We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Electronics Pondering

Status
Not open for further replies.
Get a plasma which doesn't suffer from motion blur. Plus you get better color accuracy and higher contrast ratios which in my opinion makes for a much better picture. Go for an LED only if you intend to keep it in a usually bright room or are concerned with having the thinnest possible TV. Take a look at Samsung or older Panasonic.

The processing power on modern TVs is quite fascinating. You're doing yourself a disservice by not at least getting 120Hz. This will eliminate visible motion blur for most content (live sports comes to mind in still having some visible). Take a look at Panasonic and Sony.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
JF said:
Get a plasma which doesn't suffer from motion blur. Plus you get better color accuracy and higher contrast ratios which in my opinion makes for a much better picture. Go for an LED only if you intend to keep it in a usually bright room or are concerned with having the thinnest possible TV. Take a look at Samsung or older Panasonic.

The processing power on modern TVs is quite fascinating. You're doing yourself a disservice by not at least getting 120Hz. This will eliminate visible motion blur for most content (live sports comes to mind in still having some visible). Take a look at Panasonic and Sony.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

With Plasma you also get a heavier set, one that uses more electricity and one that runs hotter.
 
You do need a higher quality wall mount to mount them due to the weight issue.

Depending on the sets you compare, the saved electricity costs won't add up to savings (if any) worth the other drawbacks on an LED.

Why is running hotter an issue?
 
Go with the LED 120Hz. Like has been said, the human eye can't really distinguish a difference between the refresh rate of the two. baldguy's post was very descriptive!

I'm not a big plasma fan myself, there's too much that can go wrong with them, although they have gotten much better than they used to be. LED's are used in everything, and there's a reason for it. For the most part they're very simple lights that barely use any power and can last forever.
 
JF said:
You do need a higher quality wall mount to mount them due to the weight issue.

Depending on the sets you compare, the saved electricity costs won't add up to savings (if any) worth the other drawbacks on an LED.

Why is running hotter an issue?
Click to expand...

That depends on how long you keep the set. If you keep the set for 10 years, and it costs $5 extra a month to power it, that is $60 per year and in 10 years $600. That is a huge amount of higher cost. Lets say $5 is too much. Lets say its just $2 per month. Thats still $240 over the 10 years. In our history, it was closer to that $5 a month number FWIW.

As to running hotter, its simple. Some people have smaller rooms. Having a set put out a lot of heat changes the temperature of the room and can make viewing unbearable. It can also change the temperature enough even in larger rooms to have the AC click on, which of course goes back to the above about costing more in electricity.
 
Plasma is also terrible if you watch a lot of live sports.
 
We have two large plasmas (one in a 14x14 room) and I have never noticed the slightest bit of increased room heat due to it. Both are also great for live sports because of the absence of motion blur. You just can't be in a really bright room with plasma.

What's the oldest TV in your house? Second oldest? Most people don't keep them ten years. Until you get to screen sizes bigger than anything you can get with RPTV (what you have if you still have a big screen 10 year old TV) energy consumption is roughly equal if not slightly higher for plasma. Your energy costs won't dramatically change. At least not enough to warrant not buying a big screen plasma. It's a fair point for those who keep TVs for ten years or more, but those are far and few between.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
JF said:
We have two large plasmas (one in a 14x14 room) and I have never noticed the slightest bit of increased room heat due to it. Both are also great for live sports because of the absence of motion blur. You just can't be in a really bright room with plasma.

What's the oldest TV in your house? Second oldest? Most people don't keep them ten years. Until you get to screen sizes bigger than anything you can get with RPTV (what you have if you still have a big screen 10 year old TV) energy consumption is roughly equal if not slightly higher for plasma. Your energy costs won't dramatically change. At least not enough to warrant not buying a big screen plasma. It's a fair point for those who keep TVs for ten years or more, but those are far and few between.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

I believe you live in Michigan. Those in warmer climates notice a heat wave coming through. And not everybody has a 14x14 ft room. I am also guessing you are not paying the electric bill in these homes, therefore might not notice a difference.

As to the 10 year thing...Depends on who you ask. Had the last Plasma (Panny) for 10 years. Generational gap. Most should want to get 10 years out of a purchase that costs this much. I think you would be shocked how long people keep TV sets. Up until last year, the average age for a TV set cycle was just over 8 years (according to CES). And this in a time with rapid changes.

Im not sure where you are getting your energy consumption info from, but I can tell you first hand that going from Plasma to LED dropped ours by $5 per month.

Outside of richer colors (that most dont notice because the source of data can be as important as the device it is played on), the postives for plasma are nearly gone. Its why most companies have shifted focus and why more people have shifted towards other options.
 
We have had our Plasma for 7 years now. Thing has been great for us. I'm hoping to get 3-5 more years out of it before I have to think about another set.
 
Oldest TV in my house is 6 years, that's how long we've lived in the house. I have zero plans on changing until it craps the bed. If it lasts 20 years, that's how long I'll have it. LED's cost less to run, no doubt about it. LED lights use very little power.
 
I want a new phone. Talk to me.

And no, no iPhone.
 
Jman said:
I want a new phone. Talk to me.

And no, no iPhone.
Click to expand...

images
 
ddec said:
images
Click to expand...

Well thats a given. All the S5/HTC/Google/Whatever devices have me confused as hell though. It was so much easier to be an apple lemming w phones.
 
I'm not super knowledgeable like some of these guys, but I'll tell you what I like in an Android phone. The ability to swap batteries and add external storage. It's why I went with the S4 over some other options. S5 is out now.
 
Hawk said:
I'm not super knowledgeable like some of these guys, but I'll tell you what I like in an Android phone. The ability to swap batteries and add external storage. It's why I went with the S4 over some other options. S5 is out now.
Click to expand...

Honestly, that is what I want the most, that and a WAY the hell better camera.
 
Jman said:
Honestly, that is what I want the most, that and a WAY the hell better camera.
Click to expand...


The S4 Camera is pretty darn good, but it's got that annoying delay at times.
 
Jman said:
Honestly, that is what I want the most, that and a WAY the hell better camera.
Click to expand...

I believe the Samsungs are the only ones still offering removable batteries. I don't understand how that is true.
 
From what I hear, it'll be a thing of the past completely eventually. So lame.
 
Hawk said:
I'm not super knowledgeable like some of these guys, but I'll tell you what I like in an Android phone. The ability to swap batteries and add external storage. It's why I went with the S4 over some other options. S5 is out now.
Click to expand...

Listen to this man he is wise! Get an S4 and save yourself a little cash, the S5 is nice but not worth the extra expense IMO
 
Wake said:
I believe the Samsungs are the only ones still offering removable batteries. I don't understand how that is true.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just noticed that comparing devices.

Hawk said:
From what I hear, it'll be a thing of the past completely eventually. So lame.
Click to expand...

Gotta keep those 3rd parties from making cashola.
 
I'm liking the S5 so far. Camera is markedly improved on the s4, I noticed particularly in lower light. I have only had it for a couple days now, but am trying to tinker and get a feel for it. Battery life seems better, screen is awesome in size and clarity.
 
I'd probably go with the S5 James. The s4 has some things that just annoy me. Perhaps that has changed with the 5.
 
Jman- curious why no iPhone? My camera on my 5 takes great pictures IMO. If swapping batteries & storage is the driver then I get the switch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top