For the best in plasma HD...
 

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:18:52 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
wrote:

http://www.hedidnotseethatcoming.com/

"Size matters. LCD is at its optimum performance up to and including
32", whilst plasma offers optimum performance at 37" and above".

I have never seen that comment before. Is their any independent
justification?

For the best in plasma HD...
 

There are size limitations with LCD, but the largest LCD is getting
larger. I'd say the break point is closer to 50", not 37" as the ad
says.

The ad is a bit deceptive in power consumption. Plasma power is based
on brightness, LCD power is constant. For a dark picture, plasma uses
less power, but they are not "about the same" as the advertisment says.
Overall, plasma consumes about 20% more energy. However, it's not
that big a deal. 20% is the difference between 5 cents per hour and 6
cents per hour. One cent per hour, six hours a day is only $20 per
year.

My biggest beef with plasma is pixels. The definition of HDTV is 720
pixels high. There is no HD standard for horizontal pixel counts.
Plasma sets below 50" typically are 1024x768 pixels. A 720P picture is
1280x720 pixels. Even at the low-end of 720P, a plasma sets will drop
20% of the pixels. Make sure you get a set that's at least 1280 pixels
wide.

For the best in plasma HD...
 

A few more issues, beyond everything being sponsored and setup for the
plasma mftrs....

This technology is moving FAST. When was the research done?

The "viewing suites" were fairly dark with no windows (the summary states
the people surveyed said the rooms resembled conditions in their houses at
night)...I agree a great plasma, like the 50" pioneer elite 1080p monitor,
are better in that condition, but try watching a football game Sunday
afternoon in your living room with the picture windows and patio doors. The
plasmas are incredibly reflective of outside lightsources, and LCD is much
better with this. Unless you have a very dark room, I'll take the new
LCD's.

"NadCixelsyd" wrote in message
ups.com...
There are size limitations with LCD, but the largest LCD is getting
larger. I'd say the break point is closer to 50", not 37" as the ad
says.

The ad is a bit deceptive in power consumption. Plasma power is based
on brightness, LCD power is constant. For a dark picture, plasma , luses
less power, but they are not "about the same" as the advertisment says.
Overall, plasma consumes about 20% more energy. However, it's not
that big a deal. 20% is the difference between 5 cents per hour and 6
cents per hour. One cent per hour, six hours a day is only $20 per
year.

My biggest beef with plasma is pixels. The definition of HDTV is 720
pixels high. There is no HD standard for horizontal pixel counts.
Plasma sets below 50" typically are 1024x768 pixels. A 720P picture is
1280x720 pixels. Even at the low-end of 720P, a plasma sets will drop
20% of the pixels. Make sure you get a set that's at least 1280 pixels
wide.

For the best in plasma HD...
 

The Filthy Sanchez wrote:

A few more issues, beyond everything being sponsored and setup for the
plasma mftrs....

This technology is moving FAST. When was the research done?


The "viewing suites" were fairly dark with no windows (the summary states
the people surveyed said the rooms resembled conditions in their houses at
night)...I agree a great plasma, like the 50" pioneer elite 1080p monitor,
are better in that condition, but try watching a football game Sunday
afternoon in your living room with the picture windows and patio doors. The
plasmas are incredibly reflective of outside lightsources, and LCD is much
better with this. Unless you have a very dark room, I'll take the new
LCD's.


Like you said with technology moving fast. A year ago LCD's were about
the bottom
of the heap. The new ones are really coming into their own. The response
time is down
to a point it shouldn't be much of an issue. The off-axis is much
better. The backlight
uniformity is much better. But they still aren't quite there for me
though......
Unless I HAD to wall mount (uggh) and I HAD no other option but having
to watch in a very very bright room. (uggh) :-)

"NadCixelsyd" wrote in message
oups.com...


There are size limitations with LCD, but the largest LCD is getting
larger. I'd say the break point is closer to 50", not 37" as the ad
says.

The ad is a bit deceptive in power consumption. Plasma power is based
on brightness, LCD power is constant. For a dark picture, plasma , luses
less power, but they are not "about the same" as the advertisment says.
Overall, plasma consumes about 20% more energy. However, it's not
that big a deal. 20% is the difference between 5 cents per hour and 6
cents per hour. One cent per hour, six hours a day is only $20 per
year.

My biggest beef with plasma is pixels. The definition of HDTV is 720
pixels high. There is no HD standard for horizontal pixel counts.
Plasma sets below 50" typically are 1024x768 pixels. A 720P picture is
1280x720 pixels. Even at the low-end of 720P, a plasma sets will drop
20% of the pixels. Make sure you get a set that's at least 1280 pixels
wide.








--
Ric Seyler

For the best in plasma HD...
 

"RicSeyler" wrote in message
...


The Filthy Sanchez wrote:

A few more issues, beyond everything being sponsored and setup for the
plasma mftrs....

This technology is moving FAST. When was the research done?


The "viewing suites" were fairly dark with no windows (the summary states
the people surveyed said the rooms resembled conditions in their houses
at
night)...I agree a great plasma, like the 50" pioneer elite 1080p monitor,
are better in that condition, but try watching a football game Sunday
afternoon in your living room with the picture windows and patio doors.
The
plasmas are incredibly reflective of outside lightsources, and LCD is much
better with this. Unless you have a very dark room, I'll take the new
LCD's.


Like you said with technology moving fast. A year ago LCD's were about
the bottom
of the heap. The new ones are really coming into their own. The response
time is down
to a point it shouldn't be much of an issue. The off-axis is much
better. The backlight
uniformity is much better. But they still aren't quite there for me
though......
Unless I HAD to wall mount (uggh) and I HAD no other option but having
to watch in a very very bright room. (uggh) :-)

Off-axis is absolutely a non-issue with the newer units. It's a full 180
degree experience...remember when the poor off-axis viewing was touted as
an"advantage" for laptops for security reasons?

The room doesn't have to be very very bright...but a few (or a bunch) of
windows on a cloudy day, much less a sunny one, give horrible reflections.
Most people don't hunker down in a home theater room to watch tv...it's in
the family room, the living room, etc., where some folks are doing real life
at the same time as tv...and wall mounting is also what most folks seem to
do.


"NadCixelsyd" wrote in message
roups.com...


There are size limitations with LCD, but the largest LCD is getting
larger. I'd say the break point is closer to 50", not 37" as the ad
says.

The ad is a bit deceptive in power consumption. Plasma power is based
on brightness, LCD power is constant. For a dark picture, plasma , luses
less power, but they are not "about the same" as the advertisment says.
Overall, plasma consumes about 20% more energy. However, it's not
that big a deal. 20% is the difference between 5 cents per hour and 6
cents per hour. One cent per hour, six hours a day is only $20 per
year.

My biggest beef with plasma is pixels. The definition of HDTV is 720
pixels high. There is no HD standard for horizontal pixel counts.
Plasma sets below 50" typically are 1024x768 pixels. A 720P picture is
1280x720 pixels. Even at the low-end of 720P, a plasma sets will drop
20% of the pixels. Make sure you get a set that's at least 1280 pixels
wide.








--
Ric Seyler