[neel385]

Brought a Samsung 6030 LED. This happened when Naaptol refused to deliver a ST50D in Kharagpur and no one here had any idea of where to get one from. Anyway, the experience has been nice till now. I feel that the pics appear a bit washed out. Any help with the settings will be appreciated.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by neel385

...Any help with the settings will be appreciated.

The easiest is to get into the Picture setting mode and choose Vivid.
You are probably in Cinema or Standard mode currently if you feel the picture is looking a tad washed out.

[h@r$h@l]

Any Samsung Series 4 LCD users here?

We have a 3 decade old TV which is finally living its last moments and we are planning to change to a LCD. Our requirements are fairly basic and due to size limitations, 32" is max we can accommodate in their. I had a look at Samsung, Sony & Panasonic.

Of all the 3 i checked i liked the Samsung series 4 which supports USB music, movies and pics.

http://www.samsung.com/in/consumer/t...LA32E420E2RLXL

The listed price is 25k but i am sure that i will be able to find a decent deal in a local shop which would also give me some 3-4k for my old tv. so considering that i am getting a Samsung 32" HD LCD tv for around 21-23k is quite nice.

The only con i read about it is that it doesnt have a AV output, but thats ok for me as we never plan to hook up any system there. Any user experiences shall be great.

Thanks.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by h@r$h@l

.... Any user experiences shall be great.
....

H@r$h@l, I do not have user experience of the Samsung 4 series TV but I can make a valid point or two that you could check out when you go shopping.

CRT TV was a different kettle of fish. Infinitely 'scalable', not 'digital' and not dependent on video processing done within the TV.
LCDs are very different and you will almost certainly find that the picture quality on standard definition channels is far poorer to what you have been used to watching on your CRT.

None of the service providers offers more than 22 channels in HD.
So what about the rest of the channels?

The only way to make the standard definition channels 'bearable' is to have a good video processing engine in the TV. Such engines are only found in the higher models from any maker.

I would recommend that you enhance your budget by about 20% and look at the F series from Samsung (with the Hyper Real engine) or the W series from Sony (with the X Reality PRO engine). These are the new 2013 models and most of them offer far better video processing and 'motion-flow' rates than the older TVs.

[sathyaprakash]

Originally Posted by pgsagar

Just bought 64 inch Samsung smart tv, Plasma 8 series E8000. Got a good deal (hopefully) at 1.8L. LEDS were never on my radar for excessive brightness and motion blur. Got tired of waiting for Panasonic plasma range. Nothing above 50" Panasonic here in my town. Even Samsung's own new F series plasma was taking forever to come to my town. So settled for E series.

Anyway, picture quality is awesome. I went from 29" CRT to 64" plasma. So, it is as though theatre screen has descended in my living room. My son is enjoying the "hand wave remote". I am just loving it. Wife was scary of that size but soon we got used to it. Now movie watching at home is taken to a new level. HD quality is just mind-blowing. Even skin pores and individual stubble strands are absolutely sharp.

Now, I am on lookout for good 5.1 Home Theatre with 3D blu ray player. But the Sony/Samsung/LG/Panasonic/Philips combo systems are not good at all. I mean the audio part. They all sound like loudspeakers. I may have to pick up a BD player from one of the above brands but for 5.1 audio part (speakers), I need to try speaker specialist brands. Any suggestions? I have allocated 60K budget for it. Will it suffice for a decent acceptable-level system?

Hi

I planning to go for the samsung 64" plasma 2013 model please provide me with the details of the power consumption with comparison with samsung 60"LED F6400 which i am getting at 1.75K compared to plasma at 1.85K price.

How will be the difference of 4" inch add to the effect will there be an significant change in the viewing dynamics. Please clarify about the life and pros & cons of both the technology.

It will be great if u respond quickly as i am in process of ordering as LED is readily available but plasma is out of stock and may take 15 days after ordering thank you.

[anupmathur]

Plasma has the best picture quality, has longer life and superior motion handling.
However it will consume about three times as much power as the equivalent LCD/LED.
Plasma TVs are not the best for viewing in brightly lit rooms; they are best watched in dim lighting.

You are comparing a six series LCD/LED TV with an eight series; that is not an entirely fair comparison.

[VW2010]

This discussion on power consumption in reality and practice is very minimal to see a ROI in your pocket. There are far more power consuming appliances we use including AC, Microwave etc.

I would not consider a LED purely because of power consumption. You will save but thats pretty much it.

Reason i say this is by my usage. Our TV usage varies between 1-3 hrs average. For this time the power one saves, converted to money saved is minimal considering my plasma of that size was atleast 10k cheaper than similar specification LED. This 10K to break even would take me atleast 2 - 3 years on rough calculation. May be i am poor in math.

I can honestly say power consumption would be my least priority when it comes to buying a TV.

For your information i have the ST50D and a panasonic 40inch plasma that i got 5 years back. Both running just fine and i have not seen an increase in the electric bill when the 40inch plasma replaced an LED. Its minimal and hence my deduction that you can ignore the savings part by chosing technology.

On a grand scheme of things where every plasma users replaces their tv with LED, will there be substantial savings. Probably yes.

[aim120]

For people who have lots of power cuts and who run on UPS/inverter a plasma tv will be the last on their mind.

The power consumption difference is still huge ,on average more then thrice as high for a plasma and even more if one is watching in 3d mode.Modern LED tv consume as low as 35watt in energy saving mode for a 55" LED tv and about 65 watt at the calibrated settings and yet are capable of being brighter then any plasma.
A 55" plasma on the other hand can consume around 250watt to 400watt in 2d and 3d mode respectively.

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by aim120

... A 55" plasma on the other hand can consume around 250watt to 400watt in 2d and 3d mode respectively.

Not sure where you got this data, but over the last 6 months that I have had the Pana 55" plasma, I haven't seen my power bill go up at all. Earlier I had an Pana LCD. My power bill, adjusted for seasonal variation, has remained the same over the last few years. And yes, we have plenty of power outages and cuts, and I have an inverter which supplies power for 10 hours with about 4-5 hours of TV watching.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Not sure where you got this data, ....

It's all available on the www.
Makers' specs and expert reviews.
The point, I think, is not whether a specific inverter can support the TV for x hours. It's more about the fact that this fact (plasmas are power hungry) is incontrovertible!
And, some of us are looking to minimize our carbon footprints!

There is nothing more to it. It remains the prerogative of each one of us to decide what we adopt; but it is best to make the choice after knowing as many facts as possible.

[pgsagar]

Originally Posted by sathyaprakash

Hi

I planning to go for the samsung 64" plasma 2013 model please provide me with the details of the power consumption with comparison with samsung 60"LED F6400 which i am getting at 1.75K compared to plasma at 1.85K price.

How will be the difference of 4" inch add to the effect will there be an significant change in the viewing dynamics. Please clarify about the life and pros & cons of both the technology.

It will be great if u respond quickly as i am in process of ordering as LED is readily available but plasma is out of stock and may take 15 days after ordering thank you.

I would say close your eyes and buy plasma. Here is why.

Power consumption is 114 Watt per hour for Samsung 60 inch LED tv. Check out the link.

http://www.samsung.com/ae/consumer/t...S8000RXZN-spec


And it is 290 Watt per hour for Samsung 64 inch plasma. Here is the link for that.

http://www.samsung.com/ae/consumer/t...8000GRXZN-spec

The diff in watt per hour is 290 - 114 = 176 watt hour. 3hour daily into 30 days usage means 176 X 90 = 15840 watt-hour excess power consumed. 15840 watt-hour = 15.840 Units. Here in my state, per unit is Rs.6/- So, 15.840 X 6 = Rs.95/-.

So, it would be just Rs.100 per month excess, over equal sized LED. Now, tell me, is it too much? This explains why DerAlte says he doesn't notice any spike in power bills.

Now coming to supriority of plasma over LEDs with regard to picture quality, it is well chronicled all over the net. Just google and find out. I am extremely happy with plasma. Picture quality is superb and so is 3D. Only, the stock speakers are a joke. But that has nothing to do with plasma. All stock speakers are useless whther plasma or LED. And yes, 2D to 3D conversion also is not good at all. Again, this has nothing to do with plasma. But yes, original 3D content reproduction is mind-blowing.

[aim120]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Not sure where you got this data, but over the last 6 months that I have had the Pana 55" plasma, I haven't seen my power bill go up at all. Earlier I had an Pana LCD. My power bill, adjusted for seasonal variation, has remained the same over the last few years. And yes, we have plenty of power outages and cuts, and I have an inverter which supplies power for 10 hours with about 4-5 hours of TV watching.

The data is available all over the net from respected review sites.

For me the power consumption of a tv should be low since with my inverter despite it running on 2 tubular batteries ,if i install a plasma it would empty the batteries in 2 hrs just by using the plasma with no other load switched ON and with a LED i could run the same for like 8 hrs or so.It consumes less then a tube light.

Its not about the power bills,for some its also about going green .

One might have a high capacity battery but the energy required to charge lead acid batteries(one of the least efficient battery tech) is more then what they gave out.

So if i discharge the battery by 10watt ,I will need around 15watt of power to put the charge back in and not to mention the other energy loss that occur in the charging circuit. So when the power resumes from the electric company the inverters charging the battery would put more strain on the grid ,since now it will be your house electric load + the current required to charge the battery.

Again a plasma tv is not for everyone and not for every living room.They still have the cons and that cons could be a deal breaker for many ,there is a reason why LCD/LED sell more despite it being more expensive and please don't say its because of the sales person or the fact that its not on display.

[amansanc]

So that means that one should consider plasma seriously when buying a new bigger screen?
Normally if you go to any shop, they simply don't recommend the plasma and tell you that one should not buy a plasma because its an old-school technology and that led are the best when it comes to picture quality and energy consumption.
I felt that plasma screen had better picture quality when i recently watched a movie on my relative plasma(don't remember the exact size, but it was above 55 inches).

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

... some of us are looking to minimize our carbon footprints! ...

Originally Posted by aim120

... Its not about the power bills,for some its also about going green . ...

I do realise it is very fashionable nowadays to talk about carbon footprint and green! So you don't use an air conditioner? I am not fashionable, I don't talk 'green', but I can do without an AC in Delhi. I don't go around with an energy meter measuring consumption, but I know how to moderate my needs.

Sure, as you said, it is about personal prerogatives.

[pgsagar]

Originally Posted by aim120

For people who have lots of power cuts and who run on UPS/inverter a plasma tv will be the last on their mind.

The power consumption difference is still huge ,on average more then thrice as high for a plasma and even more if one is watching in 3d mode.Modern LED tv consume as low as 35watt in energy saving mode for a 55" LED tv and about 65 watt at the calibrated settings and yet are capable of being brighter then any plasma.
A 55" plasma on the other hand can consume around 250watt to 400watt in 2d and 3d mode respectively.

I find the data put forth by you rather amusing. I do not know where you got this data from but you have exaggerated plasma consumption and understated LED consumption. Could it be that you are comparing 32 inch LED consumption to 82 inch plasma?

The brighness you spoke about in case of LED tvs is what made me go for plasma. I watch movies on my plasma with lights turned off. Try doing that on an LED tv. You will be very uncomfortable from that excessive brighness within an hour.

As for environment, I think DerAlte has rightly answered it. If we really want to do something about environment, then we need to switch to public transport and stop using cars. But you know and I know that that is not going to happen.