Is Plasma TV Dead?

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The list of major manufacturers who make plasma TVs is on the wane and those that are still in the game are showing a reduced bottom line. It looks like the writing is on the wall for the future of plasma sets.

“Plasma is a great technology that is suffering,” says Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate, a display-analysis company. “It has some advantages over LCDs but also has some disadvantages as well.”
Click to expand...
 
I really like the image on plasmas better than LCDs, but the damn things are heavy as hell and I move every couple of years.
 
Aluisious said:
I really like the image on plasmas better than LCDs, but the damn things are heavy as hell and I move every couple of years.
Click to expand...

I picked up and mounted my 60" Panasonic GT30 myself... The newer Panasonics and Samsungs are slim and pretty light.
 
after buying a high end plasma it's really hard to go back to lcd. They are certainly getting a lot closer, but it's still not quite as good as a plasma for quality. It's a shame they are getting pushed out of the market.
 
Manaknight said:
after buying a high end plasma it's really hard to go back to lcd. They are certainly getting a lot closer, but it's still not quite as good as a plasma for quality. It's a shame they are getting pushed out of the market.
Click to expand...

Very true. I love how my Pioneer Elite looks over my wife's Samsung LCD, but her LCD is still very, very nice. I think Plasma is the way to go for a home theater.
 
Manaknight said:
after buying a high end plasma it's really hard to go back to lcd. They are certainly getting a lot closer, but it's still not quite as good as a plasma for quality. It's a shame they are getting pushed out of the market.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Plasmas are great, but stores like Best Buy push Samsungs and LCDs because they do get a bonus for doing so.

The new Elites are fantastic, but also much more expensive than a VT30, and really they both are very similar as being the best TVs on the market.


Here is the shootout of all the top TVs from last year. The top calibrators and industry leaders from around the country determining what the best TV of 2011 was/is. If you watch through the videos, they give great explanations of the issues of different sets and very detailed.

2011 HDTV shootout
 
As someone who might be looking to buy a set, how would some of you who have recently purchased a Plasma compare them to LED sets? My understanding is that the only difference between a LED and a LCD set is the light source.
 
That's to bad. I switched from LCD to plasma for my last few HDTV's and prefer them.
 
Showbiz said:
As someone who might be looking to buy a set, how would some of you who have recently purchased a Plasma compare them to LED sets? My understanding is that the only difference between a LED and a LCD set is the light source.
Click to expand...

They are completely different. Go wiki them.
 
I have both a LEDLCD tv, and a Plasma. The LCD is bigger, and has good picture quality, but the Plasma still has slightly better IQ. The Colors are also a bit more vibrant on the Plasma with default settings. If I tweak my LCD tv, then they are pretty damn similar.
 
Plasma, in the long run has a better technical and cost trajectory than LCD. Actually, I believe right now Plasma has passed LCD on cost. In terms of power usage, plasma is within striking distance. But as long as people favor thin and sexy (and willing to pay for it)..the superior picture that is plasma will not gain strong traction.
 
Plasma got a bad name for it's early years when it had a shorter life-span and burn-ins.
Even tho the technology has evolved , it still carries a stigma.

I myself went DLP rear projection and love the image quality. Keeping it running will cost more
than buying a new lcd .
I will probably will retire my dlp when i need to change the lamp + lightengine + ballast.
 
I have two Samsung plasma sets an older 42 and a new larger 51. The new one weighs a fraction of the old and is less than half as think. Both where purchased as boxing days specials because consumers seem to favour LCD.

I have a real hard time with the refresh and picture on LCD I find plasma feels more natural.
 
I have shied away from Plasmas for fear of burn ins, and that every plasma I see is 720p it seems.

It should be noted that I looked at it for use mainly hooked up as a computer monitor most of the time, and thus, would have the same image it for long periods of time.
 
The plasma is dying/dead stories have been a cliche that show up at least one if not several times a year but this time I think this has some real ring of truth to it.

Too bad. It's going to take forever for OLED or something else to really get stabilized to move past where we're at now.

The only complaint I have with my Pioneer 111FD is it's a friggin' furnace. There's no two ways about it.

Panasonic deserves the gold medal for giving it the old boy scout try but the fiscal numbers and overall reality are what they are regardless of how or why which have been debated and argued billions of times all over AV forums and even here so I won't dredge it all up yet again. It's moot anyways.
 
my lg plasma is great picture wise, pretty thin as well. pity about the glossy screen, its the only thing i dont like about it.

sounds like vhs vs betamax all over again.
 
I got a very highly rated toshiba LCD this spring for the bedroom. Its still a POS compared to our middle of the road rated panasonic plasma from 4 years ago in the living room. The only thing predicted more than the death of plasma is the death of PC gaming. IMO both are alive and well.
 
First Edison's, noe plasmas? What am I supposed to illuminate a home with that wont burn a whole in my skull?
 
Don't care if it's dying, my next TV is going to be a plasma. I'm just waiting on the 55" VT50 from Panasonic to launch.
 
Between the Panasonic G15 I have and the Panasonic IPS Alpha based unit I have the G15 is hands down a better set. It sucked the day Pioneer exited the Plasma market, and the day Panasonic does it will be worse (not because Panasonic makes a better set...they don't).
 
Showbiz said:
As someone who might be looking to buy a set, how would some of you who have recently purchased a Plasma compare them to LED sets? My understanding is that the only difference between a LED and a LCD set is the light source.
Click to expand...

Aluisious said:
They are completely different. Go wiki them.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should follow your own advice. Showbiz was exactly right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED-backlit_LCD_display

TheWiki said:
An LED-backlit LCD is a flat panel display that uses LED backlighting instead of the cold cathode fluorescent (CCFL) backlighting used in most other LCDs.
Click to expand...
 
Showbiz said:
As someone who might be looking to buy a set, how would some of you who have recently purchased a Plasma compare them to LED sets? My understanding is that the only difference between a LED and a LCD set is the light source.
Click to expand...
Two utterly different technologies.

If you like to watch lots of moves, and want the best picture quality, then plasma is the way to go. You need a darker room, (curtains) to get the best from a plasma.

If you want to watch lots of sports, or play video / computer games on your TV, or watch TV in a bright room, then I would recommend an LED TV.

I bought a Panasonic 55" Plasma (TCP55ST30) for half price from Fry's back in November 2011, and couldn't be happier. List was $1,800, I paid $900.
 
Trepidati0n said:
Plasma, in the long run has a better technical and cost trajectory than LCD. Actually, I believe right now Plasma has passed LCD on cost. In terms of power usage, plasma is within striking distance. But as long as people favor thin and sexy (and willing to pay for it)..the superior picture that is plasma will not gain strong traction.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression (and I could be wrong, as I remember reading/hearing this along time ago) that Plasma's biggest problem was its relatively short life span, particularly considering the expense.
 
I thought about getting a plasma about 6 months ago when I needed a new tv, but after reading a ton of reviews decided against it. Mostly because they are the absolute best TV picture wise the first couple years. After that the colors aren't any better than a descent LCD, but as always your mileage may vary and you won't know until the plasma TV starts to degrade when it will start. That and I wasn't thrilled with Plasma's monster power usage; which is no b iggie in the winter, but in the summer can really start costing you when you have to run the A/C to keep the thing from baking you.
 
If this is true, it is a very sad day. My Samsung 2011 series plasma looks better than my mothers 9000 series LED (which cost literally 3 x as much). Although the brightness still is a little lackluster on plasma even with the huge steps they have taken, the black levels and PQ is still much better. I do see quite a bit of temporary image retention on my samsung (static images when gaming), but my Panny that is hooked up to an HTPC has literally none.

With the fact that plasma technology has gotten to the point where it is thinner than traditional LCD, it is a bit confusing why it hasn't taken off more. Misinformation or implanted misconceptions about the technology would be my guess. Looks like I'll be in the market for a new TV this summer if this is true. I would hate to be forced to buy a LCD.
 
Something people aren't mentioning is that for gaming a pany plasma is the best HDTV you can get. Sharps in Vyper Mode are about as good but you lose a lot of PQ doing so. With a Pany plasma you get 20ms or less input delay without any loss in PQ. In fact, you get the best PQ possible with the lowest input lag possible of any display on the market. This is ofc talking about console gaming, ofc.

Yet, as I understand it, OLED panels will trump plasmas on all fronts in regards to gaming performance. It might take a few iterations to surpass it in terms of PQ but considering most gamers are using uncalibrated LCDs I doubt that will matter much to consumers.
 
I purchased my KURO in 2010 but am still blown away every time I turn it on.

I have a dream. And that dream is the revival of the KURO brand with OLED technology.
 
This is how inferior technologies win in the market place.
Same with Beta vs VHS. Beta has vastly superior video quality. VHS was cheaper and offered slower recording speeds (further degrading the quality) where as Beta stuck to the high quality fast speeds because the main concern was video quality. Secondly Sony owned Beta and was reluctant to license it out to other electronics manufacturers. JVC own VHS and licensed it out early on.
And before anyone says "VHS won because of porn"; that is a urban myth. Most video rental shops started with Beta movies and videos because the studios adapted the format based on the superior video quality. But the tide turned when more people bought VHS because they were cheaper. Beta was dropped soon after. The bottom line was VHS was cheaper thus more easily accessible to the public.
LCD is cheaper and available to more people because of it.
Honestly if Plasma displays were more scaleable; they would make a huge impact for computer monitors where LCDs rule. If you want accurate color and black levels, you have to plunk down extra $$$ for a high end IPS panel LCD and they STILL would not be as good as a Plasma display.
But I really think OLED promises to be the display of the future when the manufacturing of the "plastic panel" peaks. The cost of these should be much cheaper than LCD in the long run.
 
My friend has a 57" Samsung Plasma and it is the best looking TV I have seen, even being 2 years old now.
 
Until a 60" OLED is $899 like Panasoinc plasmas were before the superbowl there will be a market for them.

LCD's still cannot compete with plasma once you are in the 50" range becasue for the amount of money you would spend on a decent plasma a comparable LCD will cost more because of the needed backlighting tweaks to get comparable black levels and motion resolution.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
This is how inferior technologies win in the market place.
Same with Beta vs VHS. Beta has vastly superior video quality. VHS was cheaper and offered slower recording speeds (further degrading the quality) where as Beta stuck to the high quality fast speeds because the main concern was video quality. Secondly Sony owned Beta and was reluctant to license it out to other electronics manufacturers. JVC own VHS and licensed it out early on.
And before anyone says "VHS won because of porn"; that is a urban myth. Most video rental shops started with Beta movies and videos because the studios adapted the format based on the superior video quality. But the tide turned when more people bought VHS because they were cheaper. Beta was dropped soon after. The bottom line was VHS was cheaper thus more easily accessible to the public.
LCD is cheaper and available to more people because of it.
Honestly if Plasma displays were more scaleable; they would make a huge impact for computer monitors where LCDs rule. If you want accurate color and black levels, you have to plunk down extra $$$ for a high end IPS panel LCD and they STILL would not be as good as a Plasma display.
But I really think OLED promises to be the display of the future when the manufacturing of the "plastic panel" peaks. The cost of these should be much cheaper than LCD in the long run.
Click to expand...

Partially agree, but I think it's a little disingenuous to say Plasma is superior across the board. It isn't. It has superior contrast ratios and viewing angles. It has inferior brightness, power consumption and costs more.

It is probably the best technology for movie buffs who have a good dark room to watch movies in and don't mind spending the money on TV's for small increases in quality.

The market has - however - proven that these people - while an important niche - are not the majority of the market.

Most people want something that's low cost, and can go in their family room and not be bothered in direct sunlight. Many don't even notice the differences in contrast ratios or viewing angles.

I think this is a case of a more suitable technology, a more adaptable technology winning. Just like in Evolution. The dinosaurs were huge and ferocious hunters, but they aren't with us anymore.
 
Don't agree with your "costs more" analysis. They are significantly cheaper than they were before 2-3 years ago, when there was a price premium difference.

Now they are as competitive or cheaper than LCD in some cases.

in 2010, we had purchased the high end Panasonic plasma for 1100 for a 50". That's a steal at that price.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038719619 said:
I was under the impression (and I could be wrong, as I remember reading/hearing this along time ago) that Plasma's biggest problem was its relatively short life span, particularly considering the expense.
Click to expand...

Like the deathstar drives, some old stories just don't die out and keep getting applied.

What killed plasmas was heat...a lot of heat actually. I mean these fuckers could cook you an egg originally. However, the technology became a ton more efficient over the past few years and thus the whole "life argument" became moot.
 
wiseoracle said:
Don't agree with your "costs more" analysis. They are significantly cheaper than they were before 2-3 years ago, when there was a price premium difference.

Now they are as competitive or cheaper than LCD in some cases.

in 2010, we had purchased the high end Panasonic plasma for 1100 for a 50". That's a steal at that price.
Click to expand...

The PN51D7000 that my brother just purchased was $1400. The equivilent PQ LED was over $2000. I got my 50" Panny GT (in 2010) for $1100 on a sale. Plasma has been a cheaper solution than LCD/LED for years if comparing apples to apples.
 
Plasma has great blacks but what fans will never tell you is that all plasmas dim the screen aggressively based on white (or near white) content. You start to see the effects at like 10% white pixels.
 
I use my monitor for color work so I know a little something about PS and black levels. I waited for the LCD problems with refresh and other issues to get fixed and my NEC PA241W it 99% as good as my crt I used for the same work, so I'm going to have believe that a good LCD is going to have as good as black levels as a plasma your just going to have to set the brightness levels to about 165 -180cd/m2 and play a lot more than you would for a pva monitor. Though PVA are supposed to have good black levels as well. I don't think it is a led since NEC makes a point about another of their monitors being LED so it was just a matter of time for the tech to get better.
 
Plasmas aren't nearly as bright
They have that darn reflective screen
The power supplies are pushed harder to produce the voltage necessary to drive them. And today's power supplies are nothing to brag about in quality.
They are not as price competitive
But they do have a better image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top