 
|
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:
...I'm the integrated system's engineer/manager at the local HIFI store. I have to deal with plasmas, front and rear projectors, and direct view CRT's every day. I know what the current stuff is and looks like...we display it and sell it.Ok, now that that's out of the way...
Rear projection gives you the most screen size for the buck...no doubt about it. I'll also allow that RP has come a long way in the last few years. When properly setup the better sets can look pretty nice. Spend enough hours looking at a truely good direct view HD CRT set and [if you're me] all of a sudden the RP sets look a whole bunch less appealing. I understand that you typically get a much bigger picture with a RP set, but to me size is not a deal breaker.
You can get a nice 55" RP HD set for about $2500. For the same $2500 you can look at 34" direct view CRT's. The DV looks better...it just does [assuming both the RP and DV are setup "well", and are quality displays]. Ok, so the question is does the DV look better enough to justify spending the same $$$ on a smaller picture? To me, yes...just my opinion.
The newer plasmas have pictures that look like the old ones, but better. No revoloution here, just evoloution. You can thank the advances in scan rate conversion, as much as anything, for the improvment in the picture you see on plasma's [or any fixed pixel device, for that matter]. I've compaired a current production Fujitsu/Hitachi [same factory] 1024x1024 plasma to a Loewe Aconda [HD 1080i signal, via RGBHV]...we carry both brands in our store. I think the Loewe is a fair shot better, IMO. That's not to say the plasma dosent look nice...it does. For most, plasma's main selling point is "wow, it's thin". That's ok...sometimes you need thin. You can put a plasma in places a bulky heavy DV could never dream of going.
Fixed pixel is generally considered to lag behind CRT in absoloute picture quality. That is the consensus in the upper end of the CE industry, and I agree with it. That said, the gap is closing and will most likely continue to. Texas Instruments has a 2nd generation single-chip 16x9 DLP chip that boasts greater black level and overall contrast than the previous chip, which looked pretty nice in it's own right [in the right projector]. Modern 3chip DLP's look wonderful [and are amazingly bright!], their price is most decidedly not wonderful. Hopefully, one day, that will change. CRT's are big, heavy, expensive to buy and setup, and have their own list of picture quality issues like convergence, edge distortion, low light output and uneven light output. That, along with the progress of DLP has left CRT barely clinging on to it's status as "top dog" in the projector/monitor world.
Ok...so what I'm finnaly getting at is that with all this in mind, you have to make a choice about what kind of video monitor to buy. You have to balance picture size, cost, picture quality [to your eyes], and interaction with the room. Just because I'm willing to give up a fair amount of picture size to get a better picture [without spending 5 figures or more] dosen't make anyone wrong if they make a different decision.
To relate this to something I'm personally much more passionate about [I don't own a TV of any kind]...I have a Hovland HP100 preamp. I think the Hovland is great...the best I've heard. I'm sure there's a Krell owner/fan out there that'll tell me that his KCT is a fair shot better than my HP100. He will never convince me of anything of the kind! Does that make him wrong, nope [well, maybe just a little ;-)].
:-)
Steve
Follow Ups:
Steve, thanks for the interesting post. It's always nice to hear from someone who has experience like yours.Still, I find myself absolutely puzzled by comments that CRTs still have the edge in picture quality, when compared to plasmas. To my eyes this just isn't so (and I'm talking about the best of the newer plasmas - Fujitsu 5002/Pioneer Elite/Panasonic plasmas). I've made a point of seeing every display I can, and a well set-up plasma beats the pants off of every other display every time. I can't help but note that most people who see plasmas in the store (or in my home) have the same reaction (and it's not just to the thin size, it's a reaction to the picture quality).
I watched the Olympics every day in HD on an ISF'd Loewe Aconda at my work, and while it was excellent, it never dropped my jaw, never made my mind think "real" as the same images displayed on the good plasmas.
A while back I was in a nice AV store, marvelling at an HD feed on the Fujitsu 5002 50" plasma. The salesman said "Yeah, nice picture, and great form factor...CRT still has the best picture though.." which he backed up with the "black levels" argument. "Hold on for a sec" I said. "Please show me a CRT with a better, more realistic image than I'm seeing on this plasma." The store was full of pricey gear. "Uhhmmm.." he wondered, and pointed to a Loewe screen playing the same HD feed. "That's just about the best TV you can buy!"
What the heck? The Fuji plasma picture was clearly better, more realistic. I pointed this out the the salesman..I mean, details and tiny text was clearly readable on the plasma was soft on the Loewe (thank you "perfect geometry"). People around us had no problem picking the plasma as producing a significantly more realistic image.I left wondering if the guy actually uses his eyes to form his opinions. And I continue to scratch my head at notions that plasmas are behind CRT in image quality, when in fact I've never seen a CRT image as realistic as the one from a good plasma. Where are these mythical CRTs?
Rich H.
Hey Rich,Well...I'll allow that that I may have become a touch [or more] jaded by having to deal with stuff day in, day out. To me a plasma still looks like the "stereotypical" plasma...just better. Perhaps I'm focusing in on the downsides of the technology and not allowing myself to enjoy the show?
I know what a plasmas shortcommings are, and I'd bet that I'm "semi-subconsciously" discounting them because I can still see the problems, while at the same time not objecting to the shortcommings of CRT because "that's the way it's always been". I'll agree that geometry and uneven light output are big strikes against CRT...maybe I'm too forgiving of those problems?
You've got me real curious. We dont have a HD [1024x1024] plasma in the store today...destroyed in a lightening strike/surge and havn't received the new display. When it get's set back up, I'm gonna spend some of my time compairing the two.
Thanks for the input...I really do appreciate it.
:-)
Steve
I'm pretty unimpressed with the 1024x1024 ALiS plasmas. In fact, I think the "enhanced" definition Panasonic 42WD5UY beats most any comparable ALiS plasma I've seen. I'd caution against using the ALiS technology plasmas as a yardstick.A better comparison would be the Panny 42HD5UY (true HD capable) or 50HD5UY, the Pioneer 5030HD or non-consumer 503CMX, or the Fujitsu 5004 or 4229 (? I think that's right). Maybe an NEC. The Sampos, Samsungs, and Phillips can't hold a candle these displays IMO.
There are trade-offs, no matter which way you go with a HD display. Dollar for dollar, a properly calibrated CRT RP is probably the best bang for the buck. But HD on a great plasma looks not like a TV, it looks like a window onto the world. To my eyes.
BTW, I auditioned the Hovland (beautiful piece of gear) but found it, despite its gorgeous top end, to be less dynamic and not as good in the bass as I wanted for my system. I kept my Joule-Electra, and eventually bought a First Sound Presence Deluxe Mk II with NOS tubes. That doesn't mean one of us was wrong. :-)
Hey Steve,It sure is difficult to come to firm conclusions about picture quality in these discussions. Not just because it's so subjective, but because it's hard to see many displays of any type set up with proper care. I wouldn't want to make my judgements on picture quality based only on what I'd seen in stores. Luckily, I have friends in the AV business who have careful set-ups, and in my film post production facilitites I have access to displays of all types, professionally calibrated. That's why I feel a little more confidence that I am comparing the different display technologies on a somewhat even playing field.
I must say that, as good as I thought the Panasonic plasma looked in the store set-ups, once I'd intalled one with care in my home (good power/cables/DVD player etc.) the picture available was significantly better than I'd ever seen. I still rarely encounter a plasma in a store that approaches the picture quality I'm getting at home. I'm sure this is true of all types of displays.
Rich H.
Be careful with your judgement using ALiS type displays (1024x1024). These use a psuedo 60hz interlaced method of imaging and many people who've looked at 858x480 progressive "lower definition" plasmas and the ALiS displays have preferred the image quality of the 858x480 res displays.Tom §.
Plasma sets have a lot going for them -- bright picture, reasonable color (a bit orange where color should be red) and excellent resolution. But, they suffer from fairly severe motion artifact, and problems with detail in shaddows and odd colors in darker scenes, obvious pixel structure at viewing distances of up to 10 feet, and annoying noise in solid areas (looks like millions of agitated ants).
That said, I like plasmas a lot. I would have bought one but for other considerations: 1) I hate stretch mode for 4:3 pictures and I've seen burn-in on a set that was only occasionally used in 4:3 mode; 2) I have seen sets with a bad pixel (dead - not too bad, always on - really annoying),so I am not confident about their reliability ($5,000 for an extended warranty also suggested that dealer expected problems); and 3)I am concerned about the amount of heat these sets generate.
1) I hate stretch mode for 4:3 pictures and I've seen burn-in on a set that was only occasionally used in 4:3 modeIf a plasma set is run hard with the white level turned all the way up (as it most likely is on a showroom floor) then there is a higher chance of creating image retention. *However*, turning the white level down to a reasonable level goes a long way in reducing the chance of image retention. Also keep in mind there is also the temporary burn-in effect as well. This can be alleviated with an image reversal pattern or a scrolling white bar (I think running the same 4:3 material with reversal would be more effective). BTW, thanks for mentioning which model it was that you saw this on. [/sarcasm]
2) I have seen sets with a bad pixel (dead - not too bad, always on - really annoying),so I am not confident about their reliability ($5,000 for an extended warranty also suggested that dealer expected problems)Stuck pixels were a problem with earlier plasma models. I'm not talking about last years models but the models long before that. The manufacturing process has tremendously improved since that time and this (and last) years models have virtually no reports of stuck pixels. As for the dealer, the amount that he's asking for doesn't indicate his confidence level. Even then, $5000 can get you another plasma display right now with over a thousand dollars to spare.
3)I am concerned about the amount of heat these sets generate.
And CRT's don't generate buttloads of heat as well? GMAFB!
(a bit orange where color should be red) and excellent resolution. But, they suffer from fairly severe motion artifact, and problems with detail in shaddows and odd colors in darker scenes, obvious pixel structure at viewing distances of up to 10 feet, and annoying noise in solid areas (looks like millions of agitated ants).
Let's take this one step at a time:
Color "problems": This is not an inherent problem of plasma technology. The color gamut of ntsc material isn't real difficult to achieve and nearly every plasma display currently produced can achieve this color gamut w/o problem. The real issue here is color adjustment. Even then plasmas aren't the only display that can have misadjusted color. There are a *shitload* of consumer CRT televisions with severe red push problems in their color decoders as well as incorrect white color temperature.
Motion artifacts, blockiness in dark areas: In nearly every case that I've seen of this nature, it has been verified to be on the source material itself (using a dvd-rom and a CRT color monitor). Believe it or not, plasmas are making the SHIT transfer quality of quite a few DVD movies more visible (especially those with EE). Even the HD feeds you see on showroom floors have motion artifacts due to the compression used. I'm willing to concede that plasma models from 3-4 years ago may have suffered from motion artifacts due to unrefined drive methods and poor scalar circuitry. However, this is not a problem with current plasma sets.
Pixel structure: hell, I could see the shadow mask seperation on my 27" CRT from 6 feet away. I can also see the pixel structure on my 18" 1280x1028 LCD monitor. If you *look* for pixel structure you will find it on every display. I even saw it while looking at dark scenes on a RP DLP (a 1st gen single chip panasonic unit).
In a nutshell, plasma displays have improved tremendously in the last few years and this years models from the big consumer names (panasonic, NEC, fuji, pioneer) have shown that plasmas are now competitive with CRTs in the image quality department and may even be better due to no geometry problems.
Tom §.
Did I say plasmas have poor pictures? I was merely pointing out things that I have noticed in current models that a prospective purchaser should consider. Overall, I prefer the picture of plasmas over direct view sets and all RPTVs with 7" CRTs.The burn-in problem I saw on a Fujitsu 5002 which had been adjusted using a Video Essentials DVD. The stuck pixel on a current model 50" Panasonic, dead pixels on a Dream Vision 50". A friend had a different 50" Dream Vision that died and had to be replaced because of problems with overheating. The generous extended warranty was offered for a 50" Pioneer Elite. I don't know if statistically speaking, plasmas are unreliable, but these are personal observations that did not inspire confidence.
I don't know how you "verified" in every instance that motion artifacts were the problem with the source. In any event, I don't have access to perfect sources, I have to live with what is available, and I see all of these problems. I like the overall color achievable with plasmas, but I see posterization problems in dark scenes. I guess you are lucky if you don't notice them. I agree that the pixel issue is really a matter of what you compare plasmas to -- DLP pictures have a greater percentage of fill so pixel structure is less evident and CRT pixel structure is often less apparent because the image has less resolution.
Whether these problems when balanced against the undeniable virtues of plasmas (great edge to edge detail, perfect geometry, high brightness level, vivid and solid looking images with high quality sources, etc.) make plasmas the best choice is entirely subjective. I suggest that a prospective purchaser take along an "acid test" DVD that exposes plasmas weak spot which is dark scenes with lots of detail. The sci-fi mystery thriller "Dark City" would be a good choice.
As for the non-picture issues, I've notice the heat in a small room when a friend installed a plasma; this was not a problem with the 53" direct view it replaced. Since that 50" plasma drew something like 800 watts, vs. something like 350 for the direct view, the additional power consumption had to be either in the form of additional light output (the plasma may put out a bit more light) or heat.
I apologize for giving the impression that plasmas have poor picture quality. That is not the case. I think they are currently at the very top of the pile, but they are far from perfect. I was merely pointing out the weaknesses I notice; the strengths should be obvious at first glance.
***I think they are currently at the very top of the pile***How can anything that can't do black and is severely limited in screen size be at the top of any pile? Or did you mean poop?
***How can anything that can't do black and is severely limited in screen size be at the top of any pile? Or did you mean poop?***Because 1: size ain't everything and 2: Newer plasmas CAN do excellent black levels (those based on the Panasonic glass especially). Yes the CRT can still pull out the last iota of detail in low black levels. But, of course, CRTs have compromises too don't they? Please show me a CRT-based display (including your projector) that displays perfect focus/geometry/convergence and lack of blooming - and a totally still, utterly "jiggle-free" image. Oh, that's impossible for CRT displays? I see...how can you live with such flaws :-)
Rich H.
It seems that we're essentially in agreement on most points. At first read your post seemed like another jab at plasma based on problems with early production models.Yeah, the 50" plasmas do have quite a bit of power dissipation. I think I was limiting my perspective to 42" models where power dissipation ratings are almost half that of 50" models.
As for verifying the artifacts in the source material: I just took the DVD over to the DVD-ROM drive in my comp and looked at the same scene using the 18" LCD and 15" CRT monitors I have.
Tom §.
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 ]
