Does Plasma Have an Image Problem?

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/technology/circuits/03tube.html?ex=1268197200&en=ce38790b9480588c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/technology/circuits/03tube.html?ex=1268197200&en=ce38790b9480588c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland</a><br /><br /></div><i>"If ever a product evoked lust in the heart, it is a plasma television. Like radial tires in the 1970's, a big flat plasma set is today's must-have technology. But whispers about the plasma set's shortcomings - some old, some new - have increased recently. Critics have focused on the technology's warts, comparing its performance unfavorably with that of liquid-crystal displays, another flat-screen technology."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/03tube.cover.jpg" /><br /><br />My personal preference is LCD, but I've only come to that conclusion in stores because I'm still on a rear projection CRT HDTV. I've never really noticed anything wrong with plasma per say, but LCD just looks crisper to me. I guess I'm part of the problem because I tell everyone who asks me to be wary of plasma. :oops:

[Felix Torres]

Don't be so sure you're in the wrong.
The plasma vendors want their wares to be taken seriously so they have to talk the tech up. And they probably have made improvements.
But...
It is still more power hungry.
It is still more expensive at comparable size-and-resolutions.
And brightness still declines with time.

And, this may be a good time to bring up something I learned at the local Best Buy a couple weeks ago:
Those massive HD showroom displays where you can "compare" image quality?
They're skewed.
Towards plasma.
Not exactly news, I know, but I got full confirmation from an employee on the approach used in setting up the store displays.

Turns out store displays don't feed the monitors the best signal they can handle, but rather the lowest common denominator.
Which is to say 480p.
ED not HD.

Also, direct view crt displays are not fed even that; no component or even S-video inputs. They're fed good old coax rf.

Not sure if all stores do this, but I'd be very careful before dropping multi-k bundles of bucks on a display just because it looks better than its store set-up brethren.

Now more than ever: caveat emptor...

[webdaemon]

I've noticed that the feeds seems to be different as well. Sometimes it's really obvious due to signal loss when they run a coax to 20-30 screens, but sometimes it's harder to tell.

I think LCD is the way to go for now since, if everything I've read is correct, picture quality remains constant on LCD panels than on plasma. Add to that the difference in price between them, it makes more sense to buy the LCD when taking into account the lifetime of the picture quality on both devices.

[jizmo]

The main point is that burn-in is not a myth, it's a real thing. As a keen gamer this simply eliminates plasma displays from my shopping cart.

If I pay €2500 for a television display, I shouldn't be constantly afraid of breaking it just by watching it :evil:

/jizmo

[klinux]

Man, you guys are falling right into the trap!

First, most comparisons have shown that LCD and plasma TVs both give excellent display quality. If you are the kind who have their displays calibrated by ISF annually, you may see a clear difference but I do not think any of you are the kind.

Second, plenty more have shown and proved that that with newer technology, burn-in is no longer a problem with phosposhor protection, pixel shifting, etc. The concensus on avsforums and other av sites seems to be that is not a problem on the plasmas that one buys today. You guys make it sound like all of you were burned (sorry, pun intended) by burn-ins on the plasma you biught last week.

As for brightness, many manufacturers used to give 30k hours as the phosphor's half-life (many are now 60k or higher). If you use your plasma 4 hours a day on a 30k hour panel, that will give you a 20 year before it is half as bright. Tell me one piece of tech equipment that you have owned for 20 years? And if someone has a 50% brightness plasma that they no longer wanted, I will take it! :)

And I don't knoe where Felix comes up with plasma being more expensive. A 42" HD plasma for $3k now. A 42" LCD costs at least 25% higher.

I too believe LCD is the superior technology but it is not without its problems either. The comments, however, is what cracks me up. It is like posting an article about how, say OS X is no longer used for graphics but is used in academia, rendering, software development etc but then have people post and say it is used for graphics only. :roll:

So yes, plasma does have an imaging problem but I did not expect it to come from well-informed DMT readers.

[Philip Colmer]

Second, plenty more have shown and proved that that with newer technology, burn-in is no longer a problem with phosposhor protection, pixel shifting, etc. The concensus on avsforums and other av sites seems to be that is not a problem on the plasmas that one buys today. You guys make it sound like all of you were burned (sorry, pun intended) by burn-ins on the plasma you biught last week.
How about an 8-month old Pioneer? There is a thread (http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=184860) on DigitalSpy where the sport channel's logo apparently has burnt itself into the screen.

There is no denying that (some) plasma manufacturers have put extra effort into trying to defeat the burn-in problem but what worries me is that I don't know how easy (or not) it is to tell whether or not a plasma screen has that capability, or how successful the defeat technology really is.

All I do know, for certain, is that LCD screens don't suffer from the problem.

Possibly for that reason alone, I'm more inclined to put down more cash for an LCD screen simply because I don't want to end up damaging a plasma screen that was less expensive.

--Philip

[klinux]

I don't know how easy (or not) it is to tell whether or not a plasma screen has that capability, or how successful the defeat technology really is.

From all the articles that I have read by people whose job is to evaulate things like this for a living (another example here: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=2&amp;article_id=779&amp;page_number=1), burn-in is not a problem. Of course, one will encounter anectodal stories of plasma burn-in - one here, one there, from people you do not know and whose viewing habit and TV content most likely differ from yours. It may just be an one-time production issue in this particular plasma - I mean engines on 747 stall, cars get recalled, worm hits Window, CRT gets burn-in - all these problem happen yet people find a way to deal with it but the thought of plasma bur-in scares the public (and the geeks) plenty.

So indeed the plasma image problems remains and I am sure if you have made up your mind, there is nothing I, expert opinion, empirical data etc can change your mind.

[Philip Colmer]

another example here: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=2&amp;article_id=779&amp;page_number=1
An interesting read.

It confirms one difference - LCD is capable of higher resolutions than plasma. I'm looking forward to doing a proper evaluation next year when I'm ready to buy a set, but I'm intrigued as to how a widescreen set will look when it actually has an equal horizontal &amp; vertical pixel count, as the plasma does in this comparison.

So indeed the plasma image problems remains and I am sure if you have made up your mind, there is nothing I, expert opinion, empirical data etc can change your mind.
I'm doing my best to be open. I've swung from plasma to LCD and now I'm hovering in the middle. There are good and bad points to each technology but ultimately (as with so many things in life) it is the individual's choice that matters and not the conclusions of others - expert or not.

--Philip