Video Asylum

Posted by Rich H (R) on September 26, 2002 at 18:45:15

In Reply to: Re: Plasma vs Tube vs Rear projection posted by Steve K on September 24, 2002 at 19:45:25:

"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.