Are Plasma TVs the Next BetaMax? 514
Lev13than writes "An article in the Toronto Star questions whether the battle between LCD and Plasma is the next VHS vs. Beta: "LCD is now in plasma country, and this means war — a war some say plasma can't hope to win". Rationale for LCD's victory include plasma's burn-in vs. LCD's ruggedness, improved images and falling prices. While the Beta analogy isn't particularly helpful (since both technologies play the same content), the article does raise interesting points."
LCD backlights will fade unevenly (Score:5, Informative)
Since so many of these are new, they won't fade for about two years - if Plasma is still around, you may see the tide change....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:LCD backlights will fade unevenly (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a Sony CRT-based HDTV, and I really would love a flat-panel big screen. I think right now I'd favor LCD, but that preference is partly based on hearsay about Plasma (supposedly high power and supposedly short life), not direct experience.
I have had direct experience with LCD, and I love it - except for the uneven fading of the CCFL backlights (maybe LED would improve this?), and the poor image quality when viewing non-native resolutions (which is improving with newer technology, and is mainly a problem only with PCs or SDTV).
I haven't really warmed up to DLP - poor off-angle viewing and relatively dim image - but I can see the economy in it.
So, I'm torn - each have strengths and weaknesses, but I'd hate to see one drop out simply because some information wasn't brought up.
I imagine if people knew that Betamax was capable of better image quality without breaking backward-compatibiltiy, it might have trumped VHS (okay, there was also the closed-source problem, and the legendary porn industry influence).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In situations like that I go to shop and buy first thing I like.
It's pointless to worry about future problems. Solve problems when they come: burned out plasma or dimmed back light both are not lethal to human life ;-)
I sort'a can relate to your problems. I'm going to buy TV that autumn. And most likely it would LCD: prices are now start at €800 for 32". Since I haven't found decent review I would just buy cheapest one of my preferred brands - Phili
Re:LCD backlights will fade unevenly (Score:5, Insightful)
I exactly the opposite: I don't buy until things clear up.
I would love to buy, even if it was expensive, a nice solution for viewing movies from my computer, but there seems to be no clear choice right now. Until then, I'll stick to my (ultra high definition, if compared to any TV) 19"CRT monitor, which is not bad since I view from a close distance, on a comfortable coach.
Which other system would allow me to play 1920 pixels wide movies, like this? http://orange.blender.org/download [blender.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Our coach wasn't very comfortable - especially when yelling at us for doing our laps too slowly or making us do push-ups.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Both LCDs and Plasma Displays are Betamax. (Score:3, Insightful)
Iridigm Technology, a small company in San Francisco, developed the technology. Unfortunately, Qualcomm purchased the company in 2004. Since Qualcomm tends to charge high fees on its patents, televisions based on OIDs may not materialize any time soon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The newer ones have vastly improved contrast ratio and the Samsungs are on par with Plasma with a 10000:1 ratio.
You get a bigger screen per dollar and a $200 bulb replacement is worth it over a $2000 bulb for plasma.
IMHO, it depends on your viewing environment. I've been on the fence and have always held Plasma as the king of quality but I'm not too sure anymore as I am venturing into being a consumer of one of the products. Everything that appeals to me is DLP at this poin
Re:LCD backlights will fade unevenly (Score:5, Informative)
LCD backlights prohibitively expensive to replace? The fact is, they CAN be replaced, and aside from a few manufacturers who INSIST on gluing or epoxying the cases together, they are relatively easy to replace, and the tubes themselves cost anywhere from $2.00 to $30.00. Compare that to plasma, where to replace the screen you may as well just buy a whole new set (it's the equivalent of replacing a picture tube on a conventional television or monitor).
Buy a set based on:
- Response time
- color purity
- contrast ratio and black level
- Image burn-in possibility (a potential issue for static displays and console gaming)
Until OLED sets become available, Plasma will win color purity and contrast ratio hands down. LCD will win for weight/ease of installation and possibly versatility.
Re:LCD backlights will fade unevenly (Score:4, Interesting)
I looked at a ton of different makes and models for months before settling on this one. Let's see the pros and cons laid out for plasma vs. lcd.
Plasma: Pros
1. Relatively cheap at large sizes
2. Good contrast
3. Nearly perfect refresh, just like a CRT, so fast moving imagery doesn't ghost
4. Bright and viewable from all angles
Plasma: Cons
1. Eats alot of power and generates a ton of heat. Put your face next to one and it's like standing under a hair dryer.
2. Image burn-in is *still* a concern
3. Glass covering screen doubles as a mirror. Very distracting.
4. Looks really bad close up due to CRT-style pixel gates, can count the columns
5. Low native resolutions regardless of size. Most 42" and below only do 1024x768 native, which is a 4:3 resolution, so displaying a pc on one guarantees a stupid looking stretched desktop since the screen is actually 16:9 sized.
6. Fragile and delicate
7. Supposedly short life
Now for my friend the LCD.
LCD: Pros
1. Proven technology used for computers and other devices for years.
2. Light and durable, easily moved at nearly any size.
3. Contrast and black levels have improved dramatically over the last 3 years.
4. High native resolutions; most screens give you a true 16:9 ratio out of the box with 1366x768 being the standard.
5. Anti-reflective coated screens ensure that you're watching the movie instead of watching yourself eat popcorn. Similar to laptop and other LCD screens in that respect.
6. Some models feature user-replaceable backlights (mine does)
7. Latest screens have very fast (8ms or less) refresh times, no more ghosting or problems watching sports
8. Save quite a bit of power when compared to CRT or plasma screens
LCD: Cons
1. Expensive when you get into 42"+ territory
2. Can exhibit dead or stuck pixels eventually, sometimes this is user-repairable, sometimes not
3. Still not 100% 'contrasty' like plasma or CRTs, this is changing though
So the way I see it, an LCD is the clear winner. All of my clients bought LCD instead of plasma, even though they all tend to be thrifty and save money wherever they can. A trip to a very good home theater store, and you'll see why they (and I) chose LCD over plasma. It really is worth a few extra bucks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As for the Panasonic...well, you get what you pay for when you buy cheap electronics.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a
Re:LCD backlights will fade unevenly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:LCD backlights will fade unevenly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:LCD backlights will fade unevenly (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that I'll just buy a new projector than replace the bulb - an equivalent new projector would only cost 50% more than the bulb itself.
Re:LCD backlights will fade unevenly (Score:5, Informative)
Why not LED's (Score:4, Interesting)
The LED's themselves are supposed to have a very long life-expentency compared to standard bulbs, likely due to the fact that they don't use a burning filiment or other hot method of producing light.
Anyone know of good LED-backlit projection units?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, the bulb can potentially explode, but he will be picking shards of glass out of his projector? You're mixing up your words to bolster your weak point.
Projector bulbs are every bit as durable as regular light bulbs--blow outs rarely lead to explosions. I own a projector, used as a TV, and have already had its bulb die once. A little pop, a little darkness, and I let it cool down and replaced it,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Replacing the CCFL backlight is not cheap for a laptop - how can it be cheap enough for a 42' or bigger screen?
Even if it was easy to swap out, the margin must be high for the manufacturer to benefit, so the savings would not be passed on to the customer.
let's hope I'm mistaken....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no idea whether or not swapping out the backlight is feasable, but your wrong about the economics.
If it can be done someone will probably offer it. If its seen as a benifit then it will be sought after by the consumer, and non-replacable LCDs sales will fall.
There is plenty of competition in the TV market and there is no mega-corp making decisions about whats available and whats not (other t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree it CAN be done, but don't forget that to replace it will not require both a manufacturer (of the backlight), a cooperative TV manufacturer, and most likely a competant installer.
#1 - The backlight manufacturer wants to profit from the market. The backlight manufacturer may be the most motivated in this scenario. It's possible that the TV manufacturer may be the middleman, but that's going to drive the price up even more.
#2 - The TV manufacturer will nee
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No one has anything even approaching a monopoly on TVs, there is pretty fierce compition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True... I wonder why some manufacturer doesn't make an LCD display with an easily replaceable backlight(*). I'd pay extra for a display if I knew I wouldn't have to throw it away in a few years.
(*) Actually, I have some ideas as to why, but they are too cynical to be worth repeating here
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And what's best for the bottom line, is often not what the educated consumer would prefer. But it does tend to keep the economy rolling. It keeps the money in the air - where more of it can be snatched up by the powerful (and idustrious) few.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Monthly book closing? Quarterly reporting? Annual reporting? Reign of the current CEO? Life of the company?
Too often, managers make the decision to make short-term measurements look good at the sacrifice of the long-term viability and profitablity of the company.
Taken to the absurd extreme, anyone can make a company profitable for a short period of time: fire the employees, sell all the IP, and liquidate all inventory and assets. You'll be incredib
That's a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That's a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Now the trick would be how to get such a model to compete with the existing model of disposable devices. It hasn't worked for printers even though everyone is aware that desktop inkjets and laserjets are a rip off. You can pick up a 8-10 year old office laser printer for only about double the price of a new cheapo laser printer, and the old "beast" might take up more space in your home but it will probably last another 10 years and be servicable. and you can usually put around four times more paper in it, so you don't have to fill it up as often or find a place to store your half-used reams of paper.
I don't know anyone who actually went out and bought an old laser printer in preference to one of the new junk ones. so I'm guessing this isn't working out either.
Cars are higher quality now then they were in the late 70s to mid 80s, at least American cars. car makers realized that you don't have to make a cheap car that falls apart. you just make a car that completely collapses on any impact as a safety feature. most cars eventually succumb to a collision. then you can sell those people a new car. This new model seems better than the Ford Pinto model of cars.
Re:That's a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not a "planned obsolescence" device, it's a legitimate safety feature.
When your car is involved in a collision, it's going to be subjected to a large amount of kinetic energy. Would you rather that the energy be absorbed by the frame of the car -- resulting in crumpling and irreparable body damage -- or would you rather that the frame transfers that energy on to the passengers, resulting in a more serious kind of irreparable body damage?
Yes, car manufacturers know that people who survive car accidents are more likely to make another car purchase than those who don't. But that's not greed, it's common sense. Rule number zero of business: don't kill your customers*.
(* rule does not apply to tobacco companies)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the contrary, they are orders of magnitude more reliable, require less service, and go more years/miles before being worn out.
When I was young normal cars required an oil-change and basic service every 5000 miles, it was perfectly normal for the clutch to be worn out at 20000 miles, same for the register. A car that had 75000 miles on it after say 8 years was considered as near-scrap, many cars
Re:That's a good thing (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fade? (Score:2, Informative)
LCD backlights will fade unevenly...And when they do, they're prohibitively expensive to replace. Since so many of these are new, they won't fade for about two years - if Plasma is still around, you may see the tide change.
Mine is going on 4 years and no fade at all.
One thing I never liked about plasma was the power consumption. Do they still suck 300+ watts and emit a lot of heat?
Re:Fade? (Score:5, Insightful)
Several LCD panels I have programmed claimed 2.5 years of interruptible function w/o degradation of quality. Since the panels were insanely cheap I presume that better panels live even longer.
Presuming one watches TV on average 6 hours a day - with 2.5 years guaranty - that would make 10 years of lifetime. 10 years later I'm sure it would be possible to replace cheaply the panel with new one - just like it is happening now with CRTs.
CRTs are also prone to degradation - just like plasma and LCD. It's just the quality of CRT sucks (HD LCD/Plasma really provide better viewing experience) so nobody watches them too much. (After coming to IT, I barely can look at CRT TV at all: 50Hz just hurt my eyes too much.)
P.S. And with new developments like LED (light emitting diodes) back light - that would move the problem even further.
Re:LCD backlights will fade unevenly (Score:4, Informative)
So, not in a way that I can convey here.
But you can check it out for yourself. Google may help. If you look into the subject at all you'll see it's no secret.
Here's a pdf from Dishnetwork:
http://tech.dishnetwork.com/departmental_content/
It lists the Pros/Cons of the different technologies. It says:
"Direct View LCD"
"Cons"
"Expensive, pixels viewable with large screens, picture can fade over time, slow pixel response time can cause motion blurs."
Here's another view from Planar's Ali Gard:
http://blog.planar.com/embedded/2006/01/crts-lcds
An excerpt:
"LCD's luminance is controlled by the luminosity of the backlight / edgelight. The backlights in LCD monitors are almost always CCFL (cold cathode florescent lamps). The life of the backlight is determined by how long it takes until the lamp reaches half of its original luminance. Similar to CRTs phosphors in CCFL's age and their efficiency declines. LCD's don't suffer from flicker, or image burn just a few years ago that time was about 30,000 hours. Newer lamp technology has increased that time to 60,000 hours to reach half brightness."
That puts it at 3.5 to 7 years (if you accept the manufacturer's claims). What he doesn't address is that the CCFL will fade unevenly which is most obvious in large panels.
If Plasma is betamax (Score:5, Insightful)
Strangely enough, it doesn't suffer from uneven fade or blurring and has survived years with the kids knocking against it and still looks damn good.
I must really be behind the times if I want to pay more money for something with less quality and features...
Re: (Score:2)
I have 7 letters to add.
JVC LCoS
Granted, its not as thin as plasma, but no picture is better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With 90% of the content I watch still plain old 4:3 NTSC, I see no reason to upgrade to a widescreen Plasma or LCD.
Re:If Plasma is betamax (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a reason CNET use Sony's 34XBR960 was selected by them to use as the reference to judge all other HDTVs (plasma, LCD, DLP, etc.) against.
Sure, it's the size of a typical european car and weighs about the same but, for picture quality, there's a reason why most stores quietly moved it away from the much higher markup flat pannels they'd rather still be able to sell.
Granted, the follow on model (34XBR970) actually dropped picture quality (from 1440 horizontal scan lines to something like 1100) to get set reliability up. The point still remains: For reference picture quality, people still seem to be picking CRT after a decade of promises about the latest flat pannel having the greatest ever picture.
It's true the average consumer doesn't see that. Then again, they're remembering their $199 CRT of yesteryear and comparing it to a $1,999 flat pannel. Compare the budget end of any line, even an overall superior one, to a line that barely has a budget line and typical models cost ten times as much as the other's budget end and, sure, it'll give you a skewed result.
Re:If Plasma is betamax (Score:5, Insightful)
The resolution doesn't bother me since it's the same as the resolution of my TV signal and I'm not going to waste any time crying in my beer because I lack the ability to represent one image pixel with four pixels of my TV's display. Yes it's true that the resolution of the TV signal I'm getting may increase beyond what my CRT does in the future, but that future date keeps moving back, the price of LCD and flat panel TV's keeps going down, and it just doesn't make much sense to me to pay a lot for something before it's useful to me when I can be patient and pay less by not buying it until I need it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "it's a pain to keep a quality image" and "difficult to maintain properly." I've had my CRT television for ten years, I haven't lifted a finger to do any maintenance on it aside from wiping the dust off the screen every so often, and as far as I can tell it is still working just fine. I don't even bother to turn off the TV when I'm going to go wander off with a videogame paused while I spend an hour and a half cooking, eating, and cleaning up after some fancy dinner. Meanwhile, the estimates for lifetime that I've been hearing for plasma displays make it sound like ten years would be a pretty good life. Not sure about LCDs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wouldn't say that CRTs are horrifyingly large. They're just horrifyingly large if you want them to be.
I wouldn't either, in general, but it depends on the depth of the space you have to put them in. I miscalculated when I had my family room remodeled. The shelf built for the TV is only 20" deep, and unless I wanted to have a 19" TV (for six people to crowd around?), that just isn't enough room for a CRT. So I had to go with something else. Given that anything shallow enough to fit was going to cost
MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:5, Informative)
WTF are you talking about? If you don't know, don't post. And moderators, don't fall for something that just *sounds* informative.
CRTs offer *far* better resolution at the present time than LCDs, plasmas, LCoS, DLP, and every other non-military display technology. It's better by a factor of 3 to 5, at each point of the market scale.
The other parts of your post are fairly reasonable, and CRTs will almost certainly go the way of the dodo before long. However, *RESOLUTION* is *NOT* one of their weaknesses. It's pretty much their greatest advantage against other technologies, with their next-best advantage being high contrast ratio.
MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. 1080p LCDs are quite common, especially for 32in-42in displays. A handful of 1080p plasmas are now available, and 1080p DLP/LCoS displays have been around for months. There are no 1080p CRT televisions, only 480p and/or 1080i. So LCD/plasma/DLP resolution > CRT resolution.
You should try taking your own advice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have a TV tuner in my computer and a CRT monitor capable of that resolution. Therefore I have a CRT television capable of that resolution. Therefore, you are wrong. Thanks for playing, here's your copy of Slashdot: the Home Game.
Your UID shows me you are new here. Let me give you a little tip. Try not to sound like an arrogant know it all unless you are absolutely sure you are correct and you are directly responding to another arrogant know it all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Technology changes fast, and with LCD's price coming down and quality going up they will soon offer the same performance as CRT's for the same price. But as of last year this is what I found when I looked into buying a new moderate sized TV (32 to 36 inches):
Re: (Score:2)
I've yet to see a CRT that doesn't require recalibration every 6 months. Grated, I'm anally picky about the quality of the displays I need to look at, but it's a fact that CRT's need maintenance.
Then again, LCD's dim to an uncomfortable level in just a few years, so I'm not sure if they're any better. Haven't tried plasmas yet, so no comment on those.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This was kinda hard to explain at work, unfortunately. I ended up wandering the halls looking for spare monitors and trying them out until I found one with a Trinitron tube. They were (and still are) too cheap to buy LCDs, but fortunately I've been moved to a laptop now.
It was also a pa
I predict.... neither. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
DLPs require fans to keep the bulb cool. This can produce unreasonable noise while trying to watch something.
I had a Toshiba 46" DLP a couple months ago with two sets of fans in it. One was on when the TV was on, which was very loud. You had to run the TV way up just to make sure you could understand everything.
The other was on whenever the TV was plugged in, even when it was "off". You could really hear it across the room. (They claimed it was to "keep the bulb cool". To which I asked "Can I unplug
Re:I predict.... neither. (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny you should say that... Samsung finally shipped their LED-based DLP a few weeks ago.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/06/samsung-hl-s56
I don't know if they have removed the fan altogether, but they have removed the color wheel (one less thing spinning at 10k+ RPM...) and the LEDs generate a LOT less heat than the traditional bulb, so I'd imagine it's effectively silent.
Going a bit off topic (well, not really, we're talking TVs!) Sony was showing off a prototype SXRD (ie LCoS) TV at CES 2006 that was about a foot deep (they had it hanging on a wall). Combine these innovations in projection TVs (true 1080p DMD/LCoS chips, LED lamps, thin cabinets, etc) and amazingly they may start taking some of the plasma/LCD market segment, ie low footprint HDTVs - especially in the 50"+ range, where there is a huge price advantage for projection TVs.
I bought a Rear Projection TV (Score:2, Interesting)
(This is not a commercial, i'm just a happy customer
Re:I bought a Rear Projection TV (Score:5, Informative)
Why?
1. Rear projection CRT may look the best, but they are way too bulky for the space. I wanted a sleeker TV, not a bigger one than my old standard CRT.
2. My wife sees the rainbows on DLPs. It's less obvious with higher-priced models (where the color wheel spins faster), but it renders them unwatchable for fast content (like sports or action movies) for her.
3. Plasma versus LCD came down not to their performance with hi-def content, but with their performance with standard content. I've had my plasma TV for more than a year, and most stations I watch are still standard def. In my opinion, standard def TV looks better with plasma than with LCD. I looked at lots and lots of TVs, and I switched them in the stores to standard def broadcasts instead of leaving them on the hi-def channel the retailer wanted to show. Of course standard def content looks worse on a big-screen TV than on a small TV, but the static and artifact pixels were far more visible with LCD than with plasma.
This whole discussion is silly, anyway. Both types of TVs can play the same content, as can rear-projection TVs, DLPs, and even those polymer TVs in the Slashdot article yesterday. There's no reason they cannot all co-exist in the marketplace. As long as there are people like me who dislike LCDs, there will be a market for them. (I don't even use LCD computer monitors - CRTs still look so much better it's unbearable.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No (Score:5, Insightful)
VHS vs. Beta was a battle in which a consumer who made the wrong choice was left with hardware that increasingly ceased to be useful, because it wasn't supported. Choosing a plasma or an LCD screen isn't remotely comparable because both will continue to function regardless of who "wins". This is a silly article.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Burn-in is a potential problem in CRTs and Plasma displays because they ultimately use the same technology to represent colors -- phosphors. The
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Awful Quality (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they're slightly cool looking, they save space and they're lighter, but I've seen more than one person shake their head sceptically when they've seen the picture quality and then looked at those 'HD Ready' logos slapped all over them. Quite frankly, I think both of them are Betamax, but I think a Betamax versus VHS comparison is wrong. They're both crap.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. I think they both suck, and CRT's a
Re:Awful Quality (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Awful Quality (Score:4, Interesting)
No, its because the tech really does suck. The dynamic range is poor compared to a crt. That's why you'll almost always see them demoing with animated movies,or scenes with large areas of similar colurs.
The same people who think LCD and plasma displays look great don't notice the annoying artifacts in satellite tv broadcasts either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However there is an easy way to fig
Re:Awful Quality (Score:4, Insightful)
In my experience, this is mostly down to the TVs not displaying HD resolution material. A good 'HD Ready' set will easily highlight the relative lack of resolution in DVDs, let alone on standard broadcast television. A normal TV set can easily look a lot better on these type of broadcasts, simply because the display isn't as sharp.
Video Games (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm planning on getting one soonish, once I get paid for all the recent overtime. The only downside to them is they only have 1 HDMI port, but meh!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you can keep using your plasma (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a good analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Betamax vs VHS was a question of compatibility. LCD vs Plasma is only a matter of technology. And consumers care about compatibility, but they couldn't care less about technology. So there is no comparison
I think it is becoming popular to cite Betamax whenever you run out of something to say.
More like ISDN in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
SED televisions will be a strong factor (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyways, they should have at least mentioned it to make their story complete from a 2006/2007 point of view.
Discuss...
Re:SED televisions will be a strong factor (Score:4, Funny)
I also thought that LCDs were the best choice .. (Score:2, Interesting)
A lot of the article is PR/Marketing crap (Score:5, Insightful)
And a lot more is PR crap/scare-monger to try and sway the consumers to their line of products. As stated Sony doesn't make plasmas anymore, so of course they will be advocating LCDs since that is ALL they make!
There are "good" plasmas and "poor" plasmas, just like there are "good" LCDs and "poor" LCDs. Giving pure PR crap like this trying to compair your top of the line LCDs against mid to poor quality plasmas is as I said, pure crap. Hell, even Sony plasmas (you know the ones that Sony hasn't made for 18 months which are now at least 2 generations of technology old), Sony THEMSELVES rated them for 60,000+ hours! So how the hell are they now spouting this crap of 40,000 hours when compairing their brand new LCD's against "supposedly" brand new plasmas? Yes, that is correct, they shopped around for their numbers probably finding the cheapest plasma in existance and compaired its technical features against a name branded LCD.
Again, most of this article is about trying to get consumers to purchase their own products. You don't see Panasonic, Philips, or Pioneer putting this kind of crap out there because all three of them produce both LCDs AND plasmas. They will give you more straight up answers as to which one to use for your situation. Not this kind of PR sh--- err --- stuff that Sony is spitting out because they ONLY have LCDs and need to try and drive as many people as they can to purchase them otherwise Sony is left out of the market...
Re:A lot of the article is PR/Marketing crap (Score:5, Insightful)
That argument would make sense if Sony never made or couldn't make plasmas. It makes much more sense to say that Sony doesn't make plasmas because they don't believe in them.
"You don't see Panasonic, Philips, or Pioneer putting this kind of crap out there because all three of them produce both LCDs AND plasmas."
Of course not. You wouldn't trash your own products even if they were trash.
"They will give you more straight up answers as to which one to use for your situation. Not this kind of PR sh---..."
No they won't. It's all "PR sh---".
It doesn't matter how a set is made. It only matters how it performs.
Yep, burn in dooms plasma (Score:5, Insightful)
DLP, LCD projection and CRT (projection or direct) aren't really competing for the same niche because they aren't thin panels. CRT also has the 4:3 burn-in issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither's good enough (Score:5, Interesting)
The way I see it, they're both stopgap technologies that are persuading impatient people to part with their cash until they can iron the creases out of SED or OLED technology and get them production-ready.
Not true HDTV... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not true HDTV... (Score:4, Interesting)
720p and 1080i at the same frame rate are about the same amount of information / s. 720p is actually a bit more than 1080i even though 1080i results in a higher resolution (although half the image is displayed per pass). The argument is 720p is better for fast stuff (sports) while 1080i is better for other stuff.
With the right processing, you can interpolate the 1080i to 1080p nicely, I think.
I personally like high res stuff, so I am holding out for 1080p capable display. There are some nice LCDs for less than $2k right now, but plasma is very spendy in 1080p.
I have a 2650x1600 LDC by Dell at work. Now that is a sweet machine. No 1600p video out there that I know of...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Large Screen Options (Score:2)
Not particularly helpful (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'd really want to know is, specifically, what's the verdict with respect to plasma burn-in? Sony says it's problematic. (And if that's true, why were they selling plasma screens for so long?) Panasonic says, "You get what you pay for." Is that supposed to mean burn-in's not a problem on high-end sets?
With respect to LCDs, okay, so ghosting's less of a problem. Can we be more specific? Just how much has the response time improved? And what about contrast ratio? Viewing angle? Sunlight? Jaggies?
Regarding both formats, what happens at end-of-life? Do they just get dimmer and dimmer? Is there some kind of hard failure in the mechanism that renders the set completely inoperable after a certain amount of time? (E.g.I had a desktop LCD monitor which started to balk at coming out of powersaver mode, until one day, it just refused to come back on at all.) Are product lifespans going up, and to what extent? Either lifespan is fairly impressive, we're talking about 4.5 to 7 years of continuous round the clock usage, and probably twice that given typical usage patterns.
And other than a brief mention in the sidebar, there's nothing about future display technologies that might eclipse both plasma and LCD.
Point being, this article might be helpful to a lay person who reads the Star, but it isn't really suited for a tech audience. Why is it on Slashdot?
Wrong, Entrenched Ideas on Technology (Score:5, Informative)
As a writer of an article, one should do more than research the televisions of one company and base all aspects of technology on it. That company, would be Sony as indicated by the author of this article as it is the only manufacturer that is being represented.
This article is filled with entrenched ideas of plasma technology from about half a decade ago, when LCD televisions were prohibitively expensive and small.
It does not need to be restated that this article has no resemblence to the Beta vs. VHS wars as all televisions will continue to be able to display a standard picture, but here are the wrong ideas being perpetrated by this author.
Plasma's burn-in has been eliminated due to algorithms developed by both Samsung and Panasonic to essentially shift on-screen images ever so slightly to avoid a single image to stay in one place. In fact, even if you blasted a pure white image on the screen to purpose for a day (a standard accident, perhaps?) then the technology can even cure that over a day period of standard use.
Black bars will not cause burn-in on today's plasma televisions. Television station logos that sit non-stop in the bottom-right corner are the only culprits. Even most stations have figured out to shift the logo a bit or make it transparent enough that the older plasma television crowd will not have burn-ins.
Sony abandoned its plasma television technology because it just couldn't win. Sony was using glass from another manufacturer, which is a very expensive part. Consumer Reports and CNet routinely choose Panasonic plasmas as the very best because they manufacture the key plasma television components. Likewise, the article states that Sony abandoned it in favor of LCD technology. Sony also abandoned the tube television technology which was a cornerstone of the company's name. One would imagine a specialist, nay a leader, in tube television technology would have been most adept at establishing plasma technology.
Plasma televisions are not hot. Hovering one's hand above the vents of plasma televisions today reveal no more heat than a standard television, except suspiciously on brands such as Sony or Akai. Go through a Best Buy and feel the lack of heat emanating from a Pioneer, LG, Samsung, or Panasonic. In fact, Samsung did use to have fans to cool its plasma, but over time it has been eliminated.
Now for some editorializing... I pass by three plasma televisions every day in a work environment. A Samsung plasma hangs suspended from a ceiling displaying a static computer display giving graphical and textual read-outs. The display never changes interface except a screensaver comes up every thirty minutes. It does not have burn-in when somebody gets caught surfing the web on it by accident (I always find that one funny). A Sony plasma hangs in the boardroom, it is hardly on except for a teleconference, and it works day in and day out with just a face on it most of the time. A Panasonic plasma plays video non-stop in the breakroom and is only turned off at night. That display is smaller than the rest at 42 inches, but it is phenomenal color-wise and it hasn't failed either. Plasma technology is not terrible. It's very good. LCDs do not offer lighter weight or thinner enclosures than plasma (so far). LCD panel televisions will defeat plasma in the situation where it becomes thinner, lighter, larger, and more beautiful displaying images (this encompasses the entire image quality and motion playback attributes) in a fast enough time with a matching price to plasma on size. The problem is that plasma if you look online is far cheaper than an equivalent LCD panel television. Retail chains are making a load of money off of plasma units in-store. LCD television technology is priced exactly as it is worth in both on and off-line venues.
I'm just glad the author of the article didn't compare this to the Wii vs. Playstation 3 war or the Zune vs. iPod war.
No, they are not (Score:2)
LCD VS PLASMA VS CRT (Score:5, Funny)
Being a scrawny nerd with no muscle tone makes moving CRT's a problem. It's primary reason I dumped my nice 19 inch CRT monitor for an LCD.
Re:LCD VS PLASMA VS CRT (Score:4, Interesting)
You can pry my CRT out of my cold, dead hands. If I have to lift weights to maintain the ability to move my 21" Sony tube, then I'll gladly do it. I'll continue hoping that companies will invest a lot in SED [wikipedia.org], since it has the potential to show the best of both worlds. Until then, I lament that Sony has discontinued their Trinitron tubes and hope that my current one will last until SED is viable.
I work for the newspaper for my uni where we have an office full of Dell LCD screens, except for the photo editor. He uses two large Dell CRTs (which have Sony tubes in them) for his photo editing because the LCDs just can't approach the color representation. This whole Plasma v. LCD v. DLP battle bores me as someone who values the color and contrast of a CRT, and worries me that people have forgotten what is so great about CRTs. Who cares if my 32" TV weighs 100 lbs? It's worth it in a home theater.
I'm primarily afraid that any pro-CRT views will soon be relegated to the same class of people who insist that LPs have better quality than CDs. The other /.ers who love CRTs will be the ones sitting in the back of the room when we're well into our years, saying "Back in my day, TVs weighed 500lbs, and they looked better too! Whippersnapper!". That, and I'm only 23.
Im using this 16'' crt since 1980 (Score:3, Insightful)
Its crt tube has not been replaced never since 1980, and it has NEVER seen any repair or needed any.
It has been in CONSTANT use for the time duration at hand, on average 4-6 hours a day.
Still no sign of weakness or anything. Its a phillips. was made in europe.
Considering that, and considering also i still have a crt monitor i bought with my 486-dx33 back in 1993, and considering it still works despite being not precise in display, i can say that it would be utter stupid to immediately jump on to the train of new plasma or lcd technology.
Id wait for the standard to settle, and only then jump in.
Digitimes better explains situation w/out the FUD (Score:3, Informative)
Plasmas vs LCDs, I'm rooting for Plasma (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't touch LCDs over 40". I work in retail and I hear both sides of the story. Sharp and other brands like Sony push LCDs through like mad, while Panasonic is primarily a plasma brand.
Power consumptionPlasmas and LCDs use a comparable amount of power. A 42" Panasonic plasma uses at most 350W (TH42PA60). An LCD of the same size would use about 300W at most. The difference is that the plasma only consumes 350W when it is displaying a full white picture. If it is a dark scene, it consumes less power (since the pixels are not arcing as often). LCDs consume a rather fixed rate of power since the backlight is always illuminated.
Brightness
Plasmas work by emitting light, whereas LCDs work by blocking light. Since LCDs block light, it is difficult to stop light from leaking around blocked areas. Philips' latest LCD is capable of dimming certain areas of the backlight, but the leaking is still there. Plasmas on the other hand won't get leaking. In fact, in darker scenes the detail will always prevail over an LCD.
Lifespan
Panasonic now boast that their plasmas will last 60,000 hours, which is now comparable to LCDs. Like LCDs, plasmas lose brightness over time. Panasonic's 60,000 hour figure is the length of time it takes to become half as bright. Philips, Sony, Sharp and Toshiba all boast similar figures for their LCDs and plasmas.
Price
Well, here it becomes weird. Panasonic invested a huge amount of serious dollars into a new factory which aims to pump out hundreds of thousands of plasmas each year. A 42" plasma is generally cheaper than a 42" LCD. The difference is that it is immensely expensive to create large LCDs that will not have poor constrast and brightness and remain responsive (i.e. 10ms or less). Plasmas on the other hand "prefer" to be big. It is impossible to create small plasmas because of the size of the pixel. So if the TV screen size gets bigger, the price increase from plasma to LCD will too.
My biased opinion
I work for a company which exclusively sells Fisher & Paykel, New Zealand's largest whiteware manufacturer. Until recently, F&P were Panasonic's importers in NZ, until they were big enough here to take care of themselves. They still work closely together (one of F&P's double ovens has a built in Panasonic microwave) but because of their reputation together and because of where I work, I sell more Panasonic appliances than any other brand. Panasonic's primary interest in terms of TVs is plasma, and from all the evidence that I was given from all brands saying that x was better than y, Panasonic's was the only evidence that remained consistent over the course of 3 or 4 years. It concluded for anything big (say, 42" or larger), go plasma, for anything small, go LCD.
I cannot see Plasma TVs failing. Over the last year, Panasonic's TH42PA50 plasma was the top-selling TV of any classification throughout Australia, and the top-selling 42" TV in New Zealand. The PA60 model boasts even more features for the same price.
Re:VHS vs. Betamax (Score:4, Informative)
That just isn't so. The super-high-end TV market is driven by the sports fanatics. For every one wall-sized unit sold to a movie nut, ten are sold to (American) football nuts.