Are Plasma screens already on the way out?
Mikey 25 comments
If you hadn't already heard last week, Pioneer, easily one of the biggest manufactures of Plasma televisions, has fallen upon economic hardship and consequently . Not only that, Pioneer has also decided to drop out of the Plasma screen game, leaving, as far as I can tell, just Sony, LG, Samsung and Panasonic as the major big wigs to compete in the Plasma market.
If that isn't enough to assist the fate of Plasma, consider that Vizio, the 3rd largest Plasma manufacturers in the US, announced last week that they will cease producing Plasma screens but stick with LCD.
So the question has to be asked: does all this signify the impending death of Plasma?
Looking back both Plasma and LCD have had their fair share of negative stigma, and every time there are a handful or less of competing technologies, only one will be victor, the remainder eventually fading into oblivion. We've seen it with Betamax vs VHS and more recently Blueray vs HD-DHD.
Once upon a time there were significant and obvious differences between Plasma and LCD. Plasma suffered from burn-in due to constant bright pixels, such as a television station logo being constantly displayed on-screen, and LCD was prone to motion blur thanks to typically lower response times. These are of course issues of yesteryear, and today both screens have come a long way to the point that only picture purists can tell the difference from a couple of metres away.
But if anything has been assisting the death of Plasma, it's resolution. Years ago manufacturers reached the smallest possible dimension for a Plasma pixel, which means even today you can not get a Plasma screen below 42 inches, and at a miserable resolution of 1024 x 768 (I feel nauseated at the thought). This means if you want a smaller flat screen for the bedroom, kids or kitchen, LCD is your only option as they can, even at a piddly 17 inches, display more pixels than Plasma and are much cheaper. Combined with desktops and laptops both using the tech, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that there is a larger market for LCD screens.
From what I can tell, Plasma has only survived this long because Johnny Sportslover only cares about the physical size of the screen, not the picture quality (higher resolutions), and a 50 inch Plasma has always been significantly less expensive than a 50 inch LCD. I know of a few people who can't even tell me what resolution their screen is, as they only cared that it was cheap and big, but are also aware the picture quality isn't as good as they thought it would be. Not surprisingly they are also not sure if they have a LCD or a Plasma.
Note that that Pioneer are not dropping Plasma, they are dropping out of the TV screen business completely, which they see as unprofitable. If they were LCD manufacturers they would probably be doing the same thing. If we've learned anything from history, it's only a matter of time before either the economic climate or market demand forces other big screen manufacturers make a choice. Keep manufacturing both Plasma and LCD, or choose one that has the greatest demand and forecasted profit. As far as this author can tell, LCD still has the better market potential.
Curiously, as a person who usually takes one side or another when it comes to technology, lately I've been Plasma/LCD agnostic. All I've cared about is I chose the one that goes on to win, which I never know until later. As an early adopter of many technologies in the past I've somehow managed to keep choosing the winner, and I'm happy to say I've never bought Betamax, HD-DVD, LaserDisc, or for that matter, Plasma. Interpret that as you will.
But if I had to put money on it, my bet is that Plasma will join the technology graveyard long before a successor to LCD comes along.
Ian
Sunday 15th February 2009 | 10:42 AMGood article. It's a topic I haven't thought about in a long time. As an owner of 3 plasma screens all out of warranty it probably doesn't matter anyway. The first one I got was 6 years ago and its in pretty bad shape and we plan to replace it with an lcd eventually. The others still have some fight left in them.
PS love your capcha.
EricVonZipper
Sunday 15th February 2009 | 11:58 AMMake no mistake, Pioneer produce the best TVs on the market today. This is due to their manufacturing process, one that is 100% owned and controlled by Pioneer. They own the factory. They do not make plasma TVs/panels for any other company/brand.
All other brands of Plasma and LCD TVs/Panels are produced by the same few factories.
You get what you pay for. Pioneer plasma TVs (their Kuro units) are by far the most expensive plasma TVs on the market. Mister Jones would not know the differences between various brands; Mister Jones only sees price tag. So I can see that Pioneer would lose money on the consumer plasma TVs.
The Pioneer Plasma TVs will be missed by those that want the absolute best picture quality, via SD and HD, on a ready-to-go-TV - not a panel, external boxes and alike.
Later this year, when the 9th generation units are available, i'll for sure be grabbing another Kuro before they dry up.
Nice article Mikey, cheers.
Wendy W
Sunday 15th February 2009 | 01:48 PMI dont understand the difference between them and all I know is price was my first consideration. Is there really any difference?
...in response to this comment by Wendy W. There are a lot of differences but mostly only purists can tell the difference with the picture quality. Resolution however is easily noticed by anyone especially when you see a side by side comparison.
I opted for LCD years ago because quality is my first criteria, and Plasma screens back then couldn't surpass a measly 1024 pixels wide, which would have seen my hi-def home theatre wasted.
Lately I've been considering getting a new larger panel (anything bigger than 50 inch) and as long as I can find both an LCD and a Plasma matched feature for feature, cost will be the only deciding factor.
EricVonZipper
Sunday 15th February 2009 | 05:41 PM...in response to this comment by Wendy W. There can be a massive difference, depending on various factors.
All the latest TVs, be it Plasma or LCD will have incredible PQ (picture quality) in your home, in HD.
One of the major differences between brands, not technology (LCD v Plasma) but actual brands, Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic, and alike, is their ability to produce a awesome image over Standard Definition AND High Definition.
You need to consider what you have now, standard DVD player, Foxtel, SD terrestrial TV - and what you will/may be getting from tomorrow or the near future - and that is HD players like Blu-Ray, PS3, Xbox 360, HD Foxtel and HD TV.
All the latest TVs will display an amazing HD image, which will be delivered via HD terrestrial tv, Blu-Ray, Foxtel HD, Xbox 360, and alike
Most of the same TVs will display and absolute horrible SD image.
Now consider the majority of the input to that TV in your home. Is it standard TV signals, DVDs? Or mostly Foxtel HD and other HD stuff like Blu-Ray movies?
For almost all of us, our TVs see a majority of Standard Definition signals; still today.
Every store you go to, will be pushing a HD signal to their TVs. This is to "showcase" their TVs. Ask the salesperson to switch the TV to SD signal. Do this to all TVs you're interested in. You will see a massive difference between brands that are showing a SD signal.
This is a major reason why I went with Pioneer Plasma, as they are known to produce an equally awesome image via SD and HD.
Plasma Vs LCD. Hmm. This is almost like Holden Vs Ford, Star Trek Vs Star Wars and so on.
LCD use back lighting technology, like your LCD PC monitor. They are very bright, which is a good thing. Though the back-light can "leak" out of the TV. This issue is still present with all LCD TVs. Not much, but it's still there.
Other things against LCD: They are slow. LCD have what is called a Response Time measured in milliseconds - the lower the better. They can also suffer from Dead or Stuck Pixels. Dead pixels appear black, and always black. Stuck pixels can be stuck "on" in their Green, Blue or Red state.
What is one stuck or dead pixel on a TV with millions and millions of them you ask? Believe me, it will stick-out like dogs balls.
The only LCD TV out there, that I know of, that offers a 100% pixel guarantee for 3 years in Samsung. All over LCD TV brands have a Pixel Policy. Some require you to have 3 dead pixels before they replace the TV. Some require 6, 7. Imagine being stuck with an expensive TV with 3 dead/stuck Pixels. Horrible thought. Ask the salesperson. If they don't know, or don't show you that brands Pixel Policy, don't purchase.
Plasma. Early plasma technology suffered from a ton of things. Latest Plasma have very few issues. Though to be fair, i'll list some known issues.
Their contrast ratio compared to LCD is not as good. Not a major issue but it's a big issue for gamers.
Plasma have tiny bubbles filled with a gas. A electric charge is pumped into that gas, exciting it, causing plasma, so to speak. In time, that gas may, I repeat, may, lose it's ability to hold the charge - thus it could die or dim down. Brand named Plasma TVs will not suffer from this. Cheap stuff might.
My personal choice, due to things like viewing angle in my home, image quality, cosmetics (actual appearance of TV), size, brand - and has more inputs than an alien hooker = 1st Pioneer Kuro Plasma - 2nd Panasonic Plasma. Note. I do own latest LCD technology too.
Some tips. Whatever the technology you select, make sure the TV in question has 100Htz technology. Some new Sony LCD have 200Htz. I honestly can't say if this is better as I haven't seen a 100htz and 200htz TV side-by-side. A TV with 100htz will display an even sharper picture.
DO NOT ever purchase expensive branded cables. Every store i've purchased items from, always try and sell a expensive branded cable, like Monster brand. Never pay more than $40 for a HDMI cable.
The best Australian website regarding TVs and equipment plugged into that TV is: http://www.dtvforum.info
Bookmark that site. Take your time and research, research and research. I spent, days, weeks reading dtvforum before I made a semi-purchase decision. I then dragged along a DVD player, Xbox360 and some SD and HD movies/games into store, plugged into many TVs and had a gooooood look.
Sorry for messy reply, spelling, grammar. I'm late for work, and rushing. Thought I quickly add some of my knowledge to this thread.
EricVonZipper
Sunday 15th February 2009 | 05:42 PMwhat the. Above is me, again. Sorry Mikey. Logged out again. Gotta check my settings.
...in response to this comment by EricVonZipper. Hehe - fixed U up again. There is a checkbox when you login called 'keep me logged in on this computer' which will prevent that sort of thing from happening. If you don't use that, you will only last as long as the server imposed session allows.
...in response to this comment by EricVonZipper. "Other things against LCD: They are slow. LCD have what is called a Response Time measured in milliseconds - the lower the better. They can also suffer from Dead or Stuck Pixels. Dead pixels appear black, and always black."
The old ones were slow, but I've seen LCD's as low as 2ms now. Dead pixels are also pretty much non-existent these days. I've had my share on PC monitors in the past with dead or stuck pixels. But the fact you mention it is consistent of the many myths still raised in the Plasma vs LCD argument. These days both are as good as each other, but backlit LCD's are allegedly better in the day (image appears brighter) and Plasma allegedly better for night (the black range is actually black). But again that's actually relative to the user's preference.
About a year ago we walked into Retravision which was showing Spiderman 2 on Blueray on an awesome large LCD. It looked spectacular except for the stuck green pixel about 25% out from the middle. When I pointed it out to the sales guy in front of about 10 customers he wasn't too happy :-)
Marvin the Martian
Sunday 15th February 2009 | 08:03 PMThere is also the consideration that plasmas have a much higher tendency to experience 'burn in' if left on the same image for an extended period of time, while LCDs do not suffer from this issue. We have a plasma in the office so that everyone can see projects on the go, and although we have only had this particular screen for 4 months, we are already noticing the burn in issue.
Jim
Monday 16th February 2009 | 08:42 AMI giggled at "Johnny Sportslover." The guy I work with would definitely be said sports lover... He's looking into a tv for his bedroom, and I told him to get a 1080 over 720, I might as well have been speaking Latin. Though that's not to say I won't have fun with him for not educating himself a little before buying.
...in response to this comment by Jim. 10 clams says he comes home with a 42" plasma that only supports DVD res (540!). "But it only cost him $700!"
EricVonZipper
Monday 16th February 2009 | 12:30 PM...in response to this comment by Marvin the Martian. I guess the unit in your office is either a old tech plasma or a cheap brand. Personally i've never seen burn-in on quality current gen plasmas.
I have a 42 inch Panasonic at my work, last years model. The thing has never been turned off for the last 8 months, AND it's displaying a great deal of static images. Not a single sign of burn-in. Same with my home gaming TV, which is a Panasonic 42inch unit aswell. I turn it off, kids don't. Most games produced a insane amount of static images on the screen. My gaming TV has no burn-in issues.
Mikey. $700. I would hate to see the picture quality on that unit. Again, you get what you pay for.
If your TV can do 1080p, use it. Though there isn't much out there that will deliver a 1080p signal. Xbox 360, PS3 and Blu-Ray can all do it.
Free-to-Air HD TV. Hmmm. FSM only knows what resolution TV stations transmit. The problem is the government and other authorities/groups. No one has set a "standard" for HDTV in Australia yet. I don't believe any free-to-air terrestrial channel deliverers 1080p. I guess most TV mobs will transmit a 1080i signal at max. Some, maybe even lower at 720p. Foxtel HD, I take an educated guess at 1080i max.
I much prefer a 720progressive signal over 1080interlaced anyday, and so should you as it's a better image. More so with fast-moving stuff like gaming, sports, and alike. Movies, I don't care; 1080i is fine.
...in response to this comment by EricVonZipper. I'm all about resolution. I want this: https://rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=1094
4096 x 2160 baby!
And don't forget this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video
7,680 × 4,320 pixels FTW!
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 17th February 2009 | 08:31 AMActually, it's all about the Hz now. Sony (I think) is coming out with a 200hz tv that creates multiple duplicate frames (like with plazmas and LCDs) then digitally alters them to provide seemless integration between one frame and the next. Essentially for every single frame that the media (DVD, Cable, HDTV etc) produces, the 200hz tv creates 4 frames, then alters them to make all movement flawless.
It is awesome... go science!
Jim
Tuesday 17th February 2009 | 10:28 AMAs awesome as the technology is, and is going to be, I really can't imagine a clearer picture. I have a 32" LCD 1080i, and it's just amazing. Any bigger would be too much for my apartment, so I guess the advantages are really on huge screens. That pretty much means the crap on TV will just look better, but it will still be crap. Sadly, I bought it more for my video games. :P
The Computer Whisperer
Tuesday 17th February 2009 | 06:12 PMI think it's likely that we are going to be flooded by high quality cheap televisions from the imitation brands because with some technologies, there's no further developments to be made and I am pretty sure it wouldn't be too difficult to reverse-engineer.
Reliable high quality TCL or Conia or Konka anyone?
Look at the Iphone imitations coming out of Asia for 200 bucks.
I think Pioneer are avoiding the price slam.
You look at the new screen technology and we are seeing bendy flexy screens, will be very interesting for clothing.
Are we close to a cloak that actually "cloaks" you like Star Trek?
Can you imagine having one jacket that can change styles depending on the software you load into it?
Can you imagine saying "nice jacket man... what res is that?" or "wow that's some lumines pants you're wearing!"
Jim
Wednesday 18th February 2009 | 10:21 PMJust a question out of curiosity as I've never had a plasma TV, and it looks like I never will... How much heat do they put out? I know my LCD puts out enough heat to roast marshmallows, and maybe cook hot dogs. I damn near get sun burn every time I walk past the TV display at Target. Plasma sounds like it could literally melt your face off, and now I have the image of kids watching their Saturday morning cartoons 3 inches from the tube.
Cnet had a good article recently:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10163613-82.html?tag=mncol
It seems Plasma's have MUCH better colours (and therefore, picture) than LCD's. And of course, the viewing angle isn't limited like LCD. Also, it seems the old burn-in issues are just that... very old. Hasn't happened for a long time, since they fixed it. Also, LCD don't display the images as fast as Plasma.... so when you are watching fast-moving sports or movies.... you'll notice the lag.
...in response to this comment by storm. Mostly true. LCD only ghosts on older models with high response times. Same with viewing angle. Both are on equal ground these days but LCD offers a wider variry of sizes especially handy for lower price entry points. Plasma has 'darker' blacks though but that's because Plasma doesn't use a backlit surface like LCD. But then, just how black do you need black to be LOL? As a home theatre afficionado who doesn't compromise on quality, my LCD has never let me down - but I do my research. And we are able to put a small one in for the kids and for our bedroom - cheap as. Also considering one for the kitchen area. Plasma simply can't satisfy those needs which is another reason it's being dumped in favour of LCD.
Jim
Wednesday 25th February 2009 | 08:01 AMhttp://anotherrandomday.com/?id=508
Horrible joke, but amusing. First thing it did was make me think of this article/ discussion.
Shamen67
Wednesday 25th February 2009 | 10:11 PMThe "hertz " thing is a bit farcical.
Old CRT type TV`s were 50/60 Hz and produced eyestrain over a period of time same as an incandescant light bulb. In practical the Hz means they flicker 60 times a second, somewhat invisible to the human eye.
Being in the industry I often used to get asked "how can I tell the difference between a 100Hz CRT TV and a 50Hz CRT TV" The easiest way was to look at the TV with your peripheral vision and you will notice the TV flickering this rule applies for incandescent light bulbs as well. You cannot tell by looking at it facing the screen.
If you look at a 100Hz TV with your peripheral vision you can`t see it flicker whatsoever so how in the hell a 200Hz TV is any better is beyond me and I have been in the industry since 1984! All panel TV`s (what we call them in the industry) are 100Hz as standard and have been since I seen the first models in Jan 2000 for the launch of digital TV in Melbourne. The first model I had the pleasure of watching was a Sony and it had a retail price of $30`000!
Resolution however is highly critical in larger screen sizes as the higher the res the crisper and more detailed the picture. Resolution in smaller screens (32` and under) is not that important unless you are using it as a PC monitor.
I had one of the 1st generation plasmas (JVC) and the picture at the time was amazing but compared to the latest LCD models it may as well have been monochrome. I now have a 32` Samsung LCD (series 7) as I didn`t have the room for the old 42` plasma. The Samsung has a vibrant luminous picture and low power consumption as well.
One of the biggest mistakes I see as a consultant is people buying panel TV`s that are wayyyy too large for their viewing rooms. We call it SDS (small dick syndrome) You have to ask yourself "do you sit in the front row of the cinema?" If not why do you need that 65` TV in the lounge when you`re sitting 8 feet away from the TV.
Most people tend to think that the TV they purchased is by far the best as that is what the salesman told them but this can be a tricky area as well. I used to sell TV`s in the 1980`s and if there was a promo for a particualr brand that week we used to "adjust" the other TV`s so the promoted brand stood out like a beacon against the other brands and therefore sold more.
My honest advice on buying a new TV is too look closely at the picture quality and also the size of your viewing room is exceptionally important. Don`t be too guided by what the salesperson says and if you are offered an extended warranty take it. Certain consumer magazines are a bit of a waste of time as well.
Remeber it is your money and you will be looking at it on average 2 hours a day every day for the next 10 years. Hope this may help someone.
Sean
Wednesday 17th February 2010 | 06:19 PMI have a 50" Panasonic plasma tv and i sit about 2 metres from the tv in the dark and big tv's are better to watch movies up close at the 2 to 3 metres and away and and it has a 1920 x 1080 panel and my lg 42" plasma 1366 x 768 hd tv is way to small for my it the bedroom at my perrents beach house that i have down there and i'm looking later on to put a 50" or bigger in it's place
The Movie Whore
Sunday 15th February 2009 | 10:35 AMPersonally I am still waiting for SOny to further develop their LED TV tech before I make the major purchase. I have a projection HD that is 5 years old and still works like a champ.