You get a CRT (likely projection) if you want the best picture (in both light AND dark conditions) for the best value, or you don't care about the ~22" depth.
You get a plasma if A) You're very rich and want the "cool" technology B) You require a flat panel display due to space constraints. C) You're uneducated about the techs and assumed that plasma is the "best" because it's expensive.
The reality is that plasmas do NOT give you a better quality picture, eat a large amount of power, are prone to burning in, and do have a set lifespan (30,000 hours or so).
LCD is still expensive, but it has a better lifespan, power consumption, and picture than plasma. It looks amazing when you're watching a bright picture. Downside is potential dead pixels, price, and poor black levels (space in a sci-fi movie looks grey, not black).
DLP is an insanely sharp picture and isn't affected by burn-in. Bad stuff: there are those that can see the rainbow effect, and for these people it's too annoying to watch the set. The rainbow effect is more easily visible when there's a lot of movement on the screen.
That's a huge generalization, but really there's no best overall technology. It's wholey on preference.
But seriously, stay away from Plasma and don't be suckered by the "cool" factor.
Agreed. There are some really nice plasmas out there, but you do have to pay a lot to get 'em. For the same money, an LCD projection would look much nicer.
I was just trying to point out that most people think that plasmas are simply the best TVs money can buy simply because they're expensive. I definitely wouldn't say no to that 61 inch Marantz that's hanging in my store's display, though ($24,999.90).
The truly funny thing is that a plasma TV has lower picture quality than (in general) to CRTs or CRT projections. Next time you see one, walk up to it and check out the blacks and note the patterns that are evident on the screen. Then check out a directview XBR or a cinema series Toshiba.
There's also the simple fact that in most sports games there's someone to root for, ie the home team. Pro-gaming doesn't really have this, and there's something much more exciting about watching a physical, ACTIVE sport as opposed to someone moving keys and a mouse around. Something like watching chess would be much more appealing to me than twitch-masters playing video games, but even chess is not something I want to watch. But maybe that's just me.
I definitely agree with that aspect, but to shun the technology because some idiots use it to shut their kids up instead of just giving them something to do if they choose is idiotic.
You know what my sister and I did as kids on road trips? We read BOOKS. That's right, books -- those little, fun, and informative things made out of paper that actually engage a kids mind rather than shutting it off.
You must not have a TV set or anything on that idea in your car or home then, because that would make you hypocritical (a person of your intelligence and stature would obviously not lower him/herself to "shut off" your mind).
Maybe if more parents were interested in raising their children instead of pacifying them
Ugh, these knee-jerk reactions make me want to vomit. This is nothing more than a cool entertainment toy, it's not implied anywhere that it's being used to "pacify" kids. This kind of elitism is absolutely ridiculous and short-sighted. If I choose to get a TV stream coming into my vehicle so my family can catch ER or C.S.I., it doesn't mean that I'm less of a parent than you because you choose not to give them that option. It's a satellite receiver for an automobile, a tech toy, not a direct attack against your idea of correct parenting. Please make the distinction.
PS: Maybe you should start looking at some movies that aren't quite as mainstream before you arrogantly imply that movies (in general) shut off the brain...
Excellent point. I'm into movies myself, so it's worth it for me. I'll be much more excited about it as soon as we start getting some format that gives us 1080i movies (super dvd?).
Can I get a better (amazing) picture that's not grainy and will allow enough resolution that I can get an enormous 60 inch plus screen that's still amazing looking?
You don't actually get that many lines of resolution through your TV, though (more like 300). Do all of your broadcasts look like a DVD? If so, consider yourself VERY lucky!
It makes TVs much more expensive. Most HD TVs today are merely HD-READY, which means that they cannot decode the signals themselves without the assitance of a tuner. This is where the box from your cable company or satellite comes in. It takes care of the decoding for you.
Digital tuners right now are running for at least 400 bucks. Now they're going to be required to be in your TV.
You could sort of equate this situation to when DVD players were becoming the norm about a year or two ago- imagine if it was required that every DVD player be required to be able to decode the Dolby Digital/DTS signal RIGHT from the DVD player, and in turn you'd also be forced to pay extra for it (nevermind that you have a receiver that can also do it and are thus paying twice).
A) Sony actually makes one of the poorer projection TVs in my opinion (unless you're doing LCD XBR). Toshiba and Hitachi are my preference. Toshibas, especially their cinema series, have excellent (and more importantly NATURAL) color/clarity. Any of these TVs compared side-by-side to a plasma (both being fed a good 1080i signal) will rest any doubts. It's simply your satisfaction that counts in the end. Again however, plasmas were NOT designed for the intent of a superior picture.
B) Thanks for clearing that up. My point was simply that plasma is NOT a better TV for your money (which would concern a middle-income house). For the 4000 dollars it would take to get a decent, HD-entry-level plasma, one could pick up an advanced HD-ready DLP (a technology designed for improving image) with much superior visual quality. Alternatively, you could simply spend HALF that much, get a 46 inch Toshiba projection that still beats any plasma picture, and use the rest of the money for the kids' college fund.
As you pointed out though, in the end it's all a matter of preference. In my experience though, there are too many drawbacks (burn-in, short lifespan, high elecricity needs, poor visual quality per $ spent, lack of built-in tuner, inputs) than benefits (thin, lightweight, can-hang-on-wall, fashionable, and just plain cool) to justify recommending a plasma to anyone with a budget or anyone who has clarity as a priority.
Bear in mind the best your DVD player can do is 480p, though. I think this is geared towards those with larger, hi-def TVs where a picture on the expensive TV could be the centerpiece of a room. If it's a bigscreen, a 480p still will NOT look very interesting on a big (larger than 40 inch) TV. 1080i is probably the way to go, or at least 720p.
(Disclaimer: I manage a home entertainment store that is an authorized reseller of Sony, Toshiba, Hitachi, etc.)
Sounds like you got burned. For 7 grand I could buy a Sony 70 inch high definition XBR that would beat the quality of any plasma TV out there. The reason middle income families don't buy plasmas is because plasma TVs are marketed towards people whose primary concerns are aesthetics and the ability to hang a TV on a wall.
I've said it once, I'll say it 1000 times more. Plasma technology was NOT developed for a better quality picture. A good hi-def tube, projection, or LCD project will almost always trounce a plasma of equal price. If buying a plasma, realize that at LEAST half the price you pay on a plasma is the "cool" factor of being lightweight and thin enough to hang on a wall. Period. Hell, for HALF of the price of a good plasma you could afford a DLP TV that would absolutely annihalate a plasma if compared side by side.
My advice to the parent poster: sell your plasma and get yourself a nicer picture.
Doubtful, plasmas have merely so-so picture quality. They have a very specific niche market: People who want to hang their TVs on walls. Quality and value are secondary. Plasmas are doubtful to become a mainstream technology.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to work roughly like this.
You get a CRT (likely projection) if you want the best picture (in both light AND dark conditions) for the best value, or you don't care about the ~22" depth.
You get a plasma if
A) You're very rich and want the "cool" technology
B) You require a flat panel display due to space constraints.
C) You're uneducated about the techs and assumed that plasma is the "best" because it's expensive.
The reality is that plasmas do NOT give you a better quality picture, eat a large amount of power, are prone to burning in, and do have a set lifespan (30,000 hours or so).
LCD is still expensive, but it has a better lifespan, power consumption, and picture than plasma. It looks amazing when you're watching a bright picture. Downside is potential dead pixels, price, and poor black levels (space in a sci-fi movie looks grey, not black).
DLP is an insanely sharp picture and isn't affected by burn-in. Bad stuff: there are those that can see the rainbow effect, and for these people it's too annoying to watch the set. The rainbow effect is more easily visible when there's a lot of movement on the screen.
That's a huge generalization, but really there's no best overall technology. It's wholey on preference.
But seriously, stay away from Plasma and don't be suckered by the "cool" factor.
Marantz has also had a 61" TV out for a few months now, it goes for 25 grand. Why is this news?
No, they're just not trained well. If you want true 1080p, check out Hitachi's Ultravision RPs.
I thought sentience was a measure of intelligence and self-awareness, not a matter of mobile ability?
Agreed. There are some really nice plasmas out there, but you do have to pay a lot to get 'em. For the same money, an LCD projection would look much nicer.
I was just trying to point out that most people think that plasmas are simply the best TVs money can buy simply because they're expensive. I definitely wouldn't say no to that 61 inch Marantz that's hanging in my store's display, though ($24,999.90).
The truly funny thing is that a plasma TV has lower picture quality than (in general) to CRTs or CRT projections. Next time you see one, walk up to it and check out the blacks and note the patterns that are evident on the screen. Then check out a directview XBR or a cinema series Toshiba.
Plasmas have a life of roughly of 30,000 hours. It comes out to be something close to 8 hours of TV every day for 10 years.
There's also the simple fact that in most sports games there's someone to root for, ie the home team. Pro-gaming doesn't really have this, and there's something much more exciting about watching a physical, ACTIVE sport as opposed to someone moving keys and a mouse around. Something like watching chess would be much more appealing to me than twitch-masters playing video games, but even chess is not something I want to watch.
But maybe that's just me.
I definitely agree with that aspect, but to shun the technology because some idiots use it to shut their kids up instead of just giving them something to do if they choose is idiotic.
I seriously hope you're joking.
You know what my sister and I did as kids on road trips? We read BOOKS. That's right, books -- those little, fun, and informative things made out of paper that actually engage a kids mind rather than shutting it off.
You must not have a TV set or anything on that idea in your car or home then, because that would make you hypocritical (a person of your intelligence and stature would obviously not lower him/herself to "shut off" your mind).
Maybe if more parents were interested in raising their children instead of pacifying them
Ugh, these knee-jerk reactions make me want to vomit. This is nothing more than a cool entertainment toy, it's not implied anywhere that it's being used to "pacify" kids. This kind of elitism is absolutely ridiculous and short-sighted. If I choose to get a TV stream coming into my vehicle so my family can catch ER or C.S.I., it doesn't mean that I'm less of a parent than you because you choose not to give them that option. It's a satellite receiver for an automobile, a tech toy, not a direct attack against your idea of correct parenting. Please make the distinction.
PS: Maybe you should start looking at some movies that aren't quite as mainstream before you arrogantly imply that movies (in general) shut off the brain...
With this kind of logic, I assume you have no TVs (in car or at home), much less video game systems, right?
I fail to see what the huge difference is that makes it OK to watch TV at home but not in a car.
Really, this is a knee-jerk reaction.
Excellent point. I'm into movies myself, so it's worth it for me. I'll be much more excited about it as soon as we start getting some format that gives us 1080i movies (super dvd?).
Can I get a better (amazing) picture that's not grainy and will allow enough resolution that I can get an enormous 60 inch plus screen that's still amazing looking?
You don't actually get that many lines of resolution through your TV, though (more like 300). Do all of your broadcasts look like a DVD? If so, consider yourself VERY lucky!
For a consumer HD-ready TV, not a computer.
It makes TVs much more expensive. Most HD TVs today are merely HD-READY, which means that they cannot decode the signals themselves without the assitance of a tuner. This is where the box from your cable company or satellite comes in. It takes care of the decoding for you.
Digital tuners right now are running for at least 400 bucks. Now they're going to be required to be in your TV.
You could sort of equate this situation to when DVD players were becoming the norm about a year or two ago- imagine if it was required that every DVD player be required to be able to decode the Dolby Digital/DTS signal RIGHT from the DVD player, and in turn you'd also be forced to pay extra for it (nevermind that you have a receiver that can also do it and are thus paying twice).
Seems a bit ridiculous, eh?
A) Sony actually makes one of the poorer projection TVs in my opinion (unless you're doing LCD XBR). Toshiba and Hitachi are my preference. Toshibas, especially their cinema series, have excellent (and more importantly NATURAL) color/clarity. Any of these TVs compared side-by-side to a plasma (both being fed a good 1080i signal) will rest any doubts. It's simply your satisfaction that counts in the end. Again however, plasmas were NOT designed for the intent of a superior picture.
B) Thanks for clearing that up. My point was simply that plasma is NOT a better TV for your money (which would concern a middle-income house). For the 4000 dollars it would take to get a decent, HD-entry-level plasma, one could pick up an advanced HD-ready DLP (a technology designed for improving image) with much superior visual quality. Alternatively, you could simply spend HALF that much, get a 46 inch Toshiba projection that still beats any plasma picture, and use the rest of the money for the kids' college fund.
As you pointed out though, in the end it's all a matter of preference. In my experience though, there are too many drawbacks (burn-in, short lifespan, high elecricity needs, poor visual quality per $ spent, lack of built-in tuner, inputs) than benefits (thin, lightweight, can-hang-on-wall, fashionable, and just plain cool) to justify recommending a plasma to anyone with a budget or anyone who has clarity as a priority.
Bear in mind the best your DVD player can do is 480p, though. I think this is geared towards those with larger, hi-def TVs where a picture on the expensive TV could be the centerpiece of a room. If it's a bigscreen, a 480p still will NOT look very interesting on a big (larger than 40 inch) TV. 1080i is probably the way to go, or at least 720p.
Technically it would. If the DVD put out progressive to the TV, you'd have a 480p signal, which is considered hi-def.
(Disclaimer: I manage a home entertainment store that is an authorized reseller of Sony, Toshiba, Hitachi, etc.)
Sounds like you got burned. For 7 grand I could buy a Sony 70 inch high definition XBR that would beat the quality of any plasma TV out there. The reason middle income families don't buy plasmas is because plasma TVs are marketed towards people whose primary concerns are aesthetics and the ability to hang a TV on a wall.
I've said it once, I'll say it 1000 times more. Plasma technology was NOT developed for a better quality picture. A good hi-def tube, projection, or LCD project will almost always trounce a plasma of equal price. If buying a plasma, realize that at LEAST half the price you pay on a plasma is the "cool" factor of being lightweight and thin enough to hang on a wall. Period. Hell, for HALF of the price of a good plasma you could afford a DLP TV that would absolutely annihalate a plasma if compared side by side.
My advice to the parent poster: sell your plasma and get yourself a nicer picture.
Doubtful, plasmas have merely so-so picture quality. They have a very specific niche market: People who want to hang their TVs on walls. Quality and value are secondary. Plasmas are doubtful to become a mainstream technology.
You look at it as a chore? Interesting, I always look forward to the feeling you get after a good workout. Very rewarding.
No mainstream artists = will never fly with the mainstream crowd.
Hmmm. A matter of perception, I suppose. But fair enough.