Pix was right - Plasma is.....

[Ajani]

Looks like Pix was right

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/n..._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.

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 grâce 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 grâce 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.

[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.

[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...ed-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...ed-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

[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.

[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?

[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.