backtop

Hardware Sony and Panasonic Duke Out LCD vs. Plasma
Purav Sanghani - December 27, 2006 9:00 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 55 comment(s) - last by ekb606.. on Jan 9 at 2:01 AM
Just try explaining LCD to your grandmother now

Panasonic, the leading retailer of plasma screen televisions, just launched major marketing plans to position plasma TVs over its series of LCD’s in order to boost plasma sales.  Panasonic, already on its ninth generation of plasma screen televisions, says that if they market their LCDs as much as they do their plasmas, they would have to increase the funding for overcoming problems with that technology. 

Also, with LCD sales dropping , Panasonic sees more benefit by only offering smaller sizes ranging from 23 to 32 inches.  Increasing size also means increasing product quality on the LCDs.  Panasonic has a major LCD brand, but the company does not have capabilities to produce LCD substrates on its own.

Sony, on the other hand, is putting up a fight after giving up on plasma television manufacturing.  Sony’s television market heavily relies on the LCD technology and is not backing down from the its plasma screen competitors.  The company has even set out a campaign of newspaper and magazine ads throwing out challenges to any plasma competitor.  Sony wants to show, with the HD challenge, that basic in home variables will effect the picture quality on any plasma screen television. 

The biggest variables Sony is claiming is lighting in regards to reflection in the screen and supposed leakages of plasma, which have been proven to not occur.  However, Sony’s claims to screen burn ins, which the company tests on Panasonics plasma screens, have been largely disproven on new screens.

Sony has had a three year partnership with Samsung LCD, the largest LCD manufacturer in the world.

According to the NPD group, the market on LCDs and plasma screen TVs doubled in 2006 from 2005.  The market for tube televisions on the other hand,  dropped by more than half, from 46 percent to 21 percent.  Tube television sales are taking the hard hits from the increase of LCD and plasma sales in 2006.

If trends continue, plasma screens may very well outsell LCDs in the near future.  Sony’s SXRD, the new liquid crystal on silicon technology, the market is up in the air for 2007. 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Any time...
By THEREALJMAN73 on 12/27/2006 10:16:36 AM , Rating: 1
I will pit my Panasonic plasma against ANY Sony LCD.

IMO - plasma picture quality is just much better than "most" LCDs. Also The way my room is setup some people have a large degree of off axis viewing. With the plasma it doesn't matter but on most LCDs you get a very distorted/dark image.

In any event I think Sony should fix their many obvious problems before they poke at Panasonic (who puts out much better products across the board than Sony).




RE: Any time...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/27/2006 11:28:35 AM , Rating: 2
> "I will pit my Panasonic plasma against ANY Sony LCD. "

And if you're up against any 1080p panel, you'll lose hands down, and twice on Sunday. Until plasma can lick the resolution issue, they're not going to win the fight. And I suspect the holiday sales figures, once in, will reflect this.


RE: Any time...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/27/2006 11:36:11 AM , Rating: 2
I overspoke a bit on this. If you're viewing standard-def material, plasma has some clear advantages. Color fidelity, contrast ratio, viewing angle, etc. However, as HD material proliferates, plasma's limited resolution is going to hold it back.


RE: Any time...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/27/2006 11:45:13 AM , Rating: 1
Also don't forget the deeper profile and inevitably the BOM is going to hurt plasma too. LCD has a long way to go as far as how cheap they can make it.


RE: Any time...
By CascadingDarkness on 12/27/2006 1:45:55 PM , Rating: 3
I have to second this. In my opinion, LCD is better hands down. But I want higher resolution for future HD content. I also hook my computer up and actually run games at 1920 X 1080 resolution (so beautiful sometimes I will just watch all my guys die in COH).

There are points to be said for average user for plasma though. For one thing cost, plasma beats LCD hands down anything 45"+ since LCDs cost so much that high. Also if you don't have HD content there is no real use for LCD high resolution since it will look same/better on plasma (especially dark images).

When it comes down to it, you should buy for what you need the display for.

HD, CPU input = LCD
Normal TV, Cost = Plasma

I must testify you get what you pay for also. What they have on special at Walmart isn't going to cut it compared to a good more expensive model. Also don't think just because plasma says 1080i somewhere on the box means anything, lies. That means it can support that input, their resolution comes no where near that truly.


RE: Any time...
By Enoch2001 on 12/27/2006 3:05:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And if you're up against any 1080p panel, you'll lose hands down, and twice on Sunday. Until plasma can lick the resolution issue, they're not going to win the fight. And I suspect the holiday sales figures, once in, will reflect this.


Twice on Sunday, eh? Cute.

Plasma's "resolution issue" has been licked for some time; Panasonic has had a 1080p panel out since November 2005 - a 65" as a matter of fact.

A smaller size panel is inevitable.

The fact is, the plasma versus LCD battle that is "raging" is actually not raging at all. The only place in the world where plasma panel sales are even lucrative are here in the US, and mainly due to social status. Most of the rest of the world are content with LCD's. It's only a matter of time before Panasonic - the last and greatest proponent of plasma screen sales - folds to the competition.

It's a sad fact, IMHO, because I prefer plasma over LCD for large screens, and Panasonics are the best. Any audio/video enthusiast worth their weight in salt will agree (check the AVS Forums) that a decent plasma 50" or larger looks much better than an equivalently sized LCD in regards to color saturation, contrast ratio, a black levels.

But that's a whole other thread discussion, right?

;-)


RE: Any time...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/27/2006 3:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "Plasma's "resolution issue" has been licked for some time; Panasonic has had a 1080p panel out since November 2005 - a 65"..."

Yes, and what was the MSRP on that panel, $12,000? Even the 50" 1080p panels retail for over $5K...and you can't just walk in and buy one from your local Best Buy. Not mine at least. As for 1080p in a smaller panel-- sorry, you can't get it. They can't make the elements small enough yet.

The resolution issue isn't "licked". The cost differential for 1080p is, compared to LCD, astronomical, and its only available on larger panels.


RE: Any time...
By Enoch2001 on 12/27/2006 7:09:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The resolution issue isn't "licked". The cost differential for 1080p is, compared to LCD, astronomical, and its only available on larger panels.


My point, masher, is that if your issue with plasma resolution was that it wasn't able to reach HD LCD levels, then you are gravely mistaken. I didn't say that it was cheaper at this point.

That said, I stand by plasma's image quality over LCD. In fact, I'll go as far to say that LCD will lose hands down. And twice on Sunday.

;-)

Additionally, it is likely that you will see plasma displays at 1080p at a competitive price point to LCD in the near future, as well as screens smaller than 50". You of all people should know how fast technology advances in the consumer market.


RE: Any time...
By CascadingDarkness on 12/27/2006 7:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is more likely that laser TVs will be taking the show by the time true 1080p plasmas are competitive. The first gen of plasmas with that res just came out. It will be a while for them to scale it down. I wouldn't doubt they would end up losing money as all that work would be for naught.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4489

My prediction is, if they keep pushing plasma that laser will be near equivelent cost/size on market at same time. Prices will only drop from there since demand will drop laser to bargin prices (due to lower manu. costs). Yes, I know I'm going out on a limb, but I've got high hopes for laser tech.


RE: Any time...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/27/2006 7:57:37 PM , Rating: 1
I'll put more weight on SED supplanting large-panel plasmas than I would this "laser TV"...the whole thing smells like a fishing expedition for venture capital in my opinion.


RE: Any time...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/27/2006 8:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well Mitsubishi is already apparently "on board" with the tech, but a lot of these technologies fail. LCOS had *major* backing (Intel) and didn't go anywhere. Tri-LCD had Epson dumping millions into just keeping it alive, and that flopped after less than a year.

The fact is to compete with DLP you have to beat Texas Instruments in image quality AND price. That is going to take billions of dollars of research and manufacturing tech.


RE: Any time...
By therealnickdanger on 12/28/2006 2:13:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
LCOS had *major* backing (Intel) and didn't go anywhere.

Technically, LCoS is a very hot seller right now, but under the evolved guise of HDILA (JVC) and SXRD (Sony). Currently, the reviews I've seen in both pro and consumer lines place LCoS-based HDTVs at the front of the pack in terms of picture quality - and they aren't the most expensive either!

I would buy a LCoS display, but I don't like rear-projection sets - too thick. Plasma gives me everything I want right now... Can't wait for SED...


RE: Any time...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/28/2006 5:30:06 AM , Rating: 1
> "Well Mitsubishi is already apparently "on board" with the tech..."

You might be interested in this:

quote:
Paul Caldarera, the National Sales and marketing at Mitsubishi said "The first we heard of the laser TV concept was when we read about it online in the Australian national media. One would have expected that the Managing Director of Mitsubishi would have been invited especially as the directors of Novalux and Arasor were in Australia announcing a TV breakthrough that involved Mitsubishi"

" We don't know where they got the Mitsubishi screen from and no one in Mitsubishi seems to know anything about Laser TV which is extremely unusual as we are often told by parent Mitsubishi Companies of activities in Australia involving Mitsubishi".


RE: Any time...
By therealnickdanger on 12/28/2006 12:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO! Technology is advancing so fast that it even outpaces its inventors!


RE: Any time...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/28/2006 12:34:25 PM , Rating: 1
Want to know how to raise $15M in venture capital in 3 easy steps?

1. Buy two Mitsubishi plasma TVs from Best Buy.
2. Turn the brightness up on one, and down on the other.
3. Call a press conference, to demonstrate your "new superior technology" that will soon sweep the world.


RE: Any time...
By CascadingDarkness on 12/28/2006 1:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. I would be hard placed to pick a victor because there isn't a huge amount of info for either Laser or SED (not that I'd trust anyway). It will be interesting as time goes on and we hear more (not hype, real info). It will be a while until there are several production models for consumer sites to review, and actually get their hands on.

The big point I heard about laser and why I think it has good chance to catch on is cheap manu. costs. While you have to take their "out of their ass" figures of 1/2 production cost with a grain of salt. The big thing is, with high resolutions already being reached and improved upon, cost is the big factor for these two new emerging techs.

If anyone has any good links with real info to support either side I would appreciate them.


RE: Any time...
By Thetech on 12/30/2006 2:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with some of your statements, it's all going to be one big stupid mess because of adverts and ignorance. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I prefer LCD because of it's lower energy comsumption(depending on size I belive) which could be even lower with LED backlighting. If SED hits the market in 2007,and doesn't have a price range $25,000 for the first few sets I feel the market would be LCD's and SED televisions. All displays regardless of type, make or model have flaws, exploiting these flaws is the evil work of marketing departments.


RE: Any time...
By ekb606 on 1/9/2007 2:01:45 AM , Rating: 2
What resolution issue? It's true plasma makers have been a bit slow to release 1080p models, but I suspect that has more to do with the lack of 1080p programming than technology.

Now that both Panasonic and Pioneer have 1080p Blu-ray players they're trying to convince people to pay $1000+ for, they will introduce -- or in the case of Panasonic -- already have introduced 1080p plasma HDTVs.

According to Panasonic, their 50-inch and larger 1080p plasmas will start shipping shortly after CES and the 42-inch 1080p model (odd how "42 inches" is starting to sound like "small screen" all of a sudden, isn't it) will go into production by summer.


I like Plasma too, but...
By TheBaker on 12/27/2006 9:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
Do you think you could post links to some of these "tests" that you are referencing? Earlier generation plasma screens absolutely had burn-in problems. The newer ones are much better, but to say it "does not happen," you really need something to back that up.




RE: I like Plasma too, but...
By h0kiez on 12/27/2006 11:17:56 AM , Rating: 2
I've heard nothing but the same (that burn-in is no longer a problem) for at least a year or two from every review I've seen.


RE: I like Plasma too, but...
By hubajube on 12/27/2006 12:11:16 PM , Rating: 1
No links = BS.


RE: I like Plasma too, but...
By therealnickdanger on 12/27/2006 1:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No links = BS

You = FUD-spreader

As the owner of a older plasma (almost 3yrs old) and a newer plasma, I can safely say that burn-in does not exist on either of mine. However, it's important to distiguish between "burn-in" and "image retention". I have seen color CRTs completely ruined by burn-in (permanent display damage that never disipates) and plasmas that temporarily retain certain images. Below is a test done on five different plasmas. You get what you pay for.

http://www.plasmadisplaycoalition.org/results/imag...


RE: I like Plasma too, but...
By bplewis24 on 12/27/2006 1:29:21 PM , Rating: 1
Wouldn't "image-retention" be a manifestation of the possibility of "burn-in"? If not, please explain why.

Brandon


By therealnickdanger on 12/27/2006 3:57:24 PM , Rating: 3
Being a phosphor-based technology, like CRT, normally the presence of image retention (IR) is a precurson to burn-in. However, I guess this is somewhat analogous to a water-resistant watch and a water-proof watch. I would say that modern PDPs are 100% burn-resistant and 97% burn-proof. That 3% is for the PDPs that are used outside the norm as static display devices or are just simply abused. Given the advancements in plasma displays over the past several years, namely pixel-shifting techniques and improved green phosphor gases, the worst case scenario the majority will encounter is some image retention. It should be noted that PDPs are most susceptable to prolonged image retention during the first 100 hours of use. There are even special DVDs you can use to properly break-in your PDP.

Like buying a new car or raising children, you must be consistent and patient during the formative period to ensure a long and trouble-free life. :P


RE: I like Plasma too, but...
By bplewis24 on 12/27/2006 1:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with "hearing" that it doesn't exist anymore is that it goes against what I've seen with my own eyes. My friend has a plasma screen. A 50" Vizio. If any static image is displayed for more than 15 seconds or so it stays there for a good 10-30 minutes. This is no exaggeration. For example, if I turn off the Direct TV box a pop up on his TV says "no signal." If you leave that there for about 15 seconds and then turn to another input or turn the Direct TV box back on, you can see the shadow of that "no signal" box remaining there for several minutes.

Now, my uncle has a 50 inch samsung, and I've only seen hs tv twice and I've never seen any burn-in evidence. And I also have no way of knowing how prone the Vizio is to permanent burn-in, but if it was me, I would be a bit worried about the prospects of permanent damage if 15 seconds or so can linger for several minutes.

Brandon


RE: I like Plasma too, but...
By cochy on 12/27/2006 3:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
15 seconds? Must be a low quality plasma or a lemon. A friend of mine has a Panasonic Elite plasma. It most definitely displays the nicest picture I've ever seen. I have not noticed any burn-in or any such related problem with it. We even play dvd-games on it and leave a static picture sometimes for a couple of mins. However we are mindful not to do so for longer periods.


RE: I like Plasma too, but...
By bplewis24 on 12/27/2006 6:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
Vizio would possibly qualify as a "low quality" since it's a budget line of TVs. I would expect the Panasonic Elite to outperform it easily.

Brandon


The best display device is....
By exdeath on 12/29/2006 9:38:39 AM , Rating: 2
Every plasma I've ever seen looks like dithered 6 bit grainy mess, and on LCD, everything carries blue-grey tints.

I'll stick with LCD and SXRD front projection for the foreseeable future.

Far bigger screen, superior color vibrance, and choice of 720p or 1080p native resolutions.

As for the disadvantages, there are two really: the need for dark room, and bulb life and cost. But, you see, every other display device has disadvantages that have to do with the image quality. With front projection, the disadvantages have to do with the *use* of the display, not inherit problems with the actual display!!! I’ll trade convenience for performance any day!

I have a dark room already, and neatly hidden pull down light blocking shades make it pitch black in the middle of summer.

The bulbs are expensive yes, but same goes for rear projection. But over the cost of two years it comes out to like $15-20 a month. I doubt anyone's *cable bill* is that low. At least the bulb is replaceable, more than I can say for a plasma panel with burn in.

Anyone who says burn in is a thing of the past needs to ask themselves just why even the newest PDP sets come with image shifting functions and screen savers...




RE: The best display device is....
By masher2 (blog) on 12/29/2006 9:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
> "With front projection, the disadvantages have to do with the *use* of the display, not inherit problems with the actual display!!! "

Err, an LCD front projector is, from an image quality basis, no different from an LCD rear-projection screen or full-size panel. You don't get better resolution or "superior color vibrance" simply by viewing the picture from the other side.

Furthermore, projectors can and do have image quality issues that normal sets don't suffer from. Screendooring is worse, possible geometry distortions based on your screen position and, if you're using a short throw light path (which most people do), you have luminance variance from edge to center.

Currently, I have a Sanyo PLV-Z5 projecting onto a 100" high-contrast screen. But I'm under no illusions about the image quality being superior to an RP set. The image is bigger...not better.


RE: The best display device is....
By exdeath on 12/29/2006 11:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
The 0.75" HTPS chips in LCD projectors are MUCH different than the large format TFT backlit flat panels. You just can't compare the two. Response time for example; what is faster a 50" panel or a 0.75" panel, given the same resolution? One has shorter traces and smaller pixels which means less LCD polymer per pixel. That the image is projected and not viewed directly does not change these properties.

Image quality issues such as visible pixels, etc, are no different than any other digital display device. Pixel pitch on my 720p projector is certainly better than a 50” plasma despite being the same resolution and 4x the projected screen area due to the nature of fine line chip lithography. All digital display devices have visible pixels at various distances, thus it's not a problem that should rule out projectors specifically vs. other displays. Rather than point out limitations in all display devices in general, I'd rather stick to the specific advantages or disadvantages of a particular type of device to another.

As for light path, I am under the assumption that anyone setting up a projector should know how to set it up properly in order to reap maximum benefits. I have a Sanyo Z3 and a Sony VW100, both set up and calibrated perfectly by myself personally in order to address the installation issues you have brought up. Ceiling mounted, 15' throw distance to a fixed frame perm mount wall screen with zoom and minor lens shifting, and no keystone correction. The image is perfectly square, completely uniform in brightness, no hot spots of edge fading, and you have to be 4' from the screen to start seeing pixel boundaries on even the 720p projector. From as close as 8 feet it looks like a 106" plasma panel, only far brighter and minus the dithering artifacts.

Again I point out these are INSTALLATION issues to be aware of, of the type that can be addressed and corrected, not inherit unavoidable limitations in the display itself that cannot be dealt with in some way. Burn in and dithered color on a plasma and ghosting on a TFT are things you have to live with, you cannot adjust, tune, or correct them. If you're brightness is off with a projector, you can replace the bulb or re-evaluate your installation and lens settings until its perfect, assuming you did your research and got a good projector to begin with.

I've yet to encounter any RPTV sets that don't make me want to puke compared to front projectors when set up in a proper environment. I admit I have an ideal setup and my expectations are far too high to begin with, but believe me I do look and try hard to be subjective, as all display technologies are compromises. I was hyped about the SXRD RPTVs before the SXRD projectors were available, and much to my disappointment they didn’t even compare to the Sanyo Z3 we already had. Ended up with a SXRD front projector instead.

Yeah, front projectors require some sacrifices in terms of maintenance (lamps, filters, lens dust, etc) and room lighting control. But when set up properly, there is simply no comparison. But you can't just throw it on the table out of the box and point it at a slide projector screen and expect the same results.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/29/2006 1:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "The 0.75" HTPS chips in LCD projectors are MUCH different than the large format TFT backlit flat panels...Response time for example; what is faster a 50" panel or a 0.75" panel, given the same resolution? One has shorter traces and smaller pixels which means less LCD polymer per pixel"

Err, response time isn't based on the size of the pixel. And if you think shorter traces improve response time, I suggest you calculate the speed-of-light time to cross the breadth of a 50" panel. Finally, I have to point out that RP sets often use the same panels as a front projector.

And yes, some RPs use various means to hide pixel boundaries, and wind up with a less sharp image as a result. This is commonly done on front projectors as well. Check out Panasonic's "SmoothVision" if you don't believe me.

> "I have a Sanyo Z3...15' throw distance to a fixed frame perm mount wall screen...The image [is] completely uniform in brightness."

No it isn't, and I can show you why. Assume you have a 10' screen, then the angle of incidence at the screen center is zero, but at screen edge it is sin-1(10/(2*15)) ~= 20 degrees. Therefore light at the edges isn't bouncing back straight to your eyeballs, its being diffused more. Which any decent light meter will quickly demonstrate.


RE: The best display device is....
By exdeath on 12/29/2006 11:56:12 AM , Rating: 2
Re: LCD front vs rear projection.

Not sure what it is, but front is way better to my eyes. Rear projection screens make use of lenticular screens, fresnel filters, and diffusers in an attempt to hide pixels, which tend to haze and blur the final image. The results from an equivalent LCD front projector seem more pure. All the LCD RPTVs I’ve seen its like viewing the image though a piece of opaque sand blasted plexiglas.


They both have their uses....
By Pneumothorax on 12/27/2006 10:10:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm currently an owner of both a Sony LCD 46" XBR2 & a Panasonic Plasma 50" PX600U and I would like to see both panels coexisting. My Sony does it's duty well in my well lit family room and the Panny works well in the light controlled den. Although the Sony has clear resolution advantages, the panny is definately superior to it when it comes to watching movies & TV both SD & HD. The sony's black levels are still quite gray when compared to the panasonic and the colors don't seem as "lifelike" Both were adjusted to the Avsforum guidelines. The Sony will always look better in most showrooms however as it has a much brighter "Torch" mode. I've gamed with my PS3/360 on the plasma quite a bit and still no screen burnin even with GoW. BTW I don't game for more than 2-3 hours at a time so YMMV.




RE: They both have their uses....
By bplewis24 on 12/27/2006 1:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
Have you been watching Blu Ray movies on each panel with the PS3? Or HD-DVDs with the 360 for that matter?

If so, in your opinion the Panasonic is clearly superior to the Sony in all scenes? There is nowhere that the XBR outperforms? Your input would be appreciated. I rarely come across people that have two top-of-the-line tvs from both technologies.

Brandon


By Pneumothorax on 12/28/2006 10:15:12 AM , Rating: 2
I would be lying if there wasn't a rez difference between the two. Up close around 3-4 feet viewing for my 35 year old eyes, the Sony does show some more detail than the panasonic. Around 8-10 feet the differences in detail are pretty slight in bluray and HD-DVD movies (I have the 360 HD-DVD & PS3) The Sony also has a matte screen that is better at glare than the Panny. However, when it comes to color and realism the panny looks much more lifelike. The sony seems to have a more "digital" look if you will. When hooked up to my mac mini or pc though the sony definately wins with much better text on screen.


RE: They both have their uses....
By Enoch2001 on 12/27/2006 3:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've gamed with my PS3/360 on the plasma quite a bit and still no screen burnin even with GoW.


Well to play devil's advocate, you'll never get burn-on on Gears of War since your HUD isn't on-screen 100% of the gameplay, at least it isn't with mine. The only time I see a HUD is when I reload.

That said, burn-in in such a non-issue with current plamsa display technology that one needn't worry.


Can someone replace filament bulbs with LED?
By nurbsenvi on 12/28/2006 6:53:00 AM , Rating: 2
I hope some 3rd party chinese company could come up with LED light bulbs for rear-projection TVs
Because:

1. LEDs will last 10years
2. LED's will use much less power
3. better colour

Anyone wanna start a venture company with me?




RE: Can someone replace filament bulbs with LED?
By Pneumothorax on 12/28/2006 11:23:08 AM , Rating: 2
Samsung already beat you to it see here:
http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/DLPTV/HLS5679WX...

IMHO, the current "standard lighting" Samsung DLP's are still brighter than the LED set.


By nurbsenvi on 12/28/2006 12:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
Craaaaaaaap!!


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/28/2006 12:30:35 PM , Rating: 1
Hitachi was actually doing this in 2002. Dare I say it, Sony actually does this now!


Burn-In
By deeznuts on 12/27/2006 1:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
So you are saying that burn-in on plasma has been eliminated? Where is a link to a direct experiment? The test is easy. Someone buy a plasma and leave a static image on it. That's as easy as a test gets.

"Oh but who watches TV like that" well that's not the point. If burn-in is eliminated it would withstand this test no problem right? If not, then burn-in might only be reduced, which it has, but not eliminated. Can it ever be eliminated?

And there are people who watch a lot of one channel. CNBC for example is run all day on a lot of plasmas at finance firms.




RE: Burn-In
By CascadingDarkness on 12/27/2006 2:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
Burn-in has been resolved (Only time you really need to worry is first 100 hours). You don't need tests, it's industry norm now. While some crappy manu. may still have trouble overall they don't permanently hold image anymore.

Depending on manu./model they could have a lesser problem with "retaining" image (similar to burning, but only short term). This varies a lot with screens, some may be effected badly, some don't retain at all. The easy solution to this is to turn TV to black/white static and it will clear retained image no problem (don't own plasma myself, but this is what everyone says).

I don't know if your looking for some self proclaimed scientist to sate out right YES/NO. I don't know about you, but I would rather just look up customer testimonies on the model I was looking at. I could care less how things perform under controlled conditions, I want RL use. Just google reviews for the model you are looking at and you will find the answer.

Tips for 1st 100 hours -50% contrast, avoid static prone channels.


RE: Burn-In
By exdeath on 12/29/2006 12:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
Two things.

First, burn in has NOT been eliminated. The fact that plasmas use gray bars instead of black, and have image shifting and screen saving functions built in proves that burn in is still an issue. These features only help avoid it, they don't eliminate the inherit problem.

Second, when you have to lower the contrast to prevent burn in you are giving up the only thing that plasma has that is superior to LCD to avoid a problem that LCD doesn't have.

Makes no sense to me.


LCD technologies?
By Zandros on 12/27/2006 10:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
As we all know, there exist a lot of different panels for computer displays, TN, xMVA, S-IPS etc, and the type of panel is often an important fact when you choose your display. S-IPS for imaging work, and TN for games (or simply because of price), for example.

Now, what kind of panels are used in LCD-TVs, or do that vary with price too?




RE: LCD technologies?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/27/2006 11:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
It's primarily segmented by manufacturer. LG.Philips LCD pretty much sticks to SIPS panels; Samsung-Sony LCD stick to PVA and the derivative technologies... it's mostly due to royalties.

AUO, Quanta and the other Taiwanese manufacturers are using TN, but you'll see the occasional Samsung using it too.

All in all though, the technologies are not as different as they used to be in terms of perceived quality. Granted, I would much rather have a 10-bit *VA or SIPS panel over a 6-bit TN display any day ;)


LCD Sales Dropping?
By bplewis24 on 12/27/2006 1:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't this go against recent DailyTech articles announcing that LCD TV sales are starting to increase relative to Plasma TVs?

I'm also going to search for a recent article from CNet detailing that the Plasma market seemed to be dropping.

Brandon




RE: LCD Sales Dropping?
By bplewis24 on 12/27/2006 1:27:46 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I misunderstood the article. From this quote:

quote:
Also, with LCD sales dropping , Panasonic sees more benefit by only offering smaller sizes ranging from 23 to 32 inches


...I thought they meant that all LCD sales were dropping, which didn't make sense. I now realize they meant that Panasonic's LCD sales were dropping.

Brandon


not comparable
By colin6969 on 12/27/2006 5:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen these arguments made so many times, it's ridiculous.

I'll say this:

Everyone I know that has ACTUALLY SEEN - at home and well calibrated - Panny plasma next to a Sony XBR LCD.....ALWAYS picks the Panny....it's night and day.

A good friend has one of those brand-spanking new XBR 1080p 46inchers....he walked into my living room where I had my TH-PH509UK 50" Panasonic Pro....(I paid HALF of what he did)....his jaw DROPPED (before he knew the price).

:)




RE: not comparable
By THEREALJMAN73 on 12/28/2006 9:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
I have the same screen as you and have a friend who wants a 42 XBR LCD and after seeing my setup he is now concidering the plasma. IMO - for movies and TV the plamsa just looks better.

There is just somethign about the plasma display that makes it stand out over the LCD.

That being said though - I have a 37" Westinghouse LCD I use as my primary monitor for my PC and for some reason games look much better on it than they do on my plasma (reguardless of resolution). I don't like gaming on my plamsa anyways so it's no no loss to me - just confusing.


...
By shabby on 12/27/2006 11:11:47 AM , Rating: 2
If we can get some 42" plasmas with 1080p res for around 2k then im sold.




RE: ...
By SunAngel on 12/27/2006 12:27:43 PM , Rating: 1
Serious people want to marry a virgin spouse. In this day and age, the chances of that is more than 1/1M, same as getting a 1080p plasma for under $2K anytime soon.


But seriously
By ali 09 on 12/27/2006 6:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously though, a 1080p image from a Blu-Ray player is brilliant on 1080p LCD's. In AU $, a 1080p is about 4.5 grand, so US approx 3.5 grand (probably a bit cheaper). If you want a big screen, then there is no point in going for anything less than 1080p. I walked up to about 10cm from this samsung 1080p lcd with bluray and i couldn't see the pixels, only the sharp outline of batman(oh yeah). at the moment, to the extent of my knowledge and from what i have seen, 1080p lcds are cheaper and better quality than 1080p plasmas(if any - i haven't seen any in the shops of BrisVegas, AUS. :)




SXRD anyday
By strategicthinker on 12/27/2006 7:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
I have seen both at close quarters. SXRD wins hands down. It is just stunning. Sometimes the plasma picture looks like a water color when the source gets a bit marginal.






By Spacecomber on 12/28/2006 9:25:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not one to usually get bent about this stuff, but this article could really benefit from some more editing.

This last sentence,
quote:
Sony’s SXRD, the new liquid crystal on silicon technology, the market is up in the air for 2007.
isn't even a sentence.

I'm complaining, because the writing is poor enough that it makes understanding the author's points needlessly difficult.




By encryptkeeper on 12/28/2006 9:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
If SED takes off next year and the prices drop, it should replace all of the current formats.




"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 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki