Hey Guys/Gals,
I'm jsut wondering why lots of people are buying plasmas when LED seems to be the far superior technology.
What am i missing?
Plasma Vs LED
LDrifta on 01/03/2011 - 22:03
Comments
yea +1
CRT pwns
If you don't mind the higher power usage, they're much cheaper so you could get a bigger plasma than you can with LCD for the same price.
I also find them brighter than LEDs.Just to tell you:
Retailers put the TV to the best specs for their shop
Make sure you do the settingsOn what basis is LED far superior to plasma?
LED doesn't produce the same sort of colours or have the same native contrast ratio as plasma - and for tis, you have to make a distinction between dynamic contrast ratio and native CR. Dynamic CR figures aren't worth the piece of paper they're written on because they are manipulated figures used for marketing purposes.
See: http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/contrast-ratio.h…
There are good review websites out there which do measure the CRs of TVs (every now and then I run into one but I never remember who they are) - plasmas always have the higher CR.
One popular way of seeing CR in real life is to look at black levels on TVs in store (unfortunately you do have to try and block out the ridiculous amount of lighting in stores) - plasma's blacks are far superior to LED (LED blacks tend to "glow").
Generally the depth and the range of colours are far superior on plasmas.The other thing which commonly throws people off is that the picture in LED is brighter. Not sure why but people seem to get attracted by the brighter picture despite it not being necessarily the best option. Bright pictures work well if you watch TV in a bright environment, but if you watch TV at night or in a movie setting (e.g. lights off), then the plasma is much better suited for it.
LEDs and LCDs have their uses though - mainly for gaming and computing because of the sharper image, the brighter image and no screen burn. However I would say for most people's uses that I've seen (I used to sell TVs), the plasma would suit msot people by far.
Now, despite me telling them this and despite me actually giving a visual demonstration of the differences, a lot of people still go for LEDs - and that's the power of marketing. Take an inferior product that costs less to produce but sells for more (i.e. more profit for the maufacturer), give it a huge marketing budget and spin and watch it sell in droves. I mean, look at LEDs v LCDs - the difference in picture quality is marginal at best (except for full dynamic backlit LEDs, but these are usually priced out of people's budgets), and the biggest selling point about LED TVs isn't its superb picture quality (not really) or any other feature that affects the viewing of the TV, but its slimness - something which you cannot physically see from the angle that you watch TV from. Crazy stuff…
Agreed…
Buying a TV based on how slimness is mental!
However, I disagree that buying on power usage is a bad idea.. I think Power usage should be part of the mix, after all, it's not just the power the TV consumes… the heat generated will affect the lifespan of the unit and will affect your AC bill!
Stick a 500W blow heater in your lounge in the middle of summer and watch the AC bill rise! It's the same concept as watching a Plasma… the vast majority of the excess electricity it uses goes off as heat.
Continuing that argument of course you could say that in Winter, watching TV is helping reduce your heating bill! :-)To be honest, I have a plasma and 2 LCDs that I use in my house and I don't notice differences in heat, which is why I never give much consideration to the heat being produced from the TV.
The only time I have really noticed the heat being produced from the TV is when I was working in store and you would be surrounded by about 15-20 large TVs in close proximity.
Wow…okay that was detailed!
but in terms of the lifespan of LED vs Plasma…as far as i understand plasmas may last to a max of about 5 yrs usually between 3-5 while LED's end up lasting for around 10…so in the long run wouldn't that be worth the initial investment.for me im looking to upgrade and dont think i want the new 3d tvs any time soon casue there really bad for ur eyes when ur watching for long hours so i hope to keep the next tv i buy for atleast about 7-8 yrs
Lol again old marketing tricks.. This applied to plasmas maybe 10 years ago.. Nowadays an average plasma should last around 30 years until it is at half brightness (it´d be much more likely for something else to die first)..
Also burn in hasnt applied for about 5 years as well, its completely eliminated as far as I know in all todays plasmas, there can be some image retention in certain models but not burn!!
Only good thing about brightness of LED is for 3D it comes in handy. Plasmas are better for gaming in a way too due to very low ´refresh´ rate I guess you could say.
Also the power savings you get from LCD as compared to todays plasmas. I think you´d need to use the TV for about 3 years or something to break even with costs of buying LCD vs PLASMA anyway so in that respect I wouldnt worry about it
//EDIT
Just saw a post below, I did not take into account input lag for plasmas for gaming but for instance Samsung models have a ´gaming´ mode which disables certain things im not sure what.. But it makes the lag negligible for gaming
You have to remember that LED is actually LCD but with LED backlighting instead of the usual CCFL backlighting. So all the comments about LCD response etc apply to "LED". It's brighter than CCFL, that's the difference.
Don't forget that Plasma screens consume more power than their LCD and LCD-LED backlit counterparts.
As a rough guide:
Average plasma: 301 watts
Average LCD (standard): 111 watts
Average LCD (LED): 101 watts(info taken from Cnet.com)
I don't know about you but I buy a TV for its picture quality and its intended use, and I look for the TV that best serves that purpose.
Considering that a plasma generally costs $50 or so more per year to run (obviously depends on how much you watch and the size, but $50 is generally around the mark for 50"), it is rather insignificant.
Then on top, consider how many hundreds extra you are paying for for that LED - when picking a TV, power consumption should not be a determining factor, or even close to it. One of those things that's nice to know, but leave it at that
Hooked up the 58" plasma I just bought to a power meter. Averages 230 watts on medium power saving setting. Drain varies between 100 watts for dark scenes to 300 watts in bright ones. LCD/LED TVs on the other hand, should not consume much less as the backlighting is constant.
This is something that a lot of people overlook (and I forget this too myself a lot of the times). Plasma power is variable depending on the image being shown, whereas LCDs/LEDs have contsant power consumption.
A plasma showing black consumes a lot less power than an LCD, but a plasma showing white consumes a lot more power than an LCD showing white.
One other thing is the 1/2 life of the panel. This is the amount of time before the brightness has dropped to 50% of the original. In the past, Plasma was far worse than Cold-cathode-backlit LCD, but apparently this has to a large degree been minimised. The new LED backlight MIGHT degenerate less, although the poor ongoing performance of cheap LED lamps (bulbs) for household use demonstrates that the claims of manufacturers doesn't always equate to real-life.
Also have a think about the room that you are watching it in. If the TV will be in a bright room with lots of windows, I would get an LED or LCD. If you do have a bright room, on a sunny day you won’t be able to see the picture at all on a plasma due to the far more reflective screen. Even if the light isn’t directly on the screen, if anything else in the room has light on it, you will have trouble seeing the picture and see a reflection of the room. Sure you can close all the curtains every time you watch TV in the day, which is fine for movies etc, but if you just want the TV on in the background (ie cricket) while you are doing other things, it's nice to have the curtains open and still be able to see the screen.
do plasmas still burn images into itself these days if you leave it on the same frame for too long?
Yes, they've improved but it still happens. Hence why LCDs/LEDs are still the go for those who are prone to forgetting to setich their TV off (think little kids pausing the DVD then running away) and those who do things that involve static images for prolonged periods of time (e.g. computer).
Plasmas are much heavier.
Also alot of people such as myself use them for gaming. And while this might have changed now ( I havent bought a new screen in 1.5yrs) Plasmas have input lag far worse than lcds and leds.
And before people jump into the whole image refresh rates etc, It also has to do with the scaler used. I believe plasma scalers do more 'work' with the image to make it look better. Could be wrong, but seems a trend with plasmas and gaming lag.
While they all have game modes now, this is more often than not, simply not good enough for serious gaming.
I remember taking my ps3 into the jbhifi before buying my bravia and testing it on a couple of tvs before buying one lol.
The sales guy there was like 'this ones not lagging look' pressing a few buttons etc.
But it assured him there was noticable lag.Anyway, I'd be interested in this comparison too.
I find gamers prefer LCDs/LEDs for a couple of reasons:
1. they are more likely to sit closer to the TV or have a larger than usual screen for their viewing distance, hence the slightly sharper image is more noticeable for them
2. playing games like cod, a lot of gamers prefer the brighter picture because you can see your target easier
CRT is the Shizznit!!