Using plasmas as a monitor

Does anyone here use a plasma as a monitor? I plan on buying a 50" plasma tv. I know plasmas are much better with fast action and sports etc... I know burn in is a thing of the past. Technoledgy in these things have evolved alot over the years, and the energy use isnt a huge concern for me, since i know my tube tvs use way more energy than a plasma... I think overal plasmas look alot better... and knowing burn in is a thing of the past. they run a little cheaper, even when getting a 50 inch panasonic, they run maybe 200 dollars cheaper than a slow LCD of the same size,,, whats everyone elses opinion?

 

Plasmas look great imo. The contrast rates are through the roof when compared to LCD (CCFL and LED).

They make great TVs but for a static computer image it wouldn't be my choice. 50" 1080p doesn't look very sharp unless you sit quite far from it.

For the same money I'd rather buy a 30" with 2500+ pixels wide and sit closer.

I can understand it though if you're into gaming or watching many movies.

 

Plasma is a great alternative to traditional LCD screens, especially when you factor in cost. However, like most choices they have their pros and cons.

Both you and Phil already mentioned one of each. So what you need to keep in mind now is how you intend to use your screen. Since it's a 50" it'd be my guess you want to use it to watch tv and movies? In that case, I think it's the better choice of the two as long as watch it in subdued lighting where plasmas work best. That's another limitation (or not?) since they're not as good with brightness overall as LCDs.

Both technologies have come a long way in correcting for their limitations--plasmas with burn-in, and LCD with motion blur. And both will give you an excellent picture for the most part. Although you just need to narrow it down to your special interest. Keeping that in mind, for the best cinema experience, plasma wins hands down.

 

mainly gameing, movies, tv and web browsing you tube and message boards...

would you still reccomend a plasma for that? with a 50 inch screen id still be sitting on my bed with a wireless keyboard mouse set up... i wouldnt be sitting a foot away from it...

 

just the Panasonic 50" plasma with 1080P sounds like one hell of a deal to me for 900 dollars....

 

I sell and install A/V and mostly Panasonic.
As long as you realize the viewing distance limitations with either one, I will always pick a Plasma over an LCD.

I use a 50" Plasma in my living room and find it amazing at about 10"
In the bedroom I have a 37" LCD at about 8' and while it is not bad,I can not stand it compared to the plasma.

Colors on the LCD are surreal for the most part and they will not really track Blacks well compared to the Plasma.

I have never really seen an LCD that I would choose over a Plasma and I have seen a lot of them.

I have a 42" Plasma on my desk,need I say more?

Ed

 

be sure that you are aware of the power consumption of your plasma set, both in operation and at idle.

Current machines are much better than they used to be, but still loads higher than lcd.

 

i could care less about power consumption.... like i said in the above, im replacing an old tube which prolly has 2 or more times the load of a plasma

thanks very much AVSERVICE, thats exactly what i wanted to hear... rep points for u

AVSERVICE< could you please tell me a little more as to why plamas would make a better machine over lcd, for my veiwing purposes. Web browsing, movies, tv and gaming!.

I need to convince the old lady.
maybe give me a list of Pros...

 

For gaming, movies and TV plasma is a great choice.

PS. please do not post multiple post one after another. Instead use the edit function. I've merged them for you now.

 

If I may... What brand of plasma Tv do you guys recommand for a dude on budget like me?! I'm looking for a great screen under $1000... I know this is not a lot, but I'm just wondering which brands to look for!

 

Panasonic is very good.

I love Samsung's picture quality but the build quality isn't as good as Panasonic.

Samsung is still worth looking into though because they've released some plasmas that rival LCD in power consumption. One of their 42" screens can use as little as 90 watt.

 

you can get a 50" 1080p panasonic, for about 1000 bucks. thats why plasma has been ge2tting my attention as of late. a 50 inch lcd, in my opinion looks alot crappier, you can pay almost double that 1600-2000 for a 50"

 

Great! I like samsung's products!
I'm looking for a new TV and I'd like to be able to use it with my lappy, since I have all my movies on it..
Do you think there is any chance of finding a 1080p plasma TV with USB in ?! That'd be perfect, but I'm just wondering, I can deal without it!
EDIT: Just took a look on panasonic's website, is the U serie good enough?

 

Yes U series is good enough.

 

Don't be too quick to dis LCDs completely, as they have many advantages over plasma. Imagine owning a laptop with a plasma display.

In any event, they both have good qualities (and bad) as long as you select the one that provide the greatest performance for what it does best.

 

For my last TV I choose LCD. Even though I'm one of the biggest plasma fans.

The only 42" 1080p plasma I could get consumes about 3 times more than my LCD. (240 watt vs. 75 watt)

 

It's a question of pros and cons all the time. My dad has a 52" LCD and my mom has a 52" plasma while at work they have this 60" LED LCD. All are from Samsung and all have their little pros and cons that each make them enjoyable in a manner.

Back tot he topic, using plasma as a monitor is very feasible these days with reduced burn in thanks to advancements in the technology, just be aware that they still do burn in if pushed to do so.

 

Yes, the new technology of cycling the pixels do greatly reduce the likelihood of burn-in, but like measures to keep you from locking your keys in the car, it's not idiot proof. The supposition is that you don't do something damaging intentionally.

 

Some plasma sets consume more than 500 watts of power and cannot be mounted in a cabinet or in any arrangement where airflow is restricted.

So yes, you really, really do need to care about power consumption on plasma. For some of the sets you're talking about a yearly electric bill in the same range as whole house air conditioning.

The EU has been talking about banning plasma tv sets for years because of their power consumption and heat generation. China and India don't like plasma tv sets very much either.

As I wrote, plasma machines are better than they used to be but some are still power hogs. All of them generate loads more heat than an lcd screen, particularly an lcd screen with 4-edge led backlighting.

The you have the operational differences not the least of which is a tendency to burn in pixels more than lcd sets do. As a tv set with constantly moving images, not a problem. As a computer monitor with static images (and gameplay has loads of static info on scenes, even scenes with a lot of action), yes, burn-in remains a problem.

Note how many manufactures have gotten out of the plasma business the past couple of years and how many plasma manufactures are now building lcd sets as well.

Because of their very black black levels, contrast ratios, absolute brightness levels, and near zero response times, plasma can be a nicer display tech. But there are loads of downsides as well.

 

Well you'd be surprised at the amount of people who leave their computers(and monitors) on 24/7, so I'm just saying.

 

That's the equivalent of saying a Porsche 911 has downsides to a Honda Accord. You also have a penchant for hyperbole.

 

No hyperbole there at all. The display quality of a good plasma screen is stunning. And it comes at a heavy price, one that a lot of people don't think of before they get their power bills.

 

i'd get an LCD.. it is really more than enough.. if ur that desperate get an professional LCD monitor instead with low response times.. but even a samsung LED TV is enough for gaming and movies.. i have a 5 series LCD from Samsung in 37" and it is already a 100 times better than a CRT tv..

 

You do realize a Samsung LED TV is going to cost more than double a plasma right?

Nonetheless, I think any screen could do then job really. It's just a question of weighing what the OP wants.

 

I don't mind using CCFL and LED LCDs, but they're not coming close to plasma PQ. Subjectively nor objectively.

 

There's no denying that plasmas do use more electricity than do comparable LCDs, but the difference between LCD and plasma is not as great as you make it out to be: 203 VS 271 respectively*.

Fact is, ALL the new television technologies use more electricity than their older CRT counterparts. So given your Chicken Little sky is falling mentality, should we all then revert back to CRTs to save energy? I think not. But we can use power strips to reduce phantom power drain. That just makes good energy conservation sense.

The other way around actually. A well designed CRT is far better than ANY flat screen. They only lost favor because of their size relative to screen dimension, which made increasing screen size beyond 40" prohibitive. Remember, CRTs have been around for over 60 years.

*42" screen
Cal Energy Commission

 

Actually a full HD 42" plasma will consume more than 200 watts, while a 42" LCD can consume less than 100 watts.

My Sony 40EX402 (40" Full HD) consumes about 80 watt (measured myself). With aggressive power saving as little as 70 watt.

So power consumption: LCD > Plasma.

Contrast, black levels, colors: Plasma > LCD.

 

I still have a 50" CRT in my basement lol

That being said, it's just trade offs.

 

So, time to revive this thread
I realized that my TV stand can't be used with TV larger than 40'', so I'm gonna have to stick with the LCDs! Looking at the new Samsung serie 5,what do you guys think about it?

 

lol are u sure? The prices which is have seen for LED tv's is actually lower than plasma...

i have a 5 series tv from samsung in 37 inch but not the LED one.. u might want to look for the LED samsung tv's.. the power consumption will be low and quality will be good.

 

Yeah, well, I'm on a budget you know.. LED TVs are awesome, but I don't have that kind of money for now!

 

In that case, the Samsung Series 5 is a great choice. Granted it's not the state-of-the-art like it's Series 8 brethren with all the bells and whistles, but it will still give you one of the best pictures from an LCD in it's class.

I too am on a budget and in need of a new TV. So for the past few months, I've been visiting my local electronics store regularly looking for a bargain (that's how I shop). I had the liberty on comparing the Series 5 with some of their higher models up to the Series 8. Without a doubt there is a difference, since the LED allow for darker blacks, but for the most part the differences are subtle unless you're an Audio/Videophile and are looking for anomalies. Most viewers won't be able to tell the difference.

 

Plasma TV's still have problems with burn ins. I would recommend getting two of these monitors

 

meh with new tech,,, my bro in law uses his plasma as a monitor, any he gets hardly any burn in,, if he even stays on the same site for say 8 hours, theres hardly anything, if tehre is, he can just sweep it..... and its gone,, technoledgy is even sexier these days,,, with basically zero burn in.... Plus me being the OP, i could give two ing s about power saving, since all the tvs in my house are tube tv... haha really anything beats that.... so im def going with plasma,, for their better pic quality, and faster frame rates, or whatever u wanna call it... 240mhz vs 600mhz hmmmmm, which one??? lets go plamsa... eff going green... i want picture quality lol....