"An insufficient level of black contrast has been one of the biggest complaints about plasma since the induction of the plasma vs. LCD war."

This statement is misleading. Plasma has ALWAYS had better black levels than LCD. In fact if you want a home theater screen strictly for 24 fps movies, plasma is the only choice.

LCD has a backlight and it orients crystals in solution to block or allow light to come through. LCD will always have light leakage because the crystals can't block 100% of the light which affects black levels.

Plasma pixels are basically mini-fluorescent bulbs. When they are off they are completely off. This means better black levels.

Plasma's downfall was, unremarably, that it's abased on fluorescent tech. Flo. bulbs lose brightness over time, which is why many people change out flo. bulbs before they expire.

Pioneer (I assume) made a way to block leakage from pixel to pixel, so you can get better contrast.

What is going on, everyone is throwing around HD this and HD that yet these new TV's are not HD and are not 1080p.

Who would buy an HDTV with that resolution? Especially at $2700. For those prices they should be 1080p.

The average consuer seeing a plasma running @ 768p next to most 1080p LCDs will almost always pick the lower-res plasma as the better image. Plasmas have always offered a better piture quality, but at a lower resolution. Again, most people don't care/know about all the hundreds of HDTV resolutions out there. I personally would pick a 1080p LCD because I'd run a PS3 or PC on it which takes advantage of all those pixels, but most people won't bother with that.

Haven't multiple manufacturers stopped production of plasmas? I thought we were coming ot an agreement that LCD is better?

Plasmas generally have deeper blacks than LCDs although that gap is narrowing. Plasma brightness decreases over time and that is the technology's major downside (burn-in can easily be avoided today).

As far as maximum resolution is concerned, any resolution over 480i/p (vertical) is considered HD. Displays with 480p (vertical) are considered EDTV ("enhanced definition").

1024x768 certainly isn't the highest resolution panel out there, but it certainly IS HD. Most HD broadcasts top out at 720p anyway so for right now only HD-DVD/Bluray can utilize a 1080p TV's native resolution. Consequently, 1080p televisions will look worse than a 1024x768 panel when displaying low-def content.

-look before you leap-

I really thought that LCDs aren't good when it comes to a size greater than 42". That's where Plasma comes in, it handles better than LCDs for larger screens.

Side-by-side, good plasmas look better than good LCDs, and I was even ready to go plasma -- until I saw the power consumption of plasma vs. LCD. It was shocking to see large plasmas guzzling down hundreds of watts in normal operation, much moreso than LCDs. We found a great LCD that is almost as good as a plasma and are happy with our choice.

Resolution is a spec. that can be debated forever. Truth is the average person is sitting anywhere from 8-10ft. away from their tv set. At this distance your eyes can't physical see the difference between a 720p and 1080p tv. This is a common misconception among tv purchasers. Resolution is just one thing to consider when purchasing a tv. You have color, black levels, depth and connections.

nuff said

What I critisize more on Plasma Tv's, is because most of them are using 4:3 pixel resolution (1024x764) on widescreen that is 16:9! This means that pictures shown on these TV's aren't proporcional to reality!
I know that you are going to say that the signal received by TV's is 4:3 and even on TV's with resolution 16:9 (1366x768) the picture is enlarged.
But If the future is widescreen tv's, you should buy ones that have widescreen resolutions!

In the next several years the world will see the migration to two different types of tv's. LCD's for screen formats under 40", and Laser tv's for formats 40" and over. LCD tv's have an advantage at with smaller screen sizes, and the new Laser tv's will dominate the industry of large tv's. The only thing that will keep plasmas alive in the next year will be the increased cost of a laser tv.

If you didnt know, Plasmas are on their way to 1080p. I think pioneeer is the first Brand of Plasmas that came out with the 1080p ELITE with a price tag of $8,000 a few months ago. Also, Plasmas start at 10,000:1 contrast ratio which was why they were better than LCD. But now LCD has cought up and suprassed that contrast making it darker and darker blacks. I saw it at Bestbuy in the home theatre room showing off Superman Returns. OMG best detail i've ever seen in my life.
Also plasmas are still trying to omit that burn in defect and once they do, LCD's will be outdated. Just a theory though.

I do own a 1080p 46" Samsung LCD and I love it. But it is just another format war that consumers are going to deal with.

I looked at LCDs last January and then looked at Plasma. Had to go with the 50" Pioneer Plasma - the LCDs couldn't touch it.

The plasma does use a lot of power, but I don't spend that much time in front of it, so it's not an issue for me.

Burn-in is NOT a problem with the new sets! Just don't leave your tivo paused for a half an hour - fool!

The HD channels are incredible, to say the least...

Couldn't be happier!

Jimmy you are dumb, there are plasmas out there with 1080p already and way cheaper than 8g let alone 3g. My plasma has a 15000:1 contrast ratio which is the highest that there is at the moment. Plasmas also have anti burn in technology and should you burn in a picture they have a white screen that you can switch on and let it sit till the burn in is gone. The only thing i dont like about plasmas is when they hit their half-life and are running at a dimmed brightness but oh well the plasma we bought is only our game room tv our next one will be for the living room and we plan on a thin DLP.

"How much more black could it be? The answer is none. None more black."

al least with this war you don't loose anything, because you still have a TV that plays everything....not trhe case of HD DVD or Blu-Ray.

Pioneer Plasma's are out of this world but no-one can still get past the problem of screen burn.

Until governments ban broadcastersm from showing static on screen logos during programming, plasma has no future.

However the LCD fans have no right to say LCD is better either. It suffers from serious blur with sports and suffers stuck pixels (from the start if unlucky) and later on as it ages if not.

720p is the only important resolution right now when you look at HDTV. 1080p is good for Blu-Ray and HD DVD, but that is it. Plus, Panasonic has a 50" Plasma HDTV that is 1080p at a much better price (2600 bucks at sears)

I get so miserable everytime I read the comments on this site. Why are people so ignorant, missled and at times ilogical? Is this really everything you can come up with? I myself studied the technology used in both plasma and LCD for one whole year at the same time as I tested different TV sets in various conditions. I have even measured the energy consumtion of different plasma and LCD TV's, with the help of a energy-meter. At the same testing conditions the plasma is always the more energy efficient technology, by atleast 30%. The reason is that it consumes as much electricity as every plasma cell requires. LCD is backlit and consumes a constant amount of energy at all times. When it comes to resolution and black levels any reasonable person have to try both technologies where they are going to be used, at home. At the shop the luminance levels are way too high. That makes plasma TV's to look dull and not so bright. When it comes to resolution anyone seem to think that 1080p is the "only" way to go. 1080p is very nice... if/when you have a TV as big or bigger than 50", or if you have planned to have the TV very close to where you sit. The rest is just HYPE! The strange think here is that no one seems to know anything about color depth! Hello? LCD has only 8 bits of depth for each color so it can produce ca. 16.7 milions of neuances. Plasma TV's gíve you 13 bits/color and that is a whopping 55 billion neuances. The difference is ca 32000 times in plasmas favour. The same goes for contrast! LCD panels no matter what is claimd, never have more than 1000:1 in native panel contrast. Plasmas suually beat than number easily, although not by much anymore. Plasma is clearly the winner when it comes to picture quality and performance but it is and will remain the choice of "enthusiasts". It has it's flaws and will be replaced by OLED or SED technologies. Nevertheless, when it comes to pure quality LCD is no match for it.

Micaw, I have had my Pioneer Elite for almost two years now, I play my 360, and now also my ps3 and Wii daily, some very long hours. I have yet to experience burn in with this set. The NEW plasma's are a different breed. Unless you pause a game or a movie for 30 minutes at a clip, you do not have to worry about it. Also keep the contrast down for the first 100 hours of use. I love this set more than life itself. The new ones come in Sept. I'm giving this one to my parents and getting the full 1080p set. I can't wait!

Hi Jay,

Whilst I have no doubt in what you say, I've seen a Pioneer 427 in John Lewis with the Sky HD logo burnt into the screen. This only became apparent to me when I asked the assistant to change the channel and the logo was still ghosted there on the BBC and I did watch it for sometime after.

I am myself a great fan of plasma over LCD (especially Pioneer as their pictures are fantastic) and the thought of stuck pixels on LCD terrifies me as I can think of nothing more annoying.

However, Plasma continues to be a problem technology until such time as broadcasters are forced to remove static logos from the screen, which they should be. They simply aren't necessary, a simple press of the remote confirms which channel you're on.

It simply amazes me that in an age of consumer protection, broadcasters can be allowed to broadcast programs that can cause thousands of pounds worth of damage to a persons tv.

I'm glad you've no suffered any screen burn, but be assured it still happens and its about time logos were removed to protect consumers tvs.

I have been a long term Pioneer customer and have had most of they 50inch ranges screen out.

The new screens do "read up well", but for most will not benifit from the pure quality that Pioneer has to offer.

So if you do want the latest screen from Pioneer i would wait 6 to 12 months for the price to drop. #


Pioneer screens have always been the best but over priced.

Wait and see how much the new 1080p native screen cost when the screens are offered in September 2007. Over priced will come to mind !

Plasmas are such incredible power-hogs, considering energy supply and environmental issues I'm surprised they haven't been banned altogether. Maybe it's coming.

When tested with a meter between the wall and the unit, my Panasonic 40" Plasma sucked more power than my 12,000 BTU air-conditioner. Only about 40 watts more but still...

By way of comparison: My 34" Sony 16:9 CRT used 220-240 watts in operation. My current Sony 50" LCD uses 230-240 watts in operation. The 40" plasma used a whopping 580-600 watts. It even drew 35 watts in stand-by mode, opposed to 0.5 for the Sonys.

Considering current energy supply and environmental problems what government agency is going to seriously consider accommodating or encouraging a doubling in energy consumption for the nations TV sets?

On the up side, when I ditched the plasma my electricity bill dropped an average of 92 cents a day despite a rate hike. Over time, that pretty much will pay for the 50" LCD XBR.

I don't mean to be rude but thats Bullsh*t.

A 12,000 BTU Air Con Unit uses around 3KW of electricity.

The latest Pioneer 42 inch plasma uses 299 Watts in use and 0.4 watts on standby:

http://www.pioneer.co.uk/uk/products/62/63/413/PDP-428XD/index.html

Considering Trading standards in the UK check its unlikely these claims are innaccurate. So its hardly inefficient.

Its also less than my 32inch Widescreen CRT uses now!!

I am not saying either of you are lying, but guess what, statistics/specifications can be wrong if not properly tested right.

This is acceptable for TV viewing, but for video games, HDDVD and Bluray you can see the difference between 1280 and 1024.

In Japan, almost everybody has 1080p models now and some brands, like Panasonic seems to be moving away from anything else.

From what I see in the shops in Japan where you have whole shopfloors of flatscreens, the panasonic Viera plasmas http://viera.jp/ has been the been the best 1080p flatscreens on the market the last year. Period.

Others are starting to catch up, but they have basically had a 1 year advantage in this market, but been very slow to get these models out abroad.

Some of the LCDs looks ok next to the vieras on things like PS3 games, but the viera blows away any LCD I have seen on any real life picture (not CG graphics).

You guys should read the posts before you write down your comments. However, as I already stated in my previous reply I have used an energy meter on various 42" LCD and plasma screens showing the same movie sequence. The Plasma screens draw atleast 30% less power than the LCD's! My own Panasonic PX70 draws approx. 100W of power. JD said that a 40" plasma screen draws between 580-600 W of power. There are no 40" plasma screens being produced today. 37", 42" and 50" sizes are industry standard. For the power usage numbers you present I have to tell you that for you own self respect you should consider changing those artificed numbers.

If hes done some tests, then its probably on a very old generation plasma from the sounds of it as the very 1st plasmas were power hungary.

However, the results he posted are bullsh*t so far as modern plasmas are concerned. With a modern set they are are up there with LCD technology on power savings.

From what I have heard there can be variances on plasma for power usage as well, which there is not on LCD. An LCD is always backlit which in turn gives it a standard of power usage. A plasma only lights the pixels it needs which means there can be fluctuations. In sports or most television, LCD will beat plasma for energy usage, but movies which use alot of blackness, plasma would beat LCD.

If someone knows better, please correct me on this.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but LCD TVs are backit with flourescent tubes which means they will darken with time much like a plasma (much like a CRT, much like a pro-jo) Until someone finds a light that never dims, this will always be the case

well why dont they use led lights
plus they dont use power at all either

My motorcycle makes 90 horses, not much! But does 0-60 in 3 seconds. Don't be ignorant. I work in the broadcast industry and Contrast and Processing mean everything. There are plenty of 1080p tvs that look horrid! Noisy cheap circuitry, sub-standard panels, etc. etc. These TVs are Ferrari's. Go stand 8 feet away from one, drop your jaw, and throw your 1080p out the window, you paid for pixel count I paid for a superior product.