backtop

Print 109 comment(s) - last by joeindian1551.. on Oct 2 at 12:59 AM
A MSNBC report indicates LCD popularity is increasing over plasma

Plasma TVs may be losing popularity as LCD technology continues to improve in performance and picture quality while at the same time the price tags have been falling.

"If you're a videophile, you're still absolutely more into plasma than LCD, and plasma will still be the predominant choice for video enthusiasts and sports and movie buffs for the next couple of years," Canada HiFi editor Suave Kajko told MSNBC. 

Furthermore, OLEDs are now putting increased pressure on LCD and plasmas, with new technologies possibly spelling the doom for plasma.

As the state of California considers adopting energy-efficiency standards -- with other states possibly hopping on the bandwagon -- some plasma TVs will be unable to meet the new standards.

Until then, LCD TV prices are dropping quickly, while plasma TV prices remain relatively stable at the moment.  Larger LCD screens cost more to manufacture than mid-range plasma screens, but that is beginning to drop -- LCD TV prices can drop further since there is a large market for materials sold to manufacturers, while that same luxury isn't available for plasma screens.

The LCD price drop has made up for the lower image quality, other editors and journalists say, noting the shift will continue.

"LCDs crossed enough price barriers quickly enough that consumers got over the fact they didn't have the  same image quality as plasma, and that shift has been pretty dramatic over the past three to five years," according to Shane Buettner,  Home Theater editor.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
OLED ftw
By acejj26 on 9/28/2009 3:08:24 PM , Rating: 5
When a 60"+ OLED with a long lifespan for all colors comes out and is reasonably priced, I'll take one. Until then, plasma beats LCD in pretty much every category (except for energy consumption).




RE: OLED ftw
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2009 3:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
And in reality, who's going to notice the $5-10 difference in their power bill?


RE: OLED ftw
By acejj26 on 9/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: OLED ftw
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/28/2009 3:21:18 PM , Rating: 3
Nah, Al Gore justified his higher power consumption.


RE: OLED ftw
By NuclearDelta on 9/28/2009 3:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
Probably CA residents amongst brownouts.


RE: OLED ftw
By 67STANG on 9/28/2009 3:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
There haven't been brownouts in CA for over 7 years.... does the article say these TV's come with time machines?


RE: OLED ftw
By sdsdv10 on 9/28/2009 4:52:01 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure what exactly is meant by brownout, but I know we had rolling blackouts when I left San Diego area in 2003.


RE: OLED ftw
By 67STANG on 9/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: OLED ftw
By sdsdv10 on 9/29/2009 1:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
You might be right, I left in December 2003 and haven't really kept up on the details.

Regardless, there have been sometimes severe electrical distribution issues well inside the 10 year time frame as mentioned by the person posting above.


RE: OLED ftw
By sdsdv10 on 9/29/2009 1:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
Duh, where is the come up with 10 years, I meant 7 years.

Dam you DT, get an edit function already. It's the 21st century you know.


RE: OLED ftw
By KoolAidMan1 on 9/28/2009 6:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
That was in 2001, its been ages since that has been a problem in CA.


RE: OLED ftw
By adiposity on 9/28/2009 7:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, it was never a problem. It was faked to make money.

-Dan


RE: OLED ftw
By piroroadkill on 9/29/2009 3:29:19 AM , Rating: 2
Correct. Ahh, Enron


RE: OLED ftw
By quiksilvr on 9/28/2009 4:06:05 PM , Rating: 1
I assure you. The difference will be much greater than $5-$10. And on the argument of plasma vs LCD, with the release of LED LCD TVs, there is little incentive to get them.
-They burn too much energy
-Their lifespan has lost their superiority with the release of LED
-Burn-in still occurs though much less frequently
-They're heavier, meaning you have to get more durable wall mounts

And with OLED around the corner, it makes sense that plasma tvs are fading away.


RE: OLED ftw
By JediJeb on 9/28/2009 5:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
My TV is on about 15 hours a week, so I doubt there would be much over a $10 difference in my electric bill over the year, since at the highest with AC running full blast it is rarely over $60 per month. If I ever get a flat screen it will probably be a plasma, if they still make them by then.


RE: OLED ftw
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/28/2009 7:30:16 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I just bought a flat screen. I really wanted a plasma, due to it's superior features, cheaper price, and the fact that I only watch movies on disc (I don't have cable) so it wouldn't be on often. However, there were several issues that forced me to go LCD:

1. Plasma weight. My apartment is old and the internal walls are weak. I didn't want to risk 100+ pounds on my studless internal walls and I couldn't put it in a stand since I have small children.

2. My TV faces a window, and I needed a good antiglare coating. There is just no two ways around this issue.

3. I would have to transport it home upright (you can't transport plasma TVs on their sides). I didn't have access to a vehicle that would support this.

4. I would be using this also as a display with my PC sometimes and was concerned (a little bit) about burn in.

So, I got a nice Toshiba LCD. But BSG looks like crap at night with the lights out.


RE: OLED ftw
By Ponosdad on 9/29/2009 12:46:29 AM , Rating: 4
1. Unless you plan on taking your TV out for a walk, weight doesn't mean anything. If you can't put 100lbs on your wall, me thinks you have other things to worry about.

2. Pull the curtains.

3. You bought an inferior TV because you don't know anyone with a truck or SUV?

4. Burn in is not a problem. More hype than anything else.


RE: OLED ftw
By kake on 9/29/2009 3:12:23 AM , Rating: 3
1. I have small children, and the plasma on it's stand with a strap to the wall seems pretty stable, even when I catch my daughter climbing on it. (sheetrock is a lot stronger than most people think - two or three screw-type or toggle anchors and you need a lot of force to pull something at a high degree angle off of a wall).

2. Our TV almost faces a window, and those cheepo mini blinds plus simple curtains do a great job. Light in the room, no glare (except of course the new cat seems intent on escaping out through them and they can't take much more clawing).

3. Friends are great. If you have a good stereo system, they won't mind, and might even bring beer to watch your new system with you. You'll have to supply the bbq however.

4. Our 42" plasma is our PC monitor. It does great, it's big, it's gorgeous, and yes, I can see some temporary burn in if it's been on for a while, but it goes away very nicely on it's own. And I hate the secondary LCD monitor we have set up for close-up browsing and the Photoshop toolbars. Really, it's hateful in comparison.

So in conclusion, I rather dislike LCD's, rather like plasmas, think LEDs (and OLEDS) are alright, and am sorry you had to settle for second best. Better luck next time.


RE: OLED ftw
By wired00 on 9/30/2009 1:48:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Better luck next time.

pretty rude thing to say. What makes you god on whether plasma is better than LCD? your answers 1-4 were ALL arrogant.

why is plasma better?

- its heavy
- you need to keep the set upright to avoid cracking the "GLASS" cover.
- uses more power... 2x the power.
- if the guy says he's worried about his kids being crushed under the thing or throwing something at the glass screen who are you to argue?
- have you even compared LCD to plasma? the anti glare alone and far better skin tones win hands down.


RE: OLED ftw
By wired00 on 9/30/2009 1:56:59 AM , Rating: 1
oh and another thing. Plasma most certainly DOES still have burn in. It really cannot be prevented. Plasma works by exciting plasma gas with an electric charge...(similar to oled using organic) obviously the gas has a finite life that it will burn. If you google it you will see they simply try preventing this by using measures such as quickly vibrating the individual pixels left/right.

We have a 2008 LG full hd 52" plasma at my work and if you look very closely you can see the screen doing this. The burn in ALONE is enough of a reason not to buy plasma... We used to hook up a Laptop to run presentations using Excel and i began to worry when burn in obviously evident. Yes, it was "temporary burnin" as everyone says but its a bad sign. My Full HD samsung on the other hand has no issues at all with burnin (i have it constantly hooked up to my PC for bluray), uses less power, has far better anti glare, does not quickly vibrate each pixel, is lighter and more easily transported.


RE: OLED ftw
By ICE1966 on 10/1/2009 12:46:04 PM , Rating: 3
I really do not care for LCD's as they too suffer from burn-in. I have a 2 year old samsung monitor that has burn-in that has not gone away. LCD's are doing good simply because people are easily scared into to thinking that they are inferior, but they are not. I have a 50" Panasonic 1080p plasma that I would not trade for any LCD. Picture quality is what matters to me, and LCD's do not have it. You can even see a difference between the 2 when comparing plasmas to the latest led lcd panels @240mhz. If you cannot afford a few dollars a month extra in your power bill then maybe you should have spent the money for the panel on something else. There are all kinds of excuses for things we do but if you buy an LCD over a plasma simply because of burn-in or weight, then you are crazy. you just gave up the best picture quality simply because you listened to some idiot salesman at best buy convinced you to waste your money.


RE: OLED ftw
By ICE1966 on 10/1/2009 12:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
man do we need an edit button.

I meant to say that LCD's are selling better because people are scared into thikn that plasmas are inferior, but they are not.

sorry about the typo.


RE: OLED ftw
By Villains on 10/1/2009 4:14:18 PM , Rating: 1
Picture quality is judged differently by everyone. You like plasma and thats your opinion. Alot of people will contend LCD is the better picture and thats fine as well.

Same like the dark and out of the box more natural picture quality of plasmas. Others like the more vibrant and colorful LCDs picture.

Your right that alot of Best Buys and shops like that push LCDs over plasma. But that doesnt automatically make plasma better than LCD or vice versa.

Again, this is a finicky topic. Alot of people want to defend the purchase they made as better, so they feel better about the money spent, nothing wrong with that. In the end, your better off listening to what your eyes tell you, not a forum or some kid at Best Buy.


RE: OLED ftw
By ICE1966 on 10/1/2009 6:20:58 PM , Rating: 3
I understand what you are saying but it's not a matter of ones perception, plasma's do look better, better than even the newest 240mhz lcd panels. if you are into to extreme bright, washed out images, then your assumption is right. for me, that is, the money I spent was not an issue, in fact I have 2 new 58" 1080p plamsas coming tommorow. 1 will go in place of the 50" for mormal TV viewing, I like using my projector for movies only viewing. the other 58" will go into the family room, and the 50" will go in my master bedroom to replace the 42" that currently resides there. I have blue ray players with each set, and the ability to play older DVDs through an Oppo upconverting to 1080p players. I have a collection of nearly 3500 dvds, including many superbit versions of popular movies. man the superbit movies were the way to before the true rush to HD. those superbit dvds looked much better than standard def dvds use too. I have about 500 blu ray titles and am still adding to that part of my collection. I spend alot of time amd money on my home video and theater, thats one of the reason I chose to go with plasma. I guess its what you want that matters.


RE: OLED ftw
By Villains on 10/1/2009 8:29:40 PM , Rating: 1
How can you say its not a matter of perception when it totally is, lol.

You say LCD is washed out and too bright.

I say plasma is too dark and dreary.


RE: OLED ftw
By wired00 on 10/1/2009 10:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
whether plasma OR LCD, you've got too many damn screens! ;)


RE: OLED ftw
By joeindian1551 on 10/2/2009 12:59:24 AM , Rating: 2
cool story bro /thread


RE: OLED ftw
By Mint on 9/28/2009 5:17:14 PM , Rating: 4
Energy consumption is not much more for actual program material, and only the peak consumption is drastically higher. You're talking about maybe 30 watts difference on average, and at 7 hours per day, that's $7 per year.

LED LCD costs more than the midrange plasmas that outperform them, and lifespan isn't an issue. Only the LED backlights with local dimming can come close to plasma performance (while having drawbacks), and they're very expensive.

OLED has been around the corner for ages. If it gets affordable for TV usage, it will kill LCD first since small screens are where the bulk of LCD marketshare is at.


RE: OLED ftw
By Yawgm0th on 9/28/2009 5:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I assure you. The difference will be much greater than $5-$10.
Ridiculous. I assure you, your assurances are based on nonsense, not science, math, or fact.

Let's say we have an extra-hungry plasma that uses 350w and an LCD using 200W. Let's say we run them 24/7 at 30.44 days (average month).

24 hrs * 350W = 6,000wh/day * 30.44d = 182,640wh/month (182kwh)
24 hrs * 200W = 4,800wh/day * 30.44d = 146,112wh/month (146kwh)

Let's say the TVs are in our Minnesota home where we spend an average of $.1045 per kwh. That gives us about $19.02/month for the plasma and $15.26 for the plasma. In fact, FIT was wrong, since that is a difference of less than $5 on the bill for a completely unrealistic level of usage (24/7/365).

I would conjecture that no reductions in power consumption of TVs will have a perceptible impact on a typical residential electricity bill ever. The power cost is so low as to be completely inconsequential for anyone who can afford a TV and electricity. We are talking $5-$10 difference per year under more reasonable circumstances.

Painting your roof white during the summer (unless you live in Alaska) will have a much, much more noticeable impact on your energy usage and it won't make your TV look worse.

Let's keep the TV focus on image quality and reliability, not the almost immeasurably small energy consumption. I'll stick with my Panasonic Plasma.

quote:
-Burn-in still occurs though much less frequently
No, it doesn't. A good quality Plasmas don't burn in pretty much ever. Tens and even hundreds of consecutive hours of the same TV and game logos being stuck on the plasma I've had for the last four years seem to indicate burn-in is not a problem and hasn't been for quite some time. Aside from my anecdote, every other recent plasma owner I've known not to mention dozens of local businesses (the cardclub/racetrack, sports bars, etc) seems to have the same experience: burn-in is a cute theory, but not an actual problem.

Frankly, I'm more worried about being next to an iPod that explodes.


RE: OLED ftw
By yonzie on 9/28/2009 5:54:47 PM , Rating: 4
Your math is off.
24 * 350W = 8,400 wh/day * 30,44d = 255,696wh/month (256kwh)
256kwh * $0.1045 = $26,75 making the difference per month $12.
(in this totally ridiculous example with a white screen 24/7)

That said, you can pry my plasma from my cold dead hands!


RE: OLED ftw
By Yawgm0th on 9/28/2009 8:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
I did 250 instead of 350. Fail. My point stands, though.


RE: OLED ftw
By Oregonian2 on 9/28/2009 6:05:42 PM , Rating: 3
My 58" 2007 Plasma screen is rated 100,000 hours. If an LED LCD is greater than that (is it?), does it matter?

Note too that Plasmas don't have constant power draw, their power varies with the brightness of the screen. And of course, it depends if one watches TV 24/7 or just an hour a night.

Burn-in (image retention) is pretty much a non-issue nowdays, even with my 2007 set.

My 58" Plasma weighted less than the 32" CRT that it replaced, and the wall-mount (despite being a super-deluxe one) still costed a LOT less than the Plasma set did.

The last quarter of stats that I saw had LCD's even or down slightly while Plasma sales had grown something like 35%. Still way behind LCD's that dominate the large small screen market, but not exactly going away.


RE: OLED ftw
By quiksilvr on 9/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: OLED ftw
By Mint on 9/29/2009 1:54:15 AM , Rating: 4
Why don't you actually read our posts? The energy issue is NOT a big problem. 500W is peak power. It's easy to google and find links like this:
http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-...

The current Panasonic 50" is 218W. 47-52" LCD start at 210W. At 46", the Panny consumes 168W, while LCD goes from 107W (for the pricey B7000) to 300W for other LCDs. I was being generous when I said 30W difference, but the point is that generalizing plasma as power hungry is ignorant.

LED technology only helps LCD get near plasma in picture quality when there is local dimming, and that is far from reaching the mainstream.

If weight or fashion is an issue, then go for LCD. But don't choose it for phantom reasons like power consumption expense.


RE: OLED ftw
By kake on 9/29/2009 3:26:54 AM , Rating: 3
As far as fashion;

plasmas are sexy. Just listen to the difference here:

"Hey baby, wanna come watch Rattlesnake Ally on my plasma?"

"Hey baby, wanna come watch Piccolo Pete on my ell cee dee?"


RE: OLED ftw
By wired00 on 9/30/2009 2:47:52 AM , Rating: 2
What?

I can see in that exact link you posted that on average the screens are almost 2x the power usage.

All you did was show the Newest 2009 model plasma's using the latest power saving panels and ignored most of those on the market which are still 2008. The latest samsung uses 106watt.

You stated LCD's range from 107Watt to 300Watt. Great...but what about Plasma??

After putting the data from that site into excel i can see that 42" looks a whole lot different than how you portray it!

PLASMA 42"
187.17 - 464.07 watt

LCD 42":
91.23 - 236.38 watt

almost exactly 2x the power usage for plasma vs LCD

If you bothered to look you can clearly see that almost all Plasmas in that list are "POOR" power usage! Come on... plasma power usage is considerably more

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-...


RE: OLED ftw
By kake on 9/29/2009 3:18:36 AM , Rating: 2
The only problem I have with power consumption of our plasmas is the heat. It makes a huge difference downstairs if that TV is on during the day for the AC (we live in CA, it was 111 here on Saturday). Huge as in 5 degrees between it being on and it being off.

But, I guess I can live with that. Thank goodness the seven fans in the back of it are silent.


RE: OLED ftw
By glennc on 9/28/2009 11:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
they are thinning out just like LCD. next years plasma will be lighter than last years LCD.

they have eco plasmas that use less energy than last years LCDs

LED LCD TVs are more expensive to get the same (almost) picture quality.

Plasma offers better SD playback on HD screens. there is still plenty of Sd content out there.

Plasma refresh rates faster and 200hz LCD is not for everyone. the processing hasn't caught up to the idea yet.

LCD Tvs are brighter though, if thats what you want.

you cannot keep using the same arguments year after year without any research.


RE: OLED ftw
By Nfarce on 9/28/2009 11:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I assure you. The difference will be much greater than $5-$10.


Says who? You? Have you lived with a plasma or are you just commenting based upon what you've read? When I bought my first HDTV, a 42" Sammy plasma 3 years ago to replace a CRT TV, my power bill went up $9 the next month all other things being equal and hovered around $9-$12/month more. That is, compared to the same months the year prior including that main TV usage of about (not bedroom, bonus room, or kitchen TV) of about 40 hours a week.

quote:
-They burn too much energy


The newest models like the Panny Viera G series consume half the power of the earlier generation plasmas. Them's the facts.

quote:
Their lifespan has lost their superiority with the release of LED


So what? At my rated usage of 40 hours a week, my panel has 24 years before it's half life (brightness is half what it was when new). You think I'll still have that TV then? Besides, LED from what I've read still has a ways to go for uniformity saturation and inconsistent burnout issues - it is still new tech.

quote:
They're heavier, meaning you have to get more durable wall mounts


Not everyone wall mounts. I'm one of them.


RE: OLED ftw
By Nfarce on 9/28/2009 11:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
And all of the above points trump the fact that currently you have to spend at least double on an LED TV compared to a similar plasma. Now what were you saying about power consumption costs again?


RE: OLED ftw
By TerranMagistrate on 9/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: OLED ftw
By mmntech on 9/28/2009 3:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
I've often wondered about this because my parents have a plasma. Are the image retention problems any worse than CRTs? I somehow doubt it with modern sets and the use of screensavers. I could be wrong though.

Plasma still has the best image quality for it's profile; when DLP and CRT based HDTVs are impractical.


RE: OLED ftw
By Yawgm0th on 9/28/2009 5:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've often wondered about this because my parents have a plasma. Are the image retention problems any worse than CRTs? I somehow doubt it with modern sets and the use of screensavers. I could be wrong though.
No. Unlike with CRTs, which to this day have this problem, modern plasmas don't. In theory, sure, but in practice it is not a problem.


RE: OLED ftw
By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2009 2:37:33 AM , Rating: 1
My friend has a 3 year old plasma TV - I don't know the brand, exact size (though it's mid-to-upper 40's), or model, unfortunately - that currently has burn in of the Food Network logo, despite the fact that he is absolutely religious about using the conditioning screen whenever he leaves the TV alone for more than a minute or so. Maybe he bought a cheap set that was older tech, I don't know. But I'm going to wait and see if these more recent plasmas don't burn in after 3 years before I mark them as burn-in free.

I know my anecdote doesn't hold much weight - shady on details, and only a single case, but it's enough for me to go for LCD's, since I'm nowhere near as good at taking care of my stuff, and most of my viewing has static images (video games or TV logos).


RE: OLED ftw
By Jalek on 9/29/2009 3:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
Newer ones use pixel shifting and many anecdotal tests have come up fine.

Motion blur on my 120hz LCD annoys me more than it should. I much prefer the plasma.


RE: OLED ftw
By Gock on 9/28/2009 3:55:02 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, with most plasma sets sold over the past couple years, it would take days for an image to burn in, or longer. And even then, a lot of plasma's have screen savers or pixel-shifting technology to prevent such an occurance.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6844370-1.html


RE: OLED ftw
By Yawgm0th on 9/28/2009 5:36:15 PM , Rating: 1
I've had over a dozen PS2 and PS3 games running for literally days at a time on my Panasonic Plasma set, which is a 2004 or 2005 model I've been using for three years. Everything from Guitar Hero to Grand Theft Auto has sat on a menu screen when someone forgot to turn it off. I've had no problems whatsoever with burn-in. It's simply not applicable to a good plasma set, especially in 2009.


RE: OLED ftw
By Elementalism on 9/28/2009 7:06:16 PM , Rating: 4
Friend has a panny plasma. We fell asleep watching casino one night. It burned in the screen with the menu in about ~5 hours.


RE: OLED ftw
By KoolAidMan1 on 9/28/2009 6:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
This is incorrect, plasmas haven't had image retention issues for a very long time.

If anything, plasmas are actually better for video games since they have lower input lag (this is before we get into better blacks, better color, etc etc).


RE: OLED ftw
By BailoutBenny on 9/29/2009 10:14:17 AM , Rating: 2
+1 I have a 2008 50" Pioneer Elite. Nothing else comes close and I was looking for the absolute best when I bought it regardless of price.


RE: OLED ftw
By XBMCFan on 9/29/2009 12:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
That's total BS. Before Circuit City went under I went in and saw a Samsung that had "Play" burned into the bottom of the screen from them leaving the bluray menu up through the evening. While not burn-in, I saw other image retention issues on a Panasonic at Sears. An area of the screen was red for a minute, and when the picture changed, it took about 15 seconds for that area to settle on the color it should be. All you plasma elitists insisting that image retention isn't still a problem make me laugh.


RE: OLED ftw
By BailoutBenny on 9/29/2009 3:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have a problem with image retention. I game regularly and use my plasma as my computer monitor.


RE: OLED ftw
By 67STANG on 9/28/2009 3:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
You can still buy a plasma TV? They don't even stock them at my local Best Buy. Been all LCD for quite some time now...


RE: OLED ftw
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/28/2009 7:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
They still have them at Costco and Best Buy where I live. The models they sell are Toshiba, Vizio, and one other brand I can't recall. The Costco guy told me to buy the Toshiba, since both Vizio and Toshiba buy from the same supplier, but Vizio gets Toshiba rejects. Not sure how much credence to put in that story, but Toshiba Vieras consistently rate highly.


RE: OLED ftw
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/28/2009 10:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
Er, sorry I meant Panasonic Viera.


RE: OLED ftw
By djc208 on 9/29/2009 10:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
LCDs have been slowly moving up-market as the article states, and the manufacturers have been moving other technologies out of those markets. Mostly what you find is:

- LCD is the primary option (sometimes only) from about 52" down.
- Plasma is the primary option from about 50" to about 60"
- Above 60" projection (front or rear, and mostly DLP) are the main option.

The overlap at the upper ends of each size range tend to get very expensive for the extra space, to the point where the price isn't usually justified over the competing technology except for bragging rights (100+" LCD screens).

The real deciding factor here is that price rules. Most people aren't dicerning enough to be able to justify the extra money a plasma set delivers over an LCD at the same size, or don't care enough to spend the extra cash, plus there still rather expensive compared to the old CRT sets, so most can't bring themselves to spend hundreds more on an already expensive luxury item.


RE: OLED ftw
By ExarKun333 on 9/28/2009 3:37:20 PM , Rating: 3
Good riddance to plasma.


RE: OLED ftw
By dragunover on 9/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: OLED ftw
By MrDockery on 9/28/2009 4:42:30 PM , Rating: 4
LCDs are lighter and brighter, but color and black levels are generally better on plasma. Life-span is better now on plasmas than the first couple of years they were out (my cousins toshiba (2005) is still kicking and looking better than my 46" samsung lcd (2008)). Motion is always better on a PLASMA than an LCD. IMHO


RE: OLED ftw
By Yawgm0th on 9/28/2009 5:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
is still kicking and looking better than my 46" samsung lcd (2008)). Motion is always better on a PLASMA than an LCD. IMHO
I disagree strongly. That is a fact, not your opinion. ;)


RE: OLED ftw
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/28/2009 7:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
Hahaha! That's an awesome reply. I had to read it twice to get it.

Yup, plasma refreshes at 480Hz, whereas until recently LCD refreshes were 60Hz. 120 Hz LCDs are now available at a premium and 240 Hz are just coming on the market.


RE: OLED ftw
By tigen on 9/28/2009 6:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. Also, LCDs get color shifts and other undesireable behavior (lighter black levels) as soon as you move off the "sweet spot" viewing angle.

That plus generally more problems with motion blur and input lag.


RE: OLED ftw
By Ratinator on 9/28/2009 4:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
And Brightness. A big reason for going LCD is the location of it in a brightly lit room (i.e. lots of sunlight). The Plasma is hard to see in that type of room.


RE: OLED ftw
By tigen on 9/28/2009 9:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
Stop watching TV and go outside on a sunny day. ;)


RE: OLED ftw
By StevoLincolnite on 9/28/2009 9:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
...Or bring the Couch and LCD TV out at the front of your house and watch it outside in the sunlight! Best of both worlds then!


RE: OLED ftw
By Hiawa23 on 9/28/2009 4:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting thread. I just bought a 22" 1080p VIZIO LCD for $268 @ Sams Club, & couldn't believe how nice it was especially for the price.


RE: OLED ftw
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/28/2009 7:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
LCDs are nice for most TV watching, but if you watch anything with night or space scenes, they tend to have a washed out look with backlight bleed in at the edges. Since I watch a lot of SF and noir, I find it very annoying. That being said, I had to pick up an LCD since plasma didn't fit my living conditions.


RE: OLED ftw
By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/28/2009 8:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
Except for low-end lcd sets, I thought plasma screens were making a rebound in the energy usage field. I remember reading something about how they fill in amongst existing lcd sets when arranged by power consumption. Unfortunately, I think that get's somewhat shattered when LED backlit lcds are put into the equation


RE: OLED ftw
By mars2k on 9/28/2009 8:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yes Plasma is better in every way except energy consumption which is by the way improving with every new Plasma release. I would however take issue with the term "Fading". Market share may be shrinking but there are still important improvements in Plasma technology all the time. OLEDs that compare are years away. LCDs are nice and getting better but so far cannot match Plasma image quality. Niether can projection until you get to 20' screens and 6 figure projectors.


RE: OLED ftw
By darklight0tr on 9/29/2009 9:17:39 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, though you'll probably be in for a very long wait.

I upgraded to a Samsung 67" LED Backlit DLP earlier this year right before they discontinued their DLP sets. I got it for only $1700, and the thing is AWESOME. Best TV that I have ever owned. The rainbow effect that I had on my previous DLP doesn't occur on this one and lucky for me the depth isn't an issue because the room can accommodate it. It should last me until that dream OLED set is available. :)

I looked at large LCD TVs and they simply sucked. Has anyone noticed the motion artifacts on LCDs over 50"? Whenever I look at one they stand out like a sore thumb. This is without all of that 120Hz/240Hz crap, which drives me nuts as well. I don't know how anyone can have the 120Hz/240Hz setting on at all, it makes things look horrible. On top of that the price was significantly higher than the DLP set I picked.

I didn't look much at Plasma, as the aren't very available in my area.


blah
By Motoman on 9/28/2009 3:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
...early this year I found myself in the market for a new TV to replace our aged 55" Mitsubishi Platinum Series projection unit.

My only criteria were that new new one needed to be "bigger", and cost less than $2,000 shipped/tax/whatever.

I discovered that plasma pricing was retarded across the board. Eff that.

LCD pricing...well, a 65" LCD would have run about $7k, and then there was a 70" LCD for about $20k.

Or, I could get a 67" LED-DLP projection unit, that was 18" deep, and was loaded with all the good stuff for $1,800.

Hmmm...let me think. I could have a 65" TV that's 3" deep and hangs on the wall for $7k, or a 67" TV that's 18" deep and sits in front of the wall for $1,800...

The moral of the story is I can't fathom why anyone pays that huge money for truly big flatscreen TVs. We paid $600 for a 42" 1080p LCD to hang in the bedroom - at that price I'm fine with it. But when the price difference is many thousands of dollars? WTF?




RE: blah
By randomposter on 9/28/2009 3:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hmmm...let me think. I could have a 65" TV that's 3" deep and hangs on the wall for $7k, or a 67" TV that's 18" deep and sits in front of the wall for $1,800...

If my family room TV were sitting on the floor, it would be sitting in front of our gas fireplace! Wall mounting was the only viable option. I guess I could have gone for some kind of ceiling mounted projection system, but that room gets a lot of light during the day and the projectors I've seen don't cope with that very well.


RE: blah
By JediJeb on 9/28/2009 5:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. My house only cost me $42k I can't justify a TV costing 7K at all. It was all I could do when I spent $800 on my 31" Mitsu crt back in 95, but since it is still going strong I think I got my money's worth from it. I wonder if a 7K LCD will still be going strong after 14 years?


RE: blah
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/28/2009 7:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen 52" plasma TVs for about $1200 at Costco.

I've not seen a projection unit in so long... How are they these days? What are the issues? What are the good points?


RE: blah
By Motoman on 9/29/2009 10:46:37 AM , Rating: 2
The only "issue" - and it's one I can't fathom complaining about - is that the TV is 18" wide at the base...only a few inches wide at the top.

We spent $100 on a sweet looking stand for it that houses all of our A/V components underneath it. The whole thing looks really slick.

A traditional DLP system would have a bulb that would burn out on occasion, and you'd have to replace it...otherwise, it was a "permanent" TV - never just dies like LCD or plasma. My brother has a regular DLP and spends about $150 a year now on a new bulb.

This one though has a LED array instead of a bulb - so it is expected to effectively last forever.

It's a 1080p picture, 120Hz. Picture quality is mind-blowing. I have a HTPC hooked up to it, and if you really need a reason to drool for several hours, come on over and I'll let you play WoW on it ;)

Ultimately, the downside is that I don't believe anyone makes them anymore. Everyone got all googly for something they can hang on the wall...so, as astounding as it seems, the $1,800 67" LED DLP has gone the way of the dodo in favor of the $7,000 wall-mount.

I got mine from B&H. Shipping was included, and the guy even brought it into the house, unpacked it, and made sure it worked OK before he left. Class.


RE: blah
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/29/2009 4:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the plasma's not as big. It was just close, so I thought I'd bring it up.

How's the viewing angle on it the projection TV?


RE: blah
By Motoman on 9/29/2009 10:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
Oh...about the $1,200 plasma TV at Costco...

You'll notice that's a foot smaller than the LED DLP I got. Find a comparable size plasma and see what it costs.


RE: blah
By Villains on 9/29/2009 2:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
While DLP was nice, it definitely doesnt match up with todays Plasma or LCDs, not even close.

I had a 56" Sammy LED DLP and while the TV was nice and picture was pretty good, black levels and the contrast wasnt very good at all.

For the price, DLP is great but compared to LCD and Plasma, theres a reason DLP isnt the popular option anymore and its not because of size.

I ended up upgrading to a Sammy LN55B650(only cost $1000 :D) LCD and from the Sammy DLP, this LCD makes the DLP look poor in alot of ways but mainly in the blacks and contrast. Even the color isnt quite as nice.

While Plasmas are nice and i almost got one, i ended up going with the LCD because the vividness of the colors just looked alot better. Blacks are great on this set. Everything is just so nice looking.

The one and only thing i would take from Plasma though is the better motion on things like Sports. Admittedly, LCDs lack when it comes to this. But i watch alot of movies and TV, as well as sports, so i wouldnt trade the LCD in for a Plasma for that alone.

Everyone seems to defend the one that they have, seemingly so they can convince themselves they have the "better" tech. Not everyone sees things the same, has the same tv area, has the same lighting, etc, etc, etc. Pick the one you like the best, not the one someone else tells you is the best.


RE: blah
By Motoman on 9/29/2009 3:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
As noted, we also have a 1080p LCD TV in the bedroom.

And I categorically don't believe that there's a significant difference in picture quality. I even paraded around back and forth between both TVs to see if I could tell a difference (so did my wife after she saw me do it) - neither of us could tell any difference.

Looking at plasmas vs. LCD in the stores...*maybe* there's a noticeable difference when they're side by side.

If that difference is worth several thousand dollars to you...you must be insanely wealthy.

If a ~67" LCD TV was the same price, or maybe just a couple hundred dollars more, as the LED DLP we bought, I'd have gone with the LCD because it is *nice* that it takes up less room.

But no...no, I don't believe your "not even close" statement. Not in the slightest.


RE: blah
By Villains on 9/30/2009 2:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
I do agree on the prices, you definitely won in that respect. But i was lucky and got my 55B650 for $1000. That was the main reason i bought DLP when i did, the price......and nothing else.

While i wont say your wrong in what you like, cause you obviously like the DLP, as did i when i had mine. But saying DLP looks better than plasma or LCD? Im just gonna have to disagree with you, cause the quality is better in LCD and plasma. Side by side or not.


RE: blah
By Motoman on 9/30/2009 5:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
No where did I say it looked "better" - I said I couldn't tell the difference.

If I squint just right at a plasma next to an LCD, I *think* I can tell a difference. If they're not right next to each other...subjectively they're the same. And I seriously doubt that virtually anyone, when the TVs are not right next to each other, can truly say that one picture is materially better than the other. I think it's in the heads of those who paid more for the plasma, trying to justify their purchase.


Plasmas are fading
By rudy on 9/28/2009 11:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
But it is not because their is anything wrong with them it is because the places that sell them to the mass consumer have no interest in selling them. My dad recenly was almost duped by a best buy employee into an LED back lit LCD which cost twice as much. That is the key LCDs fetch more money and people are inclined to lie to sell them after all how do you explain to a customer you are about to sell them a 3000$ led lcd when they can get better picture with none of the many lcd problems from a plasma the same size? They dont like so many great products. I think panasonic needs to make a ad campaign which educates customers cause they are not getting any help in the retail channels.




RE: Plasmas are fading
By KoolAidMan1 on 9/29/2009 1:08:39 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. You can get plasmas for the same price as an LCD, only difference is that the plasma will be better in every single way than the LCD. Profit margins for the stores are what drives sales. It is cheaper to produce an LCD and they have high profit margins, so obviously stores are going to push to sell more of them. Combine that with marketing and old wives tales (ie - "plasmas have image retention problems") and you have consumers that think they are buying the latest and greatest in display technology when in reality they have been duped by companies selling them an inferior, cheap to produce product for greater profit.

Fortunately, there will continue to be a market for plasmas from people who know display technology, at least until something better comes along.


RE: Plasmas are fading
By Villains on 9/29/2009 3:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure if your insecure about your plasma or what but to make a blanket statement saying plasma is better in every single way except power consumption is in short.......your opinion.

Plasmas are great TVs but the newer LCDs are just as good. Each have their positives and negatives.

You say LCDS have blacks that are very dark blue at best. Maybe you should get with the times. Those old days of all LCDs with the blue blacks just isnt true for all LCDs these days. I was under that thinking until i actually did some research and compared tvs. New LCDs have no problem producing black blacks. While Plasma may have a slight edge here, its not even close to what it used to be.

Viewing angles. This isnt specifically true of all LCDs. I have my own LCD(LN55B650), friend has a Sammy 46" thats a bit older now, Dad has a 50" DLP and my brother has a 46" Plasma. While my friends older LCD has poor viewing angles with diminished picture when not head on. The DLP actually has worse viewing angle than my LCD. And my LCD is basically the same as the plasma.

One thing is for sure but as of recently its starting to change that ive seen, is price. LCD, especially the newest models and the bigger sizes are more expensive. But its just a matter of time till they go down. Me? Well i got my 55B650 the month it came out when it was $3600(canadian) but i was fortunate and got it for a $1000. :)


RE: Plasmas are fading
By KoolAidMan1 on 9/30/2009 1:33:43 AM , Rating: 2
No insecurity at all, I went into researching displays in person late last year with no prejudices or preconceived notions and came to my conclusions on my own. I am aware of current displays and the differences still stand. In fact, your comment below defending the 120hz frame interpolation feature in some LCDs that makes everything super smooth completely invalidates your opinions to me.

Its a feature that engineers never should have included in the first place. It makes The Godfather look like an afternoon soap opera, horrible. I question the taste and judgement of anybody that enjoys it, let alone openly defends it.


RE: Plasmas are fading
By Villains on 9/30/2009 1:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well thats just your opinion about Motion then, cause plenty of people enjoy it. Who are you to question what people can and cant like. Everyone that has watched my TV, notices it a first and asks about it but they also say it makes things look much better, more lifelike, clearer, etc.

Some like it and some dont. Doesnt mean its bad. Just because you dont like it, doesnt mean everyone should.

And you do realize there is a difference between AMP and 120Hz, right?


Just moved from a 32" LCD to a 42"
By mattclary on 9/28/2009 3:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
Just got a 42" Vizio and am really happy with it. I am having to adjust because the picture is so good, it makes regular TV shows have that "shot on video tape" look of afternoon soap operas.




RE: Just moved from a 32" LCD to a 42"
By jkcheng122 on 9/28/2009 5:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think you got a model with frame interpolation, the 120Hz feature most LCD's are now touting. See if you can turn it off and it should get rid of that soap opera video look when you're watching movies.

I'm glad I picked up a Pioneer plasma before they left the TV game. Currently looking at putting a TV in my bedroom and looking at LCD's as a plasma in a small room would make it a furnace too fast. Imo it really isn't which tech is better, but rather which one suits each person better.

BTW, for the ppl who thinks LCD TV with LED tech are going to be better than plasmas, they still have ways too go. This goes for the rear proj DLP TVs as well. They have one common problem plasmas don't have, and that is viewing angle/off-axis viewing.


By KoolAidMan1 on 9/28/2009 6:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, LED backlit LCDs still have a long ways to go to catch up with plasmas. It still doesn't fix many inherent and fundamental issues that the technology has.


By Villains on 9/29/2009 3:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
You cant turn off 120Hz, you can only turn off the Motion Processing. Like with Sammy, its called AMP(Auto Motion Plus) and you can adjust the level it runs at.

120Hz is the refresh rate of the tv and has nothing to do with the "Soap Opera" effect.


Kuro
By trivik12 on 9/28/2009 4:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that Pioneer who made the best plasma tvs stopped making them, showed the writing is on the wall for plasma.Panasonic's Z series is really thin but the price is way higher than even backlit LED tvs.Ultimately LCD won bcos it was lighter, consumed less power and came in all sizes. Plus lcd tv's from sony/samsung were almost as good as plasma.




RE: Kuro
By Mint on 9/28/2009 5:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
Pioneer died because they didn't know how to make cheap plasmas that can piggyback on the best-TV-ever status of their existing models. With the economic downturn, their lack of a low end option completely killed their already flawed business model.

At equal price/size, plasma gives you a better TV. Plasma is losing overall because it doesn't scale down to small sizes very well, but it's not going to disappear at 50" and bigger for a while. The Z series is only expensive because Panny wants to milk the enthusiasts first, as with any desireable technology.


RE: Kuro
By Nfarce on 9/29/2009 12:14:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact that Pioneer who made the best plasma tvs stopped making them, showed the writing is on the wall for plasma


Wrong. Pioneer had the high end plasma market and offered TVs that cost 2-3 times as much as other plasmas in the same size segment. They priced themselves right out of the market, not the market dying, per say.

I have both LCD and a plasma (both Sammys). The plasma, three years old now, still owns the mid/upper range LCD (B650 series bought new this year for a lot more than a comparable new plasma) in color, blacks, response, and just all around better picture.

Sure, you can get close to plasma picture performance and quality in an LCD/LED, but you have to pay 2-3 times as much for it, which IMO totally throws out the window the so-called power savings.


RE: Kuro
By luhar49 on 9/30/2009 1:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
Pioneer's exit was sad.
I am hoping they sell the technology to more business savvy rivals like Samsung.

The new plasmas from Panasonic and Samsung are excellent...but cant touch a Kuro yet. I am hoping I will have options to upgrade to a plasma when I retire my Kuro in a couple of years time.

Till then I will enjoy my Kuro. It was costly to buy..but the pleasure I have gotten from it has been well worth it.
Its like driving a Merc when even a Ford will take you to your destination :)


Its a shame
By KoolAidMan1 on 9/28/2009 6:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
Plasmas are superior to LCDs in every single way except for power consumption. Better blacks (with an LCD at best you get a very dark blue), way more accurate colors, completely even illumination from edge to edge and corner to corner, wider viewing angles, no possibility of lower bit-depth panels which means no possibility of color dithering, lower input lag which is better for gaming, the list goes on and on.

On top of that plasmas are very reasonably priced now. A 50" Panasonic G10 will cost under $1200 on Amazon and it will absolutely bow away a comparably priced LCD, let alone an LCD that costs twice as much.

I see absolutely zero reason to go with an LCD, they are inferior in every way to even a lower priced plasma. And a high end plasma like my FD-141 Pioneer Signature Elite Kuro is IMHO among the best consumer displays to EVER hit the market. I did months of research and nothing came even close. Its a shame that Pioneer is exiting the display business, hopefully Panasonic will pick up the pieces in the high end.

Its bizarre why marginally cheaper but radically inferior displays are so much more popular, I see the same thing with computer displays and the shitty TN panels you find at Best Buy absolutely killing S-IPS and H-IPS panels in sales. I could understand it before when NEC and Apple were the only games in town with their premium displays, but Dell has very affordable E-IPS displays these days, only slightly more expensive than a shitty TN. And yet TN panels still fly out the door. Are consumers blind or are manufacturers lobbying and marketing successfully for cheaper, inferior, higher profit margin parts? What's going on?




RE: Its a shame
By PontifexMaximus on 9/28/2009 9:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's called "torch mode" and nearly every store sets their tv's to that unrealistic ultra-bright setting, so that they stand out more in the store's floodlights. When it comes to torch mode, LCDs kick plasma's ass and the plasmas just look dim in this unrealistic, burn holes in your retina's mode.

But, buyers drawn to torch mode, are like deer caught in the headlights. They're probably the same people who bought all those cheap-ass Aiwa bookshelf systems in the 90's because they had all the flashing lights on them.

People forget they don't have floodlights in their living room when buying a tv at Costco. When comparing calibrated LCDs to plasma displays in a dimly-lit room, plasma just kicks ass. There are scenarios where I prefer LCD (heavy computer/gaming use, brightly-lit room or lots of windows, etc.), but in my light-controlled room, I prefer my Pioneer Kuro (1st generation) for sports, movies, tv, and moderate PS3 usage.

Another fact tree huggers forget is that plasmas use considerably less power when properly calibrated. LCD's still use less, but the gap is narrowed considerably.


RE: Its a shame
By Jalek on 9/29/2009 4:09:34 AM , Rating: 2
I paid $1000 at a local chain store for a G15.
G10 would be as good, VieraCast and one more HDMI port are the only noticeable differences.

I wasn't even considering plasma when I walked into the store, all I'd ever heard were the problems of the older models and short life claims. It wasn't even all that different looking in the store. The difference was obvious once it was home on the mantle in place of an LCD.


which plasma?
By InSearchOf on 9/29/2009 10:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
ive been doing alot of research for the last 9 months and i agree that the Pioneer plasmas were in a class by themselves. the question i have now is which plasma should i buy? im stuck between the panasonic and the samsung. i respect both companies but dont know which way to lean.

one annoying thing i hate is when a program is going to commercial the volume gets jacked way way up, do you know if either the samsung or panasonic plasmas have steady volume leveling control or whatever that term si called? thanks for your help..im gonna be buying one of the mid tier plasmas and would like a heads up on brand and specs :)




RE: which plasma?
By Vader2k100 on 9/30/2009 4:06:01 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I would go with the Panasonic. I currently have a Panasonic 50" from 2007 and have never had any problems with it. I researched and viewed various plasma displays for months before I settled on the Panny that I bought. Plus, Panasonic is the one that makes the majority of plasma panels for the market. With the exception of the Pioneer Elite models, I think they have the best picture quality on the market. IMHO. Try going to AVSForums.com or HomeTheaterForum.com and see what they have to say there.


RE: which plasma?
By luhar49 on 9/30/2009 4:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
Get a Kuro Elite while you can.
You wont need to upgrade for years.

Pioneer still provides warranty so you dont have to worry about them not producing new models.

Finally its a question of quality. Trust your eyes and follow your heart.


Wouldn't be the first time...
By kroker on 9/29/2009 3:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
This wouldn't be the first time that a superior technology loses to an inferior one which is cheaper. Let's face it, most people don't really know what they are buying, they'll just go for anything with "vivid, vibrant colors" (i.e. max brightness and lots of artificial color saturation) and pretty bezels.

No matter how low the response time of an LCD is (6ms, 5ms, 2ms), I can spot the difference immediately. Motion simply looks unnatural compared to plasma or CRT.

Oh well, at least we'll have OLED in a few years! And it should be much cheaper to produce when the technology matures. 100" OLED screens ftw!




RE: Wouldn't be the first time...
By Villains on 9/29/2009 3:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
You could possibly say the same about plasma in that people dont know what they are buying when they are buying the darker picture of a plasma, compared to the more vibrant picture of LCD.

Your half right about the motion though. But i wouldnt say its unnatural at all. After the first couple days, you dont notice the "Soap Opera" effect at all, none. People come over and say that it looks like live motion video but after they get watching it more, the eyes dont notice it and it becomes part of the picture.

The only motion problem with LCD is the blurring on things like Sports. Compared to plasma, LCD looks worse when viewing sports from a motion aspect.


poo
By swaaye on 9/29/2009 1:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
LCD TVs and 16:9 computer screens. Oh my. :(




LCD can retain image too
By Vaz on 9/30/2009 3:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
My westinghouse 42" got burn in. I played company of heroes for thousands of hours and the interface burned/warped the screen to where it is always shown no matter the picture. all my attempts to fix it met in failure.




Hmmm
By Freezebyte on 9/28/09, Rating: 0
@ Headline
By PublixE on 9/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: @ Headline
By Pneumothorax on 9/28/2009 4:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1 - Apparently plasma TV's have to be "Recharged" every so many hours of use (because after so much use the gas has to be re-injected). Basically it seems that Plasma's lose their brightness faster than LCD's after the same amount of usage (which is why I bought an LCD). </q>

This is FUD today. Please research before stating things that haven't been true over the last several+ years. CCFL's also lose their brightness about at the same rate as a modern latest gen plasma.


RE: @ Headline
By PublixE on 9/28/2009 4:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is FUD today. Please research before stating things that haven't been true over the last several+ years. CCFL's also lose their brightness about at the same rate as a modern latest gen plasma.


Thats exactly what it was, a STATEMENT. I wasn't chiming it as fact. I did exactly that - some research and you are right, nowadays either Plasma or LCD tv's last about the same amount of time.

But it is true that LCD's draw less power - it's just the nature of the technology.

Anyways OLED's should dominate once they finally emerge. They color reproduction and clarity looks amazing (from previews)!


RE: @ Headline
By yonzie on 9/28/2009 6:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently plasma TV's have to be "Recharged" every so many hours of use (because after so much use the gas has to be re-injected).

This is not only false, it is and has always been impossible to "recharge" or "re-inject" gas into the cells of a plasma TV.
I'd advise you to steer clear of any store that tells you such outrageous lies, as they either have no clue what they are selling, or are blatantly manipulating you to buy something else.

That said, I'm happy you're liking your TV :)


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki