Plasma TV's are dying

[SphinxnihpS]

I constantly play video games on my Kuro and use it as a computer monitor. Zero burn in. ZERO!

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
24" OLED for $399 in 2015.

OLED is not panacea. It still sucks if you can't control the lighting in the room just like plasma, and has the sample and hold issues of LCD thus poor motion quality.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I can't believe that the average person replaces their TV every 4 years like that article says. I've had the same TV for 6 years now and I don't see any need to replace it.

ZV

woot killing the average, every TV in my house is at least 8 years old. I think the oldest is like 15

my main TV is a 27 inch standard def tube TV,

I don't even own a TV anymore.

 

[rh71]

wait so if I recently bought a plasma and it has a great picture, none of this trend stuff affects me? Ok then.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: Chris

Originally posted by: M0oG0oGaiPan
Cause people are cheap? Wired actually had a pretty article about this last month.

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/m...ne/17-09/ff_goodenough

Cheap? Plasma are 1/2 the cost of LCDs. Plasma is dying because:

- Too much power draw
- Not as thin/light as LCD/LED
- Burn-in scare
- Marketing

one of my customers has a DCS spread across 2 46" LCDs. they got LCDs instead of plasma because people told them the plasmas would burn with the static image they were going to display. the LCDs are both showing very bad burn in, the director was pissed.

My Phillips Plasma is 2+ years old and has pixel wobble tech to prevent burn in.
To me, Plasma is better than LCD. Colors and blacks just are more vibrant and deeper on a plasma.

I've got an LN52A650 (very popular LCD from Samsung) and I love it. My friend has a 50" Samsung plasma, although I'm not sure of the model. Neither is professionally calibrated. I would say blacks are extremely comparable, with the blacks on the LCD matching the bezel in normal lighting conditions. The color vibrancy (no word on accuracy) is also incredible while his plasma almost looks "dimmed" in comparison. Although burn-in might occur less frequently on new sets, TIR still appears to be a problem with him having to run the built-in eraser program quite a bit. I believe both run equally hot and weigh about the same.

I know there is a lot of bias against LCDs here, and I'm sure that when measured objectively a good plasma will come out slightly ahead of a good LCD, I just don't think the difference is all that great between quality panels.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

I know there is a lot of bias against LCDs here, and I'm sure that when measured objectively a good plasma will come out slightly ahead of a good LCD, I just don't think the difference is all that great between quality panels.

The difference is still VERY big. The only reason people would disagree is if they bought a LCD and try to justify their purchase. People that own multiple quality displays can objectively say the LCDs can't touch a plasma in picture quality. It's not even close.

 

[Schfifty Five]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
Plasmas are just as thin as LCDs now (not counting the LED LCD TVs but just normal back lit ones) - go to a fry's or bestbuy and compare the newest samsung plasmas and newest non-LED LCD TV samsungs.

Actually, Samsung has some thin plasmas.

um...that was my point.

Samsung doesn't have plasmas that are as thin as the new LED LCD TVs, but they are still very thin compared to regular back lit LCDs.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BigDH01

I know there is a lot of bias against LCDs here, and I'm sure that when measured objectively a good plasma will come out slightly ahead of a good LCD, I just don't think the difference is all that great between quality panels.

The difference is still VERY big. The only reason people would disagree is if they bought a LCD and try to justify their purchase. People that own multiple quality displays can objectively say the LCDs can't touch a plasma in picture quality. It's not even close.

Meh. With the new LED backlit LCD's, the difference in picture quality is hardly noticeable to anyone but a hard core videophile.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

My eyes give a better picture than plasma.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BigDH01

I know there is a lot of bias against LCDs here, and I'm sure that when measured objectively a good plasma will come out slightly ahead of a good LCD, I just don't think the difference is all that great between quality panels.

The difference is still VERY big. The only reason people would disagree is if they bought a LCD and try to justify their purchase. People that own multiple quality displays can objectively say the LCDs can't touch a plasma in picture quality. It's not even close.

Meh. With the new LED backlit LCD's, the difference in picture quality is hardly noticeable to anyone but a hard core videophile.

Are you serious? I'm no videophile but still think plasma looks way better than LED. To be honest I don't much care for how the image looks on the led backlit sets.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
Plasmas are just as thin as LCDs now (not counting the LED LCD TVs but just normal back lit ones) - go to a fry's or bestbuy and compare the newest samsung plasmas and newest non-LED LCD TV samsungs.

Actually, Samsung has some thin plasmas.

um...that was my point.

Samsung doesn't have plasmas that are as thin as the new LED LCD TVs, but they are still very thin compared to regular back lit LCDs.

I guess I'd have to ask which new LED LCD TVs you're talking about.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BigDH01

I know there is a lot of bias against LCDs here, and I'm sure that when measured objectively a good plasma will come out slightly ahead of a good LCD, I just don't think the difference is all that great between quality panels.

The difference is still VERY big. The only reason people would disagree is if they bought a LCD and try to justify their purchase. People that own multiple quality displays can objectively say the LCDs can't touch a plasma in picture quality. It's not even close.

I'll just link you to Sound and Vision. Test bench.

Even after seeking the most accurate preset for each HDTV in this face-off, neither initially tracked terribly close to the industry standard 6500 K spec for color temperature. In its Movie mode with Low color temp/Color Space Mode 2 settings, the Pioneer plasma ran as high as +1,599 K on the brightest 100 IRE window (that is, quite blue), and +436 K from 20 to 90 IRE. The Samsung, in its Movie mode with Warm 2 color temp/Auto Color Space settings, tracked up to +995 K from 20 to 100 IRE, and +752 K from 30 to 100 IRE. Calibration in the advanced user menus by technical editor Al Griffin brought both to within about ±220 K at 100 IRE and within 150 K from 30 to 90 IRE, though in typical LCD fashion the Samsung had more ups and downs and fell further off in the darkest 20 IRE window.

For purpose of our comparision, instrumentation was used to match both panels to a post-calibration brightness of 35 ftL, a comfortable setting for dark-room viewing. It's worth noting that the LCD had the edge here in its inherent ability to pump out a bright image, though Al kept it in reign to make things fair.

Color primaries for both sets measured essentially perfect across the board against the SMPTE HD spec ? a rarity for one TV, much less two. And color decoders were accurate as well, with both sets showing only a minor +2.5% error for red.

Perhaps it can be justified?

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Chris

Originally posted by: Slick5150
What world do you live in where that statement is true?

I wouldn't say they're considerably more expensive than a comparable LCD, but they are RARELY cheaper, and never "1/2 the cost"

Samsung LN46B750 46-Inch 1080p LCD MSRPs for 2,229.99
Panasonic 46" G10 MSRPs for $1499.99

Not half but significantly cheaper and the Panasonic is a much, much better set.

The only difference would be the Pioneer Kuro line and we all know now how the business model of selling uber expensive sets to cork sniffers worked out for Pioneer.

Uhh. You're comparing the price of a set released in 2003 to one of Samsung's newest models (which sells for $1499 at a number of places, not $2,229 anyways). That's a great comparison!

Whether or not one is better than the other is irrelevent at that point. New models = higher prices while older models are discounted and/or discontinued.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
Plasmas generally are hotter than LCDs, though not always true, and sometimes it's very minimal.

Plasmas generally do draw more power.

Plasmas are just as thin as LCDs now (not counting the LED LCD TVs but just normal back lit ones) - go to a fry's or bestbuy and compare the newest samsung plasmas and newest non-LED LCD TV samsungs.

Plasmas can have burn-in, but today's technology has a lot of protection against it (ie pixel shifting, etc)

truth. except the parts that are false.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: lokiju

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Aikouka
I like DLP TVs still... but no one really makes them anymore . They received most of their bad press from the bulbs and people complaining about "terrible viewing angles." In my opinion, the viewing angles was a bit overblown and the bulbs have been replaced with LED arrays. They're also lighter and cheaper at larger sizes.

I have a DLP. i love it. the viewing angle is fine. sure i have to replace the bulb every 6k hours. even at $120 a bulb replacing it 10 time i still come out ahead of buying a 65inch lcd.

My biggest grip with any projection tech is the overscan issues when trying to use a Media Center PC.

err, overscans are adjustable...

 

[Papagayo]

LED will replace LCD..

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Uhh. You're comparing the price of a set released in 2003 to one of Samsung's newest models (which sells for $1499 at a number of places, not $2,229 anyways). That's a great comparison!

The Panasonic G10 is the latest. It's $1000 at Amazon and the Samsung LCD is $1700.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Now that LED screens are out, I'm going to wait a while for the technology to "mature" a bit, then start looking at those.

I have yet to see a LCD screen that I liked better than a plasma.

sounds like you've fallen for samsung's marketing. the "LED" TV is an LCD. they've already been slapped by the british advertising regulator for misleading ads.

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think DLP will end up in projection screens and that is it.

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Umm, at sizes that are smaller than 50 inches (some say 42 inches) LCD is cheaper. Traditionally plasmas were cheaper at sizes over 50 inches though. That is starting to change though, and you can get an LCD for about the same as the same size plasma.

at 42" full hd LCDs and plasma are about the same price. price parity is not the same as less expensive. and seeing as how an LED backlight will run you double the plasma, there's no competition at all.

 

[Aztech]

Well, I guess it doesn't really matter that they're being phased out, from the perspective of someone shopping for a new TV now. It's not like it's a technology that will no longer be supported, like HD-DVD or something. So, if you're in the market for a TV now or in the near future, the fact that Plasma may eventually lose the battle vs. LCD should not stop one from still chooosing Plasma as long as they're available. Especially at the prices of some of the deals lately.

<---Satisfied owner of a 50" Panasonic Plasma.

 

[nCred]

LED LCDs are overhyped, they are not really better than normal LCD TVs when it comes to picture quality. Not yet anyway.

 

[soulcougher73]

I enjoy my 50" Samsung Plasma. Wish i could afford the Pioneer 600M though.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Um, this is old news. :thumbsdown:

 

[villageidiot111]

Hell, even my 32'' Plasma Vizio beats Samsung LCD TVs.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BigDH01

I know there is a lot of bias against LCDs here, and I'm sure that when measured objectively a good plasma will come out slightly ahead of a good LCD, I just don't think the difference is all that great between quality panels.

The difference is still VERY big. The only reason people would disagree is if they bought a LCD and try to justify their purchase. People that own multiple quality displays can objectively say the LCDs can't touch a plasma in picture quality. It's not even close.

There's really not. All those things like "screen door effect" and "poor blacks" have been taken care of in the last two generations of LCD's.

Add this with the fact LCD's are lighter and less fragile I can see why people went with them instead. Plus, do they make an affordable 1080p plasma yet? I haven't checked lately.

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Add this with the fact LCD's are lighter and less fragile I can see why people went with them instead. Plus, do they make an affordable 1080p plasma yet? I haven't checked lately.

1080p plasma is quite common now.

The problem is the plasma name just has a horrible stigma it can't seem to shake thanks mainly to LCD marketing. The technology will continue to sell to videophiles, but my guess is that by 2012 there won't be any mass produced plasma sets in existence.