Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I've never had a plasma with damage from "screen burn" in the 5 years i've been

working in the industry.

Samsung, LG, Pioneer and Panasonic all make Full HD 1920x1080P panels.

A famous footballer (Magarey medalist) here in SA and good mate of mine had real bad image burn from a Pioneer Plasma after 11 months.

Radio Rentals replaced it with an LCD.....he paid the difference.

Just a question about the above brands......so don't give me another smart arse answer or I'll jump thru ya monitor and tear ya head off......are all those brands with that resolution actually plasma?

I'm definitely no expert in this field but 5 years doesn't make you a rocket scientist either.....my brother has been doing it for 17 years and my brother in law since the late 70's so I'll need to clarify info with them.

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

we have the non true HD 40' Bravia and have to agree even though its only 1366 x 768 it looks awsome only thing that lets it down is the broadcast on foxtel

yeah true, not for long though.....apparently they're getting their act together with a select few channels

Plasma = 1366 x 768 Max

LCD = 1920 x 1080

How can plama quote true 1080i HD then?

Was never an issue with SD but just because you can send a HD signal thru a Plasma, doesn't mean you get true HD......only possible with LCD!

Huh? :P

The high end Panasonic, Samsung, LG plasma panels are all 1920x1080 res.

My parents got a 50" Panasonic Plasma thats true 1080p,although we don't have anything that high to use it on yet... :banana: , all they watch is SAT TV & pirated chinese DVDs that encoded in vcd res (320*240) which looks horrible on it... :banana: , my Wii is the only thing that puts the TV to decent use, unit I get a PS3.

Maayyyte, I know that..........I'm saying that to get the full advantage of the blue ray disc, you need LCD

Please explain in more detail here, for a 1080p LCD vs 1080p Plasma, they both have a native 1920x1080 res so a Blue Ray disc would display in full detail on either one.

In general, LCD tends to have shaper pictures while Plasma's tend to have more smoother fast motion picture.

As for the burn in problem on Plasma panels, its not that common anymore (it was a major problem for the 1st couple of generations of Plasma panels), although still be a luck of the draw I guess. A friend have got this really generic cheap chinese made SD plasma panel (852*480 res) & all he watch on it is SAT TV where the chinese channels all have a still logo on screen, & he has being using that TV for 2years now & no burn in yet.

yeah fair call....I didn't think the plasmas could get the same res as the LCD's but I stand corrected.

I just got a bit fired up over that clown's smart attitude from the eastside.....very easy to do when you're 1600km away

i still believe that MOST LCD panels are better than plasma due to dot pitch too

alot of LCD TV's have smaller pixles than Plasma

also it doesn't seem so common now a days but the first few generations of plasma you could see black lines between the pixels if you sat too close

Hahaha i created a monster, thanx for all the inputs guys. Im 90% sure the branded tv is what im going for, so saving abit more dosh is in order. Then theres this... :D

http://www.kogan.com.au/shop/kogan-1080p-4...cd-tv-hd-tuner/

Click on specifications for full goodness.

Hahahaah this is great!!! monster indeed!

Ok. I have sony bravia too guys... only HD 1366x768 not full HD 1920x1080.

Plasma is available in full HD and was first released by panasonic in Aus. around september last year.

Whether to go HD or full HD will depend on what type of viewing yo do... it all comes down to SCALING.

for example a dvd uses approx 720 line images. If your tv has 768 resolution then its a virtual direct display (no scaling involved) however if you feed in a full HD image it must downscale from 1080 to fit 768. This will still give a good quality picture.

Going the other way with a standard picture (approx 576 line image) and feeding it to a screen with 1080 resolution involves a large amount of scaling to make the image fit and will show just how poor standard tv and foxtel broadcasts are. ie look pretty crap.

So, if you watch mostly foxtel and the occasional dvd go for a HD 1366x768 panel.

If you play ps3 and want to be blu ray and future proof go for 1920x1080 as this is where all development is currently heading.

Doobs... what u smokin???

Lg do not make most lcd and plasma panels. How do you explain the fact that plasma was developed by four brands... mostly FUJITSU,HITACHI, PANASONIC and NEC. Fujitsu were at one point supplying panels to 70% of the market. True that sony did not make their own plasma... it was a hitachi panel.

Sony do make their own LCD tvs. They have a joint venture with samsung in korea to produce native lcd panels, then they are shipped to sonys facilities in japan for X and XBR series, or malaysia for other series where sony add their electronics etc.

Further to this approx four months ago pioneer announced they could no longer compete in plasma only markets and are now purchasing SHARP lcd panels (from sharps kameyama plant in Japan) and rebadging them pioneer. They are now also buying plasma panels from panasonic and rebadging them.

Sony are also looking at this possibility with regard to the japanese lcd panels from sharp.

With regard to image burn on plasma... yes it is possible but highly unlikely with any late generation panels.. earlier ones not so good. I have personally left a static image on a pansonic plasma in our shop for 9 hours straight which resulted in slight image retention or ghost image. After running said panel for another couple of hours on normal tv this has gone. However if you are a big gaming fan I suggest LCD.

sorry for long post guys... could probably keep going!! cheers Martin.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • The rain is the best time to push to the edge of the grip limit. Water lubrication reduces the consumption of rubber without reducing the fun. I take pleasure in driving around the outside of numpties in Audis, WRXs, BRZs, etc, because they get all worried in the wet. They warm up faster than the engine oil does.
    • When they're dead cold, and in the wet, they're not very fun. RE003 are alright, they do harden very quickly and turn into literally $50 Pace tyres.
    • Yeah, I thought that Reedy's video was quite good because he compared old and new (as in, well used and quite new) AD09s, with what is generally considered to be the fast Yokohama in this category (ie, sporty road/track tyres) and a tyre that people might be able to use to extend the comparo out into the space of more expensive European tyres, being the Cup 2. No-one would ever agree that the Cup 2 is a poor tyre - many would suggest that it is close to the very top of the category. And, for them all to come out so close to each other, and for the cheaper tyre in the test to do so well against the others, in some cases being even faster, shows that (good, non-linglong) tyres are reaching a plateau in terms of how good they can get, and they're all sitting on that same plateau. Anyway, on the AD08R, AD09, RS4 that I've had on the car in recent years, I've never had a problem in the cold and wet. SA gets down to 0-10°C in winter. Not so often, but it was only 4°C when I got in the car this morning. Once the tyres are warm (ie, after about 2km), you can start to lay into them. I've never aquaplaned or suffered serious off-corner understeer or anything like that in the wet, that I would not have expected to happen with a more normal tyre. I had some RE003s, and they were shit in the dry, shit in the wet, shit everywhere. I would rate the RS4 and AD0x as being more trustworthy in the wet, once the rubber is warm. Bridgestone should be ashamed of the RE003.
    • This is why I gave the disclaimer about how I drive in the wet which I feel is pretty important. I have heard people think RS4's are horrible in the rain, but I have this feeling they must be driving (or attempting to drive) anywhere close to the grip limit. I legitimately drive at the speed limit/below speed the limit 100% of the time in the rain. More than happy to just commute along at 50kmh behind a train of cars in 5th gear etc. I do agree with you with regards to the temp and the 'quality' of the tyre Dose. Most UHP tyres aren't even up to temperature on the road anyway, even when going mad initial D canyon carving. It would be interesting to see a not-up-to-temp UHP tyre compared against a mere... normal...HP tyre at these temperatures. I don't think you're (or me in this case) is actually picking up grip with an RS4/AD09 on the road relative to something like a RE003 because the RS4/AD09 is not up to temp and the RE003 is closer to it's optimal operating window.
    • Either the bearing has been installed backwards OR the gearbox input shaft bearing is loosey goosey.   When in doubt, just put in a Samsonas in.
×
×
  • Create New...