Plasma monitors?

[iha]

Are they any good? My mom is getting $50k to buy new comp. stuff for her comp. lab where she works. She got all new dell comp's w/ 17" LCDs.. and also they want her to get 2 (i think 41") plasma monitors to go on the wall or something. She doesn't even think she needs the plasma monitors, but they want her to get them.

I told her to get them, and let me keep one during her summer break

 

[Elledan]

I'd go with TFT screens. Plasma screens offer no real advantages over TFT in all but the most demanding situations. Besides, plasma screens last only 5 years, while TFT screens will last longer (with perhaps a new backlight).

 

[JackieO]

When working with computers it is often better to stick with LCDs for two factually/scientifically tested reasons. Here they are 1) LCDs have a higher fill rate (high resolution vs size) meaning since you sit closer to them than say, a TV, you will be less likely to see their pixel structure. 2) They are *almost* immune to burn-in. Not totally, but almost.

As for their disadvantages, the major one is their inately high response times which can lead to smearing and tearing of fast moving images, and their way below average black levels. If you're interested in a screen larger than 40 inches for a computer monitor I highly suggest looking for front projection systems which are larger and generall less expensive than both LCDs and plasma displays.

I'm unsure what your mom will be using the displays for? You mentioned they want 2 of them to go on the wall. For what purpose - as computer displays or to dsiplay static information, what tv? What she chooses will be promarily based on what she will be using them for.

I'd go with TFT screens. Plasma screens offer no real advantages over TFT in all but the most demanding situations. Besides, plasma screens last only 5 years, while TFT screens will last longer (with perhaps a new backlight).

I don't like contradicting posts on forums but I think you may be quoting a rumor or perhaps an old (5-8 years) specification. No current plasma screen will die in 5 years without having some sort of other mechanical failure (which any display can have) even if run 24/7. Even the ones with the lowest half life ratings for their phosphors would last over 5 years run 24/7. The more generous will hit their half life at around 9 years - using normal viewing habits (~8 hours a day) a plasma made by Panasonic Fujitsu, Pioneer, Hitachi, LG, NEC, and 5-10 others will last well over 15 years before they even reach half of their beginning brightness.

Actually of all the current display technologies (DLP-LCD-CRT RP/ DLP-LCD-CRT FR/ LCD and Plasma direct view or CRT direct view) plasmas definitely have the longest maintanence free lifespans. They have no moving parts so unless the power supply or a circuit board goes bad they will run until the phosphors die, which is somewhere around 120,000 hours (15 years run 24/7)

As for their other advantages, they are purely subjective and based on each personcs perception of picture quality, so I won't go over them.

 

[Elledan]

I don't like contradicting posts on forums but I think you may be quoting a rumor or perhaps an old (5-8 years) specification. No current plasma screen will die in 5 years without having some sort of other mechanical failure (which any display can have) even if run 24/7. Even the ones with the lowest half life ratings for their phosphors would last over 5 years run 24/7. The more generous will hit their half life at around 9 years - using normal viewing habits (~8 hours a day) a plasma made by Panasonic Fujitsu, Pioneer, Hitachi, LG, NEC, and 5-10 others will last well over 15 years before they even reach half of their beginning brightness.

Actually of all the current display technologies (DLP-LCD-CRT RP/ DLP-LCD-CRT FR/ LCD and Plasma direct view or CRT direct view) plasmas definitely have the longest maintanence free lifespans. They have no moving parts so unless the power supply or a circuit board goes bad they will run until the phosphors die, which is somewhere around 120,000 hours (15 years run 24/7)

I stand corrected

However, I hope you're not trying to tell us that TFT and plasma displays use phosphors

 

[JackieO]

I stand corrected

However, I hope you're not trying to tell us that TFT and plasma displays use phosphors

Nope, just plasma's. Those are what 'burns-out' in them over a period of time. LCDs of course use backlights, which also burn-out over time. You can take that as either an advantage or disadvantage I guess. A backlight can be replaced, but it costs ~few hundred bucks and by the time you need to do it the display will likely be outdated anyway.

I'd still love to hear that iha's mom was going to use the pdp's for, though!

 

[Elledan]

Nope, just plasma's. Those are what 'burns-out' in them over a period of time. LCDs of course use backlights, which also burn-out over time. You can take that as either an advantage or disadvantage I guess. A backlight can be replaced, but it costs ~few hundred bucks and by the time you need to do it the display will likely be outdated anyway.

I'm not too familiar with how plasma displays work, as you might have realized by now thanks for explaining.

Yeah, backlights are, together with the slow 'refreshrate' and dead (sub)pixels due to a complex manufacturing process, one of the drawbacks of LCD displays. It's one of the reasons why I think that technologies like OLEDs will completely replace TFT displays within two years of the first commercially available model becoming available.

 

[BillR]

When working with computers it is often better to stick with LCDs for two factually/scientifically tested reasons. Here they are 1) LCDs have a higher fill rate (high resolution vs size) meaning since you sit closer to them than say, a TV, you will be less likely to see their pixel structure. 2) They are *almost* immune to burn-in. Not totally, but almost.

As for their disadvantages, the major one is their inately high response times which can lead to smearing and tearing of fast moving images, and their way below average black levels. If you're interested in a screen larger than 40 inches for a computer monitor I highly suggest looking for front projection systems which are larger and generall less expensive than both LCDs and plasma displays.

I'm unsure what your mom will be using the displays for? You mentioned they want 2 of them to go on the wall. For what purpose - as computer displays or to dsiplay static information, what tv? What she chooses will be promarily based on what she will be using them for.



I don't like contradicting posts on forums but I think you may be quoting a rumor or perhaps an old (5-8 years) specification. No current plasma screen will die in 5 years without having some sort of other mechanical failure (which any display can have) even if run 24/7. Even the ones with the lowest half life ratings for their phosphors would last over 5 years run 24/7. The more generous will hit their half life at around 9 years - using normal viewing habits (~8 hours a day) a plasma made by Panasonic Fujitsu, Pioneer, Hitachi, LG, NEC, and 5-10 others will last well over 15 years before they even reach half of their beginning brightness.

Actually of all the current display technologies (DLP-LCD-CRT RP/ DLP-LCD-CRT FR/ LCD and Plasma direct view or CRT direct view) plasmas definitely have the longest maintanence free lifespans. They have no moving parts so unless the power supply or a circuit board goes bad they will run until the phosphors die, which is somewhere around 120,000 hours (15 years run 24/7)

As for their other advantages, they are purely subjective and based on each personcs perception of picture quality, so I won't go over them.

Exactly right. A plasma has a “half-life” that is over twice as long as a standard CRT. Half-life is defined as when you first start to notice deterioration.

I have Plasma installations going back to pre 1995 that are still up and running just fine, although that early technology doesn’t look nearly as good as today’s sets.

I just finished an installation of a full home theater system that included (against my better judgment) a multimedia computer. Everything is fine, but after about 30 minuets or so if you go to a black screen or white screen you can see the image of the desktop has been left behind. A minor burn like that will go away, but I can’t recommend anyone use plasma as a computer monitor for more then a few moments. Read your email, get off.


Luck

BillR

 

[iha]

ok i'll let her know. she was planning on using it for a computer mostly. she already has a projection screen.

 

[JackieO]

I actually use a plasma at work all day, but as Bill mentioned, you can get image retention quite often. Luckily this goes away in a few minutes. I've still never seen an actually burnt in image on a plasma that isn't displaying static information, but why take the risk - LCD burn in is almost unheard of, so if it's for computer use only a Sharp or Sony 16:9 35+ inch LCD is the way to go.

 

[Elledan]

If a plasma and CRTs both use phosphors, then why does only the former suffer from burn-in?

 

[Happy Hopping]

If your mom lives in cities like LA, go w/ plasma, if she lives in cities that Aspen, go w/ LCD.

 

[JackieO]

If a plasma and CRTs both use phosphors, then why does only the former suffer from burn-in?

CRTs also suffer from burn in. Actually, CRT rear projection and direct view screens are probably more likely to suffer from burn-in that most new plasma's. DLP is the only technology that is completely 100% immune to burn-in. Even LCD's can burn-in, however rare it might be.

 

[Elledan]

CRTs also suffer from burn in. Actually, CRT rear projection and direct view screens are probably more likely to suffer from burn-in that most new plasma's. DLP is the only technology that is completely 100% immune to burn-in. Even LCD's can burn-in, however rare it might be.

Okay, let me rephrase the question: why does it take far shorter for a plasma dispay to burn-in a static image than any modern CRT? Phosphor is phosphor, isn't it?

 

[JackieO]

Okay, let me rephrase the question: why does it take far shorter for a plasma dispay to burn-in a static image than any modern CRT? Phosphor is phosphor, isn't it?

That was my point - it doesn't. During the first few hundred hours of a plasma's life it may develop image retention, which is non-permanent burn-in and is caused by the rapid initial decline in brightness all phosphors go through during the first few hundred hours they are used. After this initial period a plasma is as likely or unlikely to burn in as a CRT display.

 

[Elledan]

That was my point - it doesn't. During the first few hundred hours of a plasma's life it may develop image retention, which is non-permanent burn-in and is caused by the rapid initial decline in brightness all phosphors go through during the first few hundred hours they are used. After this initial period a plasma is as likely or unlikely to burn in as a CRT display.

I see. Thanks for correcting my wrongful assumption