Print 116 comment(s) - last by TakinYourPoint.. on Oct 22 at 4:01 PM

Workers in the division will be reassigned

In previous years, plasma technology was very popular with consumers that demanded large-screen televisions. However, as LCD technology became cheaper and image quality improved, the demand for plasma TVs has dwindled dramatically.

A rumor surfaced in March of this year that Panasonic would be exiting the plasma television market. That exit has now been confirmed according to sources that claim to be familiar with the company’s plans. The sources claim that Panasonic will leave the plasma television panel market by the end of March 2014.

Panasonic has continued to eliminate areas of its business that have performed poorly (as witnessed by its recent exit from the consumer smartphone market). Plasma televisions accounted for less than 6% of global shipments in 2012 compared to 87% for LCD TVs.

Sony, Panasonic, and Sharp combined for less than 20% of the worldwide flat-panel TV market by revenue. Samsung has 27.7% of the overall market while LG has 15%.

Reuters’ sources also tipped that the several hundred workers that are currently employed at Panasonic in the plasma television operation will be moved to other divisions within the company. 

Source: Reuters

Comments     Threshold

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

Too bad
By bug77 on 10/9/2013 11:09:32 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, it's pretty sad to see plasma go when no other technology can offer the same responsiveness, contrast or colours. If only there was a way to keep the power usage in check...

RE: Too bad
By dgingerich on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Too bad
By dgingerich on 10/9/2013 2:42:19 PM , Rating: 1
Did any of you know LG is still making 4:3 CRT TVs? Weird, eh?

RE: Too bad
By Souka on 10/9/2013 3:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
I picked up a 2013 55" ST Panasonic plasma last summer... I LOVEd IT, untill I played FPS games on my PS3.... lag sucked.

Did some research, the higher model line Panasonic plasmas suffer input lag. See Cnet review on the subject if interested.

I ended up with a Vizio at 1/2 the price. My friend had one and I liked it, so I got one.

Video quality is not quite as good, but gaming is awesome.

My $.02

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
Most TVs have a lot of input lag because they've become "smarter."

All the gee-whiz new features add lag. Having a lot of ports, too, can add lag.

The people on avsforum were trying to find a low input lag LCD TV that displays computer text properly and basically gave up. I think they wanted CCFL backlighting, too, for better uniformity. There may be one LG model that suffices, but it has paltry black level when compared with a plasma.

RE: Too bad
By althaz on 10/9/2013 5:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
The input lag on my Samsung Plasma (Series 8 and it is in game mode) is comparable to two of my PC monitors and less than one (my old 215TW has significant input lag, but is still totally awesome).

RE: Too bad
By Makaveli on 10/9/2013 7:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
i'm on a 64'E8000 Samsung plasma and can confirm its great in gaming mode.

And the picture on this plasma is better than any LCD/LED i've seen so far.

RE: Too bad
By Kiffberet on 10/10/2013 8:06:21 AM , Rating: 2
If Panasonic make such awesome Plasmas, why would they stop making them?

'Cause they make the best Plasmas that nobody wants.

There are cheaper alternatives where 95% of the population can't tell the difference in PQ or give a sh1t.

That's the market they need to aim for to survive...

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/10/2013 5:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
The best product does not always succeed in the market. Marketing can do a lot. Plus, the type of people who buy the product (the consumer profile) makes a huge difference. A product may be objectively better, but that doesn't mean it matches the consumer profile.

Plasma does have a few significant drawbacks:

1. Image retention. (I don't believe that it has been eliminated, although some people claim the latest models don't have it. My 2008 model certainly has it when connected to a computer. It never has problems with TV content.)

2. Less brightness. This is only a problem for people who want to use the panel in poor lighting. However, there are usage scenarios that involve poor lighting, such as TVs in brightly-lit public areas. Also, more expensive models have higher brightness.

3. Power consumption. This is only significant for certain situations, like wall TVs in brightly lit public areas. For home use in a properly lit room, it's not an issue.

4. "Buzzing." Fan noise can be an issue because of the mostly irrational consumer demand for thin televisions. This makes it more important to place the TV in proper lighting so it doesn't have to run as hot.

But, plasma:

1. Offers less costly square inches. Plasma tends to be cheaper per square inch than LCD, especially in terms of picture quality per square inch per dollar. Panasonic offers some very inexpensive large size plasma TVs.

2. Offers better contrast ratio than LCD.

3. Offers faster pixel speed than LCD (less motion blur.)

4. Doesn't have LCD's uniformity problems (especially edge-lit LCD models.)

5. Doesn't suffer from LED backlighting blue or green tinting.

6. Doesn't suffer from clouding caused by the polishing process.

Just the first one alone makes plasma compelling. But, it takes marketing and consumers who care about picture quality. Many consumers think plasma TVs are hot, expensive, noisy, don't last long, and use huge amounts of power.

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/10/2013 10:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
Also, compared to "white" LED, plasma generally has a larger color gamut. The new GB-LED is going to help with that some, though.

RE: Too bad
By Ktracho on 10/11/2013 1:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
I recently bought a 50" Panasonic plasma TV at Costco for $630. I don't claim it's the best TV ever, but it has some "smart" features, and it was cheaper than almost all the LCD TVs I looked at, except for maybe the ones that don't have any "smart" features. I am satisfied, though I only use it at night, mostly to watch movies on the weekends.

RE: Too bad
By FITCamaro on 10/10/2013 8:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I've got a 3 year old Panasonic plasma that isn't a "smart" TV and I have no noticeable input lag. Even when I had my console routed through my receiver.

Yes plasma's use more power than LCDs but the colors are worth it. But I'll admit that it does suck to have to think a lot about pausing things for too long so you don't get any burn in.

RE: Too bad
By Reclaimer77 on 10/10/2013 8:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
I've been known to leave a game or Netflix paused, crash asleep, then wake up in the morning with it still paused.

I also still watch a ton of 4:3 content with the left and right black bars, meaning those pixels aren't aging while the active ones are. Which would translate into burn-in.

I don't care what Takin says, no way I can trust a Plasma TV to handle my rockstar lifestyle :P

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:55:45 PM , Rating: 2

If CNET's numbers are accurate, input lag isn't so good for any of the sets. For instance, a $200 27" 1080p BenQ GW2750HM A-MVA LCD monitor has an input lag of around 6 ms.

I assume that the lowest-end Panasonic plasma would have the least amount of input lag, just because it has less processing overhead and fewer ports.

RE: Too bad
By degobah77 on 10/9/2013 4:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
Most high end TVs have a GAME mode that turns off a lot of the video processing which reduces input lag. Anyways, the low end TVs always have the worst performance, and that's what the ST is. In actuality, plasmas are considered the best TVs for gaming due to their quick response times.

RE: Too bad
By CaedenV on 10/9/2013 4:36:25 PM , Rating: 3
refresh time is not the same as input lag. Plasma screens have excelent refresh time (aprox 600Hz compared to an LCD 60-240Hz), but plasma as a whole tend to have pretty awful input lag, and smart TVs are twice as bad.
Nothing better than a plasma for watching movies, but gaming and computer use is all about LCD.

RE: Too bad
By degobah77 on 10/9/2013 4:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say anything about refresh rates in my post. I'm talking about quick response in reference to input lag. And as I already said, plasmas are fine if you enable GAME mode.

RE: Too bad
By sheh on 10/9/2013 5:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
These are "marketing refresh rates" rather than actual visible image updates per second.

Almost all TVs just do 60Hz. I'd assume that active 3D TVs do 120Hz, but they almost never accept 120Hz input for 2D. See:

I don't think there's anything inherent in plasma TVs that would lead to higher input lag. It's more a question of the firmware logic.

RE: Too bad
By sheh on 10/9/2013 5:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
Also CRTs still have advantages compared with LCDs. Particularly your average PC desktop monitor.

RE: Too bad
By exeedorbit on 10/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Too bad
By bug77 on 10/9/2013 11:34:28 AM , Rating: 4
If you go into a store, you can tell a plasma from an LCD from afar. That's not "very minimal" to me.

RE: Too bad
By 3DoubleD on 10/9/2013 12:46:34 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed, the difference is night and day. I will never buy an LCD TV - absolutely hideous picture.

Plasma or projector. Hopefully OLED improves quickly to fill this gap, but a lot of work needs to be done with regards to color accuracy, not to mention price.

A sad day indeed. Good thing I've been planning my next TV purchase (been primarily eyeing the panasonic plasmas) on either Black Friday or Boxing Day. Clearly I shouldn't hold back as no reasonable upgrade option will be available for a long time.

RE: Too bad
By Mitch101 on 10/9/2013 2:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think the problems of OLED Blue lifespan have been solved but I could be wrong. Still I hear the issue is attorneys battling one another on who has the rights to what. I think attorneys are to blame for not having OLED today.

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
They haven't been solved, but one company has tried to work around it by using a big white subpixel for general illumination. That makes it possible for the blue subpixels to do less work. However, the company made the blue subpixels smaller which in turn reduces their longevity.

RE: Too bad
By DocScience on 10/9/2013 5:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
As I recall, the latest OLED blues are up to 33,000 hours, well above the 20,000 generally believed to the threshold for burn resistance.

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/10/2013 4:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
The engineer who developed the white subpixel solution said blue subpixels are still not where they want them to be in terms of longevity. Even with the band-aid of the white subpixels, the estimated lifespan (which is likely optimistic) for the blue subpixels is just ten years.

RE: Too bad
By tng on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
What a silly post. It doesn't take that much effort to look at CNET reviews or something to discover which TV has a better picture than another.

RE: Too bad
By tng on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Too bad
By degobah77 on 10/9/2013 4:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
I like being outside too, doesn't mean I can't appreciate high end PQ when I do decide to watch some TV.

What, you can't have more than one interest, it's one thing or the other and no middle ground?

RE: Too bad
By tng on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Too bad
By degobah77 on 10/9/2013 4:50:39 PM , Rating: 5
When I'm done skydiving, jetskiing, hiking Mt. Everest, sailing the Atlantic, scuba diving in the tropics, skiing down a mountain in British Columbia, flying my stunt kite, building a community playground, winning my beach volleyball game, coaching my little league game, handing out flyers for the clean water act, picnicing in the park, mowing my lawn, building my halfpipe, kitesurfing, and sitting on the dock of the mutha'uckin' bay, I'm gonna go home and watch my bad ass PLASMA because it's GOD. Ok?

RE: Too bad
By Spuke on 10/9/2013 5:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
sitting on the dock of the mutha'uckin' bay

RE: Too bad
By 3DoubleD on 10/10/2013 8:28:48 AM , Rating: 2

That was maybe one of the best replies I've read this year!

RE: Too bad
By shuninxuo on 10/11/2013 11:48:14 PM , Rating: 1
If you have so many better things to do than watch TV or care about the picture quality or the technologies behind it, don't you have better things to do than read an article about TVs and post moronic posts telling others to get a life?

Why don't you go outside, have sex with a tree and take a dump on a squirrel.

Leave the discussion about this topic to the people who are actually interested in the subject.

RE: Too bad
By tng on 10/15/2013 5:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you go outside, have sex with a tree and take a dump on a squirrel.
LOL, you know my ex and her dog? Really I didn't do that, don't care what she said!

RE: Too bad
By CaedenV on 10/9/2013 4:33:03 PM , Rating: 3
Screw the outdoors! All it does is give you allergies and skin cancer. All of you outdoors and green types are just working for the trees. If I have learned anything from the internet, it is that Nature Hates You (youtube).

Stay inside and enjoy the nice glow of a TV in the basement!

RE: Too bad
By tayb on 10/9/2013 11:42:05 AM , Rating: 5
OLED is the only technology that can compete with plasma for color accuracy and blacks. LCD and traditional LED really can't even come close.

The downsides are the heat, power consumption, noise, and the glare. The glare is what really killed them. They just don't look good in a showroom filled with fluorescent lighting.

RE: Too bad
By 3DoubleD on 10/9/2013 12:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the glare is a huge problem. In a bright room, plasma is terrible and you have to make due with the shoddy LCD quality. In dim or dark environments though, plasma TVs just beats the pants off of LCD TVs.

I never found this as a problem though. Why am I sitting on the couch watching TV if it is a sunny day?

You are right though, in a brightly lit showroom, plasma is at a disadvantage. They also hung onto 720p far longer with plasmas than for LCDs. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but that couldn't have helped.

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
CNET says the high-end plasmas do much better in bright rooms than the low-end models.

Really, though, someone who is particularly concerned about picture quality has no business subjecting their monitor to bright lighting in the first place.

If someone wants to watch their TV in harsh lighting they shouldn't worry about it being a low-grade LCD. It will save power, too, since plasmas are much more power efficient (and quieter) when in dim lighting so the brightness doesn't have to be cranked.

RE: Too bad
By TakinYourPoints on 10/9/2013 3:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
The other thing to note is that while LCDs are brighter, plasmas are by no means dim. Often times the extra light capacity of LCDs are wasted. It only really matters in the brightest of rooms with no light control. Watching an ultra-bright TV at night or with any sort of light control (ie - curtains) makes no sense, it is both unnecessary and fatiguing.

RE: Too bad
By althaz on 10/10/2013 5:26:24 AM , Rating: 2
IMO the extra light capacity of LCDs is ALWAYS wasted, it's incredibly rare to find a well set-up plasma TV at anything even approaching maximum brightness, for modern LED backlit LCDs the recommend settings will turn the backlight down to about 20%.

RE: Too bad
By tng on 10/9/2013 3:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
LCD and traditional LED really can't even come close.
What exactly is "traditional LED"?

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
I would assume the reference is to "white" LED, especially edge-lit setups.

This would be in contrast with RGB-LED and similar setups that provide more accurate color.

RE: Too bad
By FITCamaro on 10/10/2013 8:19:37 AM , Rating: 2
Definitely don't have problems with glare in my house. Noise? Don't hear any. Even with the sound off. Heat and power consumption are valid. But its not like the TV heats up the room in my opinion.

RE: Too bad
By celestialgrave on 10/9/2013 11:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with Bug77, the differences are definitely there. I still can't stand watching a LCD, the soap opera effect is headache inducing. Love my Pioneer Plasma, sad to see the next best thing bite the dust too. Here's to OLED bringing the best of both worlds.

RE: Too bad
By 3DoubleD on 10/9/2013 12:51:47 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Too bad
By sheh on 10/9/2013 5:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
The Soap Opera effect is due to image interpolation or other meddling, not the panel type.

RE: Too bad
By althaz on 10/9/2013 6:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, the differences are as bigger than they've ever been, because modern plasmas acheive true black (old plasmas emit no light from a grey screen, which is not the same) and have far, far superior colour range and reproduction. Samsung's LCD TVs have the highest contrast of any and they are not able to acheive 1% of the contrast of the best plasma TVs.

With Panasonic shutting down their plasma business the very best on the market is no longer available, thankfully Samsung (and reportedly LG as well, although I've only seen their low-end and midrange sets, which are awful) still makes well performing products (their Series 8 model plasmas are superb).

Hopefully my current Plasma TV lasts until OLED TVs are better and more commonplace.

RE: Too bad
By nwrigley on 10/9/2013 11:22:02 AM , Rating: 3
I'm also sad to see plasmas go. LCD's have gotten better, but I find the image on a good plasma set to be much higher quality.

RE: Too bad
By Flunk on 10/9/2013 11:43:01 AM , Rating: 3
Seeing as they never seemed to solve the issue with colors fading out I'm not surprised. Plasma was only popular until they could get larger LCDs down in price.

LCDs remain stable for years, I have a notebook from 1992 and its display is just a crisp and clear as it ever was (still not that great, but it does say a lot for longevity).

RE: Too bad
By Reclaimer77 on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Too bad
By TakinYourPoints on 10/10/2013 2:36:47 AM , Rating: 2
Burn-in hasn't been a problem for a decade. Image retention is something that happens with both plasmas and LCDs, and I've had way more IR issues with LCD monitors than plasma.

Saying that plasma sets need to be broken in mostly comes from the same group of overly obsessed people who also recommend doing the same with speakers and headphones. Break-in isn't needed with a plasma, just start using it like normal. Burn-in has been FUD and ignorant nonsense for years.

The main reason plasmas are unpopular is marketing, plain and simple. Why should a store promote a plasma with superior image quality in every single way when they can fleece the customer for hundreds or even thousands more selling them an LCD, even if it looks worse?

As usual, people are being fooled into buying the inferior technology by salesmen who don't have their interests in mind.

People who buy LCDs are mostly those who do what salespeople and marketing tells them. There are the edge cases who would like to have a plasma but their room is incredibly bright all the time, so an LCD makes more sense.

People who seek out plasmas actually know the differences and understand what makes for a superior picture. LCDs can look nice but they are fundamentally inferior in every way, full-stop. When we're talking about black levels, contrast, motion smoothness, input lag, color depth, and color reproduction, plasma decisively wins all the way.

The band-aids LCD requires like local dimming and motion interpolation adds cost to the set, input lag, artifacts like halos, and it still doesn't match up in quality to a cheaper plasma.

But hey, 240hz, motion smoothing, LED backlighting, and local dimming sure sounds good on a spec sheet, right? More "features" should mean a better product, but as usual the more you fill up a brochure or box with bulletpoints the worse it actually is.

RE: Too bad
By inperfectdarkness on 10/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: Too bad
By althaz on 10/10/2013 5:52:03 AM , Rating: 1
1. Both can be picked up by one person with ease up to about 60" and both can be hung on the wall, so I fail to see how this is even slightly relevant.
2. You and I have different ideas about significant. My fairly new Plasma TV uses less power than a pair of light bulbs. You might be thinking of older plasmas (like 3+ years old), which burned a phenomenal amount of power.
3. It does generate some heat, but, there's no definition of "large amount" that applies here.
4. Actually, plasmas are tougher than LED/LCD TVs, because they require thicker protective glass on the front. There's no reason you can't make LCD/LEDs just as tough, it's just that they cost double what a plasma would.
5. This is demonstrably not true. If you go off the half-life of the panel/back-light, last time I looked plasmas were at 120,000 hours and LCDs were at 60,000. LED-backlit LCDs at 100,000. However this is an irrelevant metric, as no TV you buy will last even half of this time (even the paltry 60,000 hours of CCFL LCDs is over 20 years (at 8 hours of TV watching a day). Good quality modern equipment will last about seven years, regardless of which type you go for.

RE: Too bad
By degobah77 on 10/10/2013 11:17:18 AM , Rating: 2

1. Glad I'm not playing catch with my plasma TV then!
2. The operating cost of a plasma vs LCD is about $24/year. OMG, THE SAVINGS!
3. Good thing I'm not sleeping on it?
4. I would be just as careful with a plasma as with any other TV, this is a ridiculous statement.
5. Which means it'll last about...15-20 years...uh ok? I'll want to upgrade to OLED well before that so it's a non-issue.

It's truly unfortunate that uneducated and/or non-caring masses of people shopping at Walmart buying their BIG ASS CHEAP LCDs with gray blacks and cartoon colors are forcing true value and PQ off the market. At least Samsung is making damn good plasmas too, so hopefully they'll keep the torch lit.

RE: Too bad
By UzairH on 10/9/2013 11:51:58 AM , Rating: 3
The consensus on the AV forums is that Panasonic plasmas have the best image quality in the business, handily beating all competing LCDs. These forums are now lamenting the death of the plasma.

I myself chose a Panasonic plasma based on the reviews on the forums and Cnet

The only hope now is that Panasonic focuses on OLED and brings large OLED screens to market with proper pricing rather than the eye-bleeding prices LG and Samsung OLED sets currently have.

RE: Too bad
By kwrzesien on 10/9/2013 12:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
I have two myself, GT30 models, in 55" and 60". They have great PQ and nothing in an LCD can come close for the black levels. We used to watch them a lot more until we put in a 135" JVC projection system for our main room, but the plasmas are great for the kitchen and bedroom.

Something to keep in mind is you can't just use them any which way you want, burn-in is still a problem if you leave it on news channels (MSNBC I'm looking at you - giant white bar across the top of the screen on every program) or CN. For movies it can't be beat. Just don't put one in THX mode (which disables the automatic pixel orbiter) for the first six months or you will get permanent burn-in from any channel logo. My 60" has this and a replacement is already approved by BB, I just haven't gotten around to getting something else (OLED oh where are you?).

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/9/2013 2:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
OLED is subject to burn in.

Not only that, the blue pixels still have poor longevity. Sharp (I think) has tried to get around this by introducing a white subpixel to reduce the amount of light the blue pixels need to produce.

RE: Too bad
By tng on 10/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
LCD is subject to burn-in, too. The menu bar on my 2008 Macbook Pro has been slightly burnt in for years. There are photos of LCD TVs used as displays that are badly burnt it.

PWM dimming may help somewhat with this, since the backlight is being turned on and off. Some of the PWM-free constant control LCDs are likely more subject to burn in.

But, my 2008 Panasonic plasma cannot be used as a computer screen due to image retention. It has no problems with TV content, though.

The main worry is true burn in, rather than temporary image retention.

RE: Too bad
By tng on 10/9/2013 3:39:44 PM , Rating: 1
But image retention means that you will need to age the rest of the screen to match the areas that have the IR. This in effect shortens the lifetime of the screen.

LCD cells can pick up and retain residual charges that will then affect the crystal in the cell. These pixels are left with dark or light image problems.

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily. For my plasma, the retained image would disappear quickly -- in a matter of minutes.

RE: Too bad
By degobah77 on 10/9/2013 5:01:20 PM , Rating: 3
After the break-in period of about 200 hours on the panel, there's hardly a chance of burn-in. I've had 3 plasmas so far and not a single one even had IR issues - that's after all day/all night gaming sessions and even leaving a DVD menu up all night after passing out.

Some panels are worse than others, and some people just turn brightness and contrast to 100 and turn on their latest XBOX game as soon as they get the TV. That's just tech abuse.

RE: Too bad
By TakinYourPoints on 10/10/2013 2:41:00 AM , Rating: 1
I've had high quality LCD monitors from numerous manufacturers and every single one has shown image retention. Even my NEC 2490WUXi, still the standard for 24" monitors, has image retention. I haven't once had any IR issues with my Pioneer Elite.

RE: Too bad
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2013 9:09:06 AM , Rating: 2
Now we know you're full of it. IR on a modern high quality LCD monitor? BS!

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/11/2013 11:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
Any monitor can have image retention, although LCDs tend to be less prone to it. PWM (pulse width modulation) may help some, by turning the backlight on and off.

Some high-res LG IPS panels have had complaints about IR, and that includes the retina Macbook screens and some Dell displays.

LCD tends to be much less prone to IR than my 2008 plasma, though. It can't be used even at 0 brightness with my computer, but it doesn't have issues with TV content (including AppleTV/Netflix interfaces.) My first-generation LED backlit 2008 Macbook Pro has had a light area where the menu bar is for years.

RE: Too bad
By TakinYourPoints on 10/22/2013 4:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
Now we know you're full of it. IR on a modern high quality LCD monitor? BS!


I know you're technically ignorant, but come on dude, you should know this if you have a pair of eyeballs.

RE: Too bad
By FITCamaro on 10/10/2013 11:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah my 3 year old plasma sometimes has a little bit of image retention that goes away once I use it for something else. But after 3 years of playing games and watching TV, no issues with true burn in. I do try to make sure I don't leave anything paused for long periods of time though. If I might need to, I turn off the TV.

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/10/2013 11:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps my model is unusual, then. I've had it since 2008 and I can't use it connected to a computer because it gets IR right away, even when the brightness is set to 0. Fortunately, the IR doesn't last long, but it makes it useless as a computer monitor or game console display device. Fortunately, also, I don't need to use it for either of those things because I have a 27" BenQ A-MVA monitor that suffices in my living room. It would be nice to have the larger screen size, but it's not that important.

I don't get IR from TV content.

RE: Too bad
By Spuke on 10/9/2013 12:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
The only hope now is that Panasonic focuses on OLED and brings large OLED screens to market with proper pricing rather than the eye-bleeding prices LG and Samsung OLED sets currently have.
Why would their pricing be any different than the other players on the market? Plasma's were priced even more ridiculously when they hit the market. OLED is dirt cheap comparatively. If I had a dedicated home theater there would definitely be a OLED TV in it (specifically LG's 77" OLED 4K TV).

RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/9/2013 2:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
The cost-benefit ratio of OLED TVs today does not compare to the improvement offered by plasmas when compared to CRTs and projection screens.

More importantly, plasmas offer competitive pictures today for a much lower price. OLED is still a gimmick at current pricing and with its concerns over blue pixel longevity.

RE: Too bad
By Spuke on 10/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Too bad
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
and CNET, and plenty of others.

Right now, plasma gives people more square inches of quality picture than any other technology for the money. Plus, they offer excellent color, contrast ratio, and motion performance.

No other technology beats plasma at the moment for the price.

RE: Too bad
By Spuke on 10/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Too bad
By kwrzesien on 10/9/2013 4:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
If you have a dedicated home theater or media room you need to go big & projector (or go home?). Nothing less than 120" should do, and 130-140" sizes are very practical with decent lumen levels from a good Sony or JVC projector and a quality screen (which one depends greatly on your room and lighting, my media room even has windows in the back and it still looks great - it just looks better at night!) That and a great subwoofer and the experience is 1000% more enjoyable, in fact renting HDX Vudu movies has replaced going to the theaters. Go ahead an take that deep dive into AVSForums and you will never look back! :)

RE: Too bad
By Spuke on 10/9/2013 6:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
In all honesty, I would have a projector AND that TV if I had a dedicated home theater (TV would be behind the screen). Oh and I'm very familiar with AVSForums. :)

RE: Too bad
By Mint on 10/9/2013 9:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
Projectors don't get you great real-world blacks, because they have to shine on a white (or whitish) screen. Unless you watch in complete darkness and have all materials covered in black felt, room illumination will give you mediocre blacks. Older or lower-end plasmas also have this problem to a lesser degree (the ones with grayish screens when off).

OLED (and top end plasma) will always give you better picture quality than a projector. The only reason to get a projector is for size and/or cost.

RE: Too bad
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 10/11/2013 7:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
My 70" Vizio LCD is silent and has passive 3D, my 50" 720p plasma is slightly less so and has no 3D. Are there any affordable front projectors that are silent, have passive 3D, and have comparable color gamut and black levels to the latest LCD sets (with zoned LED backlights)? Spinning wheels and cooling fans just won't do, since I had the latter with a 56" RPTV, and I don't have a dedicated room to build a shushing enclosure with adequate ventilation around a projector.

RE: Too bad
By jeepga on 10/9/2013 12:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
And longevity. The Panasonic plasma TV that I purchased in 2004 is still going strong.

RE: Too bad
By Falacer on 10/9/2013 1:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
Same for us, my wife won a 42" Panasonic Plasma oh about 7 years ago from her work. As much as I would love to upgrade to a 55" tv, which would better suit the viewing distance of our current home, the plasma is still going strong after all these years.

RE: Too bad
By Spuke on 10/9/2013 2:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still rocking a 55" DLP from 2005 as my main TV. More than likely it will be replaced with a LCD as I'm not waiting for OLED prices to come down. I won't be buying a plasma either as I watch a LOT of TV brightly lit rooms.

RE: Too bad
By Mint on 10/9/2013 9:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
It's crazy how the laws of physics scale down. You'd think that millions of mirrors tilting one way or the other thousands of times a second would be prone to mechanical failure. The reality is that DLP is the most reliable display tech ever.

You should check out the mid-range and high-end Panasonic plasmas before assuming they look bad in bright rooms. My brother got a VT60 (yeah, $2500 is a lot) and it looks fantastic in bright rooms.

RE: Too bad
By embedded_bill on 10/9/2013 1:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
I will be hard pressed to find something more suitable the next time I'm in the market for a TV.

My last LCD TV met the ire of a two year old with an empty juice cup. I needed a TV with a heavy glass front that was cheap and could sustain the impact of a pissed off toddler, do that OLED!

RE: Too bad
By TakinYourPoints on 10/9/2013 2:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
Not only is is saying goodbye to plasma, it is saying goodbye to the best HDTV panel manufacturer on the planet. Oh well, get that ST60 when you can:

RE: Too bad
By Spuke on 10/9/2013 6:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
Oh well, get that ST60 when you can
Prices of those aren't bad at all. Hmmmm. Maybe I will get a Plasma. How are these in bright rooms?

RE: Too bad
By TakinYourPoints on 10/10/2013 2:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
It should be fine. The article puts it very well.

The only area where LCDs outperform plasmas is in maximum light output. As in, LCDs are brighter. However, plasma TVs are not “dim,” and often the extra light capability of LCDs is wasted. Watch an uber-bright TV at night can be fatiguing.

Unless you have zero light control, like you have no curtains, I wouldn't worry about it.

RE: Too bad
By DocScience on 10/9/2013 5:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
OLED's blow the socks off PDP for ALL of those parameters.

Not so good for space heating though.

RE: Too bad
By unimatrix725 on 10/9/2013 7:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. Guess I will finally be able to have one in every room! Hope it will be as good as the "HP Touchpad Fire Sale"!?!

RE: Too bad
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 10/11/2013 7:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
OLED is superior, it's just not cheap enough yet.

RE: Too bad
By EricMartello on 10/11/2013 11:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
To this day, no TV regardless of its tech has equaled or surpassed the Pioneer Kuro. It's really a shame that they all decided to go after the low-hanging fruit instead of keeping plasmas available as a premium product for people who want the best. The drawbacks of plasma are easily outweighed by their benefits.

RE: Too bad
By Noliving on 10/13/2013 1:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well there is OLED but they cost a lot.

Sad day for true videophiles...
By degobah77 on 10/9/2013 11:44:36 AM , Rating: 5 no TV on the market, excluding the ridiculously priced Sharp ELITEs and $10,000 OLEDs, can even come close to the PQ of a high end Panasonic or Samsung plasma. Glad I got one of the last ones.

And the power consumption farce should never have been an issue, looking at the Sharp ELITE, cost per month to run according to CNET is $5.33, whereas a VT60 is a whole 2 bucks more...OH, the SAVINGS!!!! BOOK THE CRUISE!

By SublimeSimplicity on 10/9/2013 12:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
In fact, if you bought the $2.2k VT60 instead of the $6k Elite you could book a cruise and pay for the electricity difference for the next century with the price difference.

By TakinYourPoints on 10/9/2013 3:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
The Sharp Elites are such a joke. The Pioneer Kuro Elites were justified in their price back in the day, nothing could touch it. The Sharp, not so much, it is beaten by plasmas that are a sixth of the price.

By CBRworm on 10/9/2013 12:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
I have 3 Panasonic Plasma's, one Sony Bravia LCD and one Samsung smart LCD. I bought them all for different needs.

I love the Plasma's and only have two complaints - heat and power consumption - topping 700 watts on a white screen, and there is still some burn in - very minor compared to the past but it is still there. I guess that is 3 complaints. None of mine buzz, and the fans are silent - although they make dust trails up the walls...

The ONLY LCD that I prefer the picture of over my Panasonic's is my brothers Sharp Elite 70". That TV really looks great - the others are much better than they were, but not good enough to sway me from plasma.

Since I can't afford the ELITE series, I will have to stick with my plasmas until they die.

What I am really impressed with is the thinness of the new LCD's, my Samsung can be hung with a wire like a picture frame. Plasma's could never get to that point.

RE: Plasma
By superflex on 10/9/2013 1:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
The annual power consumption difference between a plasma and LCD amounts to one fill up at the gas station.
Let me guess. Your doing it for Mother Earth?

RE: Plasma
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/9/2013 3:04:44 PM , Rating: 1
Well, I'm doing my part and not using that $50 worth of electricity every year? What about you?

If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

RE: Plasma
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
I take it you don't watch TV. And, if you do you got a free second-hand set rather than pollute the Earth and waste energy by promoting the manufacture of new ones.

RE: Plasma
By TakinYourPoints on 10/9/2013 3:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
The difference isn't even that much. We're talking about a $15 difference per year on a 60" screen, and that's if you watch a lot of TV. For most people the difference is closer to $5-$10

This is a bad idea IMHO...
By SublimeSimplicity on 10/9/2013 11:34:17 AM , Rating: 5
Plasmas may have only accounted for 6% of Panasonic sales, but they'll reclaim nearly 0% of that in LCD sales.
The people that buy Panasonic plasmas, buy them because they know they're superior to LCDs in image quality. Panasonic can not compete with the LCD offerings from Samsung, Sharp, and Sony with their own LCDs offerings. So unless they're losing money on the production of plasmas, I don't see the point in giving the business away.

RE: This is a bad idea IMHO...
By SteelRing on 10/9/2013 2:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
That's absolutely correct. While Panasonic plasma has no contention at the top, their LCD is sub par at best. I'd go for Sharp or LG for LCD TV, not Pana.

By TakinYourPoints on 10/9/2013 2:58:39 PM , Rating: 1
Absolutely correct. Panasonic has their plasma sales because they are known to make the best panels. They produced panels for Pioneer's Elite plasma displays and they continue to make the best HDTVs out there.

Its too bad because they're going to get buried in the LCD market.

A foolish decision
By superstition on 10/9/2013 2:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
Panasonic should have at least continued to sell the top-quality model for a premium price. It wouldn't require any R&D.

A-MVA LCDs offer decent contrast ratio (unlike IPS), but it suffers from off-angle contrast washout. IPS panels suffer from IPS glow at angles, and clouding. Plasma doesn't.

A-MVA LCDs are slower. Their pixels are not as fast. For watching sports a plasma is much better. Strobing backlights and two-pass backlights (see the new EIZO for satellite viewing) may help.

Many LCD manufacturers subject buyers to a panel lottery, so they don't know if they'll get A-MVA, C-MVA, or IPS. That is not only unacceptable buy certainly a disadvantage in comparison with buying a Panasonic plasma.

The power consumption argument is particularly silly since instead of watching TV people could be doing work. Watching TV is a leisure activity and a bit of power usage is hardly the end all and be all.

Most LCD TVs use PWM and they flicker. "White" LED backlighting also may give off more UV and blue light, which is hard on the retinas.

Top-quality Panasonic plasmas have less trouble with bright rooms and glare than the low end models.

Sometimes the best product doesn't win in the market. This is an example of that. Plasma is still be best TV technology overall. The only area where it really falls down is in terms of use as a computer screen. Burn-in is still an issue. Most LCDs don't work well for that either, though because of high input lag thanks to their processing overhead and lack of full color support for rendering good text.

RE: A foolish decision
By superstition on 10/9/2013 2:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
As for OLED, blue pixels still have longevity problems.

RE: A foolish decision
By Spuke on 10/9/2013 2:51:21 PM , Rating: 1
As for OLED, blue pixels still have longevity problems.
And plasma's had severe burn in issues when they came out. Like EVERYTHING else, it will be fixed and become a thing of the past.

RE: A foolish decision
By superstition on 10/9/2013 3:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
The two posts you replied to address the present, not a speculative future or an irrelevant past.

Plasma and OLED are not the same technologies so the history of plasma development does not guarantee the same outcome for OLED.

RE: A foolish decision
By Spuke on 10/9/2013 6:19:32 PM , Rating: 1
Again, says you.

Sad day
By robinthakur on 10/9/2013 11:43:19 AM , Rating: 2
This is a very sad day, similar to when Pioneer stopped making their legendary Televisions, which are still superior in many ways after many years of being off the market. If you look at any television review site worth its salt, the reference quality picture is achieved by the top of the line ZT, GT and VT Panasonic plasmas and has been for the past several years since Pioneer stopped producing. LED screens are frequently a compromise with lots of faults commonplace like Dirty Screen effect (DSE) light pooling, unnatural motion and loss of resolution in motion. It's not the first time that the superior technology has lost out though, but incredibly sad nevertheless for those that value accurate reference level displays. I wonder when Samsung will stop making them, and whether this includes their professional installation Plasma TVs!

RE: Sad day
By SteelRing on 10/9/2013 2:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
If I'm not mistaken Pioneer sold their plasma technology to Panasonic and yes since then the Kuro line until now the Panasonic plasma lines there is no rival in picture quality. I'm glad I bought my Panasonic ST50 last year. There is just no comparing its beauty to any LCD (LED included).

Fortunately there is OLED in the horizon that would trump all these so I'll be looking into that if my plasma died in the future. Won't touch LCD unless it's just for the kids to play their games and cartoons on.

RE: Sad day
By TakinYourPoints on 10/9/2013 3:14:08 PM , Rating: 1
I have the last generation Pioneer Elite reference monitor. It sucks that Panasonic is exiting the plasma business, but at least its happening when their high end sets are roughly where the Kuro was in picture quality back in 2008.

Might be time to pick up a 65" VT60...

By fhornmikey on 10/9/2013 2:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
This makes me very glad I recently grabbed a 42 inch panny plasma to replace my aging samsung plasma.

Anyone with half a brain and an eye for picture quality/price to performance ratio has been buying plasma already. It's truly a sad sad day.

RE: /sigh
By ChronoReverse on 10/9/2013 3:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, I've been eying a Panasonic S64. Maybe I should pull the trigger now before they're gone.

too bad
By aikov on 10/9/2013 3:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad. But I still plan to buy plasma TV.

LCD/LED TVs are inferior, and when you compare prices, plasmas are even more interesting.

I hope other companies will improve plasma technology and it will last longer.

RE: too bad
By SteelRing on 10/9/2013 3:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
If you're in need for TV with good picture quality best to pick up the remaining plasma of Panasonic. My guess is that they're going to be pushing the OLED line soon and you'd quickly see that people comparing the first gen OLED to high-end plasma and the high-end plasma would still win out but relatively much cheaper. This would hurt the fat OLED margin expected in the new product phase so this cannot be.

good corporate decision, bad for you.

By DocScience on 10/12/2013 4:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
Truthfully, back in the day, I had my doubts if PDP's could overcome their initially woeful lack of dynamic range and horrid gray blacks.

But they did and retained the spot for the best HDTV display for longer than I expected.

But LCD, given a new life by segmented RGB LED backlighting, has its days numbered too.

Long live the newest king. We await Prince Oled.

“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Latest Headlines
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki