half lives are 80,000 hours so no worries there (You would have to leave your TV on 24 hr a day for over 9 years to get to the half life).

If you watch SDTV, it looks considerably better on plasma than LCD (neither look great though). If your room is bright or you have lights shining on where the TV will be, you may want to consider a LCD because they don't use glass on the front. If you are picky about picture quality, plasma is the way to go.

[radioactivesago]

Originally posted by Q-TIP
I have had a Samsung PN50B550 50 inch plasma for a little over a year now, and while the colour is excellent I still without question prefer my Sony Z-series 46 inch LCD.

The Samsung has given me absolutely no issues, but the LCD screens with 120hz refresh rates definitely make up the gap when it comes to reproducing motion. They also use less power and tend to be brighter. Because I pretty much only watch hockey and family guy (I refuse to become an adult) I far prefer the vivid colours that the LCD can generate even if they are a tiny bit less precise.

However like I said the plasma is still a gorgeous TV and I wouldn't ever warn anyone away from a GOOD plasma. The cheaper ones tend to look a bit muddy. Any way you cut it the life expectancy of the television is far longer than you are going to want to keep it anyways.

edit* All HDTVs look like shit when watching standard def TV. If like me you have Shaw, consider moving to Bell or some other satellite provider because Shaw HD selection is really lacking.

Thanks, for the input on plasma but lets leave out the LCD comparison.

If anyone has the last gen Panasonic (PZ800U); I want to here from you.

[5hift]

Originally posted by radioactivesago

If anyone has the last gen Panasonic (PZ800U); I want to here from you.

I have a 42" of this exact model. I've had it for about a year (not 100% sure), before it got moved into my bedroom, it was almost always on, not a single problem. Love all the extra ports and hookups, great interface and remote.

Any specfic questions?

[ZorroAMG]

I have a 42 Panasonic from late '05, my tv is on a LOT and I haven't had ANY issues....great tv, will buy again A++++

[2.0turbo]

http://reviews.cnet.com/4351-12658_7-6583301.html

Plasmas use twice the energy of a lcd (about as much as an old tube tv like what your grandma has) and can't be recycled like an lcd. Plus they can burn. Plasmas don't make much sense to me since you can get as good a picture in an lcd.

[HyperZell]

Originally posted by 2.0turbo
http://reviews.cnet.com/4351-12658_7-6583301.html

Plasmas use twice the energy of a lcd (about as much as an old tube tv like what your grandma has) and can't be recycled like an lcd. Plus they can burn. Plasmas don't make much sense to me since you can get as good a picture in an lcd.

LCDs can burn too, but with TVs today both are very well proofed against burn in. And no, you can't as good a picture, unless you get an LED-backlit LCD TV, and even then only with an local-dimming one.

This is a good read about LED and OLED:

http://gizmodo.com/5271493/giz-explains-whats-so-great-about-led+backlit-lcds

[Q-TIP]

OLED is still years away from economically sensible. the type of backlighting has very little to do with picture quality but has huge implications when it comes to power consumption. It is also physically impossible to burn in an LCD TV. However burn in has long since been reduced to a negligible level with Plasma televisions.

Picture quality has to do with colour reproduction (+1 for plasma), ablility to display black (+1 for LCD), and the ability to refresh the screen to make the image appear smooth (with 120hz LCDs on the market this is a draw). In the end they are both so close it is completely a personal preference thing.

I hate how hot my plasma gets and I also hate that according to my ammeter it draws on average 620 watts which is no small amount of electricity (about the same as your garage door operating continuously for the same length as your TV is on)

[Q-TIP]

my apologies for bringing in the LCD comparo by the way. However it is pertinent if you are looking for the BEST tv not just a TYPE of TV. Have fun with your plasma, it will last you longer than you care to watch it.

Panasonic does make the best plasma on the market IMO, you should like it.

[HyperZell]

Originally posted by Q-TIP
OLED is still years away from economically sensible. the type of backlighting has very little to do with picture quality but has huge implications when it comes to power consumption. It is also physically impossible to burn in an LCD TV. However burn in has long since been reduced to a negligible level with Plasma televisions.

Picture quality has to do with colour reproduction (+1 for plasma), ablility to display black (+1 for LCD), and the ability to refresh the screen to make the image appear smooth (with 120hz LCDs on the market this is a draw). In the end they are both so close it is completely a personal preference thing.

I hate how hot my plasma gets and I also hate that according to my ammeter it draws on average 620 watts which is no small amount of electricity (about the same as your garage door operating continuously for the same length as your TV is on)


Sorry man, but you are WAY off base here. Did you even read the article I linked? Backlighting has huge implications on picture quality by the way of contrast ratio and black levels. And that thing about black levels being +1 for LCD? No. Not unless you get into OLED, like I mentioned before. And I wasn't suggesting buying an OLED TV, as it is very common knowledge that it is still economically out of reach. And again, 120Hz does not make things a draw, because most insert a black frame in between frames - if it evened things up, why would manufacturers be making 240Hz panels? (Despite the obvious upselling).

Check yourself!


EDIT: No, Panasonic does not, not yet. Pioneer is still largely regarded as the best producer, although they are on their final run of the Kuro line, and then it's Panasonic.

[Q-TIP]

240hz panels are definitely upselling because 120hz has not yet been perfected. I have looked and looked at many different panels in many different settings and had many people who buy and install TVs for a living advise me. I am no professional by any means (I'm a geologist so my specialty lies almost entirely with rocks).

My apologies for not reading your link. I like Gizmodo, however they are still subjective human beings. Our eyes can't differentiate between 100 000:1 and 100000000000:1 contrast ratios. Hell, the 700:1 monitor I am typing this on is nearly indistinguishable from the 100 000:1 monitor I have at home. I know for a fact that all my life I have liked pepsi better than coke, so when I was given coke and they said it was pepsi and vice versa, I liked the coke better...

The original question was if anyone had issues with plasma, I will leave this thread here. I have had no issues with my plasma, it has never burned in (no videogames though, but still probably wouldn't be an issue) and I provided info I uncovered during a three-month search for my new main-floor television.

[jav_]

bought the new panasonic px1 about a month ago....did a break-in for a week straight and calibrated it....picture quality is damn amazing....

edit: i mostly use it for gaming and there hasnt been any issues

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Q-TIP
Picture quality has to do with colour reproduction (+1 for plasma), ablility to display black (+1 for LCD), )

Black levels are a +1 for Plasmas. If your main concern is picture quality, Plasmas get the nod. The picture quality is subjective only such that some people simply prefer looking at LCDs. I would only ever buy an LCD if I absolutely had to have a TV in a really bright room.

This might change with OLED's and such though, but right now other than cost, OLED's main issue is that the blue channel doesn't have nearly the life of the red & green channels.

If you can control the light in your room, you should be looking at a decent projector. No TV can currently even come close to looking as good as even the reasonably priced $3000-$4000 projectors currently on the market. We were going to buy the 60" Pioneer Elite Kuro until we started looking at projectors...absolutely blows it away and can be done for half the price - again, though, you HAVE to be able to control the light in the room or it isn't practical.

[5hift]

The guy is asking for opinions of people who have owned a specifc plasma. He is not trying to start a LED/Plasma debate

[sputnik]

Does anyone else find 120/240 hertz to be kinda weird?

Everytime I watch an action movie it looks REALLY cheesy. Like I am standing on set and watching bad acting.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by 5hift
The guy is asking for opinions of people who have owned a specifc plasma. He is not trying to start a LED/Plasma debate

Although I agree with you, getting an opinion from 1 or 2 guys on a forum who by chance might have the exact model of TV he is looking at will not in any way accurately represent the actual reliability of this TV. Plasmas are all very reliable, and as far as TV's in general, I've never had, or known anyone who has had a single problem with one as long as I've lived. They all seem to last forever lol.

[FiveFreshFish]

With all the positive comments from owners of plasmas up to 3.5 years old, pretty much any decent plasma you buy today should be trouble-free.

[hampstor]

I am probably jinxing myself by posting here... but I have:

Philips 42PF7320A/37 Plasma Display
http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatv/philips-42pf7320a37.html

Have had it since Feb 2006 - works great. I believe Melinda has the same TV as us, they've had theirs for about the same time too and I haven't heard of any problems they have had with it(though maybe one of them will post...). However a former co-worker of mine had the power supply go after ~1 1/2 years.

My brother in law has;

Philips 42PF9630A/37 Plasma TV Display
http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatv/philips-42pf9630a37.html

Used for 8 months, dead power supply.

[Old Snake]

Anyone here got a deal on Kuros since its being phased out?

[tictactoe2004]

Lots of bad info in this thread.

Plasma's have a much better contrast ratio, less input lag, and handle motion much better than any LCD end of story... the downside is that they are heavier, use more electricty and have a higher chance to burn in. (Yes, LCD's can get burn in but the odds of it happening are much lower).

When 120hz was new (120hz is 120 frames or pictures per second compared to the stander 60 on most TVs) it would insert a black frame inbetween every picture to try to help with motion blur on LCD's. Most newer LCD's will create a new frame or picture using the before and after frame and insert it between the real frames.

Sometimes this is better for fast motion or sporting events, but usually for movies it will make the picture look "odd". Almost like its being watched in fast forward or some what fake. It will make the CGI in stuff like transformers look really bad and if you want to see the film the way the director intended you to see it, you'll have that option turned to "low" or "off"

If you are a movie buff, one key thing about 120hz on an LCD is that most movies are recorded in 24 frames per second. When you try to play a 24 frame per second movie on a 60hz TV you don't get an even number of frames because 24/60 is 2.5.. you don't want the .5, you want an even number if possible.. With 120hz the math works better. 24/120=5 vs 24/60=2.5... So 24 FPS films can actually look better (or the way they were intended to be seen).

Regarding deals on Kuros, nothing special as of yet. I would watch for deals on them from sept-dec... Last I heard Pioneer has a lot of TV's in their warehouse and they'll probably have enough stock to get into early 2010 unless things really pick up in the industry.

[ecstasy_civic]

Originally posted by radioactivesago


Thanks, for the input on plasma but lets leave out the LCD comparison.

If anyone has the last gen Panasonic (PZ800U); I want to here from you.

ive got a 58pz850, what are you looking to find out?

[kamakurakid]

Originally posted by 2.0turbo
http://reviews.cnet.com/4351-12658_7-6583301.html

Plasmas use twice the energy of a lcd (about as much as an old tube tv like what your grandma has) and can't be recycled like an lcd. Plus they can burn. Plasmas don't make much sense to me since you can get as good a picture in an lcd.

That link is from 2007, plasma energy use has changed greatly since then and now matches the LCDs. As for the recycle theory, that too is way out of date at least for the Panasonic models and I would assume all the major brands:

http://www.panasonic.ca/english/audiovideo/plasma/pdf/Vieraleadfree_EN.pdf

The whole burn-in is crap as well, Google around.

As far as my research has gone, there is not one article from a solid source which makes the claim LCDs have a better picture than a plasma. If anything the plasmas are in the lead if you are counting best picture in a controlled room (lighting). If I am wrong, please post a link.

Technology changes plenty in a couple of years, too bad for some they are stuck with a Pong video game and a Zenith TV.

[kamakurakid]

Originally posted by tictactoe2004
Lots of bad info in this thread.

Plasma's have a much better contrast ratio, less input lag, and handle motion much better than any LCD end of story... the downside is that they are heavier, use more electricty and have a higher chance to burn in. (Yes, LCD's can get burn in but the odds of it happening are much lower).

When 120hz was new (120hz is 120 frames or pictures per second compared to the stander 60 on most TVs) it would insert a black frame inbetween every picture to try to help with motion blur on LCD's. Most newer LCD's will create a new frame or picture using the before and after frame and insert it between the real frames.

Sometimes this is better for fast motion or sporting events, but usually for movies it will make the picture look "odd". Almost like its being watched in fast forward or some what fake. It will make the CGI in stuff like transformers look really bad and if you want to see the film the way the director intended you to see it, you'll have that option turned to "low" or "off"

If you are a movie buff, one key thing about 120hz on an LCD is that most movies are recorded in 24 frames per second. When you try to play a 24 frame per second movie on a 60hz TV you don't get an even number of frames because 24/60 is 2.5.. you don't want the .5, you want an even number if possible.. With 120hz the math works better. 24/120=5 vs 24/60=2.5... So 24 FPS films can actually look better (or the way they were intended to be seen).

Regarding deals on Kuros, nothing special as of yet. I would watch for deals on them from sept-dec... Last I heard Pioneer has a lot of TV's in their warehouse and they'll probably have enough stock to get into early 2010 unless things really pick up in the industry.

Well said.

[cdnsir]

Need some help from you guys. I checked around today and and got some prices back for plasmas. I'm interested in picking up a 58" this weekend. With these quoted prices, Which do you guys think is the best deal?

Panasonic
TH58PZ800 - $3000
TH58PZ850 - $3300

Samsung
PN58B530 - $2600
PN58B550 - $2600

[Old Snake]

Originally posted by cdnsir
Need some help from you guys. I checked around today and and got some prices back for plasmas. I'm interested in picking up a 58" this weekend. With these quoted prices, Which do you guys think is the best deal?

Panasonic
TH58PZ800 - $3000

Where did you find this?

[cdnsir]

I'm now a proud owner of a Sammy 58B550! :clap:

Everything looks wicked compared to my old LCD. Excellent quality for the buck. I can see myself turning into a plasma fanboy already!


Originally posted by Old Snake


Where did you find this?

PM'd!

[tictactoe2004]

Originally posted by Q-TIP
OLED is still years away from economically sensible. the type of backlighting has very little to do with picture quality but has huge implications when it comes to power consumption. It is also physically impossible to burn in an LCD TV. However burn in has long since been reduced to a negligible level with Plasma televisions.

Picture quality has to do with colour reproduction (+1 for plasma), ablility to display black (+1 for LCD), and the ability to refresh the screen to make the image appear smooth (with 120hz LCDs on the market this is a draw). In the end they are both so close it is completely a personal preference thing.

I hate how hot my plasma gets and I also hate that according to my ammeter it draws on average 620 watts which is no small amount of electricity (about the same as your garage door operating continuously for the same length as your TV is on)

You are wrong on most of this stuff.

The type of backlighting LCD's use has a huge impact on picture quality. LED backlighting with localized dimming will have a huge impact on contrast ratios and picture quality.

The reason plasma's have better colour reproduction is becuse of their superior ability to display true blacks... Even top of the line LED based LCD's cannot display the same black levels as top of the line plasma's. Although from dead on, LCD's are considerbly better than the years past, and are starting to approach plasma levels. If you have a lot of off axis viewing plasmas still destroy LCD's for black levels.

A 60hz plasma can still display better motion than a 120hz or 240hz LCD, and it will still look proper when doing so, unlike the fake look of the 120hz+ panels when interpolation is turned up.

Plasma's will always use more power than LCD's... but both technologies have improved a huge amount with power consumtion over the past few years. It's the same as horsepower in a car, if you want a faster car - you pay more for gas. If you want a better picture - you pay more for power.

[HyperZell]

Originally posted by tictactoe2004


You are wrong on most of this stuff.

The type of backlighting LCD's use has a huge impact on picture quality. LED backlighting with localized dimming will have a huge impact on contrast ratios and picture quality.

The reason plasma's have better colour reproduction is becuse of their superior ability to display true blacks... Even top of the line LED based LCD's cannot display the same black levels as top of the line plasma's. Although from dead on, LCD's are considerbly better than the years past, and are starting to approach plasma levels. If you have a lot of off axis viewing plasmas still destroy LCD's for black levels.

A 60hz plasma can still display better motion than a 120hz or 240hz LCD, and it will still look proper when doing so, unlike the fake look of the 120hz+ panels when interpolation is turned up.

Plasma's will always use more power than LCD's... but both technologies have improved a huge amount with power consumtion over the past few years. It's the same as horsepower in a car, if you want a faster car - you pay more for gas. If you want a better picture - you pay more for power.

Did you read my response to that post? You're reiterating my points, but missing some pieces as it's obvious you did not read my article link either.

In the article, there's a link to a recent test: a local dimming LED beat a Kuro plasma in black levels. I think it was an XBR8.

But yes, for the most part you are correct.

[Old Snake]

To: tictactoe2004; HyperZell

This is a plasma thread nothing else. :confused:

You should both make a Pro LCD & Pro Plasma thread.

[tictactoe2004]

Originally posted by HyperZell

Did you read my response to that post? You're reiterating my points, but missing some pieces as it's obvious you did not read my article link either.

In the article, there's a link to a recent test: a local dimming LED beat a Kuro plasma in black levels. I think it was an XBR8.

But yes, for the most part you are correct.

I don't care what the link says, I've spent hundreds of hours with both and have seen movies on them side by side. Black levels on Pioneer plasma's destroy anything that Sony, Samsung, Sharp or Panasonic make.

Blacks still turn purple/blue when your off axis even on LED LCD's and when you're dead on they're still not as good as the Kuros.

In my opinion the new XBR's are the nicest LCD on the market and have come a long long way in the last few years.. but they're still a few years away from being able to match black levels of the kuros, and that's assuming that it's even possible.

[HyperZell]

Originally posted by Old Snake
To: tictactoe2004; HyperZell

This is a plasma thread nothing else. :confused:

You should both make a Pro LCD & Pro Plasma thread.

And you should shut it. What we're both trying to do is make sure that correct information is put forward, and to correct falsities. I didn't think that that was hard to see.

tictactoe, you're free to think what you will, but it seems quite short-sighted to ignore comparisons and tests from people who are invested in this sort of thing.



Bottom line is, it's good news for consumers nowadays because picture quality will be good no matter what you buy, LCD or plasma.

[tictactoe2004]

Originally posted by HyperZell
And you should shut it. What we're both trying to do is make sure that correct information is put forward, and to correct falsities. I didn't think that that was hard to see.

tictactoe, you're free to think what you will, but it seems quite short-sighted to ignore comparisons and tests from people who are invested in this sort of thing.

Bottom line is, it's good news for consumers nowadays because picture quality will be good no matter what you buy, LCD or plasma.

There are 3 kinds of reviews you'll find online or in print:

1) Good reviews by knowledgable honest people.

2) Biased reviews that were paid for or bribed by the company getting the good review.

3) Reviews by clueless people who may have had good intentions, but have no clue what they're talking about.

I'd say there's a fairly equal share of all 3 types, which means you can trust about 1/3rd of what you read... You don't have to believe it, but I can assure you it's true.

What you said in the end is true. Even a cheap LCD will look absolutly amazing to the average consumer, but any real videophile will tell you LCD tv's are not even in the same league as plasmas for picture quality yet.. I will admit to most consumers the benefits of the LCD tv's outweigh the benefits of plasma, but there's no doubt that the plasma's still look better when it comes down to picture quality, and the ability to accuratly reproduce a film the way the director indended you to see it.

[ZorroAMG]

Ever SEE what directors use for monitors during filming or to view dailys? Usually a 14-17" monitor with duct tape across the top and bottom to create the 16:9 ratio HAHAHA...they have NO idea what end users see in terms of actual color/image quality

:D

[HyperZell]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
Ever SEE what directors use for monitors during filming or to view dailys? Usually a 14-17" monitor with duct tape across the top and bottom to create the 16:9 ratio HAHAHA...they have NO idea what end users see in terms of actual color/image quality

:D

Lol serious? That's pretty funny.

[cdnsir]

9 Days and already a dead pixel, I'm taking it back tomorrow!

Tempted to do a straight exchange, but I'm really not quite sure about plasmas anymore... Might end up just refunding it and buy a 55" LCD/LED later.

The Dreaded Pixel
http://www3.telus.net/public/big.con/shared/2009-02-09_01.JPG

[Billy_Billions]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
Ever SEE what directors use for monitors during filming or to view dailys? Usually a 14-17" monitor with duct tape across the top and bottom to create the 16:9 ratio HAHAHA...they have NO idea what end users see in terms of actual color/image quality

:D

When we're on set that's mostly true. I use a Panasonic BT-LH1700W when I can, but it's usually a little shitty monitor attached to the camera or sitting on a cart somewhere.

It's really what happens in the editing room that makes all the difference. You can make anything happen there.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Billy_Billions
It's really what happens in the editing room that makes all the difference. You can make anything happen there.
I figured ZorroAMG, being in the movie biz, would know that :D.

On set footage is really really crappy. Usually fairly dark as well to not overexpose (you have way more room to fix underexposure than overexposure). It's the same principal I use in my night photos to achieve a HDR effect with a single shot.

As for CRT's, they can be cranked way the fuck up to see everything better, and works well in bright outdoor environments. That's why they still use them as monitors.

And yes, directors usually sit in the editing room for edits, and post-production room to guide the techs on how he wants his film to look/feel.