Last edited:
Are Plasma TV's A Thing Of The Past
- Thread starter Steve williams
- Start date
HI All,
I currently have an Hitachi 1080I 42 inch plasma. For a long time now I have been hearing about progressive scan systems and that they are better than interlaced scan systems but I've never heard a good explanation of why P is better than I.
Would someone please explain?
BTW, I really like my Hitachi. I see nothing wrong with its picture quality and I'm pretty picky.
Steve, my plasma does put out some heat but it's not a huge amount. Don't know the total power spec. I don't consider it to be a problem.
Thanks,
Sparky
I currently have an Hitachi 1080I 42 inch plasma. For a long time now I have been hearing about progressive scan systems and that they are better than interlaced scan systems but I've never heard a good explanation of why P is better than I.
Would someone please explain?
BTW, I really like my Hitachi. I see nothing wrong with its picture quality and I'm pretty picky.
Steve, my plasma does put out some heat but it's not a huge amount. Don't know the total power spec. I don't consider it to be a problem.
Thanks,
Sparky
Interlacing can introduce several types of artifacts. A major issue is motion. An interlaced set draws every other line from top to bottom (say, lines 1,3,5...), then goes back to the top and draws 2,4,6... 1,3,5....1079 is one 'field' 2,4,6 ...1080 is the other 'field' The TV combines or interlaces these fields into a full 'frame' Now imagine Usain Bolt is sprinting across your screen left to right. He's 'drawn' first by your TV on lines 1,3,5....., then drawn again, 2.4.6 So line 4, forex, is really drawn a bit of time after line 3 because an interlaced set does all the odd lines first, goes all the way to 1079 before doing 2 then 4. In the time gap between 3 and 4, a fast moving object like Bolt has moved, shifted in position relative to the screen. Remember though that line 5 was drawn before line 4, so Bolt is actually closer to left of screen on lines 3 and 5 than he is on 4 -- the forward edge of his body is slightly ahead on the even lines vs. the odd lines because they're drawn later. Edges are blurred.
In a quick look, couldn't find some drawings that make this concept easy to understand (drawings make this clearer than words), but an internet search on progressive vs. interlaced will give you lots of info. Bottom line is that the image looks more 'whole' and sharp w/a progressive display.
In a quick look, couldn't find some drawings that make this concept easy to understand (drawings make this clearer than words), but an internet search on progressive vs. interlaced will give you lots of info. Bottom line is that the image looks more 'whole' and sharp w/a progressive display.
Last edited:
HI rblnr,
Thanks for the good reply. I do understand the concepts. I just don't see a problem with the interlaced display. Perhaps, the effects you are talking about become obvious on really large screens or displays. My screen is only 42 inches.
Sparky
Thanks for the good reply. I do understand the concepts. I just don't see a problem with the interlaced display. Perhaps, the effects you are talking about become obvious on really large screens or displays. My screen is only 42 inches.
Sparky
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
I'm starting to replace all my LCD/Plasma screens in my home with LED. I think it's the way to go.
For some reason I can't get more than 3yr. use out of my LCD computer monitors.
For some reason I can't get more than 3yr. use out of my LCD computer monitors.
Your plasma is not interlaced. But rather, its input is limited to that. Internally it is converting it to progressive and displaying it that way. That conversion in the old days often relied on filtering which is what you need to do some of the time, but not with movie content which is originally shot on film/video in progressive format. By getting a TV that accepts 1080p progressive input, that circuit is bypassed and you are assured to get the proper image. Newer sets also work a lot better in detecting film content and displaying it without filtering.
The above is why you don't see the issues rnlnr mentioned.
When I was at Microsoft, we had a terrible relationship with Panasonic. I set out to fix that as we wanted them to license our audio/video technologies. I eventually built a warm relationship with a then young executive that had come from the research group to run the audio/video group. I remember one of my last meetings with him, some 5-6 years ago in the back of a cab. I asked him about the prospects of LCD vs Plasma. Sharp had just produced the first 1080p set. He said that Plasma was a natural fit for large panels and that LCD simply did not have the yields to catch up. At that time, a 32 inch LCD was more expensive than a 50 inch Plasma. A year or so later I visited Sharp's plant and saw a factory that was completely automated with robots and how they had a roadmap to keep enlarging the sheets of glass that they use to make LCDs. I figured my Panasonic exec friend's predictions were not going to come true.
Earlier this year, my friend got promoted to the CEO of Panasonic! I wish him well. He is a good man. But he has one hell of a job transforming the company into a profitable engine again. My fear is that the Koreans have killed them on mass market commodity gear, and Apple on value-add leaving no room to make money anymore.
Earlier this year, my friend got promoted to the CEO of Panasonic! I wish him well. He is a good man. But he has one hell of a job transforming the company into a profitable engine again. My fear is that the Koreans have killed them on mass market commodity gear, and Apple on value-add leaving no room to make money anymore.
I know a big box showroom is a terrible place to judge, but I still consistently see plasmas with better pictures than significantly more expensive LCD/LED's. Home Theater magazine also continues to rate plasmas equivalent to or better than more expensive or smaller LCD/LED?
---I am still a very strong Plasma proponent, much more than LED.
And Panasonic and Samsung still build the very best plasma HDTVs.
...And at exceptional bargain prices too! Even for 65" Class.
_____________________
* We'll see soon enough what OLED has under its footing.
But right now, Plasma still rules on several aspects, and one of them is Picture Quality,
Uniformity, and another one is Value.
I don't care what sells or not, I care about the real deal.
But I do admit that some LED (with local dimming) HDTVs are looking real good (upfront).
And to be truthful, Pioneer Elite KURO plasmas are still thee best for black levels.
But the newer Panny VT50 Series Plasma is a heck of a nice TV! :b
And Panasonic and Samsung still build the very best plasma HDTVs.
...And at exceptional bargain prices too! Even for 65" Class.
_____________________
* We'll see soon enough what OLED has under its footing.
But right now, Plasma still rules on several aspects, and one of them is Picture Quality,
Uniformity, and another one is Value.
I don't care what sells or not, I care about the real deal.
But I do admit that some LED (with local dimming) HDTVs are looking real good (upfront).
And to be truthful, Pioneer Elite KURO plasmas are still thee best for black levels.
But the newer Panny VT50 Series Plasma is a heck of a nice TV! :b
You'll pry my Kuro from my dead, cold hands.
Wonderful contrast, excellent resolution and believable image. Special calibration took it to perfection, in my eyes. (And I've dabbled extensively in film ...)
Even thinking of buying one just to have a replacement available. Can't figure out how people can watch LCD - I can walk past my Kuro, or sit at different positions, and see the same image - with LCD, the intensity of the colors and precision of the contrast swims if I try to do the same.
Wonderful contrast, excellent resolution and believable image. Special calibration took it to perfection, in my eyes. (And I've dabbled extensively in film ...)
Even thinking of buying one just to have a replacement available. Can't figure out how people can watch LCD - I can walk past my Kuro, or sit at different positions, and see the same image - with LCD, the intensity of the colors and precision of the contrast swims if I try to do the same.
I think that my Pioneer 50" Plasma is still one of the very best pictures that I have seen, even though it cannot display at more than 720P. The blacks are far far superior to my new Sony LCD.
Pity it has to eat so much juice..
Anyone have an opinion on the difference between a Kuro and the as yet to be released OLED?
Pity it has to eat so much juice..
Anyone have an opinion on the difference between a Kuro and the as yet to be released OLED?
One of the questions in a recent magazine I get asked; Why do my eyes hurt after watching my LCD?
The answer from the editor was that LCD's can be bright, very bright and this can cause eye strain. This brightness level is often adjustable, so lower the lighting level dummy.
One should also bear in mind that the cost of electricity to run a plasma far exceeds that of an LED
Yes, suddenly, audiophiles worry about the cost of running their equipment. The cost of running an itsy bitsy tube amp far exceeds that of running a Plasma television ...
The image quality is astounding compared to LCD, and unfortunately manufacturing LCDs gives much better margins for the brands, while manufacturing plasma screens is costly, and cuts into margins, as customers don't care about the image quality sufficiently to support a proper plasma pricing level. Having to compete with LCD prices, plasma loses the battle.
The image quality is astounding compared to LCD, and unfortunately manufacturing LCDs gives much better margins for the brands, while manufacturing plasma screens is costly, and cuts into margins, as customers don't care about the image quality sufficiently to support a proper plasma pricing level. Having to compete with LCD prices, plasma loses the battle.
Let me first explain how the technologies work and then get into that
.A normal LCD is just a light shutter. The shutter is a filter of light and based on electrical signal can be told to filter a bit or a lot. It does this by changing the orientation of a polarization field which when at 90 degrees blocks light and when at 0, does not. The light source is constant in the form of the "back light." The back light is either fluorescent or LED. The latter sets ore incorrectly called LED TVs. The right name would be LED backlit LCD as the structure of the TV has not changed. Only the constant light source.
Because the picture is created using a front filter, some amount of light can still leak through because the backlight is still on and no filter is perfect. A partial solution is to dim the backlight. This is the so called "local dimming" solution. The challenge here is that a 1080p set has 2 million pixels. So for this to work, you would need to have 2 million sources of light which is very impractical. Current sets have something like 32 to 256 regions which approximates the same but can still lead to such artifacts as halos as white pixel with dark background can have a glow due to backlight region being much larger than the individual pixel. There are good and bad schemes here but ultimately they all have similar problems.
LCDs are also directional due to use of the polarization filter as just explained.
Plasmas devices likewise have issues in that they require a residual charge to make them work. This residual charge causes them to not be able to fully display black as black. Pioneer's claim to fame was to tame this problem in successive generations of their displays. The process was taught to be too expensive to manufacture in volume and hence the reason they pulled out when they noticed the costs were spiraling down for competing solutions (and the company was having substantial financial problems at the time being much smaller than other Japanese companies).
OLED is an entirely different animal. It is actually a light emitting device. This means that if you tell it to display black, i.e. nothing, it does exactly that. It shuts off the drive to the pixel and it will go black -- just like what happened with the CRT sets of the past. The problem with it is that it can't produce as much light as a normal LCD display which can essentially have arbitrary amount of light behind it. The other problem has been yield. The former appears to have been solved by LG for example by inserting a white element in there. Cheap projectors deploy this technique to get brightness but this usually comes in the form of compromised black levels and colors. Yield issues could come in the form of bad pixels which have to be manually repaired in the factory. The first generation 1080p LCD sets were enabled this way which made them very expensive. The other issue which I worry about is color and brightness uniformity. With every pixel being a light source, if there are process variations, we could get differing performance in each. OLEDs are heavily used in today's smartphones and they do have such problems but since the application is not critical, folks don't complain.
In a show situation as in CES demos, material can be carefully picked to avoid performance issues and of course yield is not a consideration as you can make enough to get what you need to show.
So personally I won't believe OLEDs are here until they actually show up, have ample supply, are priced reasonably, and have good performance. Yes, on measured contrast they should match or beat the Kuro. But the rest of the issues matter.
As you may know, Sharp licensed the trademark Elite from Pioneer and brought out a set of LCD TVs with very good performance. They are priced much higher though and from what I hear, sales are pretty slow. So longer term I am not sure they will continue selling them.
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |