Are plasmas on the way out?

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Wasnt some new tech announced last year called Laser or something? IIR its supposed to be twice as better than plasma, last 5 times longer than plasma (plasma deteriorates) and cost a lot less?

plasmas now last over 25 years... lifetime is not an issue

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Wasnt some new tech announced last year called Laser or something? IIR its supposed to be twice as better than plasma, last 5 times longer than plasma (plasma deteriorates) and cost a lot less?

plasmas now last over 25 years... lifetime is not an issue

And that's 25 years if you have the TV on for 7 hours every day. That's also its half-life, meaning that the plasma should be at half of its original brightness when it hits 60,000 hours of use.

 

[Deinonych]

Plasmas also offer much wider viewing angles than LCD displays (this coming from an owner of two LCD TVs).

One of my family members recently purchased a Pioneer 42" plasma, and it is hands down one of the nicest displays I've ever seen. No other plasma comes close to it in overall PQ and black level, let alone LCD displays.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: kalrith

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Wasnt some new tech announced last year called Laser or something? IIR its supposed to be twice as better than plasma, last 5 times longer than plasma (plasma deteriorates) and cost a lot less?

plasmas now last over 25 years... lifetime is not an issue

And that's 25 years if you have the TV on for 7 hours every day. That's also its half-life, meaning that the plasma should be at half of its original brightness when it hits 60,000 hours of use.

It's amazing how urban legends prevail isn't it? Yet misinformation abounds about different displays. I honestly think there are a few hundred people spreading misinformation and being paid by their opposition. Not a bad gig I guess. Post enough bullshit and people on message boards eventually believe it.

Your plasma will die after 2 years!!!!!

 

[FP]

I recently purchased an 8G Pio 50" 1080P set for $3400 shipped to my door. Every single person who has seen it has asked about it and everyone was amazed it was a plasma because they all bought into the FUD about plasmas.

I spent about a year researching TVs and this set was hands down the winner. I looked at the new 81 series Sammys and their black levels with content could not match the Pioneer. Not even close. They did have an inky black screen when they had no signal but who watches TV without a signal?

Plasma might be on its way out but the PDP I bought is by far the best TV for the money.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: binister
I recently purchased an 8G Pio 50" 1080P set for $3400 shipped to my door. Every single person who has seen it has asked about it and everyone was amazed it was a plasma because they all bought into the FUD about plasmas.

I spent about a year researching TVs and this set was hands down the winner. I looked at the new 81 series Sammys and their black levels with content could not match the Pioneer. Not even close. They did have an inky black screen when they had no signal but who watches TV without a signal?

Plasma might be on its way out but the PDP I bought is by far the best TV for the money.

Not to mention that the 81 series samsung essentially uses smoke and mirrors to achieve it's black level, since it can only turn on/off the back light for certain quadrants (64 ?) of the screen. People have reported that this can render some very strange picture characteristics in lighter details of predominantly black areas of the screen.

Also, the 81 52" series samsung is 5K while the 50" 8G Pioneer is 3.4K. If you want the best in either category, how can you justify the Samsung? And if you have a more conservative budget, why would you choose a 52" 71 series samsung for $3100 when a 50" Panasonic 700u can be had for 2K?

Even if we concede that the best LCD's are approaching Plasma quality (I have serious doubts), we still must realize that there is still a significant price differential at 50" and above, making LCD hard to justify.

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: DBL
Even if we concede that the best LCD's are approaching Plasma quality (I have serious doubts), we still must realize that there is still a significant price differential at 50" and above, making LCD hard to justify.

Did you read the part where he paid $3400 for a 50" set? The 8G Pioneers are the best flat panels out now, but they don't come cheap. Either way, I wouldn't look at an LCD over 46".

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Chris

Originally posted by: DBL
Even if we concede that the best LCD's are approaching Plasma quality (I have serious doubts), we still must realize that there is still a significant price differential at 50" and above, making LCD hard to justify.

Did you read the part where he paid $3400 for a 50" set? The 8G Pioneers are the best flat panels out now, but they don't come cheap. Either way, I wouldn't look at an LCD over 46".

And I wouldn't look at an HDTV under 50". It just isn't practical to get the full benefit of HD. therefore, plasma wins again.

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: spidey07
And I wouldn't look at an HDTV under 50". It just isn't practical to get the full benefit of HD. therefore, plasma wins again.

Might as well get a front projector then. Plenty of spaces have need for a 40 - 46" sets, we don't all live in castles.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Chris

Originally posted by: spidey07
And I wouldn't look at an HDTV under 50". It just isn't practical to get the full benefit of HD. therefore, plasma wins again.

Might as well get a front projector then. Plenty of spaces have need for a 40 - 46" sets, we don't all live in castles.

Even the smallest of spaces need > 50 inches. A 40-46" TV is essentially worthless for a main viewing display.

the year is almost 2008, the year of trueHD 1080p.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Chris

Originally posted by: DBL
Even if we concede that the best LCD's are approaching Plasma quality (I have serious doubts), we still must realize that there is still a significant price differential at 50" and above, making LCD hard to justify.

Did you read the part where he paid $3400 for a 50" set? The 8G Pioneers are the best flat panels out now, but they don't come cheap. Either way, I wouldn't look at an LCD over 46".

Read my post again. I'm comparing the best with the best.

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Chris

Originally posted by: DBL
Even if we concede that the best LCD's are approaching Plasma quality (I have serious doubts), we still must realize that there is still a significant price differential at 50" and above, making LCD hard to justify.

Did you read the part where he paid $3400 for a 50" set? The 8G Pioneers are the best flat panels out now, but they don't come cheap. Either way, I wouldn't look at an LCD over 46".

Read my post again. I'm comparing the best with the best.

Samsung 81 series is not the best. It's new, unproven technology. You're better off comparing it to the Samsung 71 series which improves on tried and true CCFL. The 5271 retails for $4,400, where the PDP-5010FD retails for $600 more.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Chris

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Chris

Originally posted by: DBL
Even if we concede that the best LCD's are approaching Plasma quality (I have serious doubts), we still must realize that there is still a significant price differential at 50" and above, making LCD hard to justify.

Did you read the part where he paid $3400 for a 50" set? The 8G Pioneers are the best flat panels out now, but they don't come cheap. Either way, I wouldn't look at an LCD over 46".

Read my post again. I'm comparing the best with the best.

Samsung 81 series is not the best. It's new, unproven technology. You're better off comparing it to the Samsung 71 series which improves on tried and true CCFL. The 5271 retails for $4,400, where the PDP-5010FD retails for $600 more.

We're talking quality here bud, not price.

I find most LCD defenders bring up the price argument. I also find the same kind of arugment among people that can't afford good displays.

Interesting.

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: spidey07
We're talking quality here bud, not price.

I find most LCD defenders bring up the price argument. I also find the same kind of arugment among people that can't afford good displays.

Interesting.

I bought a $2200 Samsung LCD when I could have spent less on a Panasonic 1080p plasma. Ever think there's a reason knowledgeable people would do such a thing? I could have dumped $4500 on a 1080p Kuro if quality was the only concern.

The really sad part is no flat-panel technology can hold a candle to the PQ of the $400 Trinitron CRT I donated to get a flat-panel. I'm not going to spend 10x what I paid for my old CRT to get worse PQ albeit in HD.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Chris

Originally posted by: spidey07
We're talking quality here bud, not price.

I find most LCD defenders bring up the price argument. I also find the same kind of arugment among people that can't afford good displays.

Interesting.

I bought a $2200 Samsung LCD when I could have spent less on a Panasonic 1080p plasma. Ever think there's a reason knowledgeable people would do such a thing? I could have dumped $4500 on a 1080p Kuro if quality was the only concern.

The really sad part is no flat-panel technology can hold a candle to the PQ of the $400 Trinitron CRT I donated to get a flat-panel. I'm not going to spend 10x what I paid for my old CRT to get worse PQ albeit in HD.

Scanlines on your SD CRT do not equal quality. Even if you had a direct view CRT it suffers from severe resolution problems although it's color and contrast probably surpass any other .

This is what is so sad. People just don't know quality when they see it. This is understandable when people thing their iPod sounds great.

People like Chris want that "super sharp, ultra edge-enhanced, blinding" display. Little do they know that's not good quality. So they purchase an LCD, then justify their purchase because they don't know or understand quality.

But this is a discussion about quality. There is no debate about plasma vs. LCD quality. Anybody that argues this needs some glasses or some education.

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Scanlines on your SD CRT do not equal quality. Even if you had a direct view CRT it suffers from severe resolution problems although it's color and contrast probably surpass any other .

Like the screen door effect on your plasma is any better? Color, contrast, and black-levels on almost any CRT make the 8G Pioneers look washed out in comparison. Notice I am not bashing plasma alone here. Flat-panel technology is just not there yet, especially for the price.

This is what is so sad. People just don't know quality when they see it. This is understandable when people thing their iPod sounds great.

People like Chris want that "super sharp, ultra edge-enhanced, blinding" display. Little do they know that's not good quality. So they purchase an LCD, then justify their purchase because they don't know or understand quality.

Nice that you know what I want. I purchased a LCD because I don't want to have to baby my TV. Deny IR all you want but I've already posted pics of 8G Pioneers with IR from gaming (even with the orbiter on) that lasted weeks and persisted through multiple screen wipes.

Using 2005 arguments against LCD is cheap. If you think all LCD owners run in torch mode with edge-enchantment on you've just proven your ignorance.

 

[Manaknight]

heya, i'm going to toss an opinion out there.

I found this thread while looking for info on my new tv....a panasonic 700u plasma

now i had looked at a lot of the arguments put forth in this ad. Originally i had purchased a sharp 1080p 42 inch tv, last year i had tried the sharp 720p. i played all my systems, watched sd and hd, and ran my pc through them...in the end the only thing i think looked and reacted better on the lcd was my pc.

I really have to say the latest gen of plasma really have an excellent picture quality, it handles sd fairly well (better than the sharp side by side), and is probably the best image quality i have seen under the pioneer kuro's and maybe the highest end dlp.

and understand the choice of this panasonic was made against my normal habits...normally I by default buy samsung when I go high end, all my monitors are samsung, my hard drive, my phone, my dvd player.... needless to say i like their products...but really even the 120hz can't beat the panasonic plasma quality... its close...but its also way more expensive (i got the panasonic for 1100)

i really think there is a market for both, but until we see what oleds can do in the home market...i really think plasma will always have a high end niche

 

[TVNoob]

I have a 52 inch Sharp LCD, and I love it. No idea if plasma really is better, but all the shops here (in Tokyo) stock far more LCD's than they do plasma's. From what I saw, both LCD and plasma's look fantastic.

It seems the public is voting with their wallets though:

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/ne...iced_plasma_models.php

December 13, 2007. Pacific Media Associates, the global market information experts on large-screen displays, reports that in the hotly contested 50" to 54" HDTV market segment, 1080p LCD models outsold 1080p plasma models nearly three to one, even though the LCD models had average street prices 19% higher than the plasma models. LCDs continue to take market share away from plasma. As reported in their October Consumer 2007 Flat Panel Display Tracking Service, LCDs accounted for 80% of the total units sold in the flat panel TV market (models 26" or larger).

 

[Muadib]

LCDs Dominate TV Sales, But Plasmas Are Better Value

 

[Nutdotnet]

I was dead-set on buying an LCD....until I saw my brother's Panasonic Plasma.

I'm now a proud owner of a TH-50PC77U (costco version). I love it! I could get their 1080p version...but for a price premium of $550...I just don't know if it's worth it.

 

[nOOky]

I always approach a new purchase with an open mind in regards to brand and type etc. Especially an expensive item like a television. Having shopped around, compared views and reviews online etc. and having compared as many sets side by side as I could, I went with a Panasonic plasma. The lcd's looked good, and brighter, but my t.v. is mainly for movies and hdtv, and the plasma looked so much better color-wise. I also broke tradition, and went with a smaller t.v. I sit 8 feet away, and a 42" seems so much better than my old 53".
I say buy whatever suits your needs. I'll probably get an lcd for the bedroom when my current unit gets outdated, just because of the type of viewing I do in there.

 

[newb54]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Chris
I don't want to sound like an LCD fanboy, because I think both technologies, when you add up the sum of all their faults and benefits come out about even. But all the plasma-superiority you hear on forums may have been valid in 2005, but today it's mostly bullocks.

Nope.

Plasma still offer the best quality. Nobody argues this. It's accepted fact.

Yeah I agree, making up crap and posting it is fun.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: newb54

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Chris
I don't want to sound like an LCD fanboy, because I think both technologies, when you add up the sum of all their faults and benefits come out about even. But all the plasma-superiority you hear on forums may have been valid in 2005, but today it's mostly bullocks.

Nope.

Plasma still offer the best quality. Nobody argues this. It's accepted fact.

Yeah I agree, making up crap and posting it is fun.

Yeah, it's funny how people will continue to defend their purchase of an LCD.

But when it comes to quality plasma wins.

 

[lopri]

Maybe it's because of my fault, but my 2.5 year old Pioneer Plasma Elite degraded rather quickly. I didn't play games or hooked up a PC. Just watching TVs and movies. And that thing was 8K at that time. Last year I compared thoroughly between LCD and Plasma, and decided on Samsung 5271F. Couldn't be happier.

I see the parity of Plasma->LCD in TVs and CRT->LCD in PC monitors. Not because of both transitioned to LCDs, but because of the similarity of arguments. CRT folks for a long time defended CRT as the purest and clearest picture and fastest response time in gaming. For some reason, those folks stopped talking about the said superiority of CRTs. One by one..

I think in a year or two I will see the same thing, this time for TVs. Purists who now defend Plasma will disappear one by one. Unfortunately I can only prove my point over some time, which I can't have now.

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yeah, it's funny how people will continue to defend their purchase of an LCD.

Same way people defend their purchase of a plasma, to the point of denying things like IR are a problem. Fact is that every flat-panel technology has its strengths and weaknesses.

But when it comes to quality plasma wins.

Depends on your definition of quality. Watching film in a dark room? Sure. Being resilient to static images over prolonged periods of time? Not so much.