Plasma vs LED (here we go again)

futureal33

futureal33

Messages
2,390
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Short version:

Which is better for gaming, BluRay watching and watching of hi-def streamed content from a NAS. A good LED TV or a good Plasma TV? By good I mean middle - top of the range models.

Long version:

With everything Id read about the demise of Plasma, and Panasonic shutting down their plasma factory, I had pretty much ruled it out, despite not knowing much about it.
So knowing I wanted a 50-55" TV, I started looking at what I could afford (max £1200) in the LED range.
Generally, my findings were that for the top end LED stuff its more like £1700, and I would have to settle for something middle of the range, such as the Samsung UE55f6800 or the LG 55la670v - both of which get mainly good reviews...but with a common trend.... Please compare the image quality to plasma. "The image quality is great for LED, but not quite as good as Plasma" or "LED quality is getting better and better, and it wont be long till as good as Plasma" etc etc.

This made me think.... maybe plasma is the way to go?

Then I started looking around for Plasma's and found a lot less choice, but much better reviews - stating excellent IQ and never being compared to LEDs as "almost as good" etc.

So basically I am asking which set would be better for someone who mainly watches films and NAS streamed content such as MKVs, AVis and BluRays, plays games occasionally and very rarely watches anything on freeview channels.

Cheers
 
Short answer: plasma.

Long answer: Plasma is great for natural images and where you don't need blinding brightness like in a conservatory. LCD/backlit (the backlight is either a gas discharge tube or LED) will be better if you need ultimate brightness or if you do a LOT of gaming and a little watching video. The picture fidelity isn't as good on LCD IMHO.

Fundamentally LCDs have worse black levels (as they are backlit) and worse viewing angles.

I am considering buying one of the 65" Pannys early next year simply because they are expected to pull out of plasma production.

:D
 
futureal33 said:
Panasonic have already pulled out of plasma production! I wondered if this would have an impact on their prices soon...
Click to expand...
Not yet... depending on which news report you read, they either:

  • haven't decided to, but may well do
  • Will stop in April
  • Will make the 2014 sets their last

What is true is that the writing is on the wall for Panasonic plasma, and I <cough>need<cough> a 65" TV... :D
 
arad85 said:
I am considering buying one of the 65" Pannys early next year simply because they are expected to pull out of plasma production.

:D
Click to expand...

I was considering this too (already got a 5 year old Panasonic plasma), however, read somewhere recently that 4K TV production is ramping up big time and what's happening with OLED technology?? I thought they'd overcome the production issues for large screens :shrug:
 
Spuff said:
I was considering this too (already got a 5 year old Panasonic plasma), however, read somewhere recently that 4K TV production is ramping up big time and what's happening with OLED technology?? I thought they'd overcome the production issues for large screens :shrug:
Click to expand...
I reckon 4k is going to be another passing fad - just like 3D was (yes, it's passed, thank goodness). 4k isn't any better at normal viewing distances unless you have the eyes of a hawk and people have only just bought full HD TVs, so the pickup rate will be slower. You're also going to have to allocate bandwidth to it. No matter how you look at it, 4k will require more bandwidth than 1080p and bandwidth costs - and it'll be the broadcasters that pay...

Oh.. and content. Whilst broadcasters may be recording in 4k, there isn't a 4k BluRay system, so you're a bit stuffed for selling content at Christmas....
 
neil_g said:
pretty much this.

my 7-8 year old pioneer has developed a whine, im hoping itll fail within 12 months and give me good bargaining chip with the other half :D
Click to expand...

Pop the fuse. Then it won't switch on then you'll have to buy another ;)
 
Last year I moved from my 42" plasma Pioneer (which was an outstanding tv) to a 50" plasma Panny and I would recommend the Panny without hesitation.
 
My advise is NOT to buy plasma. LEDs are great, while plasma is old tech, susceptible to more failures, burn ins, B-radiation (i.e. electron emission from the screen) and very high electricity usage.

arad85 said:
I reckon 4k is going to be another passing fad - just like 3D was (yes, it's passed, thank goodness). 4k isn't any better at normal viewing distances unless you have the eyes of a hawk and people have only just bought full HD TVs, so the pickup rate will be slower. You're also going to have to allocate bandwidth to it. No matter how you look at it, 4k will require more bandwidth than 1080p and bandwidth costs - and it'll be the broadcasters that pay...

Oh.. and content. Whilst broadcasters may be recording in 4k, there isn't a 4k BluRay system, so you're a bit stuffed for selling content at Christmas....
Click to expand...

Completely disagree here. You can even tell pixels apart of 32" HD TV. And we are meant to have something like 50-60" as standard in a few years. That will look awful. In fact I want 4K for my 27" monitor. Oh, and the recording will soon move to 8K once we get to 4K. It is progress and thanks god for that.

Bluray - who cares about optical disc based systems any more? Downloads is the way forward already.
 
Before we spend money on 4k or 8k or /insert new standard here/ we need to have some content worthy of broadcasting at those resolutions and a delivery system capable of getting that content to us before we all die of boredom waiting. Neither of these things exist here now, the delivery system will probably come along but I seriously doubt that there will be any improvement in quality of content, rather the opposite is true.
 
daugirdas said:
My advise is NOT to buy plasma. LEDs are great, while plasma is old tech, susceptible to more failures, burn ins, B-radiation (i.e. electron emission from the screen) and very high electricity usage.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... So much wrong here, I don't know where to begin....

daugirdas said:
Completely disagree here. You can even tell pixels apart of 32" HD TV. And we are meant to have something like 50-60" as standard in a few years. That will look awful. In fact I want 4K for my 27" monitor. Oh, and the recording will soon move to 8K once we get to 4K. It is progress and thanks god for that.

Bluray - who cares about optical disc based systems any more? Downloads is the way forward already.
Click to expand...
I tell you what, if you stop trying to tell me anything about my day job, I won't begin to try and tell you how chemistry does or doesn't work... OK? ;)
 
The expression "old technology" is just sales talk. Plasma and LED/LCD use old technology that has evolved over the years.
 
daugirdas said:
My advise is NOT to buy plasma. LEDs are great, while plasma is old tech, susceptible to more failures, burn ins, B-radiation (i.e. electron emission from the screen) and very high electricity usage.
Click to expand...

That's simply not an accurate statement.

Also, Plasma is far better viewing quality than LCD.
 
daugirdas said:
My advise is NOT to buy plasma. LEDs are great, while plasma is old tech, susceptible to more failures, burn ins, B-radiation (i.e. electron emission from the screen) and very high electricity usage. Completely disagree here. You can even tell pixels apart of 32" HD TV. And we are meant to have something like 50-60" as standard in a few years. That will look awful. In fact I want 4K for my 27" monitor. Oh, and the recording will soon move to 8K once we get to 4K. It is progress and thanks god for that. Bluray - who cares about optical disc based systems any more? Downloads is the way forward already.
Click to expand...

:LOL:

I seem to remember reading recently LED or OLED was just as susceptible to burn in.

arad85 said:
Hmmm... So much wrong here, I don't know where to begin.... I tell you what, if you stop trying to tell me anything about my day job, I won't begin to try and tell you how chemistry does or doesn't work... OK? ;)
Click to expand...

I actually lol'd in public at this :D
 
Not sure if anyone can recommend between two specific plasma models.

Im looking at two in particular

Samsung PS51f5500 £650 ish. 51" and gets good reviews
Panasonic TXP50GT60B £1100 ish. 50" and gets excellent reviews.

Obviously the Panasonic is on paper the better set. But just wondered if anyone could add anything?
 
neil_g said:
I seem to remember reading recently LED or OLED was just as susceptible to burn in.
Click to expand...
Yes, they burn in too. Here's an example off wiki:

Emerson-McDonalds_CNN_Burn-In.jpg


As to power usage, plasmas use a varying amount of power depending on how bright the scene is. LCDs (unless they use locally varying backlighting to get deeper blacks) have a fairly fixed power output due to the backlighting being on all the time. This is why they tend to have grey blacks by comparisons to plasmas - plasmas just don't light up the pixel if they want black, LCDs have to stop the backlight shining through.

As to Panny vs Samsung, I too would prefer the Panasonic. If you are expecting the smart TV to stream your content directly, it would be as well to try and take a sample of your content to somewhere like currys on a USB stick. I know when I did this a couple of years ago, the Panasonics were less compatible than the Samsungs or LGs. It doesn't worry me as I have low power PCs underneath all TVs I stream to, but if you are expecting it to stream, direct, it is worth investigating.
 
Went to Richer Sounds and Curry's yesterday to look at a few LEDs and Plasma's and really loved the Panasonic TX-P50gt60B (which I knew I would) - but it was cleverly placed in Richer Sounds in a dark corner, with little to no screen reflections and playing excellent HD content with a lot of blacks.
Curry's on the other hand had the Samsung PS51f5500 plasma playing standard def football - and tbh it looked absolutely awful. However I cant ignore the reviews that say the Samsung is 90% the quality of the Panasonic, for 60% of the price.

Im going to go back and play my own HD content on both off a USB Stick to really make my mind up.

The LEDs in Curry's looked really good (very brightly lit shop) whereas the Plasma's looked a lot darker. However in Richer Sounds, the Plasma absolutely blew the socks off the LEDs but the shop was a lot darker!
 
Richer Sounds are specialist retailers so I'd expect them to set things up better than currys. If they have a demo room ask if they can put the panasonic and samsung side by side so you can see them under the same conditions. They normally carry both brands so they should have a samsung you can try.
 
Shops are WAY brighter than your living room, the TV will be taken out of the box and probably not changed from standard colour settings. If anything, they will have brightness/contrast/colour turned up to make them look punchy. Unfortunately, you can't truly tell what TVs are like in any high street retailer :(
 
It's common in tv shops if they want to sell model X to set that one up to look its best and 'de-tune' the ones near it.
 
Steep said:
It's common in tv shops if they want to sell model X to set that one up to look its best and 'de-tune' the ones near it.
Click to expand...

Someone once said that Panasonic pay certain stores to have a good signal put through their tvs. It wouldn't surprise me if there was at least an element of truth in it.
 
arad85 said:
I reckon 4k is going to be another passing fad - just like 3D was (yes, it's passed, thank goodness). 4k isn't any better at normal viewing distances unless you have the eyes of a hawk and people have only just bought full HD TVs, so the pickup rate will be slower. You're also going to have to allocate bandwidth to it. No matter how you look at it, 4k will require more bandwidth than 1080p and bandwidth costs - and it'll be the broadcasters that pay...

Oh.. and content. Whilst broadcasters may be recording in 4k, there isn't a 4k BluRay system, so you're a bit stuffed for selling content at Christmas....
Click to expand...

3d isn't a passing fad, Bluray 3d is here to stay, it's suburb. Watch Prometheus, The Hobbit, Star Trek Into Darkness on Bluray 3d, they are simply stunning.
 
odd jim said:
3d isn't a passing fad, Bluray 3d is here to stay, it's suburb. Watch Prometheus, The Hobbit, Star Trek Into Darkness on Bluray 3d, they are simply stunning.
Click to expand...
We'll have to agree to disagree.... Ironically, I watched my first 3D movie this week - Gravity - which was a pants storyline turned into a stunning film due to the cinematography and the fact it was in 3D pulled you into the action - space is HUGE and you get to feel it and the Oscar for special effects is already taken. I think I read somewhere 80+% are watching Gravity in 3D - which is a way higher proportion than normal. In fact our local cinema is only showing it in 2D once a day at lunchtime!

Generally though, the public are voting with their feet and not paying the £1 extra to see films (well, at least that's how much it is here). 3D channels are stopping broadcasting: the BBC have dropped it - sorry suspended it indefinitely - and ESPN have pulled their 3D sports channel leaving only Sky with a 3D channel AFAIK. There are numerous articles on how 3D sales in the cinema is declining and the content will only be made if the demand is there. I think it will end up like vinyl - it's still produced, but it really is a niche product. One other thing is I think for most people, their TV is far too small to benefit from it - it really should be an immersive experience and you need field of view coverage to do that and unless you sit a few feet from a 50" TV or are running 100+ inch projectors, you just don't have it.

My next TV will be 3D capable, but only because I can't buy a top of the line TV without it. It will also be "smart", again as I can't buy a top of the line TV without it, and I think the only thing we'll ever use that for is to run Skype once every now and again. All the "smart" duties are handled by an HTPC - which can be upgraded as and when needed for the latest technology whilst the screen will be there for the next 5-10 years. One thing is for sure though: the next TV - as with the two main TVs we currently use - will be calibrated. IMHO, the ability to calibrate properly is far more important than any wizzy features (you do have your TV calibrated don't you? and the calibration is done through the 3D glasses you use to get proper colour accuracy? ;))
 
neil_g said:
I was waiting patiently for that response, what took you :D
Click to expand...
Sorry... watching the rugby: Wales drubbing Argentina.

I'll be more on the ball next time.... :D
 
arad85 said:
We'll have to agree to disagree.... Ironically, I watched my first 3D movie this week - Gravity - which was a pants storyline turned into a stunning film due to the cinematography and the fact it was in 3D pulled you into the action - space is HUGE and you get to feel it and the Oscar for special effects is already taken. I think I read somewhere 80+% are watching Gravity in 3D - which is a way higher proportion than normal. In fact our local cinema is only showing it in 2D once a day at lunchtime!

Generally though, the public are voting with their feet and not paying the £1 extra to see films (well, at least that's how much it is here). 3D channels are stopping broadcasting: the BBC have dropped it - sorry suspended it indefinitely - and ESPN have pulled their 3D sports channel leaving only Sky with a 3D channel AFAIK. There are numerous articles on how 3D sales in the cinema is declining and the content will only be made if the demand is there. I think it will end up like vinyl - it's still produced, but it really is a niche product. One other thing is I think for most people, their TV is far too small to benefit from it - it really should be an immersive experience and you need field of view coverage to do that and unless you sit a few feet from a 50" TV or are running 100+ inch projectors, you just don't have it.

My next TV will be 3D capable, but only because I can't buy a top of the line TV without it. It will also be "smart", again as I can't buy a top of the line TV without it, and I think the only thing we'll ever use that for is to run Skype once every now and again. All the "smart" duties are handled by an HTPC - which can be upgraded as and when needed for the latest technology whilst the screen will be there for the next 5-10 years. One thing is for sure though: the next TV - as with the two main TVs we currently use - will be calibrated. IMHO, the ability to calibrate properly is far more important than any wizzy features (you do have your TV calibrated don't you? and the calibration is done through the 3D glasses you use to get proper colour accuracy? ;))
Click to expand...

Well, I won't argue with the sales figures for tickets as I've not looked at that side of it, though the last three 3d screenings I went to (Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z and Thor Dark World) were completely sold out, and these weren't Friday night premiers either. I still see demand for 3d movies. As for broadcast TV, that was never going to work, people simply aren't interested in that sort of 3d content.

Your ascertains about home 3d aren't quite right, though I see why you might have come to that conclusion. Bluray 3d through active systems is different to the passive experience at the cinema. As the glasses talk to the TV, the images are brighter, sharper and far better defined than at the cinema. The colours are spot on too. IMO it's a far better experience in the living room. And you don't need to sit within a few feet of the tv, if you did that you'd end up with severe eye strain. I run my system from a 55" TV viewed from about 20 feet away and it's totally emersive. The 3d effect created the illusion that the TV is actually bigger than it is. Combine that with a darkened room and full surround sound and it's movie heaven.

As for Gravity, it was filmed in 3d by a director who intended the film to be seen in 3d, hense why 80% are viewing it in 3d. Directors are now using the format to create that immersive experience (rather than just making things jump out at you), with more films being shot in 3d for that purpose. Of course, not all movies are suitable for the format, which is why it has to be done properly and appropriately.

The PS4 and Xbox One also support active 3d, this will open a new era of 3d gaming.


I write this as someone who, when the format first came out in its present format, had no time for 3d. That was until I watched Life of PI in the format, at home. I was blown away.
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
Sorry... watching the rugby: Wales drubbing Argentina.

I'll be more on the ball next time.... :D
Click to expand...

Tis a pity Argentina weren't more on the ball!
 
odd jim said:
Well, I won't argue with the sales figures for tickets as I've not looked at that side of it, though the last three 3d screenings I went to (Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z and Thor Dark World) were completely sold out, and these weren't Friday night premiers either. I still see demand for 3d movies. As for broadcast TV, that was never going to work, people simply aren't interested in that sort of 3d content.
Click to expand...

Cinema's being sold out is often because they don't give you the choice of 2D or 3D and you have to settle for whatever they choose to provide at a given time, with the exception of 2 films the 3D experience has made the film worse for me.

odd jim said:
The PS4 and Xbox One also support active 3d, this will open a new era of 3d gaming.
Click to expand...

No one is seriously pushing 3D in gaming outside of Oculus rift, so even if things work out as you'd hope you're talking a 2-3 year gap before developers have begun to seriously take advantage of it.

odd jim said:
I write this as someone who, when the format first came out in its present format, had no time for 3d. That was until I watched Life of PI in the format, at home. I was blown away.
Click to expand...

As I mention I've seen two films which weren't spoiled by 3D and they were both terrible films that were mostly CGI fests, when you consider I've had to pay extra for films in 3D and all the other films which were made worse by the addition of 3D (odd angles to have things whizzing at the screen and worse effects in 2D films because they've done something 3D to it) I'll be glad when 3D crawls back under the rock it came from.
 
I'm not going to argue either - you have your views, I have mine. What I will say is that 3D has become a tick box feature for TVs (and some do it better than others too) and I think my analogy with vinyl is a good one - there will always be people who want it, but I see it being an enthusiasts area rather than mainstream and I think fewer movies will get the 3D treatment over time because it is commercially less attractive to do it. If it doesn't go mainstream in broadcast technology, it won't go mainstream.

I will take one specific though:

odd jim said:
The colours are spot on too.
Click to expand...
Unless you have a calibrated video system, the colours may well be pleasing, but they are not spot on. Just like a calibrated photography workflow means calibrating your monitor, you need to calibrate your TV - and that means calibrating 2D and 3D modes independently - the 3D mode needs to be done through the glasses to take their slight colour cast into account. You may well have/be able to calibrate your set (if it is more than a few years old, it is unlikely to have the calibration controls available on todays top line sets) but you need to have a good knowledge of how video systems work - and the limitations inherent in current TV technology - in order to do it well.

As to 55" at 20ft, wow... that's a long way away in my book. I'm on the verge of getting a 65" to view from 11 ft.... Have a read through this if you haven't already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance
 
That's an interesting read, but some of it you can take with a pinch of salt. There's a lot of maths involved and while you can't argue with it, it's akin to shooting brick walls for lens tests, it lacks the real world element.

Out of interest, have you viewed a Bluray 3d on a properly set up system?

Edit - I'm actually sat about 14 feet away!
 
Last edited:
simonbarker said:
As I mention I've seen two films which weren't spoiled by 3D and they were both terrible films that were mostly CGI fests, when you consider I've had to pay extra for films in 3D and all the other films which were made worse by the addition of 3D (odd angles to have things whizzing at the screen and worse effects in 2D films because they've done something 3D to it) I'll be glad when 3D crawls back under the rock it came from.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, if a films bad, it'll still be bad in 3d (you can't polish a turd and all that) and it's only suitable for certain genres. You wouldn't want to see a rom com in 3d for example. IMO it only really comes into its own in certain genres, sci if, fantasy, and porn :)
 
odd jim said:
That's an interesting read, but some of it you can take with a pinch of salt. There's a lot of maths involved and while you can't argue with it, it's akin to shooting brick walls for lens tests, it lacks the real world element.
Click to expand...
I disagree... it's not about brick wall tests, it's about the human visual system and its acuity. Some people have more or less than others, but the point is you really should go big or go home (look at the THX recommendations for example).

odd jim said:
Out of interest, have you viewed a Bluray 3d on a properly set up system?
Click to expand...
Yes, but not in a darkened room (we never watch in a darkened room due to eye strain discomfort). I found the effect quite weird - like viewing through a window - as it didn't fill my field of view enough (from memory it was a 42" or 50" system from about 8ft). On a similar note, have you got your TV playback system properly calibrated?

odd jim said:
Edit - I'm actually sat about 14 feet away!
Click to expand...
That's a big difference ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top