backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by theapparition.. on May 10 at 8:05 AM


The new 50-inch PDP5080XD
Plasma displays take another revision for the high-end

This week high definition TVs based on plasma technology receive a big boost in quality and performance thanks to newly developed technology by Pioneer. One of the primary concerns these days with flat panel TVs -- and other displays for that matter -- is the ability to produce rich, deep and dark blacks. LCDs have always had a problem with blacks as their backlights are on all the time as long as the display is turned on.

Since the battle between LCDs and plasmas started, plasma screens always held an edge over LCDs because each pixel on a plasma screen is self emitting, generating its own light. Despite this, many plasma screens still produce black levels that are off due to low grade electronics and other factors. Pioneer is introducing what it calls the eighth generation plasma TV, giving audiences blacks that are 80% darker than anything currently available.

Using what Pioneer calls "deep encased cell structure, crystal emissive layer and first surface color filter," its new screens boast a contrast ratio of 20,000:1.

According to Pioneer, "with significantly deeper black levels (80% deeper than before), which ultimately lead to richer colours and sharper details, the new screens are unrivalled in video and audio performance."

Pioneer will be featuring the new ultra black technology in a series of TVs it calls "Project KURO" -- kuro meaning "black" in Japanese. The lineup will include 42, 50 and 60-inch screen sizes supporting full 1080p resolutions. As of right now, no prices have been revealed and Pioneer only indicates that the new units are "coming soon."

LCD panels will soon receive a major change themselves in the form of LED backlighting. Apple announced earlier last week that all of its LCD screens will be based on LED backlight panels by the end of 2007.


Comments     Threshold


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

Spoiled
By djc208 on 5/9/2007 7:17:06 AM , Rating: 3
That's the only problem with HDTVs right now. We got kind of spoiled on the old tube TVs, not so much over picture quality, but over technology. Since tubes were such an established technology there wasn't much change from model year to model year.
While I love my 46" DLP, the technology and prices are changing so fast that it's tough to justify buying a new one unless you have to since it's basically a given that next year's version will be better and cheaper.
Oh well, such is technology.




RE: Spoiled
By masher2 (blog) on 5/9/2007 8:54:18 AM , Rating: 4
> "the technology and prices are changing so fast that it's tough to justify buying a new one..."

I think you have it backwards. When technology is improving so quickly, that increases justification to upgrade--- your new set will be so much better than the old.

Sure, a year later it won't be the "biggest and best" anymore. But unless you're interested in bragging rights, what do you care? Its how your new set compares to your old one that matters.


RE: Spoiled
By bhieb on 5/9/2007 10:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly how much better does it need to get. HD is already so clear and crisp on my older 50" plasma it is too real. They picture quality is incredible. Are we that spoiled that we are in need of something better?

Don't get me wrong I am all for the new stuff as it makes the horrible looking 1080i sets dirt cheap!

I just don't get the whole 1080p push. I have a 100" front projection at 720p and it looks amazing in HD (nothing brodcasts in 1080p anyway). If I was buying a new one then I would probably go to 1080p, but why upgrade? My suggestion if you feel that you have to have the latest upgrade, take a trip over to grandma's and watch a little standard def over the air crap. When you get home you should be cured of your "need" for better quality.


RE: Spoiled
By masher2 (blog) on 5/9/2007 10:28:48 AM , Rating: 1
> "Are we that spoiled that we are in need of something better?"

It's the same urge that, millions of years ago, first prompted us to put down our clubs and climb out of our caves. Yes, a dry hole and a raw hunk of mammoth meat is "good enough" to live on; do we really need anything better?

I have a 103" 720p projector in a light-controlled AV room. It looks amazing..but only compared to a standard TV. Compared to reality,its a far cry. Black levels look good...only until you compare them to the real black of the crushed velvet screen border. Then you see they're really light grey. Text looks fine...as long as its not small, or doesn't move very quickly. Color rendition is excellent...unless you project a few still photos, and see how much they deviate from the real thing.

Honestly, we've all been staring at screens so long we've forgotten the little 'mind trick' we use to immerse ourselves in a video stream that, by objective standards, really shouldn't fool anyone into "being there". But with better technology, one day that trick may not be needed. Wouldn't that be a good thing?


RE: Spoiled
By 91TTZ on 5/9/2007 12:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me wrong I am all for the new stuff as it makes the horrible looking 1080i sets dirt cheap!

I just don't get the whole 1080p push. I have a 100" front projection at 720p and it looks amazing in HD (nothing brodcasts in 1080p anyway).


I have a CRT HDTV that natively displays 1080i, and the picture quality is amazing at that resolution. There is a very noticeable increase in picture quality going from 720p to 1080i. My friend has a 720p LCD TV, and on his, 720p looks better, probably because the scaler doesn't do a very good job scaling a 1080i broadcast. But his TV doesn't look nearly as good as mine. Not even close.


RE: Spoiled
By bhieb on 5/9/2007 1:06:24 PM , Rating: 3
I agree and disagree. Sure your TV is probably better, but "not even close". Come on I am betting 50% of the population can't tell the difference. Hell I can barely get my wife to tell the difference between DVD an VHS when it first came out.

Also yes moving from a rock cave to a house is a good thing. But this is more like moving from a 5000 square foot home to a 5100 square foot home. Sure it is better and a "good thing", but once you already have 5000 square feet of home how much differnce does another 100 make?

And yes it is a good thing (in fact a great thing) the closer to reality the better. And of course it is a personal decision everyone has to make as to when to upgrade.


RE: Spoiled
By leexgx on 5/9/2007 9:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
720p vs 1080i , the 720p is norm better quality then 1080i (unless its 1080p then that win out but that requires alot of bandwith thats why not much is brodcast in 1080p or 1080i)

some of this link is an little bit of an rants (it allso do not think its been updated for an bit but its fine) but he does state what the downside of useing the Interlaced format to the Progressive system
http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm


RE: Spoiled
By masher2 (blog) on 5/9/2007 9:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "the 720p is norm better quality then 1080i..."

720p is better for fast-motion video-- sports events, action movies, etc.

1080i is better for slow video-- news, documentaries, travelogues, and your average drama. Though honestly, the difference between them is rather small.


RE: Spoiled
By Zirconium on 5/9/2007 10:16:56 AM , Rating: 2
No, he has it right. Why upgrade now when by the end of the year, you can get something bigger/better/cheaper? And then when Black Friday comes around, and you don't get your killer deal, you'll think to yourself, "Do I really need a new TV? Next year they'll be even bigger/better/cheaper."

At some point, you have to stake your claim, and realize that future TVs will have better upscaling chips, better black levels, better phosphors, have better lighting technology, better contrast ratios, etc. For many people, that point comes when their old TV breaks, and they are forced to buy a new one. Not many people have the "I'll buy something new, and upgrade every few years" mentality. Old tube TVs could last something like 15 years or longer, with newer TVs not being significantly better. With an HDTV, you'll probably want to replace it in 5 since by that point in time, you can get something better for a fraction of the cost.


RE: Spoiled
By masher2 (blog) on 5/9/2007 10:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
> "Why upgrade now when by the end of the year, you can get something bigger/better/cheaper?"

Because the year after that, that'll still be true. And the year after that as well. Life is too short...if you wait till technology stops moving to buy, you'll still be watching an old 4:3 tube till the day you die. Use that logic for computers, and you'd be browsing the web forums on a 4.77 mhz IBM XT.

You should judge a purchase by one criteria only...the satisfaction you get from the item itself, compared to what you're currently getting. If the difference warrants the purchase-- buy it. Don't think about what'll be available in future years.


RE: Spoiled
By Zirconium on 5/9/2007 11:16:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because the year after that, that'll still be true. And the year after that as well. Life is too short...if you wait till technology stops moving to buy, you'll still be watching an old 4:3 tube till the day you die. Use that logic for computers, and you'd be browsing the web forums on a 4.77 mhz IBM XT.
First of all, I derived a great deal of satisfaction from my old 4:3 tube. Sure, my new TV is better, has a higher resolution, but if my old TV didn't break, I'd be fine with that. The reason most people upgrade is that their old stuff breaks. If my older computer didn't break, I wouldn't have gotten a new one. If the computer before that didn't break, same story.
quote:
You should judge a purchase by one criteria only...the satisfaction you get from the item itself, compared to what you're currently getting. If the difference warrants the purchase-- buy it. Don't think about what'll be available in future years.
Sure, if money grew on trees. Hey, I can upgrade my computer, and I'll be getting more satisfaction than I currently am! Oh wait, I have better things to spend my money on. People don't upgrade for "satisfaction."


RE: Spoiled
By ttowntom on 5/9/2007 12:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
95% of the people buying a new computer do so because its better or faster, not because the old one "broke". Its probably at leat 75% for things like cell phones and HDTVs.

If the only time you buy new tech is when the old stuff finally breaks down, I feel sorry for you.


RE: Spoiled
By Zirconium on 5/9/2007 1:16:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
95% of the people buying a new computer do so because its better or faster, not because the old one "broke".
Where did you get 95% from? I know plenty of people who go by that rule. Perhaps I should include other reasons, like the old computer is simply to slow to run anything, but by that point in time, most computers are broken.
quote:
If the only time you buy new tech is when the old stuff finally breaks down, I feel sorry for you.
Does your life revolve around getting new toys? Sure, I could buy a new $1,500 gaming rig, or I could go on vacation. If I had all the money in the world, I would do both. However, most people have other things they'd rather spend money on. I feel sorry for you if the highlight of your life is getting a higher 3DMark score or playing video games all the time.


RE: Spoiled
By fic2 on 5/9/2007 1:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not many people have the "I'll buy something new, and upgrade every few years" mentality.
quote:
People don't upgrade for "satisfaction."

You must not live in the U.S. People here go into massive debt just to have the newer/bigger/better/shinier thing and being able brag about it. I don't know many people that don't have the "gotta have it now" mentality. FYI, I am still watching the same old crap on my 4:3 tube and driving my 8 year old car even though I could easily afford new ones. I apparently am not afflicted by the "I need that" - or I am a tightwad.


RE: Spoiled
By Emryse on 5/9/2007 3:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
I would certainly not label you a "tightwad". I would label you as wise.

It's the sad reality though that in today's world we are not as we were at the onset of the last century. I recall my Grandparents telling me about when TV first came out, and about how the salesman's trick was to let everyone take one home, and "test it out" for a week. By the time that week was up, "dad" buys the TV, because now the "wife and kids" are hooked. It was even more amazing to see the black-and-white to color movement; and from there, the rest is history.

According to ASW/Roper poles, over 27% of Americans actually admit to maxing out credit cards, credit cards being paid late, or going into collection on balances due. Other statistics (sorry, no source cited) I've heard in the past claim that the average American today spends over %120 of what they earn annually.

It is EXACTLY this "need now, don't think about anything else except if it satisfies me, then I'll buy it" mentality; and it's killing our economy and our future.

Here's another way to look at it. Observe the family inheritances (on the average, not just the wealth sector) that were passed down from two generations ago, and then from your parents or Grandparents. Now take a look at where you are at, and if you died tomorrow, would you leave an inheritance to your loved ones, or debt? (Don't respond, it's rhetorical...)

Back on track with specific regards to the TV; I think it's great technology is improving. But just as with my computer - I've been waiting for over 2 years now to upgrade. Why? Because you will always pay the bulk of the R&D to come out with the latest and greatest, when you buy the newest. I'll let the "masher2"s (don't hate - I enjoy your commentary...) of the world do that part for me, and then buy when it's reasonable.

Oh-and-by-the-way... it is our "ABSOLUTELY MUST have this BRAND NEW thing RIGHT YESTERDAY" mentality that has led to the insane price hikes in practically everything. Inflation/deflation is NOT the primary cause. We pay more, because the genius of marketing of the last 50 plus years has recognized that if they can convince us that we need to always have "bigger, better, best, newer" - they can charge us our blood and we'll gladly pay up.

Hell - just look at NewEgg's new "eggxpert" forum; it's truly genius. It's an online "mine is better than yours" forum geared to encourage sales through the above marketing philosophy combined with "peer pressure". Truly brilliant...

At any rate - excellent points all around for the most part, this is just my $.02 on the matter.


RE: Spoiled
By theapparition on 5/10/2007 8:05:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't think about what'll be available in future years.

Yep,
The addage "The best time to buy technology is tommorrow" is true. Tomorrow, there will be something better, and something better the next day, and so forth.
Upgrade when it makes you happy and forget about what is the next big thing. Because there is always "the next big thing" around the corner.


RE: Spoiled
By djc208 on 5/9/2007 3:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
For me it's not that I have to have the biggest and best it's that the fight between plasma, LCD, DLP, and friends, as well as the change in the underlying technology and their prices can change what you would/could buy drastically.
When I bought my DLP (admitedly because my old tube TV died) 1.5 years ago it fit my price point and size requirements. LCDs and Plasma were much more expensive and I didn't need to hang it on a wall. However the bulb issues (replacement, startup time) with the DLP are kind of annoying. If I were shopping today the same price point opens options for LCDs and Plasmas in the same size and price range, and the DLPs are going LED/Laser which will eliminate the bulb issues.
Will I scrap my Tv when these come out, no. I like the TV and the picture is good, but if my TV had died today I would probably not have another DLP (at least not until they get rid of the bulb).


Smaller plasma pixels
By GoatMonkey on 5/9/2007 8:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
It seems like it was not too long ago that companies were saying it would be impossible to make a 1080p plasma screen smaller than 60" due to the physical size of the hardware used to make each pixel. This article seems to indicate a 42" 1080p plasma. I wonder if even smaller screen sizes will be possible soon.




RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By heffeque on 5/9/2007 8:43:35 AM , Rating: 1
What do you want 1080p on a smaller screen for? Or do you mean the plasma technology on smaller screens so as not to get LCD?


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By therealnickdanger on 5/9/2007 8:58:49 AM , Rating: 4
My laptop had a 17" screen with 1920x1200 native res - slightly higher than 1080p and every day I spent on it was a pleasure! Some people argue that higher resolutions are only good for big screens. "Bah!", I say. I'll take ultra-resolution every time I can get it!


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By Mitch101 on 5/9/2007 9:30:17 AM , Rating: 2
Are they the same people who buy a 32" TV and sit 20 feet from it and think because they hooked up their 2 channel stereo they have a home theater? No what you have just created was the same experience I could get from when I was in High School and they would wheel in that cart with the TV on it. Hardly something you would see in a theater.

When I got my 65" hdtv everyone said it was too big my wife even wanted us to trade it for the 53". By THX specifications I should have had a 108"-123" screen from the shortest to longest distance where seating is based on THX. I found myself defending the choice and my only comment was to remind them that I am creating a home THEATER experience not a TV experience you have been to a movie theater right? After about a month the wife hates watching TV or movies on anything smaller.

Im happy for you on that 17" LCD with better than 1080P resolution on it as Im sure you close enough to enjoy such clarity.


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By Sahrin on 5/9/2007 11:19:43 AM , Rating: 2
The only way to get a home theater experience is with a digital projector and 20.x surround sound. Otherwise, you are talking about a fundamentally different display/audio system. It's like comparing a wax phonograph to a lossless audio codec. Backlit TV is fundamentally different than light projection.


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By NainoKami on 5/9/2007 1:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you need 20.x sound chanels? I've got 5.2 and I've got better sound placement than most cinemas, and my system measures flat to 15Hz. Unless you want to impress the Bar Buddies, or have a HUGE room, 5.x or 7.x is fine. There aren't even any current methods for having more than 8 channels of audio in movies so far. Not even in cinemas. And they usually only use 5.1 (of course with more than one sub), or in some cases 7.1, but not conventional 7.1 but rather the SDDS 8 Channel with 5 front channels, 2 back, and one sub.

And with regards to NEEDING a projection system, I disagree. I have a 95" projection system, which is just right for my taste, but I would love to replace it with a similar sized plasma because of the better black levels. On projection systems, just a tiny bit of light pollution, be it ambient or reflected off the walls and back to the screen, kills contrast. Plasma can however produce lovely blacks, even with a modest amount of ambient light.


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By GaryJohnson on 5/9/2007 12:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad they don't make 65" laptops.


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By GoatMonkey on 5/9/2007 9:45:02 AM , Rating: 2
I don't want a smaller screen. I'd like a 200" in my house if I had a choice. I'm just saying that it's nice that it is now possible. More competition with LCDs at all levels is good.


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By VIAN on 5/9/2007 12:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
I actually don't like plasma displays because they have such large pixels. They bother the crap out of me considering I only like to sit a few feet away from the TV. The flickering annoys me to, but anyway...

To me, the smaller the pixel pitch, the better the image quality.


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By masher2 (blog) on 5/9/2007 1:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "To me, the smaller the pixel pitch, the better the image quality. "

Pixel pitch is a function of the ratio between native resolution vs. panel size; it's not dependent on image technology. A 50" 1080p panel will have the same pixel pitch, regardless of whether its LCD, Plasma, or anything else.

You may be referring to interpixel spacing, which refers to the portion of the panel not occupied by pixels (the area between them).


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By VIAN on 5/9/2007 1:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
In any size panel, the smaller the pixel pitch, the better the image quality, which means really high resolutions. But I didn't want to say high resolution because a really big screen can have a really high resolution, but also a high pixel pitch.

Interpixel Spacing. Possibly yes, this might actually be the problem. I just assumed that having smaller pixels would have smaller spacings. The smallest Plasma pixel I've seen is about .6mm in comparison with LCDs which is about .255mm.


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By masher2 (blog) on 5/9/2007 8:56:20 AM , Rating: 3
> "companies were saying it would be impossible to make a 1080p plasma screen smaller than 60"...

If there's no law of physics that forbids something, technology will eventually find a way to build it. I'm sure 1080p plasmas even smaller will soon find their way to market.


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By therealnickdanger on 5/9/2007 8:59:53 AM , Rating: 2
Pioneer (Elite) has had their 50" for a while now, I think...


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By GoatMonkey on 5/9/2007 9:42:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about...

http://www.physorg.com/news6950.html

It was actually 50" not 60" like I was saying, but close enough.

I'm aware that there is no law of physics preventing them from building it, I'm just saying, this is great you can see progress being made in real world solutions.


RE: Smaller plasma pixels
By masher2 (blog) on 5/9/2007 9:43:44 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry, I meant "even smaller than 42 inches", the size of the smallest of these newly announced screens.


Better audio too?
By DrDisconnect on 5/9/2007 8:23:16 AM , Rating: 5
"the new screens are unrivalled in video and audio performance."

It would be interesting to hear fron Pioneer how the new Plasma technology has improved sound quality as well!




RE: Better audio too?
By heffeque on 5/9/2007 8:39:53 AM , Rating: 2
+1 for funny remark :-D


RE: Better audio too?
By Mitch101 on 5/9/2007 9:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
Nice catch.

I hear a similar one on people who get thier car freshly painting and think the car somehow drives better now. Um how does the paint make the engine, drive train, and suspension work better?


RE: Better audio too?
By mikeblas on 5/9/2007 9:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
It's surprising to see that so many people in a technical forum don't know this, but many panels include an audio amplifier and audio decoding circuitry (to pull the digital audio out of the HDMI link, for example). The speakers might be included, or might be an additional option.

Newer panels probably have better amps, better decoding logic and circuitry, and better speakers.


RE: Better audio too?
By Rike on 5/9/2007 10:23:38 AM , Rating: 2
I think I can safely say that I would never buy a panel based on any of its audio properties. I consider speakers and an audio amp on a panel to be disadvantages; it adds cost and bulk where it's rarely needed, especially in a consumer environment. In a commercial setting, "unrivalled . . . audio performance" would only be useful and noticeable in the rarest of circumstances.

The most I would ever really want a panel to do with audio is to pass a HDMI audio signal through without mucking it up.


No 1080p < 50"
By derubermensch1 on 5/9/2007 2:24:38 PM , Rating: 3
If you go to the link and then click the link for the model lineup you'll see that all the models under 50" are not 1080p :(




RE: No 1080p < 50"
By GoatMonkey on 5/9/2007 3:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The line-up will be available in 42, 50 and 60-inch screen sizes, in XGA (available from June) and Full HD versions in 50 and 60-inch (available from September).

You're right. The second page of the article has that little quote in it and the lineup page only shows 50 and 60 inch sizes at 1080p. Oh well, my thread at the top got some interesting conversation going anyway.

I'm actually waiting for an LED back lit LCD anyway.


Apple is far behind from LED backlit tech.
By EclipsedAurora on 5/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: Apple is far behind from LED backlit tech.
By TheDoc9 on 5/9/2007 8:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
The tech your talking about will soon be released by Samsung in the 81 series coming out in august here in the u.s. It will have absolute blacks since the lights behind the crystal will be off when a black scene is detected. The contrast ratio is said to be 50,000:1 with a 105% NTSC color range, 1080P. I'd say pioneer is worried, plus the Pio sets will surely be 8 grand plus while the rumor at avs forum is that the Samsung LCD's will be closer to 3-4 grand street price if that.

Dailytech should do an article on the Samsung as well.


By Xietsu on 5/10/2007 2:17:57 AM , Rating: 2
Bah...Samsung optics are beautiful. They're a great company -- invest in them! LOL. They really do a good job though. ~_o''...

The whole thing about reason for upgrade isn't about replacement. It may coincide with the call for fulfilling a break's gap, but what it stems from is the desire for greater levels of attainable satisfaction. If experiencing the visuals of these richer images draws you in to the video more efficaciously, then for those with an interest for such products will have the steadfast financial aim to produce acquirement. So yes, it is about satisfaction. Everything ones does is a motivation of gratification when considered in the the most apt degree of simplification.


20,000:1 contrast ratio.
By wallijonn on 5/9/2007 12:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
I highly doubt this claim as Panasonic's touted 10,000:1 contrast ratio is really about 3,000:1.

The problem is not so much contrast as it is noise. Watch a DVD and look at the back ground when it is dark (say in a cave, at night, in a darkened room). If you turn up the brightness, you should be able to detect an increase in noise, where there are many squares of blackness. Now turn the brightness down until the squares go away. Chances are that you will now see only 1 shade of black. That is the problem. If there are no gradations in a person's black hair, if it all looks like one black smudge, then no amount of contrast ratio will bring in what isn't there.

When I start a movie, the first thing I do is fast forward to a dark screen, then I adjust brightness accordingly, so that there is no black noise. I then start the movie from the beginning and find it more enjoyable.

20,000:1 means nothing to me. I want to see at least 16 different shades of every colour, I want to be able to detect highlights. A ratio of black to white of 20,000 is meaningless if all you get are 16 basic colours and gradations.




RE: 20,000:1 contrast ratio.
By UnFaZeD on 5/9/2007 9:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
what you need, my friend...is a life


By abhaxus on 5/9/2007 11:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
Having seen them side by side I have to say the Sharp D62-D92 series LCDs have a much deeper black level than the plasmas I have seen. I work for a local electronics chain and we got the Sharp LC52D62u in just before the Pioneer ProFHD1 (their 1080p plasma) and honestly the Sharp made the pioneer look bad, with the pioneer's price completely outrageous on top of it. The blacks are nowhere near as deep, and the response time of the sharp is not so bad as to make it look less "sharp." If it weren't for the over-done whining about the banding issue being written about over and over again on AVSforum I think sharp would be dominating this generation. Good news is the banding isn't there on the D92 series and the price is still significantly lower than the Pioneer.

Hopefully pioneer has that sorted out this year... and has a 52" 1080p model coming in at around 3500. I love their film mode and other processing.




Plasma computer monitors?
By Snowy on 5/9/2007 5:49:03 PM , Rating: 1
Why don't we have Plasma monitors? All we have are LCDs, why not plasmas?




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki