Why no Plasma PC monitors

S

Sem

n00b
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
61
my dad just got a 42inch plasma for the living room and its a brilliant piece of kit

specs are

1920x1080p

100Hz Double Scan

30,000:1 Native Contrast

1,000,000:1 Dynamic Contrast

0.001 msec Response time

can you imagine a 22, 24 PC monitor with those specs
i know it will be more expensive than LCD but i dont mind paying extra for it
 
My vague understanding is that it isn't possible to make plasma screens (of a decent resolution) at a size lower than 37 inches. I don't know the technical reasons, but essentially they just can't miniaturise the components enough.
 
1: They don't scale down in pixel size well. It took a long time to get 1080 screens at 40 inches. They can't do it at 24.

2: potential for burn in

3: Dithering noise. When I look at plasmas close up there is some dithering type noise that is quite obvious, it would be obvious on monitors as you sit close.
 
Sem said:
...can you imagine a 22, 24 PC monitor with those specs
i know it will be more expensive than LCD but i dont mind paying extra for it
Click to expand...
Even better, get the 42" Plasma.
Loving mine :D
 
Also, that contrast ratio would only be possible if it was eye-searingly bright, which isn't required for a monitor.
 
First thing I thought when I read this is high potential for Burn In.

And to go off topic a bit, Are there any tv's out there that do dynamic contrast well? or is that simply a selling term.
 
Roliath said:
First thing I thought when I read this is high potential for Burn In.

And to go off topic a bit, Are there any tv's out there that do dynamic contrast well? or is that simply a selling term.
Click to expand...

CRT tv's don't need dynamic contrast. Quite a few LCD TV's and LCD computer monitors have dynamic contrast ratio, my LG W1952TQ has a 10,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio.
 
I've turned dynamic contrast off on my Plasma so am just sticking to the 30,000:1 static contrast ratio :D
I know, I know, its not really 30,000:1 but its still extremely good.

To the guy (philjohn) saying that 30,000:1 would be seeringly bright, you can decrease the light level for black thus increasing the contrast ratio, it doesnt mean that bright has to be ridiculously bright.
The quoted figures are not realistic though.
 
Plasma's have little to no input lag depending on the settings and resolution. Burn in is no more of a problem then it is for CRTs depending on how bright you run the monitor. The real reason is that plasma's have to be big because plasma's pixels cannot be shrunk to small enough size to make 1080 panels in smaller sizes.

Once my Sony GDM-FW900 CRT dies I'm getting a plasma.
 
Compared to an LCD they run pretty hot. They give off a radiant heat that probably wouldn't be too good for you at 10" away for 10 hours a day.
 
Basically it boils down to resolution. Can't squeeze lots of pixels onto a small plasma screen. Maybe in several years as the technology matures.
 
Yeah, smaller plasma monitors would be amazing if it were possible with technology today. I say that because I've been using a panasonic 42" pz80u for about 3 months as a pc monitor and it has been nothing short of brilliant. The only downside about it is the occasional scene in a movie where the dithering of pixels is glaringly obvious, but really that phenomena is infrequent at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top