 
|
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: Plasma vs Tube vs Rear projection posted by uzun on September 24, 2002 at 17:17:22:
Lots of issues and basic differences here...to the point of almost being apples and oranges.I think that most folks will agree that CRT is still tops for both direct view and front projection.
That's not to say that CRT has no downside. Low light output, outer edge distortion, size, and weight are the major problems.
DLP and plasma are interesting new technologies, however they suffer from two major downfalls. Lack of ability to due true black [especially in DLP] is a real problem. DLP will probably never get past this one. A CRT does black by drawing "nothing" in that space, therefore making that area of the image as "black" as the light in the room will allow. A DLP does "black" via brute power...it throws all its got at a pixel and makes a sorta real dark grey. A DLP would have to "turn off" a mirror to do black in the same sort of way the CRT does...and it cant do that. The second problem is both plasma and DLP are fixed pixel displays. A fixed pixel will almost certainly look [much] worse than a CRT, UNLESS the image shown is at the native resoloution of the panel, and the panel is of a high resoloution. An example would be that 1080i HDTV looks great on a 1024x1024 plasma...almost [sorta] as good as a good CRT...however put a NTSC signal on the two and the plasma falls WAY behind.
If I were gonna spend the $$$ on a HDTV today, it'd be a 30-38" direct view CRT. Plasma is overpriced and of maringal picture quality, and projection is either real expensive or bad looking [often both at once].
:-)
Steve
Follow Ups:
steveK. The Plasma Has othr problems. It is very nosy when the unit is ued above a certain height ( above sea level) you can hear the oscillator and the noise from the power supply.
"Plasma is overpriced and of marginal picture quality,"
Overpriced...ok...pretty subjective. "Marginal picture quality?"
Wow, that is so far from my experience I have to chime in. Every single person who has watched images on my plasma has remarked that it was the best image they'd ever seen, and that there was a realism, three-dimensionality and tactile quality to the images that they'd never encountered before in a TV. Want to guess what type of TV's those people own? Yes, the mighty CRT! (Many of my guests have serious home-theater CRTs).If plasma technology isn't "up to snuff," and CRTs are technically superior, why are people so amazed by plasma images? I'll tell ya:
because the advantage in black level detail CRTs still maintain is slipping as plasmas get better. And because the last iota of black detail, while desirable, does not tell the whole story when it comes to how a monitor actually looks in practice.The black levels on many current plasmas, notibly those from the Panasonic line, are measurably and subjectively competative with CRT (although CRT still edges out plasma for detail in the lowest levels of black). But to obsess about the last level of black detail is to miss the areas in which plasmas naturally excell. A CRT will never display the type of precision - re geometry, convergence etc. that you'll get with a fixed pixel device like a plasma. I've seen HDTV signals displayed side by side on a Loewe Aconda (heralded as among the best consumer CRTs available) and on Panasonic and Fujitsu plasmas. There were details that the Loewe just could not render with realistic precision. In an HDTV hockey feed, the text on player's shirts and on advertisements around the rink remained sharp and easily readable on the plasmas. On the Loewe, despite it's HDTV resolution, tiny text was blurred beyond readability. A CRT ray gun attempting to focus electrons on a phosphor screen from a distance just isn't as precise as a fixed pixel display. In fact, after living with a plasma and it's wonderfully sharp, steady image, I find CRTs irritating to watch; all that flicker, the scan lines, the constantly jiggling image, bleeding color edges etc (yes, even on calibrated units). As well, I and many others find good plasmas have a "natural" light quality - one that allows me to feel I'm seeing "real" light cast upon "real" objects. In contrast, even the best CRTs have a fake electric glow that never allows my eyes to forget they are watching a TV.
And, again, technical numbers don't tell the whole story about a display. My plasma is not HD res, being only 852 x 480 pixels. Yet HD signals look sharper and more realistic on this plasma than on virtually every HD-res CRT I've seen. The perfect precision of those pixels will do that kind of magic.
I've seen many great home theater set-ups. I work in film with high-end, pro-calibrated RPTVs, Front Projectors, as well as pro CRT monitors, (we also have the highly regarded Loewe CRTs). None of these provide as compelling a viewing experience as my plasma. Every single time I turn it on, without fail, I'm blown away.
So, my advice: try and see a plasma in a competent, uncompromised set-up (i.e not one in a store using a split feed and sloppy color/aspect ration settings). Once you see this, I bet you'll find a level of realism to the image that other technologies lack.
Yeah, I'm a blabbering plasma convert. But that's because, until I encountered a great plasma, I would never have believed such realism was possible from a "TV."
Rich H.
***None of these provide as compelling a viewing experience as my plasma.***I wouldn't use a plasma if someone gave it to me.
> > I wouldn't use a plasma if someone gave it to me.Wanna send me that junk someone might be giving ya?
TIA
Where do I sign? The only problem is, I'll need to get an apartment after my wife divorces me, then there will be those pesky alimony and child support payments every month, and of course there's that annoying need to eat and stay warm. But other than that, I'm sold!
Yep, I agree, the price of these things suck big time. Like much of high-end audio, you've either got to be rich or an obsessive fool to buy a plasma at this point. Count me the latter. I don't watch a lot of TV, but I am a movie nut. Once I saw some of my DVDs on a plasma I was hooked. I actually saved for a year to get one, during which time I investigated every other option (CRT/RPTV/FP) to see if I could find a cheaper, still satisfying picture. Unfortunately for me I found the picture quality of certain plasmas to be unique. My bank account hates me. My wife thought it was nuts, right up until we finally installed it. She was an instant convert. In fact, until recently she hasn't been able to stay awake for a full video movie at our home for, I dunno, maybe ten years. Now she actually stays attentive through whole movies because, she says, she finds the picture riveting.But I'd have to say it isn't only me. Everyone who sees this thing in action is simply amazed by the picture quality. It's just so realistic and three-dimensional. A pal who owns has a dedicated Home Theater room, with a very good DLP front projector, saw the Fifth Element on my 42" plasma and was stunned. "My projector is good...but it just doesn't do THIS," he said.
(BTW, what is it with women falling asleep during movies at home? Almost every guy I know says his wife/girlfriend often falls asleep when they try to watch videos at night).
Rich H.
(Sorry, these are the ramblings of a plasma convert. I'm sure owners of good RPTVs have many of the same positives about they're experience).
That way I can get into all the coolest gear and not worried about getting yakked at by my spouse . . .
...it's the content???? ;-)FWIW, my SO falls asleep regularly during movie watching. EVen his favorites.
I'm almost a plasma convert. I wish I had a 50" on my wall. Sigh...someday.
With controlled lighting and impeccable sources, a properly ISF-calibrated RPTV can look stunning. I know. Plus it's fairly light for the size of picture -- my 47" widescreen Panny (47WX49) weighs all of 125 pounds and is on casters so that it's easily movable . . .
I was holding off... I think some people haven't been looking at the current stuff, and are basing opinions on the way things used to be. Current RPTV can be excellent, if you want reasonable size and brightness. Not to mention a great price in comparison. If you look at RPTV in dealer's showrooms you aren't likely to be impressed, they don't set them up even half right, and they have lots of easy to adjust settings that don't take a lot of skill to make much better than stock.
i was never interested in rptv before, but i did get one and i'm very pleased with it.when you consider size, quality, price, you are getting the most realistic picture for your money, and the quality is good.
don't plazma tv's deteriorate over time. that was a real turn off for me, to know that the picture quality, the brightness would continue to go down over time.
i prefer things to break in and get better over time.
Gotta agree with Tom. You will certainly have to recalibrate your RPTV within 3 years, yearly if fussy (I will be). The way I see it, these devices, every type, will be virtually worthless in 5 years, so the long term is moot. They may still work, but will anybody want them? See what's coming around the corner in display tech, very interesting, some of it is new adaptation of older tech, so should be brought to market quickly and reasonably cheaply. And projector prices are plummeting, though not quite as convenient to set up as other types, and still kinda dim in comparison.
don't plazma tv's deteriorate over time. that was a real turn off for me, to know that the picture quality, the brightness would continue to go down over time.And you actually think that doesn't happen with direct view and rear projection CRT's? You don't think that doesn't happen with DLP and LCD front and rear projection lamps? What is happening in all those cases? (hint: phosphors are burning.....)
i prefer things to break in and get better over time.
Direct view and rear projection CRT's slowly drift in geometry, convergence, color temperature, and do lose light output. *Think* for a moment. Even an ISF tech will tell you that convergence and geometry will need to be retuned within a few years of calibration.
Most every plasma display has a rated brightness half life of at least 20,000 hours with some manufacturers stating a half life of 50,000 hours. For 20000 hours, if you watch 4 hours a day every day, that's a little over 13 years and even then you *still* have useful light output at the end of that lifetime. Yes, they do "wear out" but so does every other display technology. At least with plasma and LCD, you don't drift in convergence and geometry due to the displays being fixed pixel.
Tom §.
Keep lighting the way, Tom :-)Rich H.
Personally, I plan to replace my 32" direct view with a plasma in perhaps 3-5 years, once a) some of the format wars & standards have been settled, b) they come down further in price and c) my financial situation allows it. The RPTV will come next & later.
....and see the current generation of plasma's from pioneer, nec, fuji, and panasonic. You may reconsider your generalizations.Tom §.
I agree about the lastest plasma displays.There are still some minor black level and shadow detail issues, but the better plasmas you mention are looking pretty darned nice. Lightyears better than they did two years ago. Panasonic (and Fujitsu which uses Panny glass) has very pleasing blacks and contrast. The On line prices foe the Pannys is way down, under 4K for the 42" ED.
I like CRT direct view, but they're soooooo little for much impact as "home theater" and they'er heavy. REALLY heavy.
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 ]
