Pix was right - Plasma is.....

[Ajani]

Looks like Pix was right :yikes:

OK, not really.... but I'm sure he'll rejoice at the news that Vizio is getting out of the plasma business:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/no_more_vizio_plasma/

[nightflier]

Good. More sales for Panasonic.

[N. Abstentia]

No more Pioneer plasmas either. That leaves 2 or 3 plasma makers left.

[pixelthis]

Read Ajanis link, it talks about the overwhelming popularity of LCD.
This was actually an easy prediction to make, and I WAS SOMEWHAT
surprized at the controversy it stirred.
The only "advantage " plasma is a slightly better black level, and LED blacklighting
will all but eliminate that.
ON THE LINK BELOW there is an article about pioneer's decision to get out of plasma,
all oldnews, but what is informative are the responses.
Most cited price as not worth it, the premium for the kuro seemed unjustified.
This is one reason I have kept to more inexpensive monitors lately, there is such a flux
in form factors that it doesnt seem wise to buy an expensive set and wind up with a
"white elephant".
But the main thing to consider is...only three manufacturers left.
When Sony refused the plasma form factor I figured that was it, their marketing
wonks tend to be pretty spot on.
I would have bet even money six months ago that the Panny plasma plant will never
be online, or just be converted to LCD.
Panny is the ONLY major manufacturer of plasma now.
Which is one reason that plasma is

DEAD


You'll learn to listen to old pix.:1:

http://news.cnet.com/audiophiliac/?tag=blgs.list

[Woochifer]

Considering that they compete solely on price, it's no surprise. Panasonic has already begun to match or undercut Vizio's plasma pricing (with Samsung and LG not far behind), while outperforming them and offering superior warranty support and customer service. If Vizio cannot undercut a major brand on price, then they got nothing else to offer a customer. The price points on LCD remain higher, so Vizio has more room to try and undercut the major brands in that space. But, as the price points drop further on the LCD side, Vizio is in a progressively tougher spot, as Samsung, Sony, and Sharp have been gaining market share at Vizio's expense.

[Feanor]

Isn't the LCD/Plasma duel actually like a Beta/VHS, DVD-A/SACD, HD-DVD/Blu-ray format war? Sooner of later the sales of one take a sufficient lead that the other closes up shop.

Obviously LCD now has a strong lead. Could it be the the recession will be the coup de grāce for plasma?

[pixelthis]

Isn't the LCD/Plasma duel actually like a Beta/VHS, DVD-A/SACD, HD-DVD/Blu-ray format war? Sooner of later the sales of one take a sufficient lead that the other closes up shop.

Obviously LCD now has a strong lead. Could it be the the recession will be the coup de grāce for plasma?

EXACTLY.
I looked at a superiour beta machine in the early eighties and bought a RCA VHS
machine, because the tide was already turning.
A lot of plasma fanboys talk about a "better" pic, but that is in their minds only.
THE "recession"(greater depression) is going to speed things up a great deal.
What was going to take three years or so will now only take one or two.:1:

[Mr Peabody]

It is a bad thing that Pioneer will no longer make plasma. Sure they were more expensive but the picture quality was unmatched. Panasonic don't even compare. This is just another sad example of the majority of consumers not caring about quality and Pioneer doesn't care to or can't afford to continue their line as a nitch. Pioneer owners do not have a "white elephant" either, what they have is a fine display that will serve them for years to come. If no one makes another plasma after today doesn't have one ounce of effect on one in somebody's living room. It's not like it will quit working because they stopped producing more.

I look at plasma vs LCD more like tubes vs solid state. It's just two different approaches to the same task. Not so much a format war. Both could exist just fine. It's just the price of LCD dropped dramatically and I believe the "burn in" scare for plasma is hotter now than when plasma first begun for some reason. I personally would have strongly considered plasma for a replacement of my DLP down the road and still will if it's here. And, if I could have afforded one in the size I need, Pioneer would have been the #1 choice.

[Mr Peabody]

Oh, and Ajani, you are on the penalty bench for encouraging Pix. If this comes to be we'll never hear the end of it.

[pixelthis]

It is a bad thing that Pioneer will no longer make plasma. Sure they were more expensive but the picture quality was unmatched. Panasonic don't even compare. This is just another sad example of the majority of consumers not caring about quality and Pioneer doesn't care to or can't afford to continue their line as a nitch. Pioneer owners do not have a "white elephant" either, what they have is a fine display that will serve them for years to come. If no one makes another plasma after today doesn't have one ounce of effect on one in somebody's living room. It's not like it will quit working because they stopped producing more.

I look at plasma vs LCD more like tubes vs solid state. It's just two different approaches to the same task. Not so much a format war. Both could exist just fine. It's just the price of LCD dropped dramatically and I believe the "burn in" scare for plasma is hotter now than when plasma first begun for some reason. I personally would have strongly considered plasma for a replacement of my DLP down the road and still will if it's here. And, if I could have afforded one in the size I need, Pioneer would have been the #1 choice.


ACTUALLY THEY CANT.
Having two ways to do something is incrtedibly wastefull.
UNLESS its a boutique product like a tube amp, made for the slightly eccentric out there.
When I said at first that "plasma is dead" I only meant that joe six had made his decision,
and like eight track tape and betamax, plasmas days are numbered.
AND Ajani isnt "encouraging" me, just coming to his senses.:1:

[Mr Peabody]

What is that, a hot air balloon or Pix's head?!

What are you talking about? It's not wasteful, it's no more different than having gas or electric dryer or stove, diesel or gas, cotton or polyester, condom or the pill, shave with electric or blade, carpet or tile, coffee or tea, white or wheat, plasma or LCD, sort of get the point, it's a choice, an option, different strokes.

[hermanv]

All plasma will soon be gone except maybe boutique stuff:

Plasma has:
Burn in issues - not bad anymore, but still present.
Problems above 6,000 foot altitude - Voltage too high with arc over problems.
Finite life.
A picture that dims a little every year.
A problem with the best colors due to limited supply of rare earth phosphors.
Excessive power consumption - Some states are considering banning the technology outright.
Will never be cheap or light, too much glass.

I still love my LED DLP, best colors of all, bright, dirt cheap ($989 includes shipping for 56" Samsung on line). It has no moving parts, no fan. I don't think 120Hz sets are out yet, but screen draw time is so fast, 120Hz or faster refresh is a non issue.

[Mr Peabody]

Well, in light of all that, maybe plasma would move down my list considerable. But my Tosh DLP is doing fine so I don't expect to have to cross that bridge of replacement for some time.

How significant is the dimming of plasma? I hadn't heard that before. I always heard plasma was a brighter picture.

Do the LED DLP still use light bulbs?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Mr. P, no they don't use light bulbs and no color wheel either. I get the inclination sometimes to buy an LED DLP (Employee Purchase going on at work right now) for use in my bedroom, but it's just not feasible.

[hermanv]

Well, in light of all that, maybe plasma would move down my list considerable. But my Tosh DLP is doing fine so I don't expect to have to cross that bridge of replacement for some time.

How significant is the dimming of plasma? I hadn't heard that before. I always heard plasma was a brighter picture.

Do the LED DLP still use light bulbs?The Plasma sets dimming varies, one older model lost almost 50% of light output in 5 years. I think the new ones are probably better, but the effect is due to trace elements left in an imperfect vacuum coating the inside of the plasma glass screen with a brownish haze. It is impossible to reduce the effect to zero.

[Mr Peabody]

Wow, that is definitely a deal breaker. I require a bright picture. That would be crazy to spend that much money on a product you know is going down hill fast.

[hermanv]

I know LCD displays "wear out" losing contrast over a many year period. We just discussed plasma, what I don't know is how DLP sets wear out. A web search on LCD life claims near infinite panel life. This has not been my experience, my old black and white LCD has noticeable loss of contrast in one year. Of course a number of different LCD technologies exist and it isn't safe to generalize too much.

I did a search and modern plasma sets deteriorate to 1/2 brightness in about 60,000 hours. If it were linear (unlikely), that would mean 10% loss of brightness in 4 years with 4 hours of TV per day. More likely for brightness is a faster fade when new, with the effect slowing down with time.

On DLP life, data is hard to find, everyone is focused on the life of the older projector bulbs or color wheels which was not very good. Reportedly TI has had a movable mirror IC (The heart of a DLP process) running since it's invention with no broken mirror hinges out of a million mirrors to date. LEDs also lose some light output with time, but it is very little and the colors do not change at all with age.

So all else being equal, the DLP set should maintain a bright picture longer than the other technologies. I do not know the replacement cost for any of the three LED (Red, Green and Blue) that power the light beam on a DLP set, they might be sold only in sets of three. Or they may not be available at all forcing a replacement of the whole TV if one fails.

I haven't ever seen a post of DLP LED failure, it's probably safe to assume it's a rare occurance.

[Woochifer]

All plasma will soon be gone except maybe boutique stuff:

Plasma has:
Burn in issues - not bad anymore, but still present.
Problems above 6,000 foot altitude - Voltage too high with arc over problems.
Finite life.
A picture that dims a little every year.
A problem with the best colors due to limited supply of rare earth phosphors.
Excessive power consumption - Some states are considering banning the technology outright.
Will never be cheap or light, too much glass.

I still love my LED DLP, best colors of all, bright, dirt cheap ($989 includes shipping for 56" Samsung on line). It has no moving parts, no fan. I don't think 120Hz sets are out yet, but screen draw time is so fast, 120Hz or faster refresh is a non issue.

You're passing off quite a bit of old info here. The newer plasma sets are rated for 100,000 hours, which is nearly double what they were rated for just two years ago. And the three-year failure rate on plasma sets are now down to 1% to 5%, depending on the brand, which IIRC is a lot lower than the range for RPTVs and the plasma sets made just a few years ago.

I don't know where you talk about never being "cheap or light" given that plasma has maintained a consistent price advantage over LCD. And with regard to energy consumption, the latest Panasonic sets that were introduced at CES lower the energy consumption by 33% to more than 50%, while doubling the maximum light output on their high end model. Other models from Samsung and LG are expected to follow suit as everybody introduces thinner plasma panels.

Talking about something being "gone," I would expect that DLP RPTVs' demise will occur first, considering that it's basically Samsung and Mitsubishi carrying the entire market now. Unlike plasma, which had year-to-year growth rate of about 30% last quarter, the DLP RPTV market has been shrinking rather rapidly.


The Plasma sets dimming varies, one older model lost almost 50% of light output in 5 years. I think the new ones are probably better, but the effect is due to trace elements left in an imperfect vacuum coating the inside of the plasma glass screen with a brownish haze. It is impossible to reduce the effect to zero.

How long ago was this plasma model that you're referring to introduced? Anything from more than five years ago is a far cry from what the more recent plasma sets are doing. My parents' set is four years old, and I haven't even had to change any of the calibration settings, which means that any loss of light output is beyond the range of the calibration disc I use.

[E-Stat]

The only "advantage " plasma is a slightly better black level...
That's not exactly correct. Plasmas also excelled at continuous motion where some LCD displays lag. Having said that, I have three LCDs along with the big DLP. You'll be pleased that two of them are Vizios. :)

rw

[hermanv]

You're passing off quite a bit of old info here. The newer plasma sets are rated for 100,000 hours, which is nearly double what they were rated for just two years ago. And the three-year failure rate on plasma sets are now down to 1% to 5%, depending on the brand, which IIRC is a lot lower than the range for RPTVs and the plasma sets made just a few years ago.Sure just change the definition of how much light output reduction is acceptable and bingo - longer life. It's a marketing game, just change the rules and better numbers pop-out. How about a link to a site that isn't selling plasma TVs? The technology is newer and better, but no breakthroughs, plasma has it's problems.


I don't know where you talk about never being "cheap or light" given that plasma has maintained a consistent price advantage over LCD. And with regard to energy consumption, the latest Panasonic sets that were introduced at CES lower the energy consumption by 33% to more than 50%, while doubling the maximum light output on their high end model. Other models from Samsung and LG are expected to follow suit as everybody introduces thinner plasma panels.

From the following site: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=130514

Consider that a 42-inch plasma set can consume more electricity than a full-size refrigerator -- even when that TV is used only a few hours a day. Powering a fancy TV and full-on entertainment system -- with set-top boxes, game consoles, speakers, DVDs and digital video recorders -- can add nearly $200 to a family's annual energy bill.

And consider http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/energy-hog-plasma-tvs-getting-banned-from-eu.php

California isn't the only place taking energy-sucking Plasma TVs off the store shelves. The European Union is also instituting a ban on plasma TVs that are on the higher end of energy consumption.

Plasma screens are made of glass, neither a cheap or light material. Due to the need to hold a vacuum (that pesky life thing) other materials such as plastic seem very unlikely. LCD dominate at 40" and smaller. New plants are being brought online to make larger LCD available for cheap. ps. I am not an LCD fan, still don't like the colors and the screen door effect while better is still an issue at least for me.


Talking about something being "gone," I would expect that DLP RPTVs' demise will occur first, considering that it's basically Samsung and Mitsubishi carrying the entire market now. Unlike plasma, which had year-to-year growth rate of about 30% last quarter, the DLP RPTV market has been shrinking rather rapidly.. All true, but you can still buy gas guzzling V8 cars from Detroit, ask them how that's coming along. What I mean is that any given technology is rarely adopted because it's best, but usually because how it's pushed by money


How long ago was this plasma model that you're referring to introduced? Anything from more than five years ago is a far cry from what the more recent plasma sets are doing. My parents' set is four years old, and I haven't even had to change any of the calibration settings, which means that any loss of light output is beyond the range of the calibration disc I use.The bans will probably go into effect this year, a quick internet search talks about this problem as late as January 2009. I don't think I'm the one out of date here. They are talking about older less efficient plasma sets, but the situation was so bad a ban is being considered. It will take much more than 33% or 50% reduction in power to fix this issue.

[pixelthis]

Sure just change the definition of how much light output reduction is acceptable and bingo - longer life. It's a marketing game, just change the rules and better numbers pop-out. How about a link to a site that isn't selling plasma TVs? The technology is newer and better, but no breakthroughs, plasma has it's problems.



From the following site: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=130514

Consider that a 42-inch plasma set can consume more electricity than a full-size refrigerator -- even when that TV is used only a few hours a day. Powering a fancy TV and full-on entertainment system -- with set-top boxes, game consoles, speakers, DVDs and digital video recorders -- can add nearly $200 to a family's annual energy bill.

And consider http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/energy-hog-plasma-tvs-getting-banned-from-eu.php

California isn't the only place taking energy-sucking Plasma TVs off the store shelves. The European Union is also instituting a ban on plasma TVs that are on the higher end of energy consumption.

Plasma screens are made of glass, neither a cheap or light material. Due to the need to hold a vacuum (that pesky life thing) other materials such as plastic seem very unlikely. LCD dominate at 40" and smaller. New plants are being brought online to make larger LCD available for cheap. ps. I am not an LCD fan, still don't like the colors and the screen door effect while better is still an issue at least for me.

All true, but you can still buy gas guzzling V8 cars from Detroit, ask them how that's coming along. What I mean is that any given technology is rarely adopted because it's best, but usually because how it's pushed by money

The bans will probably go into effect this year, a quick internet search talks about this problem as late as January 2009. I don't think I'm the one out of date here. They are talking about older less efficient plasma sets, but the situation was so bad a ban is being considered. It will take much more than 33% or 50% reduction in power to fix this issue.

I have been making most of these arguments for months to no avail.
MAYBE your engineering degree will have more clout than my (now obsolete) tech degree.
BUT I kinda doubt it, it was like when I STATED the obvious about HD DISC
being "dead" and fanboys actually argued about it.
I have a theory, that the phosper based color is more "familar" and therefore more pleasing
because it more resembles a CRT, therefore a plasma looks like a tv is "supposed"
to look.
But that is just an idea.
Plasma is dimmer, uses more energy, doesnt last as long(despite wooches BS 100,000
hour claim, which is really just panasonic propaganda) and is really not nessesary.
It is dead basically:1:

[pixelthis]

What is that, a hot air balloon or Pix's head?!

What are you talking about? It's not wasteful, it's no more different than having gas or electric dryer or stove, diesel or gas, cotton or polyester, condom or the pill, shave with electric or blade, carpet or tile, coffee or tea, white or wheat, plasma or LCD, sort of get the point, it's a choice, an option, different strokes.

Not really.
None of the things you mentioned are relevant.
Electric stoves and gas models can be built in the same factory.
Razors are the same cheap disposable commodity as everything else diaposable.
White or wheat? Can be done in the same bakery.
Plasma and LCD are two completely different animals.
Plasma requires delicate glass envelopes, and various other types of tech not even close to LCD.
Likewise LCD factories could'nt make plasma at all, be cheaper just to build a new factory.
AS FEWER AND FEWER plasmas are sold it will make less and less sense to make them.
And the greenies are scum, a large part of our problems, and as a libertarian I oppose
any effort to "ban" a product for any reason other than safety, but these bans are
a reality, and will affect plasma.
And even if plasma surrives the obstacles OLED and LED backlit LCD will do it in.
Never mind my main objection to it.
Mainly that its a stoopid way to display a picture.
LED gets rid of a lot of the gimcrackery of DLP, the LED DLP I saw at Circuit City
was a real bright spot, a beautiful large bright picture, in an extremely thin set.
DLP actually has a better chance of making it than Plasma, if for no other reason than front display projectors.:1:

[GMichael]

I guess that we'll all just have to get used to an inferior picture.

[hermanv]

I guess that we'll all just have to get used to an inferior picture.For early "micro-displays" (ones where each pixel is addressable) plasma was clearly king. Decent blacks and good colors if you avoided the cheap plasmas. Things have changed.

I don't know why the DLP has lost popularity, very CRT like pixels with no visible borders no matter how close you looked. With the LED light sources good life and the best color rendition (better than the HDTV spec) enough so that a new color format was created currently only used to view digital camera pictures. (The entire HDTV color triangle fits inside the color triangle of the LED DLP sets, something no LCD, plasma or any other phosphor based technology can touch).

The only drawback I can find is the thickness preventing the wall mounting, why the 61" Samsung is a whole 14 1/2 inches deep about the same as the old 19" CRT. Maybe they're too cheap, leading you to believe it's an inferior technology. With careful shopping a 61" is about $1,200 and I think I saw a 73" for $1,600.

Speaking of wall hanging, why do people put them so high on the walls? Yes that's where paintings go, but you don't stare at a painting for 2 hours non-stop. A case where appearance trumps usability and that might be the whole plasma story. Maybe since you're about to do serious damage to your wallet a sore neck balances things out? :D :D

[Duds]

HAHA!! yeah but who cares as long as it uses less energy, and is so friggin bright that any whites completely wash out the picture, oh and nevermind that motion blur, who cares if sports and any movie with fast motion is blurry?!?!?


I guess that we'll all just have to get used to an inferior picture.

[GMichael]

For early "micro-displays" (ones where each pixel is addressable) plasma was clearly king. Decent blacks and good colors if you avoided the cheap plasmas. Things have changed.

I don't know why the DLP has lost popularity, very CRT like pixels with no visible borders no matter how close you looked. With the LED light sources good life and the best color rendition (better than the HDTV spec) enough so that a new color format was created currently only used to view digital camera pictures. (The entire HDTV color triangle fits inside the color triangle of the LED DLP sets, something no LCD, plasma or any other phosphor based technology can touch).

The only drawback I can find is the thickness preventing the wall mounting, why the 61" Samsung is a whole 14 1/2 inches deep about the same as the old 19" CRT. Maybe they're too cheap, leading you to believe it's an inferior technology. With careful shopping a 61" is about $1,200 and I think I saw a 73" for $1,600.

Speaking of wall hanging, why do people put them so high on the walls? Yes that's where paintings go, but you don't stare at a painting for 2 hours non-stop. A case where appearance trumps usability and that might be the whole plasma story. Maybe since you're about to do serious damage to your wallet a sore neck balances things out? :D :D

I was speaking of LCD. DLP looks great IMO.

Maybe more people are leaning way back in their recliners?

[Duds]

I couldn't agree more about hanging them so high, I just dont get it either.

There's no way in hell i could used to watching a tv over the fire place at about 6 feet off the ground, lol


For early "micro-displays" (ones where each pixel is addressable) plasma was clearly king. Decent blacks and good colors if you avoided the cheap plasmas. Things have changed.

I don't know why the DLP has lost popularity, very CRT like pixels with no visible borders no matter how close you looked. With the LED light sources good life and the best color rendition (better than the HDTV spec) enough so that a new color format was created currently only used to view digital camera pictures. (The entire HDTV color triangle fits inside the color triangle of the LED DLP sets, something no LCD, plasma or any other phosphor based technology can touch).

The only drawback I can find is the thickness preventing the wall mounting, why the 61" Samsung is a whole 14 1/2 inches deep about the same as the old 19" CRT. Maybe they're too cheap, leading you to believe it's an inferior technology. With careful shopping a 61" is about $1,200 and I think I saw a 73" for $1,600.

Speaking of wall hanging, why do people put them so high on the walls? Yes that's where paintings go, but you don't stare at a painting for 2 hours non-stop. A case where appearance trumps usability and that might be the whole plasma story. Maybe since you're about to do serious damage to your wallet a sore neck balances things out? :D :D

[GMichael]

I couldn't agree more about hanging them so high, I just dont get it either.

There's no way in hell i could used to watching a tv over the fire place at about 6 feet off the ground, lol

The top of my screen is only about a foot from the celing.

The bottom isn't all that far from the floor either though.

[Groundbeef]

Speaking of wall hanging, why do people put them so high on the walls? Yes that's where paintings go, but you don't stare at a painting for 2 hours non-stop. A case where appearance trumps usability and that might be the whole plasma story. Maybe since you're about to do serious damage to your wallet a sore neck balances things out? :D :D

I have the Plasma in the basement hung about 4.5' off the floor. The couches are about 1.5' off the floor. So, the bottom of the TV is only has high as 3' off the floor if we were sitting on the floor.

That doesn't seem all that high really. And, as we are sitting on a really huge lounging couch with really cozy ottman's, it's quite relaxing to recline while watching.

I've not had a sore neck yet.

[Ajani]

The only drawback I can find is the thickness preventing the wall mounting, why the 61" Samsung is a whole 14 1/2 inches deep about the same as the old 19" CRT.

That one drawback is the reason LCD Projection and DLP were never more than stop gap measures on the way to flat panel sets for most consumers... The simple truth is that people want flat wall mountable TVs (usually for aesthetic reasons)... A 52 inch flat panel mounted on a wall doesn't dominate a room anywhere near the way an old fashioned 52 inch projection TV would (eating up at least 2 feet of room space)...

DLP needs to be thin and wall mountable to compete with LCD and Plasma...

[hermanv]

HAHA!! yeah but who cares as long as it uses less energy, and is so friggin bright that any whites completely wash out the picture, oh and nevermind that motion blur, who cares if sports and any movie with fast motion is blurry?!?!?My LED DLP was the first set I owned where turning up the light level didn't also mean loss of sharpness. I see no sign of white compression. Some broadcasters do feel a need to mess with the blacks usually with bad results.

Without the color wheel (which limited update rates because of a finite RPM) DLP has the fastest update per pixel in the business although the minimum update size is one row. I see only MPEG limitations due to satellite bandwidth (I don't own a Blu-Ray player) With my upconverting Oppo, ordinary DVD has the smoothest pan of any home technology I've seen. All the current Samsung DLP sets display at 120Hz..

Maybe you haven't seen the LED based sets at their best: brightest, smoothest, best colors and lowest price, damn I'm so convinced I've amazed myself :D :D :D.

[Mr Peabody]

GM's TV goes floor to ceiling because he lives in the dog house.

[pixelthis]

HAHA!! yeah but who cares as long as it uses less energy, and is so friggin bright that any whites completely wash out the picture, oh and nevermind that motion blur, who cares if sports and any movie with fast motion is blurry?!?!?


The only thing "blurry" are your comprehension skills.:1:

[pixelthis]

That one drawback is the reason LCD Projection and DLP were never more than stop gap measures on the way to flat panel sets for most consumers... The simple truth is that people want flat wall mountable TVs (usually for aesthetic reasons)... A 52 inch flat panel mounted on a wall doesn't dominate a room anywhere near the way an old fashioned 52 inch projection TV would (eating up at least 2 feet of room space)...

DLP needs to be thin and wall mountable to compete with LCD and Plasma...


Even that wont work.
JVC came out with a "wall mountable" version of their D-ILA, basically a marketing nightmare.
It was thin but still about 8" thick, had geometric distortion and was expensive.
But it can be done.
As for hanging panels high mine is on a pole about 4.5" off the ground, looks great.
But a friend likes his tv high up, has his samsung over his mantle tilted down, watches
it from a reclining position.
Its not that bad but not my cup of joe...:1:

[Duds]

I can comprehend the numerous reviews out there that say the tv I bought pretty much smokes everything out there except for it's big brother Eilte models. :)




The only thing "blurry" are your comprehension skills.:1:

[Rich-n-Texas]

That one drawback is the reason LCD Projection and DLP were never more than stop gap measures on the way to flat panel sets for most consumers... The simple truth is that people want flat wall mountable TVs (usually for aesthetic reasons)... A 52 inch flat panel mounted on a wall doesn't dominate a room anywhere near the way an old fashioned 52 inch projection TV would (eating up at least 2 feet of room space)...

DLP needs to be thin and wall mountable to compete with LCD and Plasma...
Not in my book. I don't recall any TV that I watched and owned growing up being mounted on the wall. You people are once again making assumptions that all people want to mount their TV's on the wall. My 57" DLP sits on a piece of furniture that serves two purposes, and I assume you know what they are.

[Duds]

I agree. I bought a nice stand that matches my coffee and end tables for my new plasma. I just dont see the big deal about mounting them on a wall.


Not in my book. I don't recall any TV that I watched and owned growing up being mounted on the wall. You people are once again making assumptions that all people want to mount their TV's on the wall. My 57" DLP sits on a piece of furniture that serves two purposes, and I assume you know what they are.

[GMichael]

GM's TV goes floor to ceiling because he lives in the dog house.

Yeah, but WHAT a dog house it is!:cornut:

[Ajani]

Not in my book. I don't recall any TV that I watched and owned growing up being mounted on the wall. You people are once again making assumptions that all people want to mount their TV's on the wall. My 57" DLP sits on a piece of furniture that serves two purposes, and I assume you know what they are.

Nope... I don't assume all people want to mount their TV on a wall (I certainly don't - I had a 52 inch LCD rear projection a few years ago - only sold cuz I migrated... & I would have bought another one instead of my plasma, but they don't make em any more).... But the market has shown that most people want TVs that take up less and less space.... and a 14.5 inch thick LCD or DLP projection set just doesn't cut it for most people, when they could get a plasma or LCD just a few inches thick and wall mountable...

[Rich-n-Texas]

Well Ajani, you went from saying "The simple truth is that people want flat wall mountable TVs (usually for aesthetic reasons..." to saying "most people want TVs that take up less and less space.... " so surely you should be able to see why I responded the way I did.

[Ajani]

Well Ajani, you went from saying "The simple truth is that people want flat wall mountable TVs (usually for aesthetic reasons..." to saying "most people want TVs that take up less and less space.... " so surely you should be able to see why I responded the way I did.

Yes I do... I messed up the initial post... Sorry about that...

My point was supposed to be about unobtrusive (ultra thin) TVs, not really about wall mounting...

[GMichael]

But wall mounting helps. There is a market for that.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I realize there's a market for it, but mounting a TV on the wall is a more permanent solution than sitting it on a stand, which is much easier to do in the first place (what do you do when you have to make a connection change for the TV? Are the jacks accesible from the front or sides? Do you have to take it off the wall?). I guess it's my age showing because wall-mounting a TV is a concept I'm just not in tune with. Many console TV's of yesteryear were well sought after and costly furnishings for the home.

Yeah, I'm a traditionalist, so sue me.

[GMichael]

One case at a time for me please.

My screen has no connections at all. No moving needed. (heh heh heh)

[Ajani]

But wall mounting helps. There is a market for that.

I totally agree... that is going to be a deciding factor for some people... but I believe most people are more into the TV taking up less space than anything else....

So wall mounting is a part of the reason why I think rear projection sets can't compete with flat panels, but I believe the major reason is just that rear projection takes up too much space....

[GMichael]

I totally agree... that is going to be a deciding factor for some people... but I believe most people are more into the TV taking up less space than anything else....

So wall mounting is a part of the reason why I think rear projection sets can't compete with flat panels, but I believe the major reason is just that rear projection takes up too much space....
When we were building our house, I was planning on a DLP rear projection set. We could get a much larger picture for less cash than an LCD or plasma. But once I found out how many steps we would have to get into the living area, DLP started to look way to big and bulky. Then I found out that for the price of a 50" plasma, I could buy two front projectors and have 100+ inch screens instead. I could carry them both under my arms at the same time. Seemed like a no brainier. (I've always like the room dark while watching TV anyhow) Was the perfect solution for me at the time.

Oh, my screen is less than an inch thick, while the projector goes un-noticed on the celing.

[Rich-n-Texas]

When we were building our house, I was planning on a DLP rear projection set. We could get a much larger picture for less cash than an LCD or plasma. But once I found out how many steps we would have to get into the living area, DLP started to look way to big and bulky. Then I found out that for the price of a 50" plasma, I could buy two front projectors and have 100+ inch screens instead. I could carry them both under my arms at the same time. Seemed like a no brainier. (I've always like the room dark while watching TV anyhow) Was the perfect solution for me at the time.

Oh, my screen is less than an inch thick, while the projector goes un-noticed on the celing.
This is the main reason I bought my DLP (getting an employee discount didn't hurt either :ihih: ). The thought of not having the space for placement was never an obstacle. I like cabinetry, especially wooden stuff.

[Groundbeef]

My 57" DLP sits on a piece of furniture that serves two purposes, and I assume you know what they are.

Yep,

1st Purpose-To hold the TV
2nd Purpose-To hold all of your "lonley heart" rags...that aren't answered enough.:16:

[GMichael]

This is the main reason I bought my DLP (getting an employee discount didn't hurt either :ihih: ). The thought of not having the space for placement was never an obstacle. I like cabinetry, especially wooden stuff.
Oh sure. That's great for places where everything is flat. Everything on one floor? We live in the frickin hills. Rocks and streams all over the place. Stairs here. Stairs there. Stairs frickin everywhere.:incazzato:

[Rich-n-Texas]

Yep,

1st Purpose-To hold the TV
2nd Purpose-To hold all of your "lonley heart" rags...that aren't answered enough.:16:
Talk to me when you've learned how to spell lonely, cow-puss. :prrr:

[Groundbeef]

Talk to me when you've learned how to spell lonely, cow-puss. :prrr:

Wow, look everyone...it's a nitpicker. Ladies love those!

[Ajani]

This is the main reason I bought my DLP

That's also the reason I bought an LCD Projection a few years ago... for the price of a 32 inch Panasonic LCD or 37 inch Panny Plasma, I got a 52 inch Panny LCD Projection... It seemed like a no-brainer to me... and if Panny still made those, I would have bought one instead of my Plasma (could have saved money and got a bigger screen size!)...

[GMichael]

Poor Richie.

[Mr Peabody]

Rich, why did you put your 57" on the bar?

[pixelthis]

MOST PEOPLE DO WANT A "WALL" MOUNTABLE TV.
Thewy maay not mount it on the wall but thats what they want.
AND heres the BIIIIG reason most want "flat" TV sets.
Mainly that todays typical American male is a wuss, and the only way he's
going to get a big screen is to keep the "boss" happy with a fashionable flat screen.
Try dragging home a big cabinet and you will be dragging it right back.

AS for your "enjoyment" of cabinetry and "wood" rich, guess that makes up for a lack of "wood" in other parts of your life.
(not such a dumbass now eh?:1:

[hermanv]

In my opinion it's fair game to tweak Rich about his vehicle choice, but comments about his cabinetry seem out of line.

[GMichael]

Is that made of a knotty pine or a cherry wood?

[Groundbeef]

Is that made of a knotty pine or a cherry wood?

When he was a younger man, it was iron wood.

Now, however he tends to enjoy palm wood.

[GMichael]

Next up, the weeping willow.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Pine is too soft, but I have eaten my share of Cherry...(of the female variety so STFU you d!ckheads!)

Nevertheless...

:dita: to all y'all!

[Rich-n-Texas]

In my opinion it's fair game to tweak Rich about his vehicle choice, but comments about his cabinetry seem out of line.
I expected nothing less from the resident dumbass.

[Groundbeef]

Pine is too soft, but I have eaten my share of Cherry:dita: to all y'all!

Is that before or after you prune your bonsai? Nothing gets the ladies going like a little tree.

[Woochifer]

Sure just change the definition of how much light output reduction is acceptable and bingo - longer life. It's a marketing game, just change the rules and better numbers pop-out. How about a link to a site that isn't selling plasma TVs? The technology is newer and better, but no breakthroughs, plasma has it's problems.

No need to make up conspiracy theories. It's the same 50% brightness criteria that they used to come up with the 60,000 hour figure on the earlier models. The reliability rate on all flat panel TVs has greatly increased in recent years, but it's the plasmas that have had the greatest improvement over the past five years.


From the following site: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=130514

Consider that a 42-inch plasma set can consume more electricity than a full-size refrigerator -- even when that TV is used only a few hours a day. Powering a fancy TV and full-on entertainment system -- with set-top boxes, game consoles, speakers, DVDs and digital video recorders -- can add nearly $200 to a family's annual energy bill.

And what the article doesn't say is that a typical plasma's energy consumption can drop by more than 30% by simply calibrating the TV or just using the Cinema/Movie mode instead of the out-of-the-box torch/"showroom" mode. In addition, the source signal dictates how much energy the plasma set consumes. With a pure white signal, the plasma will indeed consume more energy, but with a greyscale signal the energy consumption drops by upwards of 80%. With a LCD, the energy consumption will remain constant with the lamp level, regardless of the signal source. In a 2006 article, Home Theater magazine found that with a greyscale signal, a plasma TV actually used less energy than an LCD set with both sets using out-of-the-box settings.


California isn't the only place taking energy-sucking Plasma TVs off the store shelves. The European Union is also instituting a ban on plasma TVs that are on the higher end of energy consumption.

It hasn't been implemented yet in the EU and the proposed California rule has so many loopholes I doubt that it will go through (e.g., it does not ban mail order sales -- I'm sure that cash-strapped cities will love to hear about the loss of sales tax revenues that these rules will create, as consumers bypass local retail stores and go straight to Amazon), and you're leaving out the fact that more than a quarter of the LCD models would also be banned under the proposed rules, which don't account for the variation in energy consumption on plasma TVs under real world conditions. If you applaud the EU's actions, then I presume that you also support the proposed rules about audio products that would basically outlaw Class A amps and tube-based electronics?


Plasma screens are made of glass, neither a cheap or light material. Due to the need to hold a vacuum (that pesky life thing) other materials such as plastic seem very unlikely. LCD dominate at 40" and smaller. New plants are being brought online to make larger LCD available for cheap. ps. I am not an LCD fan, still don't like the colors and the screen door effect while better is still an issue at least for me.

And plasmas were never competitors in the 40" and under space. They've always competed in the larger screen sizes, where they retain a cost advantage over comparable LCDs, despite glass being "neither cheap or light."


The bans will probably go into effect this year, a quick internet search talks about this problem as late as January 2009. I don't think I'm the one out of date here. They are talking about older less efficient plasma sets, but the situation was so bad a ban is being considered. It will take much more than 33% or 50% reduction in power to fix this issue.

The average energy consumption on a calibrated 42" plasma TV from last year, based on reviews I've read, was around 175-200 watts in many cases, while the 50" sets were around 250-300 watts. Are you saying that a power consumption reduction that brings this figure closer to 100 to 150 watts would still necessitate a ban, even though that would be lower than the vast majority of TVs currently on the market? The settings on plasma TVs can easily be controlled for reduced energy consumption, and the newer thinner panels can also trade off maximum light output. Panasonic's ultra thin Z1 demo panel not only uses 50% less energy, but it also has double the maximum light output of the previous G10 panels. The energy consumption can be bumped down even further by reducing the maximum light output, yet the light output will still remain significant higher than current panels.

[Woochifer]

For early "micro-displays" (ones where each pixel is addressable) plasma was clearly king. Decent blacks and good colors if you avoided the cheap plasmas. Things have changed.

I don't know why the DLP has lost popularity, very CRT like pixels with no visible borders no matter how close you looked. With the LED light sources good life and the best color rendition (better than the HDTV spec) enough so that a new color format was created currently only used to view digital camera pictures. (The entire HDTV color triangle fits inside the color triangle of the LED DLP sets, something no LCD, plasma or any other phosphor based technology can touch).

It's easy to see why DLP RPTV has lost popularity -- people prefer direct view sets and a thinner wall-mountable form factor. From a performance standpoint, the achilles heel of RPTVs is their limited viewing angle, and that's something that they've never been able to overcome. I loved the image quality of Sony's SXRD LCoS TVs, until I had to sit at an angle other than straight on. DLP and LCoS will live on, but their future is in the front projector market. Rumors abound that Samsung is about to exit the RPTV market. This would leave Mitsubishi as the only major player left, but their reputation has taken a beating in recent years because of their TVs' high failure rates.

Personally, I could care less about thinness and wall-mountability (at least until I discovered articulating mounts). In many ways, I would've preferred a CRT direct view because unlike fixed-pixel screen techs, CRTs don't look like crap with SD sources (which still constitutes the majority of broadcast programming). But, my wife had the veto on that, and since CRT HDTVs are a virtually extinct category, there aren't too many choices to begin with.


The only drawback I can find is the thickness preventing the wall mounting, why the 61" Samsung is a whole 14 1/2 inches deep about the same as the old 19" CRT. Maybe they're too cheap, leading you to believe it's an inferior technology. With careful shopping a 61" is about $1,200 and I think I saw a 73" for $1,600.

Most LCD and plasma TVs aren't mounted either. But, their form factor is a lot more flexible and consumers have always preferred direct view, which is why RPTVs were a goner once direct view flat panel prices began going down.


Speaking of wall hanging, why do people put them so high on the walls? Yes that's where paintings go, but you don't stare at a painting for 2 hours non-stop. A case where appearance trumps usability and that might be the whole plasma story. Maybe since you're about to do serious damage to your wallet a sore neck balances things out? :D :D

That would depend on how the mounting was done. My Panny is mounted on an articulating arm that extends up to 18" from the wall. The height is not much different than it would have been just sitting on top of the cabinet, but having the TV on the wall allows me to optimally position the center speaker. The arm itself tilts up or down 15 degrees, tilts right or left 45 degrees, and can rotate 360 degrees (though I would never do that for obvious reasons). That's actually a lot more usable than our old TV because we can extend the arm and angle it for optimal viewing from the next room.

[Woochifer]

I realize there's a market for it, but mounting a TV on the wall is a more permanent solution than sitting it on a stand, which is much easier to do in the first place (what do you do when you have to make a connection change for the TV? Are the jacks accesible from the front or sides? Do you have to take it off the wall?). I guess it's my age showing because wall-mounting a TV is a concept I'm just not in tune with. Many console TV's of yesteryear were well sought after and costly furnishings for the home.

Yeah, I'm a traditionalist, so sue me.

These are the exact issues that my inlaws are running into. They've got a flat panel TV permanently mounted above their fireplace, with all the cords running through the walls. It looks clean, but the cords are all coiled up behind the TV, with no way of accessing the connectors unless you unmount the TV from the wall. They started getting color banding on their TV, and I have no way of testing different inputs and cables with the TV without unmounting the TV.

This is why I was resistant to wall mounts until my wife discovered articulated arm mounts. Those are great because they can go flat against the wall, or extend out from the wall, or pan over at an angle. Great flexiblity.

[Mr Peabody]

Hey, be careful what you say about tubes, bite your tongue. I'll have to go underground. Tubes? what tubes?

Seriously, though, banning is a slippery slope. I hope they don't go there. I don't really see how they can. So one has a plasma, his neighbor's house is larger with more rooms, is it fair to let him have more power. I just choose to use mine on my plasma. Maybe I'll make it up and sit in the dark all night. I think it was good to force the heating and cooling to meet a certain efficiency and that's the way to go, not banning with a wide brush.

[hermanv]

Even though I think Pix is nuts, I do think plasmas days are limited. Which was the original statement in the thread.

Plasma's never competed below 40" because LCD blew them out of the water on cost, but large LCD panels were semi-custom low volume and pricey. I think that's no longer true.

On many TVs, power consumption is at least somewhat dependent on light output. The fact that plamas consume less power when brightness is reduced doesn't level the playing field. Other technologies also consume less power when brightness is reduced leaving the plasma with a distinct disadvantage.

From memory I think I read that the "light engine" on my 56" DLP consumes about 23 watts, all the rest of the additional 85 or so watts is consumed by the tuner, sound system and support electronics. The point being that when pushed, non plasma technologies have somewhere to go, I think for plasma, most power does go directly to the screen.

Mr Peabody's point is valid, I don't particularly like the government telling how I should spend my money. Rather than an outright ban I prefer a surcharge at the retail sales level. We are already doing this for gas guzzling cars and probably the idea will soon be applied to other devices. Global warming is real and will kill the planet and all of us if allowed to continue.

So while I can admire your fervor, I think in the long run that the plasma battle is lost or soon will be. For a long time plasma presented the best large format picture, but the advantage is now near zero and the other technologies will continue to improve.

For me an LCD problem is that in spite of noticeable advances, LCD primary colors are still off and to me, not natural in appearance.

Wall hanging is sexy, but like many on this forum I have a stereo that's substantial in size without wall hanging speakers, there' a certain inconsistency in needing a thin TV while all the best speakers are good sized. Don't mention in-wall speakers, I've never heard one that comes close to an audiophile sound standard.

[98CRV]

Not in my book. I don't recall any TV that I watched and owned growing up being mounted on the wall. You people are once again making assumptions that all people want to mount their TV's on the wall. My 57" DLP sits on a piece of furniture that serves two purposes, and I assume you know what they are.

I really don't get it either. If you're gonna have any kind of decent system then you're gonna need some kind of AV furniture to house your gear....the TV being mounted on a wall won't save most people any kind of living space since the AV cabinet is taking up that space.

A friend of mine bought a Samsung 52" LCD last summer and his wife wanted it since she wanted to mount it on the wall. Guess where it's still sitting? On their old undersized AV stand.

I really wanted the Samsung 61" DLP LED set but it's getting harder and harder to find...and it will probably be another month before I have enough money to buy it. I'm playing a waiting/racing game since every online retailer has it on a 7-10 backorder.

I work with a guy who recently picked up a Panasonic TH50PX80U 50" 720p plasma set at a local dept store for around $750. The price had been reduced to $899 and he saved another $180 by taking advantage of his aunt's 20% employee discount....state sales tax brought it up to $750. It's certainly not my dream set but it's hard to pass up at that price....decisions,decisions:confused5:

[hermanv]

I bought my LED DLP on line, there was no wait at the time and shipping was free (included in the published price) it only took 3 days to arrive,

Amazon lists the Samsung 61" LED DLP (61A750) as in stock at $1,448 (free shipping). I have seen better prices for this set, but it still beats plasma or LCD for price. It's a 1960 x 1080 120Hz display.

[98CRV]

herm: When did you buy your DLP led set? I checked again online several hours ago and I see where several online retailers have the 61' in-stock again..although in small numbers. That's the set that I really want and I think I'm gonna try to hold off for another month and pray that they're still available. Yesterday I had convinced myself to settle for the Panny 50" plasma for my dedicated HT room for no other reason besides being a nice eventual replacement for the eight year old Tosh 50H81 RPTV in our living room...the price is tempting as hell. But the Sammy 61" keeps calling me back:smilewinkgrin:

It would fit like a glove between the two windows in the room and I kinda have my heart set on nothing less than a 60"+ TV at this point. Samsung's decision to get out of DLP production couldn't have come at a worse time for me. If I had known about it earlier I could've used my wife's large X-mas bonus and picked it up for $1200 shipped from Crutchfield. Talk about frustrating.

[hermanv]

Almost a year ago. Mine is the 56", near impossible to find now.

[98CRV]

Almost a year ago. Mine is the 56", near impossible to find now.

Thanks for the reply. I thought you mentioned having the 56" model which surprised me since I didn't know they ever made it in that size.