unknown33429 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 A quality plasma has superior PQ over 99% of LCD TV's any day other than in VERY bright rooms. They're also miles better at fast motion AKA sports. Either you previously had an absolutely garbage plasma and/or you did not calibrate it remotely properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 btw all 120hz or 240hz (or anything beyond 60hz) tv's do is interpolate data between each frame to produce additional frames. It appears smoother, but also faker. Old led's had motion blur, but that problem is extinct. New 60hz tv's are fine for watching all types of programming, but that won't stop marketers from pushing higher and higher refresh rates. imo These tech gadgets to improve the picture often just get in the way of the picture, rather than actually improve it. Depends on what you'd prefer. Smooth, but fake? Or the actual source, which is never higher than 60hz. (Unless anyone can confirm that 120hz+ is now the actual source, i'm not sure.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucksbiggestfan Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 So not recommending a technology to someone based on one faulty example is an awesome idea now...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 The bright room issue exists for some LCD, and LED's too. If an LCD and LED have matte screen, there they are better in bright rooms, but LCD with glass screen has the same reflective properties as plasma (the glass screen on plasma is what causes them to reflect so much). I used to sell TV's and I know a bit about them. Plasma's are much better TV's, but most companies want to sell you LED's etc, because it's better for them. Most people think brighter is better, but it's the opposite. You want your TV's to be able to show darker blacks (higher contrast ratio), because that will produce a better, more accurate image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 The OP says from OUR personal experience with the TV and I have a bad experience with ONE FAULTY plasma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucksbiggestfan Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Just because you like Plasma doesn't mean I have to, I had a bad experience with a Plasma TV and so now I dislike it and prefer a LCD/LED TV. In the end the big companies are gonna end up making the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudson bay rules Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 My Panasonic has burn in even tho they had supposedly fixed that issue at the time. Plasma ages and I'm considering LCD for my next set as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 My Panasonic has burn in even tho they had supposedly fixed that issue at the time. Plasma ages and I'm considering LCD for my next set as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudson bay rules Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 It's hard to get burn in. You have to make an effort to get it. Were you using it as a computer monitor? That is true, but remember, a plasma that has lost it's black levels significantly still has better blacks than LED/LCD TV's. Don't get me wrong, there are some REALLY nice LED tv's but they are out of the budget of your average person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Nope, regular 4X3 tv at times. Would always switch to a better channel for the same programme if available.Took a long time to get to a point where I couldn't tell what was previously there. The outer blacks (and colours) are far better than the inner colours to this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudson bay rules Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 I don't think what you're describing is "burn in." True burn in is permanent, and the image is impossible to ignore. It usually happens at plasma's used as a monitor at airports over years. I think what you are describing is plasma aging, but it's not aging at the same rate since the outside is not being used as much. I'm going to guess it's a Panasonic, since they had issues with plasma's again rapidly after the 1st year in their older models (2009,2010), and that would be the only reason you see such a difference in the aging process. If you are going to go with a LCD tv, Samsung has some really nice models. Few things to remember when buying LCD: -You don't need 240 hz unless it's a really big TV. -Quattron is useless; don't let the salesperson try to tell you otherwise. Nobody records in 4 colors, so producing an image in 4 colors is pointless. It's like having an HD tv in the 70's, it's pointless since the signal is not HD. -Related to my last point, get 720p unless you are watching blu-ray, or gaming all the time. Check with your current cable provider, but when I was in sales, no one send a 1080p signal over cable, so having a 1080p TV was useless when watching TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyNut30 Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 As someone who owns a 43" plasma with a 60hz refresh rate, it doens't f'n matter. Hockey looks great in HD. Apparently plasmas aren't great for fast moving sports like hockey because there's a bit of blur or something. But since I jumped from standard def to what I have now it's frickin night and day comparing the two even if what I have no isn't a top tier HD TV. Just buy whatever's the best deal for you. Mine was $299 on Boxing Day so I have no complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillyFox Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 that TV I bought is pretty solid only complaint right now is I don't got a shaw hd box yet which is coming but for bluerays looks very nice. overall out of ten this tv deserves a 8.5/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Plasma > LCD in brightness and picture quality. No contest. The average LCD/LED TV's refresh rate is 60/120/240 Hz. Plasm's are 600 Hz. The reason why most people switch to LCD or LED is because there is just more of them available. I've got both in my home and both are adjusted to look their best. Plasma looks brilliant compared to LED. Burn-in is only a problem if you leave your TV on still images for hours at a time. If you know how to maintain a television (it's not a toy for your kids) Plasma's the way to go. BTW: This is coming from a Sony fan-boy (Sony only sells LCD/LED TVs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 As someone who owns a 43" plasma with a 60hz refresh rate, it doens't f'n matter. Hockey looks great in HD. Apparently plasmas aren't great for fast moving sports like hockey because there's a bit of blur or something. But since I jumped from standard def to what I have now it's frickin night and day comparing the two even if what I have no isn't a top tier HD TV. Just buy whatever's the best deal for you. Mine was $299 on Boxing Day so I have no complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Quattron is useless; don't let the salesperson try to tell you otherwise. Nobody records in 4 colors, so producing an image in 4 colors is pointless. It's like having an HD tv in the 70's, it's pointless since the signal is not HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Plasma > LCD in brightness and picture quality. No contest. The average LCD/LED TV's refresh rate is 60/120/240 Hz. Plasm's are 600 Hz. The reason why most people switch to LCD or LED is because there is just more of them available. I've got both in my home and both are adjusted to look their best. Plasma looks brilliant compared to LED. Burn-in is only a problem if you leave your TV on still images for hours at a time. If you know how to maintain a television (it's not a toy for your kids) Plasma's the way to go. BTW: This is coming from a Sony fan-boy (Sony only sells LCD/LED TVs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 That's pretty misleading bud. Plasmas have a subfield drive, completely different technology. The 600 Hz in plasma is roughly equivalent to 60 hz in lcd, but it's not an issue since plasmas don't get motion blur (again completely different technology). The higher Hz on an LCD is to prevent motion blur on larger TV's, but it's not really a problem in plasmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseBlue Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 youre sounding like a car salesman then... this civic has 170 hp...during vtec yo... the point of this thread is to provide real world example and not provide bias feedback/reviews ...and let the op decide which one he'll get... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.