More plasma myths, this time from David Pogue
posted Nov 19th 2004 12:24PM
New York Times Circuits editor David Pogue has failed us. Yesterday he did a comparison of LCD and plasma screens and perpetuated the plasma myths - in fact, he hit every myth except for the "you gotta recharge your plasma with gas every two years" one. We're guessing that was in the first draft. First, he claims that plasmas are at risk for burn-in. David, this half-truth has been proven wrong time and time again. Modern plasmas are prefectly fine for gaming and even static images at trade shows. In fact, we've been playing five hours of Halo 2 a day for the past week. Any burn in? No. Just some nausea from the widescreen immersion. Second, he claims that plasmas have a shorter life-span. Had he been paying attention to the latest plasma models from Fujitsu and Panasonic for the past three years, he would note a 60,000 hour lifespan. In fact, recent tests have shown that plasmas even increase in brightness and contrast over the first 10,000 hours while LCDs immediately begin to lose light. We don't know who's buttering your muffin, David, but we're pretty sure they're not doing their research. You want some LCD issues? How about inferior contrast ratios, unnatural color recreation (which you do sort of mention but poo-poo quickly), fixed pixel sizes that don't scale well to NTSC and ATSC standards, motion blur, limited viewing angles, and massive prices. Want more? We can keep going.
Well, he seems to be toting a lot of myths there. Honestly I've not liked LCD or plasma display technologies for TV, but if I had to make a choice I would choose LCD. From all my experience with plasmas (not much, I will state) but the plasmas that I have seen have all been oversaturated, from slightly oversaturated to so bad everything looks like a cartoon.
Another thing I do not like about plasmas is the large pixel size. While it is true that LCDs don't scale well to NTSC or ATSC resolutions, the scalers do compensate well for that, and I'd rather have the small pixel size and scaling of an LCD than the huge pixel size of a plasma.
Third reason (but, admitedly this also applies to LCDs, but usually not as much) is the plasmas I have seen all have quite a large mask. LCDs have a mask that I notice, I see the mask ever so slightly on my laptop and work computer's LCDs from normal viewing distance, but plasmas seem to exaggerate that. But, then again, these are all preferences.
Now, if Mr. Pogue had similar preferences he should state them, not perpetuate false myths, which I don't belive any of them, despite the fact that I hate plasmas. :)
Related to a portion of the post. Are you playing that Halo 2 on Live? If so add me to your friends list - id love to go head up with you guys (gamertag: FOLDEDCRANE).
The burn in point is almost true. It really depends on which plasma manufacturer you're talking about. LG for example has real issues with burn-in. Every plasma that I have reviewed over the past two years (Pioneer 5040, LG, Gateway, Sampo, Philips) have had burn-in reduction features. Beating up David for saying that burn-in isn't a problem is not right. As for the rest of it, I generally agree.
Has there been a time when Pogue hasn't failed or flailed? More often than not he seems completely useless. I can't think of a column of his that didn't have some misinformation even though, admittedly it is often some nitpick on my part.
Engadget should have a tech writer accuracy tracker where readers can grade the bigger media sources! It could actually be a useful check to get people to start doing their homework rather than just crib notes from somewhere as he clearly often does. Who would want to see their accuracy rating start to droop? Hey don't worry, a thing like that could never come back to bite you in the ass...
While I agree that burn in is not such a big issue, I just can't get past the poor fill ratio on plasmas. Too "pixelly" for me. I don't find that the color on a good LCD panel suffers, and newer panels have a very fast refresh time (less smear). Furthermore, on the black levels, the problem is moot if you have any light on in the room, since the natural color (reflected) of plasma screens is so much brighter than that of LCDs. Fixed pixel sizes? Newer panels are scaled to fit 720P same as plasmas (which also have fixed pitch). Viewing angle? unless you want to watch from the side, there hasn't been a viewing angle problem on a quality LCD in years.
Price is certainly higher, but by less and less each year. The 37" aquos I'm looking at can be had for under four grand even at brick and morter stores at this time. Granted it's five inches smaller than a comparably priced HDTV plasma, but it also comes with a open cableCARD QAM tuner.
Generally I think it's becoming more accepted that in the short term LCDs will take over on quality below 50" but will take some time to beat plasmas at sizes 50" and up.
BTW: try Halo 2 on an 8' screen for inducing motion sickness.....
O
It amazes me how defensive Plasma owners are about their sets. I guess I would be too if I dropped several large on a TV that many folks find "inferior."
No burn-in? Why is the very first (and one of the most popular) Note on AVS Forum's Flat Panel forum dedicated to the topic of burn-in?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=40
But now I'm starting an Plasma vs. LCD war.
Honestly, I think the gist of Pogue's article is that for the last few years, "Plasma" has been synonymous with flat-panel, and that folks looking to drop all that cash on a TV should investigate other competing technologies like LCD.
Yeah, his personal preferences are showing. So what else is new.
Plasma burn is real. Just ask my buddy Tony who's idiot spawn, I mean "nice kids," watch Cartoon Network five hours a day. After six months, not only does he have the 4:3 on 16:9 burn in the middle, but also the Cartoon Network "CN" logo permanently emblazoned on the bottom of his screen.
My advice: use your plasma for yourself. Anyone here reading this will know how to take care of thier $4000 TV. Give the kids a 21" CRT for $150.
I dislike the over-saturation, generally lousy res (unless you want to spend *huge* money), and heaviness/unportability of plasma screens. Give me a DLP front projection set-up any day.
Burn in not bad? Holy crap look at this for sale by the state of Oregon. Evidentally, it was used to display train schedules: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=11073&item=5731842504
Alas, as a development engineer working in the field of video signal processing and display, I would have to say that Pogue is far more right than wrong. I am shaken that my revered friends at engadget (that would be you) have taken an opposing position. Tests and measurements bear out the validity of his claims, even though subjective viewing experiences can vary widely. Much like loudspeakers.
I expect that competing technologies will gradually make "plasma" displays an interesting chapter in the history of video display systems.
I hope I can rely on the remainder of your excellent articles for factual information.
very best; liveaudio
Thanks for the comments, guys.
1) Regarding burn-in, I've seen burn-in on LCDs that were abused. We've seen it on CRTs. The point is that people seem to want to believe that plasmas burn in if you leave something on screen for longer than 10 minutes. Simply not true.
2) Regarding large pixel size, if you're talking about the much-talked-about screen door effect, simply pick a screen size that matches your viewing distance, not just because it's gargantuan.
3) Regarding masks, depends on the model. Some LCDs have huge ones as well. Go for a commercial model and you can avoid all the annoying cosmetics.
4) I'm not trying to start an LCD vs. Plasma war. That's pointless. Get what you want. Just don't perpetuate myths. Do your homework. Then go refill your plasma at the plasma gas station.
5) Yes, I play Halo 2 on Live. Too much. I'll try to add you the next time I'm on. Keep in mind, though, despite all the time spent, I still suck.
really they both suck for picture quality ;) Ever notice how in a B&M store they stick any plasma/LCD displays on one side of the room, and any rear-projection/DLP based displays on the other? Thats because they don't want Joe consumer to see how poor the picture quality is on a LCD/plasma in comparisson to a RP/DLP set while costing many thousands more.
Uh I own a plasma screen and it has burn in, from watching TV in non widescreen mode. In addition the TV is much less bright than just a year ago... and compared to how it was when it first came home it is at best only 2/3 as bright. Sure Plasma screens have gotten much, much better, but there's no way I'd spend cash on a new one after my experience with the NEC set I currently have.
If one wants a large screen with a great quality, a better choice than LCD or Plasma would be a rear-projection DLP TV. The quality is as good as plasma, it's cheaper and they aren't burn-in or such kind of problems.
While I agree with the argument that burn-in doesn't occur with limited use, it still doesn't justify the fact that it does occur in such an expensive piece of equipment. burn-in used to be a problem in CRTs like the amber-orange screens left over from the early 80s in public libraries, but it simply isn't a problem anymore. i'm sure you could achieve burn-in on a CRT but it would take way longer than on a plasma screen. i don't think i've even seen burn-in on an LCD, but whatever.
anyway, there's a plasma screen at the office i used to work at that has not been turned off since it was plugged in about 3 years ago. some of the time it's used to play skate videos at lunch time. but most of its lifespan has been pitifully spent with no video input, just a blue screen with LINE 2 in the upper left corner. now of course, there's a LINE 2 burned into every video displayed on that screen. this is, of course, an extreme case of negligence, but it just shouldn't happen.
I have a 42" Panasonic Plasma and I LOVE it. I was on the fence between Plasma and LCD before but now that I have my 42" I have absolutely NO regrets. As long as the source I'm watching has good definition I have no problem. But with lower resolutions or bad definition programming the poor quality is magnified because of the size of the screen and NOT do to the quality of plasma image. I don't have any burn in at all and I play games like Ultra Bust-A-Move with my gf for hours, talk about static images.
I haven't got any motion sickness from Halo2 yet on the plasma but try playing GameCube F-ZeroGX on a big screen. I get sick playing that game after level 7 on any sized screen. *blaaah!*
I am shocked, no SHOCKED, that there is a biased article in the New York Times that is spreading misinformation.
You guys are nothing more than a bunch of plasma mujahdeen on an anti-LCD jihad.
(just joking!)
How much do you have to spend to get a plasma screen that won't downconvert 1080i?
I use TWO plasma screens and BOTH have major burn-in... and if you live in Austin Texas, you can see one on KXAN TV(it's on our debrief set)... the station logo is burned in so bad that ANY white or light color ends up being purple.... and it only took 6 months to burn it.
There is a plasma display at the Walmart in Cedar Park, Tx. that also has major burn-in. They displayed a 4:3 movie on it for several months before figuring out how to stretch the image... and now you can see the areas on the left and right are clearly brighter... sad how this website pushes "plasma perfection." I'll send pictures to prove it, if you like. Wonder if theirs is a loaner that they can keep as long as the positive comments keep coming...
No, paid for the plasma just like anyone else would.
The purpose of the piece was to try to crush the myths of plasma by throwing some LCD myths and truths out there ourselves. We could care less what you use. In fact, while I use a plasma, Peter uses an LCD. I still have a black eye over our last fight about it.
As for all of you experiencing burn-in, you're talking about displays that were abused. See what would have happened to a CRT RPTV in those situations. Also keep in mind that not all plasmas are built equal. One may be more suceptable than the next.
Enjoy what you have, and please keep the myths and display abuse to a minimum.
We use a 42" plasma at our office for presentations. And let me be the first to say that while "burn-in" happens, we were able to make our burn-in disappear...
I was storing it at my house for a few months and experienced some odd ghosting (from games and logos), but if I left the unit running over night they would disappear.
Unfortunately, plasma displays' fixed pixel sizes are typically more different from the ideal NTSC (720x480, less-wide rectangular pixels) and ATSC (1280x720 and 1920x1080) resolutions. They often use crazy ones like 1365x768 or 1024x1024 with more-wide rectangular pixels. I wish I could understand the rational behind that.
Also, plasmas will reduce their brightness on a per-frame basis (i.e., this has nothing to do with burn-in) if the APL (average picture level) is more than some percentage (e.g., 30%), presumably to keep power and/or heat below an acceptable threshold. That's OK for movies and most video games, but unfortunate for business uses with light-background slides, web pages, word documents, etc.
Certainly, for a flat screens above a certain size, plasmas make a good choice (although thinner rear-projection sets should not be ignored). But, at the medium screen sizes, it really depends on what your usage is to decide between LCD and plasma (or whatever else).
When are you going to apologize to Mr. Pogue?
You're wrong (mostly, and particularly about burn in), not he.
For all the overly protective LCD/CRT enthusiasts on this posting... if you would read the article carefully it states that burn-in is only a "half-truth"... it doesnt say that burn-in is a complete lie. And yes, we get the point, your friend's-mom's-hairdresser's-uncle is selling his burnt out plasma on ebay and now you want to "spread the truth" about the horrors of plasma technology. In my opinion, plasma televisions are not meant to be gracing the walls of every household in America. Just like Ferrari's arent meant to be parked in every driveway if you know what I mean. And the people that can afford them, despite the long-term quality deterioration, probably arent going to stick with the same tv for more than 5 years anyways.
Burn-in shmurn-in... im off to watch ESPN-HD on my 50''.. peace.
I believe I am impartial having neither LCD nor Plasma...but it seems that Engadget went a little off the deep end regarding the burn-in issue. Reading around on the web it appears that burn-ins do indeed happen just from watching shows that have those damn station identifers in the bottom right corner, or anything that displays in a stable position for long periods of time. I wouldn't consider keeping a TV on one station "abusing your tv"...then again I'm not sure what the engadget staff are watching (and doing) to their tv's :)
Surely SHARPUSA would not be talking half trueths also?
http://www.sharpusa.com/products/lcd_vs_plasma/0,2340,,00.html
"Surely SHARPUSA would not be talking half trueths also?"
- Scott
Since when did SharpUSA become the leading authority in video electronics? You obviously know little of the way business operates. Its called marketing my friend... isnt it a coincidence that Sharp also no longer produces plasma televisions and they are currently promoting their new Aquos line of LC-TV televisions? That comparison wasnt even prepared by an independant source.
Oh and by the way... when RJ.Reynolds made their public statement that smoking "is not addictive"... i think its safe to say they were being biased as well. ;)
I'm sorry if someone else noticed this, but I had brief look through and didn't fina anything about the energy consumption of different TVs.
My 68cm CRT (about 8 years old) uses about 150W, and I remember seeing Plasmas a year or two ago that use about 500W. That's over 3x as much as a CRT!
Yes, the plasma was bigger than the TV, but not 3x as large.
And my LCD monitor uses around 40W. But that, too is a smaller display than either the CRT or a plasma. Unfortunately.
The truth is that both plasma and lcd suck monkey balls compared to good old crt technology. They just can't match up in picture quality, brightness, and contrast. The only good thing about all the new plasma and lcd tvs monitors coming out is that they are driving down the price of crt tvs and monitors.
It really seems to boil down to this:
Plasma is best if you're building a home theater set-up and intend to use the plasma monitor to watch DVDs primarily. Don't leave it on all the time.
LCD works best if you plan to watch mostly network, cable, satellite broadcasts, or want something that is less than 40". Large LCDs maybe actually be better for public use wherever a flat screen needs to show information to passers-by.
The way I see it, each format works best for different viewing purposes. Plasma seems more of a "showpiece" type of technology suited for movie watching -- it just shouldn't be used and abused like a CRT for "everyday TV watching."
The Answer guy...then show me multiple places on the internet where those facts are not correct...
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/electronics/plasma_tvs_lcd_tvs/fullstory.html
There are a few issues associated with plasma technology, the most disconcerting of which is a susceptibility to burn-in. If you leave the same image on the screen too long, it risks being etched permanently into the screen, creating a lasting impression. Text 'crawls' (such as a stock ticker) across the bottoms of news stations and network logos are particular problems. Experts recommend turning off your TV when you aren't watching and turning down contrast to avoid the problem. There are also some concerns about lifespan. Plasma televisions are estimated to last 20,000 to 30,000 hours before losing half of their brightness. LCD-based flat panels and conventional TVs should last twice as long, according to experts. If you use a plasma TV about seven hours a day every day, it should still last about ten years. By then, experts say, you'll probably be ready for a new TV anyway.
Hey Scott those experts are right... in 4 years I'll probably be obsessed with some other video technology and ready to purchase a new television. Which brings me back to my original argument.. Yes plasma "image retention" (aka burn-in) is a widely known occurance for plasmas... neither I (nor the author of this article) ever denied its existence. We simply discredited those that exaggerated the issue beyond its actual scope. I dont plan on leaving my plasma on for 24 hours/day for 3 years, nor do I plan on using my $7000 television to display a static image for hours on end. So if the main question is.. "is burn-in for real?"... my answer is "yes... its for real... for real irresponsible owners."
CRT is probably a good value at this time, but...those sets are heavy!
Does anyone know the best quality/price ratio for a CRT set at this point in time?
To me, analysis of the facts still seems to favor LCDs, as long as you consider lower overall maintenance and user hassle to be an important quality issue. What benefits to image quality do plasmas provide that offset the extra care required to keep them functional, not to mention mitigating the issue of decreased screen life expectancy?
Keep in mind that Pogue is a rather famous Mac-guy (unless I have him confused with a different 'Pogue'), and therefore lower maintenance and general user hassle probably figure highly into his take on the whole debate. I tend to set the value of 'low overall maintenance' quite highly myself, but that's because it's rather easy for me to accidently 'neglect to death' anything that requires regular upkeep. As your disposition varies, most likely so does your mileage.
I dont think it would be wise to say "the facts still seem to favor LCD's" or any other comment for that matter that states (as a matter of fact) that LCD's are superior to plasma or vice versa. The bottom line is, it really depends on what you are looking for in a television.
If building an incredible home theatre is your dream.. then plasma wins hands down (taking into consideration size, performance, and contrast ratio). However if you want something non-obtrusive and versatile (that can be used as a ultra high-resolution televison, a computer screen, and a gaming monitor) then LCD might be a better choice.
A lot pf people in this "forum" misunderstood the object & purpose of this article. It wasnt to proclaim plasma technology as superior to LCD. It was merely an attempt at displaying an alternative view, contrary to what David Pogue was stating.
An alternative view that isn't share by many people.
An alternative view that isn't shared by many people.
I remember this guy form the early 90ties! He claimed in one of his Mac books that internet has no future because 'if you mistype even the smallest of things, like a period, you wouldn't go anywhere. That why, in DP's opinion, AOL is much more superiod... etc.'
Here in London Waterloo (train) station there are hundreds of plasma screens which are used for the arrivals/departures, they've been up for a couple of years now and look absolutely terrible: they are faded, blurry and discoloured, with very obvious burn-in artefacts (old text clearly visible against coloured backgrounds etc.) No way would I touch a plasma for this reason.
Hi! I'm a little bit late in the topic but wanted to post about a few things mentioned from the article and in the comments. I own a Panasonic 42 inch plasma (TH-PWD4UY) that's going on three years old now with daily use and I organized and formerly maintained the plasma FAQ hosted by AVS Forum.
Well, there really is no perfect display device (yet). Every type has it's own issues and I'll be the first to admit plasma isn't for everyone. But with the right display, the proper care for it and a bit of adjustments you can get a fantastic picture from it.
Regarding burn-in: If you spend the kind of money a plasma (or other large-size displays) costs, it's extremely important to learn how to care for it. The first thing to do out of the box is to turn down the white level (contrast).You'll probably also want to lower the brightness setting (black level) and turn the saturation (color) down some to take it out of the factory default "torch" mode.
Then you can either get it professionally calibrated (ISF) or use a calibration disk like the Avia Guide to Home Theater or DVE. For the first few hundred hours it's also important to watch most of your programming zoomed (or another mode that fills the screen, many people like non-linear stretch modes like "just" or "cinema wide" but I personally do not care for those). This sounds like a lot of work, but the same thing applies for CRT-RP and CRT Direct View televisions.
If you watch a lot of stations that have static logos, most plasma displays have a "wobbler" or "orbiter" that shifts the pixels up and down periodically.
I don't think digital signage is really the best use for a plasma and you'll see the worst cases for burn-in on those as they are usually left on 24/7 in torch mode. But for consumer use (especially once you do a bit of research) you can learn how to take care of your display and get the most out of it. More hints are in the forum mentioned earlier in the comments (AVS).
One last thing- CRT Direct Views can (and do) burn in. I just replaced my former video proof TV (RCA 13") yesterday, having left color bars on it a few weeks back (for about half an hour) ruining it. The replacement (Sony VVEGA 13") comes with the same warning about burn-in from static images that my plasma did.
Oversaturation/cartoony colors: For the most part (unless you have a really cheaply manufactured display) this goes away with calibration (ISF or set up disk). Most of the displays you'll see in showrooms are left in torch mode or their settings are maxed to grab your attention.
Fill Factor/Screen Door Effect: More noticeable on ED displays (like mine) close up. Mentioned already but make sure the seating distance is appropriate for the display type (ED/HD). I sit about nine feet away and don't see it from that distance.
Viewing Angle: One of the reasons that my husband and I chose a plasma display was that I'm slightly off-axis from the sweet spot on the room so plasma is perfect in that area.
Defensiveness: Well, you're gonna find that just about everywhere- anyone who remembers the heated VI vs. Emacs debates will understand what I'm talking about :)
Lifespan: I think mine's rated at about 30,000 hours until half-brightness with newer ones rated higher. That's a whole lot of viewing.
Picture Quality: Check out Rich Harkness's (former film editor) screenshots at http://www.pbase.com/chunkofunk/screen_shots_gallery/
The DVD player, STB or whatever you are feeding into it *plus* the kind of connection you are using makes a large difference also.
For me- a well mastered DVD looks great, HD usually looks fantastic and regular NTSC not so bad with a few tweaks. The garbage-in-garbage-out rule applies here.
As for the article itself-- saying just "Don't do it" is careless. The best advice has already been offered here, which is "Do your homework".
Anyway- to wrap up a very long post- if you take a few steps to care for your display (whatever type it is) it should give you a great deal of enjoyment for a long time.
DeeAnn
Can you send me a link to some goof information on adjusting the picture (i.e. contrast, brightness, sharpness, etc.)?
Thanks.
LCD and DLP sets have bulbs that burn out.
Plasma sets have problems with burn in.
Either way, until one of these technologies gets perfected the consumer gets burnt. Your choice as to which way.