I think i am going to buy a new tv, surround sound and maybe center ice. Cracking the 14k barrier kind of put my willingness to partake over the edge. That said, I am sure someone will buy them.
I think i am going to buy a new tv, surround sound and maybe center ice. Cracking the 14k barrier kind of put my willingness to partake over the edge. That said, I am sure someone will buy them.
I think i am going to buy a new tv, surround sound and maybe center ice. Cracking the 14k barrier kind of put my willingness to partake over the edge. That said, I am sure someone will buy them.
The question is, plasma or LCD...
Panasonic Plasma. You'll never regret it
__________________
History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
Nope. Plasmas still give richer colors, deeper blacks, and less motion blur - even if they make your room nice and toasty.
I think its a matter of opinion, Plasmas used to be all the range but now its all about incredibly thin LED tvs. I have a 48 inch samsung LED and my Dad has a 60 inch plasma and honestly I don't see much of a difference in terms of the quality. I think LEDs are great for watching sports because the colors really come out but I don't think you can go wrong either way.
+1 million. I have the 65" VT30 and it is the best TV you can buy. Hockey, basketball, movies, whatever looks amazing. I've got a couple of the top of the line Sony LED/LCD's at work and in rooms as well and they're good, but nowhere as good as the Panasonic VT30. It's the only thing that comes close to the legendary Pioneer Kuro.
I think its a matter of opinion, Plasmas used to be all the range but now its all about incredibly thin LED tvs. I have a 48 inch samsung LED and my Dad has a 60 inch plasma and honestly I don't see much of a difference in terms of the quality. I think LEDs are great for watching sports because the colors really come out but I don't think you can go wrong either way.
LCDs are all the rage because they are much cheaper to make and sell at every quality level. Plasma died not because of quality, but primarily because of price competitiveness. For the most part, the only plasma's remaining are lower quality models that can be made cheaply to compete with LCDs. Not fair to really compare those units to the best LED/LCDs.
There are a few, just a few, high end plasma TVs still out there that offer picture quality that is equal to or better than the best LED/LCDs.
+1 million. I have the 65" VT30 and it is the best TV you can buy. Hockey, basketball, movies, whatever looks amazing. I've got a couple of the top of the line Sony LED/LCD's at work and in rooms as well and they're good, but nowhere as good as the Panasonic VT30. It's the only thing that comes close to the legendary Pioneer Kuro.
Panny bought the Kuro tech and Pioneers Plasma patents.
Panny bought the Kuro tech and Pioneers Plasma patents.
Yup and the Pioneer team that developed the Kuro are supposedly now at Panasonic. Still, all the tech reviews I've read say the VT is not quite as good as the Kuro was with black levels, though it is consistently rated as one of the best TVs on the market.
LCDs are all the rage because they are much cheaper to make and sell at every quality level. Plasma died not because of quality, but primarily because of price competitiveness. For the most part, the only plasma's remaining are lower quality models that can be made cheaply to compete with LCDs. Not fair to really compare those units to the best LED/LCDs.
There are a few, just a few, high end plasma TVs still out there that offer picture quality that is equal to or better than the best LED/LCDs.
Couple other small reasons. Plasma's 'refresh' rate (which is an inaccurate statement in itself, it's really phase change) can not match LCD's (LED is still LCD, its just LED backlighting instead of fluorescent). So you don't see 120hz/240hz stuff on plasma's (which many do not like anyway). Also, for the same reason, 3d is generally better on LCD (not that I care).
The main reasons plasma is superior in pure picture quality though is simple:
1) LCD's use a square pixel grid, plasma cells are round (or more complex polygons), so curves and so forth look more natural on plasma.
2) Plasma's create their own light. Each cell produces light, whereas LCD's have a backlight. So even when an LCD pixel is 'off' light is still leaking through from behind. When a plasma cell is 'off', its off. This makes for dramatically improved contrast and black levels.
They both have their advantages for different reasons, but if you are looking for pure image quality (especially still frame) you can't beat plasma.
For a the main family room TV, put me down for Panny as well. Colors may not be as brilliant, but they seem more real to me (probably the deeper blacks helping here). Plus, I watch a lot of sports so motion blur is more important to me. Concerning motion blur, it seems only the high end LED's are comparable and they generally are much more expensive.
Of course there are other things to consider. If you're in a bright environment, LED's are probably a better way to go as they're brighter and tend to have less glare problems. Plasmas are also much heavier, which can come into play in various situations. Plasmas generally aren't as thin and generate considerable heat. They are more prone to screen burn in which makes them less appropriate for gaming and such--If you're careful you should be fine as they're much better than they used to be an most video sources have screen savers these days.
Anyway, it comes down to how you weigh the pros and cons. For me, color accuracy and motion blur are at the top of the list. I don't have a bright environment and I don't need to move or hang my tv as its in THE right place. I also don't game on my main TV and don't have kids, whom tend to not pay attention to things like screen burn.
Ditto on Plasma. Viewing angles are terrible on LCD. Comparable Plasmas are cheaper than LCDs. Energy difference is a plus for LCD, but somewhat negligible.
Couple other small reasons. Plasma's 'refresh' rate (which is an inaccurate statement in itself, it's really phase change) can not match LCD's (LED is still LCD, its just LED backlighting instead of fluorescent). So you don't see 120hz/240hz stuff on plasma's (which many do not like anyway). Also, for the same reason, 3d is generally better on LCD (not that I care).
Unless your talking OLED - the prototype 55" Samsung OLED display I saw was just stunning, right up there with the best plasma I've seen.
Although the best HDTV image I've seen - if you forgive the small size - was on a Sony CRT display.
Maybe we should start talking Sharks hockey on avsforum.com .
edit: For the price of a pair of Club seats you could pick up this baby:
Ditto on Plasma. Viewing angles are terrible on LCD. Comparable Plasmas are cheaper than LCDs. Energy difference is a plus for LCD, but somewhat negligible.
Panasonic ST50 Plasma is a great buy.
Why they stopped making a 42" in the ST line I'll never know, but I guess I'm getting a bigger TV because of it....
OLED is flat amazing. Ive been honestly holding off for OLED but I dont think I can wait it out. 9k is to much for a TV, its a mental barrier for me. I figure on spending up to 3k for a TV right now and in 3 years when OLED's are priced where they should be I will upgrade.
I just watched some hockey on a relatively new Samsung 8000 series and I am sorry, it just does not keep up as well as some of the nicer plasma's I have looked at. I think panasonic might get my business again.
Plasmas are great for color but they need to be in a darkened room. If you have a window in your living room, plan on buying heavy drapes to keep the light away.
Plasmas are great for color but they need to be in a darkened room. If you have a window in your living room, plan on buying heavy drapes to keep the light away.
You can have a good plasma calibrated to almost any type of room. And you can set up multiple modes on the good TVs, so you can switch from day to night mode if you want.
The 65" VT30 was on sale for $2,995 a while back when I bought it. I'm guessing it's even cheaper now. Well worth the price.
So I contacted my ticket rep to ask her a question about whether or not we can get a full refund if we make the initial payments, go to the select a seat appt, but don't like what we see. She says you have until the Friday of select a seat week to request a full refund.
My girlfriend and I are thinking about moving over to the $40 center ice upper deck seats, but were unsure if we would wanted to renew if we couldn't do that.
Hope that helps some of you who are making renewal decisions.
The friend sitting behind me - Sec 201, Row 14, Seats 5 & 6 - has decided not to renew his seats (and return back to Sec 209).
The seats are at center ice, the second row of the (now) $40 seats.
If anyone(s) are interested in these seats - whole, half, or quarter season (including playoff rights) paid upfront (before payments are due to the Sharks, May 28?) - let me know. If he has committed takers for all/most games, then he'll renew the seats.
For a full season taker, he may also be willing to use his STH priority (from season one in San Jose) to relocate to seats of their choice during Select-A-Seat.
