DailyTech - LG to Ship 71-inch Plasma in the States

Submit News

Gadgets LG to Ship 71-inch Plasma in the States
Sven Olsen (Blog) - April 7, 2006 4:25 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

30 comment(s) - last by kkwst2.. on Apr 11 at 1:01 AM

Clipping from LG Electronics Magazine Ad

Its new, but only if you live in the United States

LG Electronics, a leader in cell phones, consumer electronics, household appliances, and other things including LCD displays, will be launching it 71-inch plasma screen televisions in the United States a year after making its way into the Korean marketplace.

LG Electronics is one of the top manufacturers in the LCD industry and is an array of models. The MW-71PY10 plasma display is a 71-inch mammoth which boasts 1080p resolution, a 1,200:1 contrast ratio, a decent 160 degree viewing angle and 6x15 watt speakers.

Being a 71-inch Plasma, the MW-71PY10 does not come cheap, or even close to affordable for the average consumer. Sources such as Engadget state a pretty steep retail price of about $28,000 for a brand new set.

LG made news with Philips in a joint venture in LCDs recently at CES this year with a 100-inch prototype boasting 5ms response times and a 3,000:1 contrast ratio. It may not be long before we see 100-inch plasmas costing, lets say, $50,000?

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Plasma FTL

By exdeath on 4/7/2006 5:41:31 PM , Rating: 3

Just get a HD front projector and get it over with.

Better color and contrast, bigger screen, etc. Of course keeping the lights off to use it is a price to pay but well worth it. The best part about projectors are they are user serviceable; just replace a $300 lamp every year or two.

I won't feel sorry for the first person who buys one of these for the status and soon finds a sports logo etched into the $30,000 screen. Plasma's are like RAZRs and other "bling" toys, over rated and under performing.

RE: Plasma FTL

By Enoch2001 on 4/7/06, Rating: 0

RE: Plasma FTL

By exdeath on 4/7/2006 9:23:12 PM , Rating: 2

BS. Image shifting functions and screen savers only prove that it's still a problem. I've left static images on my 21" CRT (F500R) for over 5 years now without using screen savers and image shifting and I don't have burn in. Don’t even try to convince me plasma panels have attained this level of burn immunity, it’s inherit in the phosphor technology they use. I see plasma screens in stores now, current new models that have the onscreen menus burned into the display because someone left the OSD enabled all the time (ie: VIDEO 4 or COMPONENT 1080I completely burned out of the green phosphor)

It's obviously still a problem, and I believe it is the plasma owners who are misinformed, or rather they won’t admit they have problems with their precious status symbol.

Either way, front projection has always been the superior large screen video technology and will continue to be for a long time.

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By kkwst2 on 4/7/2006 9:41:19 PM , Rating: 2

Well, if exdeath just wants to lie, that's fine. Show me one picture of a plasma built in the last 2 years that has severe burn in. The OSD won't even stay on long enough to burn in. And burn in has nothing to do with the phosphors, it has to do with the panel in front of the phosphors. It's burn IN, not burn OUT. The image gets etched into the panel, and improvements in the panel materials have all but eliminated this. Shifting functions help assure this, but mine doesn't have tnis feature, and I have no hint of burn in.

What you may have seen are the shadows left after something has been on for a long time, but this isn't permanent. A neighbor's son left a game on overnight frozen with no hint of burn in. If you don't like the technology, fine, but don't spread your misinformed crap. I don't give a damn whether anyone else buys a plasma, and I do think it's probably a stop-gap technology until LCD's get better and cheaper and/or OLED gets perfected. But in the meantime, I think it's the best combination of price/performance/size.

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By masher2

(blog) on 4/7/2006 10:42:58 PM , Rating: 2

> "And burn in has nothing to do with the phosphors, it has to do with the panel in front of the phosphors. It's burn IN, not burn OUT"

No, the primary mechanism of burn in is uneven phosphor wear. There is a separate effect of 'screen searing' that also plagues CRTs and Plasma sets, but thats considerably rarer.

And yes, burn in is still an issue, though better phosphors and techniques such as pixel orbiters have dramatically reduced the problem. Still, I don't know any manufacturer that doesn't tell you to be careful with static images during the first 100 hours of use...the period in which the set is most susceptible to burn in.

> "I do think it's probably a stop-gap technology until LCD's get better and cheaper and/or OLED gets perfected"

OLED isn't going to be a big-screen display technology anytime in the next couple of decades. If anything will overtakes Plasma, it'll be SED displays, starting next year.

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By Sunbird on 4/8/2006 5:54:44 AM , Rating: 2

Masher is right.

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 4/10/2006 12:45:19 AM , Rating: 2

"If anything will overtakes Plasma, it'll be SED displays, starting next year. "

I disagree. SED is OK, but it's really *really expensive. Even with economies of scale that technology is going to take a long time to even out. LCD and SED are both plagued by substrate sizes anyway, and while its a little easier for SED substrates, both require ridiculous amounts of precision as you scale.

I was once an opponent of OLED over other technologies for large displays. However, most of the OLED color issues have been addressed -- and the best part of all is how insanely cheap OLED is. It's not cheap today, but the process itself is borderline trivial if you have the materials, particularly compared to something like LCD or SED production.

No I get the feeling OLED or something very similar will be a dominant technology in home entertainment in the future, and it won't be decades either. LCD took less than 5 years to obtain 80% marketshare in the PC world. DLP is my current favorite technology in the HT world -- but really in 5-10 years we will buy some TVs in roll up tubes and put them on the wall. And they will be really cheap too.

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By masher2

(blog) on 4/10/2006 9:39:24 AM , Rating: 3

> "I disagree. SED is OK, but it's really *really expensive..."

If you compare the manufacturing steps required for LCD, Plasma, and SED, its clear, once SED is a mature technology, it will be the cheapest by far.

From a strict process step perspective, OLED could be cheaper-- but today, a 55" OLED display would be several times the cost of SED. Even assuming costs come down, you still have the problem of panel lifetime.

SED's final trump card is image quality. Besides the other benefits (sub-ms response times, 100,000+ contrast ratios), there is the issue of maximum resolution. Canon and Toshiba claim its very easy for the technology to hit 300 dpi. That's three times what we can get from LCD and ~6 times what Plasma can do.

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 4/10/2006 2:51:31 PM , Rating: 2

Yes, all of your points are valid. But pretty much the same can be said for OLED too. The difference is OLED has been in production for years, it just hasn't been scaled yet. SED has been in semi-development for years as well, but the infrastructure to grow OLED is all over the place.

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By kkwst2 on 4/11/2006 12:35:21 AM , Rating: 2

The mechanism of burn-in (the permanent stuff that ruins your set) has always been what you call etching.

I understand that people refer to phosphor "wear" as you put it, as burn-in or "phosphor burn-in", but that's not the major problem. In fact, this mechanism is often temporary. Furthermore, this happens much more gradually, and usually only with static images that last for days of accumulated time, as opposed to classic burn-in which could theoretically happen after a few hours of a static image.

Parent

Clarification

By kkwst2 on 4/11/2006 1:01:44 AM , Rating: 2

Just to be more clear, what you're calling phosphor wear is usually not permanent. You might see it in a store on a TV that they've got showing a static image for a few hours, but this will fade if it's caused by what you call phosphor wear. If this went on for some time, it could certainly be difficult to get rid of and possibly permanent.

On the other hand, the original problem with plasmas was true burn-in, in which the image would permanently change the glass element.

I think if you research the subject more, you'll find that what I'm saying is true.

I hate for people to pass on plasma technology because of all the misinformation on this subject. I think that eventually, LCD and other technologies will make plasma obselete. However, for now, plasma is probably the best option for most people.

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By vhato on 4/8/2006 6:42:32 PM , Rating: 2

kkwst2,

I have 7 Dell W4201C (42" HDTV) that are a tad more than 1 year old at work. 4 are burned in very badly and we wasted serious amounts of time following Panasonic's care instructions for the first 100 hours (Which went by quick for us). I also have one 18" Planar LCD thats 4 years old with 4 icons burned in. Granted, this computer lacks a screen saver and is on 24/7 just like the 4 Plasma's. For the average guy who can afford a plasma TV though, I highly doubt they will ever see burn-in, you just asked for proof .

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By kkwst2 on 4/11/2006 12:44:02 AM , Rating: 2

I guess I should have qualified this with "consumer use" sets. It sounds like you're using these in a commercial application where a static image stays on for hours on end.

But point taken. There's no doubt that it's a potential problem for some applications. However, for general consumer use, it's almost never an issue like you said.

Your comment on burn-in on an LCD is interesting, as it's generally considered a non-issue on LCD's. I'd be curious as to the mechanism - the backlight slowly doing the burning?

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By Enoch2001 on 4/8/2006 12:04:16 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
BS.Image shifting functions and screen savers only prove that it's still a problem.

No more of a problem than with CRT's; read the included literature with any name brand CRT television and the same warnings against image burn are prevalent.

Precious status symbols aside, plasma technology has matured to the point where it is the best option for many large screen display options. The image quality is superior to LCD's, the time to half-brightness is superior to current CRT technology, and the elegance is unrivaled.

Front projection and projectors in general(a precious status symbol to some here I see) is an archaic breed that will die a miserable death much faster than you think. Mark my words. Their size is an inconvenience that in itself.

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By masher2

(blog) on 4/8/2006 12:51:11 PM , Rating: 2

> "No more of a problem than with CRT's; read the included literature with any name brand CRT television and the same warnings against image burn..."

My old projection CRT came with no such warning, and hasn't never once exhibited burn in or image retention...despite many times where kids have left it with a DVD or console menu statically displaying overnight. Plasma's aren't quite to this level yet, though they've made dramatic gains.

> "plasma technology has matured to the point where it is the best option for many large screen display options"

Quite true. However, I suspect by the time the old myths die, plasma will already be supplanted.

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By bob661 on 4/8/2006 8:42:50 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
It's obviously still a problem, and I believe it is the plasma owners who are misinformed, or rather they won’t admit they have problems with their precious status symbol.

Word to big bird.

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By exdeath on 4/7/2006 9:26:09 PM , Rating: 2

BTW my 1080p projector cost more than a 61" plasma so don't pull the "you're just whining because you dont have one or can't afford one" card. kthxbye.

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By Enoch2001 on 4/8/2006 12:17:51 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
..kthxbye

Riiight...

Anyway, I wasn't eluding to anyone not being able to afford them; I was eluding to the fact that most of the people bi%ching about plasmas here probably don't even own one, and how you can you bi%ch so much when you've never even tried the technology out?

I've owned CRT, still own LCD, still own projectors (although both the CRT and projectors have been given away to family members), and I can say first hand that my 50" plasma was the best purchase I have ever made for display techology. A 1080p projector is impressive, but doesn't hold a candle to the convenience and other merits that I have with my 50" plasma hanging on my wall sticking a mere 4 inches out.

And by the way, at an average viewing distance of 10 foot out most people can hardly discern a difference between 720p and 1080p. And don't even get me started on the lack of 1080p content available right now (heh, finding 720p and 1080i content is hard enough). Nice that you're an early adopter though; looks like both you and I represent the guinea pigs of this bunch.

So what's the term? Oh yeah... "kthxbye".

Parent

RE: Plasma FTL

By kkwst2 on 4/7/2006 9:30:20 PM , Rating: 2

Yeah, it amazes me how many people love to talk about stuff they don't know shit about. Clearly this person knows nothing about current plasma techonology.

I've not met one person who didn't drool over my plasma, and it's a 2 year old Panasonic EDTV. Burn in and lifespan are non-issues and if having a big TV that doesn't take up half your room is "bling", then so be it.

Parent

Jesus, 28000?

By bamacre on 4/7/2006 5:20:58 PM , Rating: 3

How about making them cheaper rather than bigger? Do we really need a $28,000 71 inch TV?

RE: Jesus, 28000?

By SLEEPER5555 on 4/7/2006 5:38:54 PM , Rating: 1

and add to this the fact that plasma blows! Damn!

Parent

RE: Jesus, 28000?

By Enoch2001 on 4/7/06, Rating: 0

RE: Jesus, 28000?

By breethon on 4/7/2006 7:25:51 PM , Rating: 2

I agree....I might actually buy one if they were even remotely reasonably priced. Almost as stupid as buying a movie for $30+ and not being able to play it on your tv or burn it to disc! How moronic can you get.

Parent

RE: Jesus, 28000?

By jtesoro on 4/8/2006 2:09:25 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Do we really need a $28,000 71 inch TV?

Well, 71 inches TVs (and bigger) have got to come out some time. And when they do, it will almost always be very expensive. Prices will come down eventually, and then you will "need" that size TVs. Of course by then there will be very expensive 200 inch ones coming out too and someone will probably ask "Do we really need a $xx,xxx 200 inch TV?" :)

Parent

Redesign sucks

By elT on 4/7/2006 5:39:05 PM , Rating: 2

That pic is a shamless plug of Pink Floyd's 'Echoes' album cover.

http://www.floydianslip.com/news-pics/news-echoes-...

71'' plasma however.... *drool*

;)