Plasma tv or LED tv, which one is better to invest in?

ivegotfleas1 wrote:

BigBrownEyes29 wrote:

If I ever win big in the lottery, I'll buy you each one.

I really like the 90".

LOL ... I was mentioning this to a co-worker, no tv is worth $10,000. Sorry but you would have had to settle for a 50" or 55", if I won.

BigBrownEyes29 wrote:

ivegotfleas1 wrote:

BigBrownEyes29 wrote:

If I ever win big in the lottery, I'll buy you each one.

I really like the 90".

LOL ... I was mentioning this to a co-worker, no tv is worth $10,000. Sorry but you would have had to settle for a 50" or 55", if I won.

It's well worth it, I would use it daily.

ivegotfleas1 wrote:

BigBrownEyes29 wrote:

ivegotfleas1 wrote:

BigBrownEyes29 wrote:

If I ever win big in the lottery, I'll buy you each one.

I really like the 90".

LOL ... I was mentioning this to a co-worker, no tv is worth $10,000. Sorry but you would have had to settle for a 50" or 55", if I won.

It's well worth it, I would use it daily.

Yep, I know, old post.

An LED TV is an LCD screen with LED backlighting.
An LCD TV is an LCD screen with fluorescent backlighting.
A Plasma TV has a Plasma screen with fluorescent backlighting.

The biggest difference between LED and Plasma is where it's going to be used.
LED TVs are brighter which is good in bright rooms.

Plasma are better in darker rooms like basements. In general Plasma is considered to have a better picture because of better black levels. The contrast between light and dark areas of the picture are more natural looking.
Plasma also does not have a problem with refresh rate. The picture seldom looks blurry. They do have shinier screens though so reflected light is a problem.

LCD screens (LED) refresh 60 times a second which sounds very fast but with a lot of movement on the screen, like sports, it can look blurry. You will see LED TVs with 120Hrz and 240Hrz refresh rates to combat this problem.
The downside of higher refresh rates on LCD screens is that the picture may look more fake to some people. Kind of like back in the days of the Littlest Hobo when you could instantly tell if a show was a Canadian production.

I prefer Plasma but overall LED is probably your safest bet unless you know you'll always be using it in a darker room. Mine is in the livingroom but I never watch TV during the day.

Yup, old post but your input is appreciated. You have an understanding of this stuff that a lot of us don't so please feel free to add your input if you find some topics that interest you.

I have a plasma now, and I like the picture better than the LED. Not saying I didn't like the LED, the picture on this thing is just better imo.

I know I'm a random pop out of nowhere person that found this forum through Kewl Chicks Kijiji profile, but I have inside insight into this field of TVs.

Angus did have a slight error with how Plasma works, they are a sheet of chemical cells with a positive and negative feed into each cell that lights up when electricity hits it. As Electricity is incredibly fast, it gives Plasma instant light up for color, however some Plasma's can drag a bit for the electrical charge to dissipate from the cell, creating glowing effects. This used to be a permanent issue (Burn In), now its just dubbed as ghosting, and will fade as you continually watch a revolving/changing picture.

LED and LCD's are filtering a light source from behind, LED was created as it was a much cleaner clearer light source, fluorescent is just blurry lighting. This changes in lighting also effects where to place LED or Plasma in home. An LED or LCD filter has to physically open and close again to let light through the filter or not. This being a mechanical change, delays the picture change over.

Newer LED's, most brands, especially Samsung are putting high gloss finish plastics on their LED's. Very good for picture quality, very bad for glare and reflection. Also plastics absorb a percentage of all light sources, so the semi-gloss or matte finishes used by LG and other companies create a blurring of your color and images. Plasma has become the ultimate for in-light sources on newer panels, The chemical cells are bonded to a single layer of glass, so outside light, sunshine, lamps etc are hitting the light source directly. Older plasmas, had 2-4 layers of glass creating a refraction field between the sheets making incredible glare and reflections, new models have changed that.

Refresh on LED's cause artificial cells to be generated.. TV is broadcasted at 30 frames per second, A 240Hz LED is displaying 240 frames per second, this is created by splitting up the 30 frames and putting filler in the middle, each company does it different, some just duplicate frames with black frames in between, others artificially generate an entirely new frame of what a motion in between the given frames should be, this makes for cartoonish or fake looking picture. Refresh on a Plasma is entirely different measure, as 600Hz is per 1 frame, the screen is flashed 600 times per 1 frame, each flash is for each color in the picture. So the screen flashes 600x30 per second, which is why no motion issues arise. Newer LED's do use a different addition on this, they have split up the prisms and filters that are behind the individual cells to block the light source further. Samsung calls this CMR, Sony calls it MotionFlow, and Panasonic calls it Backlight Blinking or Backlight Scanning depending if its quadrants or lines they are broken apart into, but every company has their own names for the same technologies.

Lifespan of LED vs Plasma, They are equal, the screens for both are rated to last an abnormally long time, However, the electronics that run them, most frequent things to fail are the "controllers" for the screen, which puts a colored line straight through your screen when they fail, or the computer motherboards, and thirdly the power supplies. The first two, unless its warranty or extended warranty, its a throw away, if its power supply, well as long as the power supply didn't burn out anything else when it died, it's only worth it if you spent over $1000 on the TV, otherwise the difference between a repair that might only last 3-6 months vs a new panel with a new 1 year warranty is negligible in price.

Personally I sport Plasma's in all of my rooms, the advantages technology wise still make them superior to the LEDs. However the new OLED is superior to both of these soon to be replaced technologies in every single regard.

I know this was a long post, but this is the tip of the iceberg =P
My field of expertise is technology if you have any further questions on anything electronic, appliance, etc related.

Darworth wrote:

I know I'm a random pop out of nowhere person that found this forum through Kewl Chicks Kijiji profile, but I have inside insight into this field of TVs.

Angus did have a slight error with how Plasma works, they are a sheet of chemical cells with a positive and negative feed into each cell that lights up when electricity hits it. As Electricity is incredibly fast, it gives Plasma instant light up for color, however some Plasma's can drag a bit for the electrical charge to dissipate from the cell, creating glowing effects. This used to be a permanent issue (Burn In), now its just dubbed as ghosting, and will fade as you continually watch a revolving/changing picture.

LED and LCD's are filtering a light source from behind, LED was created as it was a much cleaner clearer light source, fluorescent is just blurry lighting. This changes in lighting also effects where to place LED or Plasma in home. An LED or LCD filter has to physically open and close again to let light through the filter or not. This being a mechanical change, delays the picture change over.

Newer LED's, most brands, especially Samsung are putting high gloss finish plastics on their LED's. Very good for picture quality, very bad for glare and reflection. Also plastics absorb a percentage of all light sources, so the semi-gloss or matte finishes used by LG and other companies create a blurring of your color and images. Plasma has become the ultimate for in-light sources on newer panels, The chemical cells are bonded to a single layer of glass, so outside light, sunshine, lamps etc are hitting the light source directly. Older plasmas, had 2-4 layers of glass creating a refraction field between the sheets making incredible glare and reflections, new models have changed that.

Refresh on LED's cause artificial cells to be generated.. TV is broadcasted at 30 frames per second, A 240Hz LED is displaying 240 frames per second, this is created by splitting up the 30 frames and putting filler in the middle, each company does it different, some just duplicate frames with black frames in between, others artificially generate an entirely new frame of what a motion in between the given frames should be, this makes for cartoonish or fake looking picture. Refresh on a Plasma is entirely different measure, as 600Hz is per 1 frame, the screen is flashed 600 times per 1 frame, each flash is for each color in the picture. So the screen flashes 600x30 per second, which is why no motion issues arise. Newer LED's do use a different addition on this, they have split up the prisms and filters that are behind the individual cells to block the light source further. Samsung calls this CMR, Sony calls it MotionFlow, and Panasonic calls it Backlight Blinking or Backlight Scanning depending if its quadrants or lines they are broken apart into, but every company has their own names for the same technologies.

Lifespan of LED vs Plasma, They are equal, the screens for both are rated to last an abnormally long time, However, the electronics that run them, most frequent things to fail are the "controllers" for the screen, which puts a colored line straight through your screen when they fail, or the computer motherboards, and thirdly the power supplies. The first two, unless its warranty or extended warranty, its a throw away, if its power supply, well as long as the power supply didn't burn out anything else when it died, it's only worth it if you spent over $1000 on the TV, otherwise the difference between a repair that might only last 3-6 months vs a new panel with a new 1 year warranty is negligible in price.

Personally I sport Plasma's in all of my rooms, the advantages technology wise still make them superior to the LEDs. However the new OLED is superior to both of these soon to be replaced technologies in every single regard.

I know this was a long post, but this is the tip of the iceberg =P
My field of expertise is technology if you have any further questions on anything electronic, appliance, etc related.

That's what I meant to say.

Welcome Darworth!

ivegotfleas1 wrote:

Darworth wrote:

...
Angus did have a slight error with how Plasma works,
...

That's what I meant to say.

Welcome Darworth!

You are correct Darworth, I did over simplify the way a plasma TV works.
Each gas filled plasma cell is essentially a tiny fluorescent lamp.

OLED is definitely different. From what I've seen I find colours aren't very realistic but I'm sure that is a matter of adjustment. It will be interesting to see how long it takes fro them to come down in price.

HELLLLLLLO Darworth,

ivegotfleas1 wrote:

I have a plasma now, and I like the picture better than the LED. Not saying I didn't like the LED, the picture on this thing is just better imo.

Boxing day I ended up going with a 50" 3D Panasonic Plasma, can't remember the Hz. Wanna say 240 Hz but wil have to check to confirm. By the time I got to the store, all of the 60" 3Ds were sold out. I also like the plasma picture quality over the LEDs. Plus LEDs tend to be pricier. To me not worth the money, either that or I'm just cheap. lol

The 120Hz, 240Hz thing doesn't even come into play with Plasma.

You aren't cheap. If you were really cheap you would have skipped the 3D.
3D isn't worth a nickel to me, don't like it at all.

Panasonic is a very good choice for Plasma.

We have a 43" Samsung plasma in the living room and (I spent the big cash on this bad boy ) a 32" Emerson in the bedroom. Think it's LCD, I'm just not sure because I went by price on that one.

now I know what you do in the bedroom

yorkiemom wrote:

now I know what you do in the bedroom

Have to do something, can't sleep on my couch now.

ivegotfleas1 wrote:

We have a 43" Samsung plasma in the living room and (I spent the big cash on this bad boy ) a 32" Emerson in the bedroom. Think it's LCD, I'm just not sure because I went by price on that one.

The 32" would be LCD.
Plasma starts at about 40".

My first flat screen, about 5 years ago, was a 42" 720p LG Plasma. $1800.00
I bought a 50" 1080p LG Plasma last summer for $700.
Quite a difference in price. The 50" is only about 1" wider than the 42" because there is less plastic around the screen. It's also a lot lighter.

Angus.Black wrote:

The 120Hz, 240Hz thing doesn't even come into play with Plasma.

You aren't cheap. If you were really cheap you would have skipped the 3D.
3D isn't worth a nickel to me, don't like it at all.

Panasonic is a very good choice for Plasma.

I checked Cnet for my model tc-p50ut50 2012 year. The specifications have the refresh rate at 600 Hz. IDK I know it was a high refresh rate just couldn't remember the rate. That was one of the things on my list that it had to have was a decent refresh rate, along with 1080p. Of course a good picture quality. I'll have find the paperwork with the specs and see one day.

I like the 3D on plasmas as long as it's the active 3D. I was at a friend's place over the Christmas holidays watching The Avengers on his 60" 3D plasma. Was impressed that it's better than watching a passive 3D movie at the movie theatre.

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/panasonic-tc-p50ut50/4505-6482_7-35153392.html

I hear about such small TV's in the bedroom, and then I start to wonder about myself.
My bedroom TV is *cough* 51" *cough*

Big Brown Eyes made a good choice on the Panasonic, they are number 2 quality wise, they just aren't as soft on their prices most of the time. I do prefer Samsung's Active 3D over everyone else, they have options in the Menu that allows you to modify the depth and perceptions of the 3D, making it less or more intense. So people that can't handle the severity of it, or feel sick from it, just dial it back. Those that want a more intense 3D can boost up the depth.

If you want the BEST 3D experience, get a copy of Avatar in 3D, James Cameron does 18 levels of depth with his movies, It gives a better feeling for the way 3D should be. Most other movies are only 3 to 6 Layers of depth, So the increased range will give you a way more realistic feeling, its also less nauseating. If you prefer a classic, get Titanic in 3D, not sure if its launched yet for purchase, but it will have the same depth of 3D.

The reason you likely prefer the active 3D BigBrownEyes, is because it works more like our eyes do. Active glasses close the left eye, then close the right eye, open left, close left, open right, close right etc etc etc.. This method is designed around how our eyes see the world around us. Our eyes are synchronized in left/right patterns. The Passive 3D, is basically looking at one picture with the left eye, and a different picture with the right eye at the same time. These two images are merged together in our head to generate 3D looking picture, and some people get sick by this too!

Active 3D is also WAY cheaper now than it was, any 2012 or newer models in all brands can share active 3d glasses.. Samsung has very inexpensive glasses, $20 retail, and because I know the cost on these, you should be able to get them discounted if you go somewhere that can token discount product. IE Avoid Wal-marts, Best Buys, Future Shops etc.. Look for an independent, or smaller chain, they often work commission and can undercut the big box stores on the sales floor for pricing. Box stores = Fixed Price. Independents and small chains as long as you find a sales person you can trust, they will get you a better price. Just make sure you price shop, some salesmen are greedy =P

Sigh.. corporate retail.. way to much info crammed in my noggin!

BigBrownEyes29 wrote:

I checked Cnet for my model tc-p50ut50 2012 year. The specifications have the refresh rate at 600 Hz. IDK I know it was a high refresh rate just couldn't remember the rate. That was one of the things on my list that it had to have was a decent refresh rate, along with 1080p. Of course a good picture quality. I'll have find the paperwork with the specs and see one day.
...

600 Hz refresh rate is just marketing when it comes to plasma. It is not a direct comparison to 120 Hz, 240 Hz LCD refresh rates.
It's not a bad thing but really means nothing.

Here is a quote from an article about 600 Hz plasma refresh rates.
"LCDs use a higher-than-normal refresh rate to combat motion blur. Plasmas, by how they work, don't have an issue with motion blur. The 600Hz claim by all the current plasma TV manufacturers has to do with how the TVs create an image, but is not 600 images per second.
So yes, 600Hz is a marketing term. However, because plasmas don't require faster refresh rates to produce a clear, sharp image, and this is technically how they work, it's fair to give Panasonic, LG, and Samsung a pass...for this one."

I was going to post a link to the article but I have to be a forum member for 7 days before I can post links.

Angus.Black wrote:

BigBrownEyes29 wrote:

I checked Cnet for my model tc-p50ut50 2012 year. The specifications have the refresh rate at 600 Hz. IDK I know it was a high refresh rate just couldn't remember the rate. That was one of the things on my list that it had to have was a decent refresh rate, along with 1080p. Of course a good picture quality. I'll have find the paperwork with the specs and see one day.
...

600 Hz refresh rate is just marketing when it comes to plasma. It is not a direct comparison to 120 Hz, 240 Hz LCD refresh rates.
It's not a bad thing but really means nothing.

Here is a quote from an article about 600 Hz plasma refresh rates.
"LCDs use a higher-than-normal refresh rate to combat motion blur. Plasmas, by how they work, don't have an issue with motion blur. The 600Hz claim by all the current plasma TV manufacturers has to do with how the TVs create an image, but is not 600 images per second.
So yes, 600Hz is a marketing term. However, because plasmas don't require faster refresh rates to produce a clear, sharp image, and this is technically how they work, it's fair to give Panasonic, LG, and Samsung a pass...for this one."

I was going to post a link to the article but I have to be a forum member for 7 days before I can post links.

Really? I'll see if I can fix that.

The 7 day thing isn't that bad really.
It helps stop people joining up just to SPAM.

Angus.Black wrote:

BigBrownEyes29 wrote:

I checked Cnet for my model tc-p50ut50 2012 year. The specifications have the refresh rate at 600 Hz. IDK I know it was a high refresh rate just couldn't remember the rate. That was one of the things on my list that it had to have was a decent refresh rate, along with 1080p. Of course a good picture quality. I'll have find the paperwork with the specs and see one day.
...

600 Hz refresh rate is just marketing when it comes to plasma. It is not a direct comparison to 120 Hz, 240 Hz LCD refresh rates.
It's not a bad thing but really means nothing.

Here is a quote from an article about 600 Hz plasma refresh rates.
"LCDs use a higher-than-normal refresh rate to combat motion blur. Plasmas, by how they work, don't have an issue with motion blur. The 600Hz claim by all the current plasma TV manufacturers has to do with how the TVs create an image, but is not 600 images per second.
So yes, 600Hz is a marketing term. However, because plasmas don't require faster refresh rates to produce a clear, sharp image, and this is technically how they work, it's fair to give Panasonic, LG, and Samsung a pass...for this one."

I was going to post a link to the article but I have to be a forum member for 7 days before I can post links.

I missed that part in the article, was looking the refresh rate the model tv I have. That's weird that they would advertise (in stores) refresh rates for the plasmas, but then again if I were trying to sell them it would make for good marketing. I spent 6 months prior to Boxing Day driving a coworker nuts on my researching tvs. Had a bad experience with buying my last one. Originally I was going for the Samsung brand because they tend to be cheaper than Panasonics. This 50" 3D plasma sale price was cheaper than Samsungs 51" 3D plasma sale price. Wasn't first or second choice, but so far it hasn't given me any reason to want to throw it out the window. lol