Samsung PS51F5500 Plasma

Shellyb1 said:
Was at an IncredCon in Vredenberg along the west coast.
They didn't have more though.
Click to expand...
PostmanPot said:
It was an in-store Makro special at one of the branches. Pretty much once-off.

*edit*

Whoops, you meant the remote.
Click to expand...

Good deal on the logitech. Can't seem to find them online locally. I'll order myself the Samsung remote as soon as I get a chance to confirm the model number.
 
Interesting thread...

I am shopping around for my first ever FHD tv :)
Been hanging on to my CRT for too long!

Today the assistant in Sounds Great said to me Plasma is the best and very underrated compared to LED.
He recommended the exact same model here under discussion for R8999.

He mentioned that because of Europe's focus on energy saving, LED is marketed much more aggressively, and therefor plasma does not get the exposure it deserves.
Makes sense to me, not sure what your opinions are regarding this.

Then a bit later in HiFi Corp, the dude told me LED is the sh__ and much better than plasma. What bothers me is that he said it is not as bright in lightly lit environments and that if you have a window or sliding door behind you, the image won't be as sharp.
Also, I am worried about the reflective issue.
I have a open floor design with living room, dining room and kitchen all facing each other.
Also I have downlights and I am not sure that it will be easy to control the lightning sufficiently.

Do you reckon I should rather look at LED?

Any further suggestions and recommendations?
 
SauRoNZA said:
It's a Plasma and comes with the territory, so anyone buying should know this well in advance and choose appropriately.

Unless you buy the top of the range with Matt filters built in.
Click to expand...

Whats the cheapest model with filters?
 
BlouMoord said:
Interesting thread...

I am shopping around for my first ever FHD tv :)
Been hanging on to my CRT for too long!

Today the assistant in Sounds Great said to me Plasma is the best and very underrated compared to LED.
He recommended the exact same model here under discussion for R8999.

He mentioned that because of Europe's focus on energy saving, LED is marketed much more aggressively, and therefor plasma does not get the exposure it deserves.
Makes sense to me, not sure what your opinions are regarding this.

Then a bit later in HiFi Corp, the dude told me LED is the sh__ and much better than plasma. What bothers me is that he said it is not as bright in lightly lit environments and that if you have a window or sliding door behind you, the image won't be as sharp.
Also, I am worried about the reflective issue.
I have a open floor design with living room, dining room and kitchen all facing each other.
Also I have downlights and I am not sure that it will be easy to control the lightning sufficiently.

Do you reckon I should rather look at LED?

Any further suggestions and recommendations?
Click to expand...

Sounds Great sounds like a specialist shop. He is right, plasma is the better tech without a doubt.

LCD with LED backlighting is definitely marketed far more aggressively, hence more laymen think it's better.

The HiFi Corp guy is wrong about LCD being the sh*t, but he does have a point, plasma isn't as bright and it is more reflective, and so it isn't recommended for bright rooms/daytime viewing where there is quite a lot of sunlight in the room, or falling on the screen.

Plasma is about the same reflectivity, perhaps slightly less, as your current CRT.

Plasma is suited for dimmer viewing conditions. Downlights will reflect if they are in the path of the TV's reflection.

Remember that LCD is also reflective nowadays. Since a glossy screen allows through more brightness, that is where the LCD industry went; no more matte. Not as reflective as plasma though.

If you watch mostly during hours/daytime, if you watch with lights on bright, then perhaps look at LCD. However if you watch mostly after hours, prefer dimmer conditions, and have/don't mind using curtains, plasma is better.
 
Last edited:
BlouMoord said:
Interesting thread...

I am shopping around for my first ever FHD tv :)
Been hanging on to my CRT for too long!

Today the assistant in Sounds Great said to me Plasma is the best and very underrated compared to LED.
He recommended the exact same model here under discussion for R8999.

He mentioned that because of Europe's focus on energy saving, LED is marketed much more aggressively, and therefor plasma does not get the exposure it deserves.
Makes sense to me, not sure what your opinions are regarding this.

Then a bit later in HiFi Corp, the dude told me LED is the sh__ and much better than plasma. What bothers me is that he said it is not as bright in lightly lit environments and that if you have a window or sliding door behind you, the image won't be as sharp.
Also, I am worried about the reflective issue.
I have a open floor design with living room, dining room and kitchen all facing each other.
Also I have downlights and I am not sure that it will be easy to control the lightning sufficiently.

Do you reckon I should rather look at LED?

Any further suggestions and recommendations?
Click to expand...

It's all about price point.

In the Top 10 lists year after year you'll find the majority of the best screens are in fact Plasmas for picture quality but at the same time the best is also the most expensive at the same time.

However as per your concern versatility is whole different matter and often the compromise between picture quality and versatility is a difficult one to call.

If your price point is R9k and you have lots of windows in the viewing area or prefer to watch in full light then you are not going to be happy with this particular Plasma and would need the much more expensive ones to compensate for your environmental needs.

In which case an LED LCD is the way to go for you.

So in conclusion yes Plasma is better under lab testing or perfect home theatre environments. In the real world however and at the lower to mid price point LED is easier to live with.

I for instance have a Plasma in my games room where I can close the curtains and play in virtual darkness, but an LCD in the lounge for more conventional TV viewing. I would never dream of swopping them around.


Best advice is don't test a TV based on a shop environment because they aren't your home. Go to more AV inclined shops like Audio Vision or Tafelberg Meubels where they have more realistic viewing environments.
 
PostmanPot said:
Sounds Great sounds like a specialist shop. He is right, plasma is the better tech without a doubt.

LCD with LED backlighting is definitely marketed far more aggressively, hence more laymen think it's better.

The HiFi Corp guy is wrong about LCD being the sh*t, but he does have a point, plasma isn't as bright and it is more reflective, and so it isn't recommended for bright rooms/daytime viewing where there is quite a lot of sunlight in the room, or falling on the screen.

Plasma is about the same reflectivity, perhaps slightly less, as your current CRT.

Plasma is suited for dimmer viewing conditions. Downlights will reflect if they are in the path of the TV's reflection.

Remember that LCD is also reflective nowadays. Since a glossy screen allows through more brightness, that is where the LCD industry went; no more matte. Not as reflective as plasma though.

If you watch mostly during hours/daytime, if you watch with lights on bright, then perhaps look at LCD. However if you watch mostly after hours, prefer dimmer conditions, and have/don't mind using curtains, plasma is better.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
Well said and I am happy with your answers and explanations.

I prefer a higher refresh rate for watching sports, that is why I am attracted to the plasma. And most sports happen during daytime, so I guess I have to find a LCD with LED lit screen with a higher refresh rate.
Unfortunately the price increases exponentially as the refresh rate goes up, and on LCD it still does not get anywhere near the plasma

I guess if budget is an issue, one has to get the plasma and work around the brightly lit conditions?
 
BlouMoord said:
Thanks!
Well said and I am happy with your answers and explanations.

I prefer a higher refresh rate for watching sports, that is why I am attracted to the plasma. And most sports happen during daytime, so I guess I have to find a LCD with LED lit screen with a higher refresh rate.
Unfortunately the price increases exponentially as the refresh rate goes up, and on LCD it still does not get anywhere near the plasma

I guess if budget is an issue, one has to get the plasma and work around the brightly lit conditions?
Click to expand...

While plasma does handle motion better, it is not without marketing gimmicks. '600Hz' is a marketing term. Plasmas do not require high refresh rates to handle motion better, they just do, because of the way they work.

Perhaps the most significant benefit is their fast response time, because they use almost instantly-responding self-illuminating pixels filled with gas, versus LCD and how it requires light to shine through an LCD matrix from the back in order to be lit up and create colour (this is also why plasmas have better blacks and contrast ratios). Only high-end, costly LED LCDs can attempt to combat this, by using micro dimming and other techniques which shut off the back-lighting in different areas of the screen where required, improving black levels and contrast.

AFAIK plasmas are all/mostly 60Hz, and they trick the brain by combining ten images into one every second/given amount of time, hence 60 * 10 = 600Hz. This link will explain roughly - http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57548118-221/what-is-600hz/.

The problem with LCDs combating motion is that they use programming/algorhytms in order to calculate new frames to add in between existing frames at 60Hz. This often gives a fake/surreal look (Google 'the soap opera effect'). While fine for some, many enthusiasts prefer the more natural picture and superior motion handling of plasma.

I agree, plasma suits both budget and picture quality; you get larger size and better colours, blacks, motion handling.

Perhaps it won't be too hard to rearrange things, or add in curtains?
 
Last edited:
SauRoNZA said:
It's all about price point.

In the Top 10 lists year after year you'll find the majority of the best screens are in fact Plasmas for picture quality but at the same time the best is also the most expensive at the same time.

However as per your concern versatility is whole different matter and often the compromise between picture quality and versatility is a difficult one to call.

If your price point is R9k and you have lots of windows in the viewing area or prefer to watch in full light then you are not going to be happy with this particular Plasma and would need the much more expensive ones to compensate for your environmental needs.

In which case an LED LCD is the way to go for you.

So in conclusion yes Plasma is better under lab testing or perfect home theatre environments. In the real world however and at the lower to mid price point LED is easier to live with.

I for instance have a Plasma in my games room where I can close the curtains and play in virtual darkness, but an LCD in the lounge for more conventional TV viewing. I would never dream of swopping them around.


Best advice is don't test a TV based on a shop environment because they aren't your home. Go to more AV inclined shops like Audio Vision or Tafelberg Meubels where they have more realistic viewing environments.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your answers also.
I am thinking the LED is gonna be the answer.
I am not prepared to take the risk with plasma and bright room.
Early mornings watching Super 15 rugby with east side windows behind me is gonna be as bright as heaven. ;)
 
BlouMoord said:
Thanks for your answers also.
I am thinking the LED is gonna be the answer.
I am not prepared to take the risk with plasma and bright room.
Early mornings watching Super 15 rugby with east side windows behind me is gonna be as bright as heaven. ;)
Click to expand...

An entry-mid range Series 5 LCD, connected to an HD PVR, will give you a pretty good picture. It's fine for most. You can get a 50" for R8 - 9k.
 
PostmanPot said:
While plasma does handle motion better, it is not without marketing gimmicks. '600Hz' is a marketing term. Plasmas do not require high refresh rates to handle motion better, they just do, because of the way they work.

Perhaps the most significant benefit is their fast response time, because they use almost instantly-responding self-illuminating pixels filled with gas, versus LCD and how it requires light to shine through an LCD matrix from the back in order to be lit up and create colour (this is also why plasmas have better blacks and contrast ratios). Only high-end, costly LED LCDs can attempt to combat this, by using micro dimming and other techniques which shut off the back-lighting in different areas of the screen where required, improving black levels and contrast.

AFAIK plasmas are all/mostly 60Hz, and they trick the brain by combining ten images into one every second/given amount of time, hence 60 * 10 = 600Hz. This link will explain roughly - http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57548118-221/what-is-600hz/.

The problem with LCDs combating motion is that they use programming/algorhytms in order to calculate new frames to add in between existing frames at 60Hz. This often gives a fake/surreal look (Google 'the soap opera effect'). While fine for some, many enthusiasts prefer the more natural picture and superior motion handling of plasma.

I agree, plasma suits both budget and picture quality; you get larger size and better colours, blacks, motion handling.

Perhaps it won't be too hard to rearrange things, or add in curtains?
Click to expand...
I really would like to be sure we can do this.
Problem is that the tv room/dining room open floor is next to a patio with sliding doors that we would prefer to keep open most of the time.
We have opted for light tiles and light cream paint on the walls to make the place appear bigger, but this also make for a very well lit room.

If we are talking about a brightly lit room, are we referring to normal ambient light, or artifical light coming from light sources like downlights in my case, or are we referring to direct sunlight on the screen?
 
BlouMoord said:
I really would like to be sure we can do this.
Problem is that the tv room/dining room open floor is next to a patio with sliding doors that we would prefer to keep open most of the time.
We have opted for light tiles and light cream paint on the walls to make the place appear bigger, but this also make for a very well lit room.

If we are talking about a brightly lit room, are we referring to normal ambient light, or artifical light coming from light sources like downlights in my case, or are we referring to direct sunlight on the screen?
Click to expand...

Mostly light sources and direct light.
 
PostmanPot said:
While plasma does handle motion better, it is not without marketing gimmicks. '600Hz' is a marketing term. Plasmas do not require high refresh rates to handle motion better, they just do, because of the way they work.

Perhaps the most significant benefit is their fast response time, because they use almost instantly-responding self-illuminating pixels filled with gas, versus LCD and how it requires light to shine through an LCD matrix from the back in order to be lit up and create colour (this is also why plasmas have better blacks and contrast ratios). Only high-end, costly LED LCDs can attempt to combat this, by using micro dimming and other techniques which shut off the back-lighting in different areas of the screen where required, improving black levels and contrast.

AFAIK plasmas are all/mostly 60Hz, and they trick the brain by combining ten images into one every second/given amount of time, hence 60 * 10 = 600Hz. This link will explain roughly - http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57548118-221/what-is-600hz/.

The problem with LCDs combating motion is that they use programming/algorhytms in order to calculate new frames to add in between existing frames at 60Hz. This often gives a fake/surreal look (Google 'the soap opera effect'). While fine for some, many enthusiasts prefer the more natural picture and superior motion handling of plasma.

I agree, plasma suits both budget and picture quality; you get larger size and better colours, blacks, motion handling.

Perhaps it won't be too hard to rearrange things, or add in curtains?
Click to expand...

Yes 60hz is all you need for both Plasma and LCD if you want a "pure" picture anyway.

The simple difference being that Plasma's 600mhz is part and parcel of the display and doesn't make 10 different or altered frames in any way but simply "flickers" the lights to keep the phosphors nice and active there by increasing their responsiveness.

LCD on the other hands adds "fake" frames between real frames which it combines from the real frames and therefore gives you a false imagine that isn't exactly like the source. Effectively this is enabled with Motion Plus and that nonsense so you'll want to switch that crap off anyway...which means you bought a 120 or 200hz TV and you are running it at 60hz anyway.

This doesn't apply to PC monitors with 120hz real refresh rates.
 
Ok guys, my wife and I have discussed and we will give the plasma a try.
Think we both feel it is a better value for money deal.
;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X