Are plasma TV's being phased out?

[Kabob]

I read somewhere recently (can't remember where) that Plasma TV's were on the verge of going bye bye. Is there any truth to this or was this just more bogus talk. From what I've seen though LCDs and DLP's seem to be outselling the overpriced plasma like hot cakes, so it honestly wouldn't be terribly surprising...

 

[Matthias99]

They're becoming less popular, since LCD prices have been dropping very fast in the 30-40" segment.

From what I hear, they're still popular for bigger displays (but then, so are DLP).

 

[Kabob]

Is there any big advantage they have over the competition other than (typically) much better contrast ratios?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: kabob983
Is there any big advantage they have over the competition other than (typically) much better contrast ratios?

Compared to LCD: Better contrast ratio (deeper blacks), usually more accurate colors. Also available in larger screen sizes. But LCD costs less (and prices are going down faster).

Compared to DLP: Similar picture quality, but thinner and doesn't have the 'rainbow' effect that bothers some people with DLP. Usually better contrast ratio than first-gen DLP, though the new DLP sets are supposed to be much better. DLP also usually costs less.

 

[BernardP]

Plasma screens are not being phased out, but the market seems to be moving inexorably towards LCD. I just re-found this interesting 3-page article I had read a couple of days ago:

Plasma on the defensive

 

[MX2]

I hope so, I am tired of people just wanting to hear themselves say....I have a PLAAASMA TV

 

[Kabob]

Originally posted by: BernardP
Plasma screens are not being phased out, but the market seems to be moving inexorably towards LCD. I just re-found this interesting 3-page article I had read a couple of days ago:

Plasma on the defensive

Interesting article. So while they're not really being "phased out" their market is shrinking at a pretty good pace.

 

[nitromullet]

I currently own a 37" plasma, and I'm pleased with it as an HDTV. The picture quality is excellent, the blacks are black and the colors look great. As much as I like mine, if I was to buy a new HDTV now I would get a 1920x1080 LCD for my living room because I think it would make an all around better display for a HTPC and HDTV than a plasma. Plus, they are cheaper.

 

[JackBurton]

Plasmas are not being phased out. Why would they phase out the best HDTV tech you can buy? As a matter of fact, plasmas are just getting better.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Compared to LCD: Better contrast ratio (deeper blacks), usually more accurate colors. Also available in larger screen sizes. But LCD costs less (and prices are going down faster).

Originally posted by: nitromullet
As much as I like mine, if I was to buy a new HDTV now I would get a 1920x1080 LCD for my living room because I think it would make an all around better display for a HTPC and HDTV than a plasma. Plus, they are cheaper.

Looking around Pricegrabber a bit I'm left stumped; what LCDs are you guys suggestig cost less than plasmas?

 

[raz3000]

I would prefer it. If all plasma manufacturers transfer their lines to LCD it will increase competition some more.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Compared to LCD: Better contrast ratio (deeper blacks), usually more accurate colors. Also available in larger screen sizes. But LCD costs less (and prices are going down faster).

Originally posted by: nitromullet
As much as I like mine, if I was to buy a new HDTV now I would get a 1920x1080 LCD for my living room because I think it would make an all around better display for a HTPC and HDTV than a plasma. Plus, they are cheaper.

Looking around Pricegrabber a bit I'm left stumped; what LCDs are you guys suggestig cost less than plasmas?

I think he is just comparing res (1080p LCD cheaper than 1080p plasma), which he is correct. But anyone that knows anything about HDTVs would know res isn't everything.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: raz3000
I would prefer it. If all plasma manufacturers transfer their lines to LCD it will increase competition some more.

Increase competition for a tech that provides a worse picture? How is that better?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Compared to LCD: Better contrast ratio (deeper blacks), usually more accurate colors. Also available in larger screen sizes. But LCD costs less (and prices are going down faster).

Originally posted by: nitromullet
As much as I like mine, if I was to buy a new HDTV now I would get a 1920x1080 LCD for my living room because I think it would make an all around better display for a HTPC and HDTV than a plasma. Plus, they are cheaper.

Looking around Pricegrabber a bit I'm left stumped; what LCDs are you guys suggestig cost less than plasmas?

I think he is just comparing res (1080p LCD cheaper than 1080p plasma), which he is correct. But anyone that knows anything about HDTVs would know res isn't everything.

But neither of them mentioned 1080p in regard to plasmas, and at those sizes it's just the few older model 1080p LCDs that are any cheaper than 1080p plasmas of the same size.

 

[GimpyFuzznut]

1080p plasmas will come down in price eventually too. I think a lot of companies are moving away from plasma to focus on LCD, leaving Panasonic in control of the plasma market which might make that price drop come a little slower. I think there is just an LCD craze because they are cheap. I mean, a nice plasma will still run you over five grand which is a lot for the average person to spend on a TV.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Compared to LCD: Better contrast ratio (deeper blacks), usually more accurate colors. Also available in larger screen sizes. But LCD costs less (and prices are going down faster).

Originally posted by: nitromullet
As much as I like mine, if I was to buy a new HDTV now I would get a 1920x1080 LCD for my living room because I think it would make an all around better display for a HTPC and HDTV than a plasma. Plus, they are cheaper.

Looking around Pricegrabber a bit I'm left stumped; what LCDs are you guys suggestig cost less than plasmas?

I think he is just comparing res (1080p LCD cheaper than 1080p plasma), which he is correct. But anyone that knows anything about HDTVs would know res isn't everything.

But neither of them mentioned 1080p in regard to plasmas, and at those sizes it's just the few older model 1080p LCDs that are any cheaper than 1080p plasmas of the same size.

LCDs currently get dramatically more expensive as they get bigger; plasmas don't (or at least not by quite as much). In the smaller screen sizes (which are still the most popular; most people are not gonna drop $2000+ on a TV), LCD is killing plasma.

From what I hear: there are hardly any 30-40" plasma TVs being sold, because 30-40" LCDs have gotten dirt cheap. In the 40"+ segment, plasma is still doing OK, but in another year, you'll probably have cheap 42"/46" LCD HDTVs as well, and then plasma will only be selling well in 50"+ (unless prices come down fast).

1080p is a little bit of a different story, since there aren't that many full-resolution 1080p plasmas on the market right now (tons of 1080p-compatible plasmas, but most aren't 1920x1080). So I don't know exactly how to compare pricing on them 'fairly'.

 

[Woofmeister]

LCDs' price advantage for 1080P displays is what's killing plasma. Now that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are out, people rightly want to know they have a display that can take full advantage of the latest technology and is more future proof. The difference is neglible, but you can't blame people for wanting higher resolutions.

What people don't understand is that resolution is not the entire story in evaluating a display and I will put my Vidikron VP50's HD picture up against a 1080P LCD any day. Even at 1365 x 768, the contrast, color and black levels are way superior to the 1080P LCDs I've seen.

Don't get me wrong, I have a pretty nice LCD up in my bedroom and I like it a lot, but you can't compare the picture to my plasma.

 

[her34]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: kabob983
Is there any big advantage they have over the competition other than (typically) much better contrast ratios?

Compared to LCD: Better contrast ratio (deeper blacks), usually more accurate colors. Also available in larger screen sizes. But LCD costs less (and prices are going down faster).

Compared to DLP: Similar picture quality, but thinner and doesn't have the 'rainbow' effect that bothers some people with DLP. Usually better contrast ratio than first-gen DLP, though the new DLP sets are supposed to be much better. DLP also usually costs less.

do dlp's still have lamps that need to be replaced?

 

[Hadsus]

Few LCDs go into the 50" screen and greater market. And those that do can't compete pricewise with plasma. I won't even consider anything less than 50" because I want my HDTV to be part of a home theater system and quite honestly anything less than that is just lame IMO (or you don't have the money to shell out for a real home theater system). So plasmas compete primarily with DLPs and CRTs for the big screen home theater market (also the rear projection LCDs) and really there is no contest PQ. Only the flat panel LCDs compete right now but they are not in the big screen market in a real competitive way.

Less than 50 inches, particularly in the 37 to 42 inch range, the market is flooded with LCD manufacturers......Akai, Polaroid, Westinghouse et. al. that are as cheap or cheaper than plasmas. Even Walmart is selling those and making a big push to sell 'em. I've seen these and PQ is pretty bad for many of the TVs. Blacks turn to blues, flesh turns sunburnt.....yech. Lotsa cheapo junk out there. Let the mass market buy the LCDs in droves....the good stuff is still in the plasmas.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Compared to LCD: Better contrast ratio (deeper blacks), usually more accurate colors. Also available in larger screen sizes. But LCD costs less (and prices are going down faster).

Originally posted by: nitromullet
As much as I like mine, if I was to buy a new HDTV now I would get a 1920x1080 LCD for my living room because I think it would make an all around better display for a HTPC and HDTV than a plasma. Plus, they are cheaper.

Looking around Pricegrabber a bit I'm left stumped; what LCDs are you guys suggestig cost less than plasmas?

I think he is just comparing res (1080p LCD cheaper than 1080p plasma), which he is correct. But anyone that knows anything about HDTVs would know res isn't everything.

Well, I guess I should have qualified a bit more. I was specifically referring to 37" LCD's. If I was to buy a new screen today (which I am not), I would opt for a Westinghouse LVM-37W3, which I think would make for a better HTPC display with its 1920x1080 res than my Sony KDE-37XS955, with its 1024x1024 resolution, plus it's cheaper than any 37" plasma I've seen. Since I'm not actually looking to buy, I haven't really done an exhaustive price comparison though.

JackBurton is right about the rez not being everything, even with 1024x1024 this plasma looks incredible displaying HD content. It actually even looks amazing displaying up-converted DVD's via HDMI, and there is a fair amount of interpolation going on there. That being said, I don't think that it looks as good as a 1920x1080 LCD like the Westy for HTPC desktop usage.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: her34
do dlp's still have lamps that need to be replaced?

Yes. But my Samsung is so easy to replace that I could really care less. I literally open a "hatch" on the back, pull the lamp out and put the new one in. Also, I have never seen the Rainbow Effect on my Samsung DLP as it uses the new faster color wheel compared to the older style. It also works great as a computer monitor ( mainly for viewing videos from a computer, but I could play games I guess... never really tried ).

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Compared to LCD: Better contrast ratio (deeper blacks), usually more accurate colors. Also available in larger screen sizes. But LCD costs less (and prices are going down faster).

Originally posted by: nitromullet
As much as I like mine, if I was to buy a new HDTV now I would get a 1920x1080 LCD for my living room because I think it would make an all around better display for a HTPC and HDTV than a plasma. Plus, they are cheaper.

Looking around Pricegrabber a bit I'm left stumped; what LCDs are you guys suggestig cost less than plasmas?

I think he is just comparing res (1080p LCD cheaper than 1080p plasma), which he is correct. But anyone that knows anything about HDTVs would know res isn't everything.

Well, I guess I should have qualified a bit more. I was specifically referring to 37" LCD's. If I was to buy a new screen today (which I am not), I would opt for a Westinghouse LVM-37W3, which I think would make for a better HTPC display with its 1920x1080 res than my Sony KDE-37XS955, with its 1024x1024 resolution, plus it's cheaper than any 37" plasma I've seen. Since I'm not actually looking to buy, I haven't really done an exhaustive price comparison though.

JackBurton is right about the rez not being everything, even with 1024x1024 this plasma looks incredible displaying HD content. It actually even looks amazing displaying up-converted DVD's via HDMI, and there is a fair amount of interpolation going on there. That being said, I don't think that it looks as good as a 1920x1080 LCD like the Westy for HTPC desktop usage.

Yep, I wouldn't use a plasma for desktop usage. For me, I really only consider plasmas 50" and up. My ideal setup would be a 30" Dell LCD for my desktop monitor and a 50" Pioneer 5070 plasma for HD shows and movies. Best of both worlds.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Well, I guess I should have qualified a bit more. I was specifically referring to 37" LCD's. If I was to buy a new screen today (which I am not), I would opt for a Westinghouse LVM-37W3, which I think would make for a better HTPC display with its 1920x1080 res than my Sony KDE-37XS955, with its 1024x1024 resolution, plus it's cheaper than any 37" plasma I've seen. Since I'm not actually looking to buy, I haven't really done an exhaustive price comparison though.

Then I think you might be surprised, it seems 37" plasmas are get phased out by most manufactures as I've only seen Panasonic models lately, but those go for about the same price as the as the Westinghouse. Considering that, I'd say you'd have to really strongly favor high resolution desktop use far more than overall image quality to pick the LCD in that case. Heck, I'm still using and old 42" ED plasma as my primary desktop (letting it downsample a 1280x720 output so I have a decent amount of desktop area), but because I do a lot of gaming and some HDTV and DVD watching on it as well I wouldn't want to sacrifice the image quality there for even a top of the line LCD at similar size, let alone a 3rd tier model.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Well, I guess I should have qualified a bit more. I was specifically referring to 37" LCD's. If I was to buy a new screen today (which I am not), I would opt for a Westinghouse LVM-37W3, which I think would make for a better HTPC display with its 1920x1080 res than my Sony KDE-37XS955, with its 1024x1024 resolution, plus it's cheaper than any 37" plasma I've seen. Since I'm not actually looking to buy, I haven't really done an exhaustive price comparison though.

Then I think you might be surprised, it seems 37" plasmas are get phased out by most manufactures as I've only seen Panasonic models lately, but those go for about the same price as the as the Westinghouse. Considering that, I'd say you'd have to really strongly favor high resolution desktop use far more than overall image quality to pick the LCD in that case. Heck, I'm still using and old 42" ED plasma as my primary desktop (letting it downsample a 1280x720 output so I have a decent amount of desktop area), but because I do a lot of gaming and some HDTV and DVD watching on it as well I wouldn't want to sacrifice the image quality there for even a top of the line LCD at similar size, let alone a 3rd tier model.

The fact that 37" plasmas are kind of disappearing is actually the reason I got mine almost 2 years ago, as that was even the case at that time. Most places were selling 42" screens for only about $100 more than their equivalent 37", so the 42" plasmas were really gaining popularity. My wife really wanted a 37" though, so we jumped on the Sony. Like I said, I'm really pleased with it as a HDTV, but I haven't been blown away by it when it's hooked up to a PC. I do need to mess with it a bit more though. I was planning on down sampling with my plasma as well, are you using DVI/HDMI (doubtful HDMI if it's older) or component?

 

[kylebisme]

I have a commercial model Panasonic display which supports swappable input blades that allow me the option to use any connection including HDMI, but I use the VGA input for my PC since that is the connection on which my display supports by far the widest assortment of resolutions and refresh rates. If your Sony can support a VGA input I highly recommend trying it as nothing beats being able to play older games rendered at resolutions like 2560x1440 and tweak the resolution on newer games to get the most out of image quality with good performance at custom resolutions like 1440x810 or 1600x900. But if VGA isn't an option hopefully you can use DVI or HDMI, as while the resolution support will likely be as limited as component, like VGA they do care carry full quality color where stuff like normal text on a webpage doesn't look nearly as good on component due to it's inherent chroma compression.