Plasma Is Dead

[Woochifer]

Would someone please explain to me why Plasma is bad? I understand that there were serious reliability problems several years ago, but I was under the impression those have long since been eradicated. eg screen burn in etc. It seems that just when they get a technology right after several years, the technology becomes obsolete?? The reason for my 'concern', is that many LCD displays I've seen don't look entirely convincing in terms of a natural picture. The contrast is off. The blacks are way over done and the picture starts looking like a cartoon in a sense. Does anyone else notice this? The latest 1920x1080 native rez plasmas look more realistic to me. This is one thing I love about my Loewe. The latest technologies will probably provide a bit more detail, but the CRT ends up looking more real to life - sort of like good tube amps vs whiz bang solid state amps if you get my meaning.

Reason is because pixel relies on old information, and equates opinion pieces with fact.

I share your opinion of LCD. Both LCD and plasma have addressed their greatest weaknesses in the past year -- LCD has gone to LED backlighting and 120 Hz refresh rates to address weaknesses with black levels and reducing motion blur (though plasma still has an advantage with measured motion resolution), while plasma has added 1080p resolution and 1080p24 mode options (the reliability and burn in issues were resolved years ago). While LCD is now comparable in price with plasma in the screen sizes below 50", features like LED backlighting and 120 Hz refresh will still push the prices above plasma.

Among the HDTVs I've seen over the years, the CRT direct view models remain the best from an image quality standpoint, and they don't lose any picture quality when playing SD sources. But, consumers want larger screen sizes and don't want to deal with the bulk and weight of CRT, so that segment is now almost gone.

LCD and plasma are both direct view flat panel segment, but both approaches have tradeoffs. That's why I don't think plasma will go away until a technology with a more clearcut advantage can compete in the same price space.

Well said. Who gives a rat's arse?

I have LCD that I am happy with. I don't care if they stop making LCDs tomorrow. Mine will still work fine.

Yep, and that's a point that seems to have flown over his head. He bought his Vizio LCD on the cheap, and he's suddenly second-tier LCD fanboi extraordinaire!

Maybe I am wrong but I think Pixless was trolling. Nah, Pixless would never do that. Would he?

Pix, trolling?! Oh, but he sounds SSSSSOOOOO serious when talking about how he's never lost an argument with anyone on this board!

Pix, do we need to put you away in the closet where we have that old printer stored?

Nah, at least his trolling doesn't involve stealing other people's material! I can't think of anyone else who would write some of the inane nonsense that he posts.

[Smokey]

And 11.4 million does not equate to DEAD, so who's wrong now Mr "Scientist"?

A friends brother drank himself to death, saw his best friend walk around headless for a few seconds while in NAM, that guy was DEAD.
If the market for something with the investment of billions that plasma has is a paltry
11.4 million start shopping for caskets

If you're referring to OLED, that won't happen for years. And when alternative technologies like OLED finally reach viable price points, LCD would likely go down first, since most of their market share is in the smaller screen sizes.

Its ALREADY happened, dillweed.
And since every cell fone in the world has oled it wont take long for OLED to catch on
and go down in price, it only took a few years for LCD prices to crash, and it cost more to make one than an OLED.
Theres talk of making OLED screens with bubblejet printers, and OLED paint that , when applied to a wall, will turn into an OLED screen.
You can roll an oled up and put it in a tube, small size is the market for mow but that
will change SOON

And all the while, Panasonic and Samsung have been investing in their plasma technologies, and maintaining a healthy margin in that segment. Pioneer's problem is that they overpaid for NEC's production facility (which at the time was providing Sony with plasma panels, and Pioneer's acquisition occured just as Sony exited the segment), and fell behind their competitors technologically. Pioneer bought NEC's production facility assuming that they could count on the outsource volume from Sony. Once Pioneer lost Sony, they had way too much Panasonic and Samsung don't have any of these issues, and their production volume is upwards of 10X greater than Pioneer's to begin with.

THEY HAVE WORSE "ISSUES".
Sony got out of plasma and others are getting out too, I'd get you some "crayons " if
you knew how to use them.
Sony is one of if not the biggest manufacturer od video displays and they aint touching Plasma, are you too stupid to understand why?

Plus, it doesn't hurt that Sharp recently took out an ownership stake in Pioneer. Think that doesn't have anything to do with this decision? Keep those crayons out, you might yet comprehend this game of connect-the-dots one of these days!

THE ONLY THING TO DO WITH THIS DECISION IS OVERCAPACITY IN THE PLASMA MARKET.
The price is going down just to compete with LCD , which it cant do.
The only market niche is highq and the highq is a matter of opinion, and OLED and improvement in LCD, adding to the fact that LCD is more trouble free would be enough to kill Plasma, except that plasma IS ALREADY DEAD

Wrong again. Panasonic and Samsung are doing just fine, and are primarily responsible for Pioneer's problems. Pioneer could not match their price points, and they've now erased Pioneer's picture quality advantage. Anything else to draw from that article is pure speculation.

AND THEY ARE BLEEDING RED INK trying to keep their own "price points", and are next to drop plasma like a hot potato, just as soon as they can figure out how to without killing what little is left of the market, which is SHRINKING not growing

Like I said, 11.4 million in sales and a projected 25 million by 2012 doesn't square with any rational definition of DEAD. Of course, that's presuming that I'm dealing with a rational opinionator here!

I'm the one whos rational around here, you talk about "speculation" and then mention
a marketing BS lie ABOUT 25 MILLION BY 2012???

I'll give you a more accurate "prediction" ACE, a projection of ZERO sales by 2012.
Why?
BECAUSE PLASMA IS DEAD

Looks like Wooch have found his match

Good thread guys

[O'Shag]

GM and Wooch - thanks much for the clarification. I have seen good LCD sets of late and good plasmas. I guess the performance gap is closing between the two. But the best large screen plasmas, while expensive, definitely look better to me. Mind you I've not seen that $30k Bravia LCD from Sony yet.

[blackraven]

I have A Sony 52" XBR4 LCD TV and it gives a great picture but it U really could not tell any difference in Black levels when seen side by side next to a panasonic plasma with 1080p. There's no doubt to me that the Pansonic Plasma had a better picture and was cheaper. But my choice in buying the LCD was do to room brightness and reflection. Had my family room not had so many big windows I would have gone the Plasma route. I think that both technologies have their place and appeal.

[pixelthis]

Plasma is not bad at all. Pix just owns an LCD so therefore, plasma is evil. Plasma has a better picture quality than LCD but does have other drawbacks. You get to choose which means more to you. LCD on average uses less electric, has less glare, weighs less, and are brighter. Plasmas have better black level, richer colors, and better off center viewing. The price edge goes to LCD on anything under 50 inch. Plasma for anything over. Both are getting better with their short comings. Where one used to be way better at something in the past, they are now just a little better. Burn in and glare for plasmas are a thing of the past. Newer models are much better. Screen door effect and blurry movements for LCD is going bye bye as well. In the end, (or make that the next few years) LCD should sell more because of what they do better appeals to the masses more than the better PQ of a plasma.

WHATEVER


The problem with sity different ways of doing things is that each requires a monumental effort.
So lets have two or even three, thats a lot, but do we really need lcd, plasma, dlp, rptv,
oled, etc.

They fewer form factors the industry has to focus on the better the products they will come out with.
Armies of engineers , each working on something different, its a monumental waste of
effort.
Besides WOOCH IS A BIG PLASMA FANBOY, and if they go extinct he will cry like a little baby.
If trying to get a disscussion going is "trolling" then so be it

[GMichael]

WHATEVER


The problem with sity different ways of doing things is that each requires a monumental effort.
So lets have two or even three, thats a lot, but do we really need lcd, plasma, dlp, rptv,
oled, etc.

They fewer form factors the industry has to focus on the better the products they will come out with.
Armies of engineers , each working on something different, its a monumental waste of
effort.
Besides WOOCH IS A BIG PLASMA FANBOY, and if they go extinct he will cry like a little baby.
If trying to get a disscussion going is "trolling" then so be it

I didn't mean to call you a troll dude. I find your posts very entertaining. But some of your views are a little extreme. Although there is a lot of fact mixed in with what you are saying, you do seem to see things in black & white. The world is a little more grey (like it or not). Plasma is not as bad as you make it out to be. Even though much of what you say is true, you are only focusing on the bad and ignoring the good. And even that's fine for you. I felt that it was my duty to point out the other side for any lurkers out there using this site as a guide to what they are going to spend their cash on.

[Woochifer]

WHATEVER


The problem with sity different ways of doing things is that each requires a monumental effort.
So lets have two or even three, thats a lot, but do we really need lcd, plasma, dlp, rptv,
oled, etc.

Let's see, if there was such thing as a perfect technology to fulfill all of the different expectations with HDTVs, why would all of these competing approaches even exist?

They fewer form factors the industry has to focus on the better the products they will come out with.
Armies of engineers , each working on something different, its a monumental waste of
effort.

Psst, that's otherwise known as COMPETITION, Mr "Libertarian"!

Besides WOOCH IS A BIG PLASMA FANBOY, and if they go extinct he will cry like a little baby.

Quite the contrary. If they go extinct, it will be because a better technology will have come along at a lower price point. LCD ain't gonna be that technology. I prefer to focus on performance. If I were buying right now, I'd go with plasma. If I were buying a few years from now, I'd see what's out there and decide at that point. If that defines a fanboy, then you're stretching the bounds of nonsensical hyperbole as usual. Then again, with your ramblings, I gotta wonder if your grasp on sanity or logic is more tenuous.

If trying to get a disscussion going is "trolling" then so be it

I guess we can now add troll and fanboy to the list of concepts that elude your comprehension!

[pixelthis]

Let's see, if there was such thing as a perfect technology to fulfill all of the different expectations with HDTVs, why would all of these competing approaches even exist?

Why did we have several different types of automotive tech? Or two kinds of videotape?
We even had two types of DVD (divix and "straight" dvd)
Several groups of people trying to solve the same problem in different ways.
If the plasma manufacturers had even dreamed that LCD WOULD get so cheap and
SO good so FAST they never would have built a plasma set

Psst, that's otherwise known as COMPETITION, Mr "Libertarian"!

YES, and its great, but this shaking out in video display is taking forever.
Looks like RPTV is the next casualty, then Plasma

Quite the contrary. If they go extinct, it will be because a better technology will have come along at a lower price point. LCD ain't gonna be that technology. I prefer to focus on performance. If I were buying right now, I'd go with plasma. If I were buying a few years from now, I'd see what's out there and decide at that point. If that defines a fanboy, then you're stretching the bounds of nonsensical hyperbole as usual. Then again, with your ramblings, I gotta wonder if your grasp on sanity or logic is more tenuous.

LCD IS THAT "TECHNOLOGY"
The one thing that really pisses me of about you plasma fanboys is you automatically presume that plasma has a better picture,
WHICH IS VERY SUBJECTIVE.
You must be a kid, or you forgot that when plasma first came out the picture was washed
out, grainy, looked like crap.
The picture is better today, but LCD is every bit as good (higher end anyway)
The main problem with plasma that people complained about was "black level", in other words it sucked.
Todays problems with plasma are leaking gas envelopes, massive energy usage,
burn in, and radiaton , paticulary ultraviolet.
But hey if you sit far enough away mayby your kids strange features will only be your genetic heritage

I guess we can now add troll and fanboy to the list of concepts that elude your comprehension!

I guess we can add a lack of comprehension of ANYTHING to yours.
Plasma is doomed, and theres one factor you've missed (well one out of thousands)
Plasma is a lot more expensive to make, ship, and service.
Eventually the industry will kill the market for them on purpose, just so they can standardize production into one form factor.
This has happened before, will happen again

[biffsbiz]

Pioneer, who makes the best display devices of 50" and up is not done making plasma displays. They are just subbing out the manufacture of the plasma panels to Panasonic (who makes crappy display devices of 50" and up). Plasma panels will be made to Pioneer's specification. All internal electronics (the most important part of the device) in the finished plasma displays will still be made by Pioneer.

Anyone that is at all critical of display devices knows that plasma is far superior to LCD, and will be for some time. OLED may cure LCD's many faults, but for now plasma is the only digital display device that can produce BLACK. The Pioneer KURO plasma displays are the current standard of the industry. Absolutely nothing looks as good, except for a direct-view CRT or a CRT projector in a black room.

LCD is cheap, that's about all it has going for it.

Pay no attention to my avatar.

[JSE]

Looks like RPTV is the next casualty, then Plasma

OK, I'm confused.

I thought you said Plasma "IS" dead? Now your telling me we first have to wait for RPTV to bite the dust before we can all jump for joy that Plasma is pushing daisies? You had me all worked up in the delight that Plasma is dead. I had a "death party" planned and everything. You guys were going to be invited. How stupid would I look now if I threw the party celebrating Plasma's death? I had cake! How Stupid would I look if I was standing there lighting the candles and the supposedly "dead" plasma hanging on the wall at the bar all of a sudden turned on? It's Alive!

Thanks a lot PIX! You owe me $20 for the cake.

Friggin Plasma.


JSE

[bobsticks]

Oh Good Lord help me some days...this is still goin' on?

I have a nice, convenient,one-dimensional workhorse of an LCD for my computer use and occasional movie use. The energy savings makes me feel like a responsible member of the Green Community until...

I turn on my big, honkin', black, realistic plasma and burn up generators. Sometimes I leave the unit on for hours while I go out and throw styrofoam into the woods and laugh at Sally Struthers. I do this as a form of social protest against the generations before me that ran the country into debt and will use up my Social Security.

Both technologies are currently alive and kicking. Both technologies are doomed. Blah, blah,blah...test on Friday.

[GMichael]

test on Friday.[/I]

Whoa! A test?!
Chit! I didn't study.

[Woochifer]

Why did we have several different types of automotive tech? Or two kinds of videotape?

What part of competition do you not understand, Mr. Friedman?

Several groups of people trying to solve the same problem in different ways.
If the plasma manufacturers had even dreamed that LCD WOULD get so cheap and
SO good so FAST they never would have built a plasma set

And big screen plasma sets have been on the market for how long now? More than a decade? So, in your view of competition, plasma manufacturers should have just sat still and done nothing when a market opportunity was available to them? You are just such a capitalist!

So, I guess in your clairvoyant view of the world, LCD manufacturers should just quit now because OLED's going to take over the market within the next ten years? Nice logic.

YES, and its great, but this shaking out in video display is taking forever.

Maybe because there's no single technology out there that does not have a significant drawback of some kind?

LCD IS THAT "TECHNOLOGY"
The one thing that really pisses me of about you plasma fanboys is you automatically presume that plasma has a better picture,
WHICH IS VERY SUBJECTIVE.

Nope, performance parameters are very easy to measure, and brightness is the only measure where LCD consistently outperforms plasma. If you're talking about black levels, contrast, color accuracy, image consistency, and motion resolution, plasma sets generally outperform LCD. If LCD were "THAT TECHNOLOGY," it would outperform plasma, LCoS, DLP et al in every category, or even most. It doesn't, so therefore it's not.

Subjective is what it is, and in my viewings, plasma delivers the better picture. Difference is that my opinion squares with what the objective measures demonstrate.

You must be a kid, or you forgot that when plasma first came out the picture was washed
out, grainy, looked like crap.

And LCD wasn't much better, or are you forgetting that at your old age?

The picture is better today, but LCD is every bit as good (higher end anyway)

If that's the case, then how come most LCD sets still don't perform well with motion resolution?

The main problem with plasma that people complained about was "black level", in other words it sucked.
Todays problems with plasma are leaking gas envelopes, massive energy usage,
burn in, and radiaton , paticulary ultraviolet.

Once again, recycling decade-old talking points as if they are relevant to today's models.

But hey if you sit far enough away mayby your kids strange features will only be your genetic heritage

Ah, so now the personal attacks have stretched to include the kids. How classy of you!

I guess you really don't have much material left, and to think your career as a comedian was off to such a brilliant start, however unintentional your humor might have been!

I guess we can add a lack of comprehension of ANYTHING to yours.

Right, given that you're back to regurgitating debunked points about gas leakage, energy usage, and costs, that speaks more about YOUR comprehension than anything.

Plasma is doomed

Why not just say what you're really thinking ... WE'RE ALL DOOMED BECAUSE WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE SOMEDAY! Your oh-so-sunshiney disposition must really be a joy to be around!

Plasma is a lot more expensive to make, ship, and service.

And plasma also has a larger average screen size, think that has something to do with this?

And if plasma's that much more expensive to make, then how does Panasonic get away with pricing their 1080p sets so that they undercut what the 120 Hz LCD sets cost?

Eventually the industry will kill the market for them on purpose, just so they can standardize production into one form factor.
This has happened before, will happen again

Why would the industry kill the segment that currently delivers the largest direct view screen sizes (70" already on the market, and 150" demo models already built), and has the highest performance in some key measures? And all the while, the segment remains a profitable niche for the biggest players? This isn't like Blu-ray v. HD-DVD, which relied on the hardware matching the software specs. So long as plasma and LCD sets use the same connection standards and can play the same source material, it's irrelevant to "the industry" whether one or both segments remain in the market.

[pixelthis]

What part of competition do you not understand, Mr. Friedman?

a LOT BETTER THAN YOU.
Why is there only one type of dvd? automobile? (internal combustion)
Eventually a form factor gets chosen, and the others fall by the wayside or become niche products

And big screen plasma sets have been on the market for how long now? More than a decade? So, in your view of competition, plasma manufacturers should have just sat still and done nothing when a market opportunity was available to them? You are just such a capitalist!

Capitalists think in terms of decades, the emergence of LCD happened practically overnight, plasma is an inferiour product that the consumer is rejecting as we speak.
If "capitalists " had known that it was only gonna last as long as 2010 at most they wouldnt have spent billions on it.
Spending billions on an expensive tech , even if the govt did subsidize it, on a product that will be gone in a decade is not a "market niche", its financial suicide

So, I guess in your clairvoyant view of the world, LCD manufacturers should just quit now because OLED's going to take over the market within the next ten years? Nice logic.

LCD has already made its way, and will make billions more, but it is doomed.
OLED has a perfect black level, wont explain why to you because a chimp only understands a banana, its also .17 in thick.
The latest "superthin" sets dont even approach that.
BEING ABLE TO ROLL ONE UP AND PUT IT IN A TUBE IS NICE ALSO.
OLED is to lcd AND plasma what the joint strike fighter is to a p51 mustang.
The mustang is nice but DANG is it even close to the newest toy?
AND IT WILL BE HERE SOONEST, a lot sooner than most think

Maybe because there's no single technology out there that does not have a significant drawback of some kind?

Some tech has drawbacks but not all are significant.
This is known as a generalization and like most such is wrong

Nope, performance parameters are very easy to measure, and brightness is the only measure where LCD consistently outperforms plasma. If you're talking about black levels, contrast, color accuracy, image consistency, and motion resolution, plasma sets generally outperform LCD. If LCD were "THAT TECHNOLOGY," it would outperform plasma, LCoS, DLP et al in every category, or even most. It doesn't, so therefore it's not.

There is no set standard for black level or most of the other parameters you mention.
Its totally subjective. performance IS easy to measure but theres no standard, so it mainly boils down to what you like.
And most are deciding that the picture of an LCD is just as good as a plasma.
Which isn't a surprize to those who know more than you (just about everybody)
Things you dont consider "important" (long life, inexpensive to use, brightness, and no GLARE whatsoever ) when factored into the very close specs in the PQ area make the
LCD a hands down winner

Subjective is what it is, and in my viewings, plasma delivers the better picture. Difference is that my opinion squares with what the objective measures demonstrate.

And that is a subjective statement.
THERE IS NO "OBJECTIVE" measure of tv DISPLAYS , but most concede that the ONLY area in which plasma is "better" is a very slight black level advantage and a slightly "smoother" pic, which some preceive as a lack of sharpness.
our hobby rides on a sea of mass market, if the great unwashed reject your toy it doesnt matter why, a complicated thing like a plasma tv requires hugh economies of scale,
once the numbers drop below a certain number they will cease.
The ONLY thing they have going for them is snobs such as yourself, you dont like LCD for one reason , EVERYBODY else likes them.
Once OLED takes off, the "niche" of PQ OVER any kind of common sense will be gone,
which is plasmas main market

And LCD wasn't much better, or are you forgetting that at your old age?

LCD was WORSE, but has improved much more than plasma

If that's the case, then how come most LCD sets still don't perform well with motion resolution?

You're joking , right? Thuis old bugaboo never was much of a problem and with 120 hz sets has been done away with entirely.
But you dont even need that, an eight millisecond refresh rate does away with it quite
nicely, and there are FOUR millisecond sets out there if that still aint enough.
Why dont you bring up the old "screen door" crap while you're at it?
I am about five feet away from my set and cant discern ANY pixel structure whatsoever

Once again, recycling decade-old talking points as if they are relevant to today's models.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black, bring up "lag" and other nonsense that never was much of a problem to begin with in the first place

Ah, so now the personal attacks have stretched to include the kids. How classy of you!

THANKS

I guess you really don't have much material left, and to think your career as a comedian was off to such a brilliant start, however unintentional your humor might have been!

yOUR CAREER as one is assured, just keep doing what you've been doing, getting your tech advice from cheech and chong

Right, given that you're back to regurgitating debunked points about gas leakage, energy usage, and costs, that speaks more about YOUR comprehension than anything.

THEY ARE not "DEBUNKED", they are still serious problems.
especially price, 1080p in plasma is so much more expensive than LCD that most are passing on them

Why not just say what you're really thinking ... WE'RE ALL DOOMED BECAUSE WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE SOMEDAY! Your oh-so-sunshiney disposition must really be a joy to be around!

Again, THANKS

And plasma also has a larger average screen size, think that has something to do with this?

Who cares? THE market for such sizes is a lot smaller

And if plasma's that much more expensive to make, then how does Panasonic get away with pricing their 1080p sets so that they undercut what the 120 Hz LCD sets cost?

THE 120HZ is in itself a small part of the market.
And Panasonic is owned by MATSHUHITA, one of the largest comglomerates
on the planet.
They could sell gold for ten bucks an ounce for a year and not lose enough of their rather large pie to wory about

Why would the industry kill the segment that currently delivers the largest direct view screen sizes (70" already on the market, and 150" demo models already built), and has the highest performance in some key measures? And all the while, the segment remains a profitable niche for the biggest players? This isn't like Blu-ray v. HD-DVD, which relied on the hardware matching the software specs. So long as plasma and LCD sets use the same connection standards and can play the same source material, it's irrelevant to "the industry" whether one or both segments remain in the market.

You really are clueless arent you?
THE 70 AND 150 MARKETS ARE SMALL, not even worth worrying about.
And your subjective assesment of plasma quality, even if true, isnt a deciding factor in the marketplace.
Only a small percentage of the market buys a set based on subjective things like "black level", etc. you think people are out there measuring such when they buy a set?
Everybody who buys a lcd in my circle, know what they talk about?
The bright glarefree picture!
Tv companies put the default setting for contrast on "TORCH" mode (with enthusaists
complaining all the time) for a reason, people like a bright picture.
And the list of tech that was strangled in the grave for financial reasons is rather large.
LASER was only supported by pioneer, most thought that laser would hurt VCRS.
fm radio was very superiour to AM, but RCA tried to kill IT because they thought it
would take sales away from their new toy, TELEVISION.
EVERY PLASMA B "sale" has a major problem, its not an lcd sale.
If it sells too many it will be finished because its canabalizing lcd sales at a high cost.
In other words why go to the expense of making plasma when people will buy LCD if it doesnt exist?
This is one of the reasons that video rental companies were reluctant to go to DVD,
why bother if VIDEOCASSETTE is "good enough"?
And its the reason that a lot of broadcasters fought HD, AND STEREO TV.
Why invest in the good stuff if people will buy crud?
On the other hand if not enough sets of teh plasdma variety arent sold it will be killed off for being nonprofiftable.
Either way its going to be killed off. For marketing reasons if nothing else.
THEY DODGED a few bullets, settling the leaking gas and burn in lawsuits out of court and keeping them quiet, but plasma isnt a cat, it doesnt have nine lives.
Eventually it wont be worth the trouble.
WHICH IS WHY PLASMA IS DEAD

[pixelthis]

OK, I'm confused.

I thought you said Plasma "IS" dead? Now your telling me we first have to wait for RPTV to bite the dust before we can all jump for joy that Plasma is pushing daisies? You had me all worked up in the delight that Plasma is dead. I had a "death party" planned and everything. You guys were going to be invited. How stupid would I look now if I threw the party celebrating Plasma's death? I had cake! How Stupid would I look if I was standing there lighting the candles and the supposedly "dead" plasma hanging on the wall at the bar all of a sudden turned on? It's Alive!

Thanks a lot PIX! You owe me $20 for the cake.

Friggin Plasma.


JSE

sorry for the miscommunication.
When SONY quit the RPTV market that was offical notice, like an obit in the paper,
that the form factor was DEAD.
THE ORDER I stated was correct, but I failed to point out that we've already passed the point for RPTV.
Business models dont turn on a dime, there are still some RPTVS out there, but probably no new ones in the pipeline.
People like thin, thin is IN, and RPTV doesnt "measure up".
You can still get a corpse at wallmart (RCA DLP 50IN 999$) or a mitsubisi (73in 2300$)
IF you want the biggest bang for the buck and are into necrophillia.
But for most , not only is RPTV DEAD, THEY DIDNT EVEN NOTICE that it was starving to death in the basement.
So go ahead and eat your cake, but dont give any to wooch, I've already fed him so much hes starting to bloat

[bobsticks]

I have a "zoom" aspect choice also, but I also have a 2x button, increases the pic 2x, when a pic is letterboxed on all four sides it helps it fill the screen.
You dont have one of those?

You know it's hard to take your argument about PQ seriously when you make statements like this. This is getting surreal.

[kexodusc]

You know it's hard to take your argument about PQ seriously when you make statements like this. This is getting surreal.

Dude, if this guy starts posting DVD reviews...

[bobsticks]

Dude, if this guy starts posting DVD reviews...

LOL, the similarities are sometimes eerie...

Have some Green Wiki-Wiki

[Woochifer]

a LOT BETTER THAN YOU.

Apparently not. As evidenced by your rambling responses below.

Why is there only one type of dvd?

Evidence to your cluelessness. The only form factor that matters with TVs is whether the size matches the room and whether that TV has the appropriate connections to the source material. With DVDs, you have a hardware spec that has to match a software spec. With TVs, the only spec that has to match is the connection standard and the signal source. Nice try, but as usual you hit the wrong target.

automobile? (internal combustion)

So, I guess that Mazda's rotary engines don't exist, and neither do any of the hybrid and electric drivetrains or any of the hydrogen fuel cell drivetrains in development? And talking about form factor, you got a whole slew of different configurations out there -- i.e., diesel engines dominating the market for trucks, different body styles, different induction systems, different fuel system designs, different purpose-built configurations, etc. If the auto industry was as standardized as you say, then how come every car company uses their own engine designs that have few parts that can transplant from one model to another?

Eventually a form factor gets chosen, and the others fall by the wayside or become niche products

The form factor is the same -- wall-mountable flat panel design, capable of accepting analog and digital video connections, screen sizes ranging from 37" and up. A LCD TV can play the exact same source material as a plasma TV, and both types of TVs can use the exact same types of wall-mount brackets and fit into the same living room spaces. Chalk up "form factor" as yet another incomprehensible concept to the mind of pixel.

Capitalists think in terms of decades, the emergence of LCD happened practically overnight, plasma is an inferiour product that the consumer is rejecting as we speak.
If "capitalists " had known that it was only gonna last as long as 2010 at most they wouldnt have spent billions on it.
Spending billions on an expensive tech , even if the govt did subsidize it, on a product that will be gone in a decade is not a "market niche", its financial suicide

So then I guess that Panasonic, Samsung, LG, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Pioneer are part of a global Communist plot, since by your defintion they cannot possibly be "capitalists"!

You think they haven't already sold billions of dollars worth of plasmas over the decade plus that they've been in production? If you can't do the math, go find yourself a calculator -- it's NOT THAT HARD! Consider that last year alone, over 11 million plasma TVs were sold. Using a very conservative average cost per set of $1,500 (conservative considering that the median plasma TV sale was in the 50" size, which averages more than $2,000), that works out to over $16 billion in sales for one year. Considering that they've been in production for over a decade, and always maintained higher average margins than LCD, that's a lot of revenue that can amortize their investment.

LCD has already made its way, and will make billions more, but it is doomed.

Oh yes, everything is DOOMED! We're ALL DOOMED!

OLED has a perfect black level, wont explain why to you because a chimp only understands a banana, its also .17 in thick.
The latest "superthin" sets dont even approach that.
BEING ABLE TO ROLL ONE UP AND PUT IT IN A TUBE IS NICE ALSO.
OLED is to lcd AND plasma what the joint strike fighter is to a p51 mustang.
The mustang is nice but DANG is it even close to the newest toy?
AND IT WILL BE HERE SOONEST, a lot sooner than most think

And at what point will OLED become practical in the larger screen sizes? Everything's all well and good in theory, but it doesn't mean squat until it actually shows up on store shelves. All that OLED has on store shelves RIGHT NOW is an 11" model that sells for $2,500. Samsung doesn't think that a 40" size will be practical until 2010 at the earliest, and at that point what price will early adopters have to pay? What will the reliability issues those large OLED TVs have? All those are unknowns right now.

Some tech has drawbacks but not all are significant.
This is known as a generalization and like most such is wrong

So you're therefore presuming that LCD has no significant drawbacks. Isn't that a generalization too? Must be hard trying to keep things straight in that head of yours without logic to fall back on!

And if the motion resolution of LCD is nearly 50% lower than the still resolution (even with a 120 Hz refresh rate), while plasma can maintain over 80% of its resolution with a moving image, I would consider that a considerable drawback.

There is no set standard for black level or most of the other parameters you mention.

Quite the contrary, there are standard measurements for all of those parameters. LCD simply performs lower than other designs in most of them.

Its totally subjective. performance IS easy to measure but theres no standard, so it mainly boils down to what you like.

Only to you are those performance parameters subjective. Color accuracy can be measured, contrast can be measured, still and motion resolution can be measured. Of course, to you the most important performance parameter is price, and that too can be measured even by a cognitively challenged consumer like yourself! Gosh, so there is actually a "scientific" concept that you understand!

And most are deciding that the picture of an LCD is just as good as a plasma.

Nope, most are deciding that LCD is cheap and flat. And most are looking in the small screen sizes that plasma does not compete in.

Which isn't a surprize to those who know more than you (just about everybody)

Then I guess that would also exclude you, given the paucity of accurate info that you've provided throughout this thread.

THERE IS NO "OBJECTIVE" measure of tv DISPLAYS , but most concede that the ONLY area in which plasma is "better" is a very slight black level advantage and a slightly "smoother" pic, which some preceive as a lack of sharpness.

Quite the contrary, there are plenty of objective measures. You simply choose to overlook them because LCD does not measure up to competing technologies in most of them.

our hobby rides on a sea of mass market, if the great unwashed reject your toy it doesnt matter why, a complicated thing like a plasma tv requires hugh economies of scale,
once the numbers drop below a certain number they will cease.
The ONLY thing they have going for them is snobs such as yourself, you dont like LCD for one reason , EVERYBODY else likes them.

So long as the option remains on the market for when I'm looking, I could care less what happens afterwards. People who don't like LCD don't care what others think, they simply see the picture and opt for other alternatives that better meet their standards. And most people who buy LCD could care less whether other competing options remain on the market or not. You're the only one of this board who seems to want plasma to go away, if for no other reason than it competes with LCD and it "annoys" you. And you actually think you understand the concept of a fanboy? Look in the mirror, dude!

Once OLED takes off, the "niche" of PQ OVER any kind of common sense will be gone,
which is plasmas main market

And if OLED's all that it's cracked up to be, then I'll be glad to get one. Like I said, both LCD and plasma have major drawbacks, and one technology that trumps both of them would be welcome. But, for anyone who's looking RIGHT NOW, OLED is meaningless because the product is not out on the market anywhere near practical screen sizes.

You're joking , right? Thuis old bugaboo never was much of a problem and with 120 hz sets has been done away with entirely.

Joke's on you. The October issue of Home Theater found that 1080p LCD TVs lost nearly half of their resolution when displaying a moving image. Even the 120 Hz models that they tested had a motion resolution of less than 600. The LCoS and DLP sets had between 700 and 800 lines of motion resolution, while the plasmas had between 800 and nearly 900. This concurs with what I and others on this board have observed -- that LCD does not fare well with moving images.

Old bugaboo?! The only thing old here is your wordage and your information.

But you dont even need that, an eight millisecond refresh rate does away with it quite
nicely, and there are FOUR millisecond sets out there if that still aint enough.

All's well and good with that, but they still lose more actual resolution with a moving image than any other screen tech.

Why dont you bring up the old "screen door" crap while you're at it?
I am about five feet away from my set and cant discern ANY pixel structure whatsoever

Try opening your eyes or at least putting on your glasses. I know it's a pride thing with some of you, but clarity can be a good thing!

Look at the pot calling the kettle black, bring up "lag" and other nonsense that never was much of a problem to begin with in the first place

Ho hum. Difference is that my information is current and correct, while yours is over a decade old and not applicable to anything currently on the market. Pot seems to be a very appropriate concept with you, except that the stuff you're using ain't black and it ain't used for cooking!

THANKS

Figures that you would be proud of personally attacking kids. Then again, you're the one who gets off on crack hos, and fantasizing about other people's wives and mothers! What sad depths you keep reaching ...

yOUR CAREER as one is assured, just keep doing what you've been doing, getting your tech advice from cheech and chong

Cheech and Chong?! At least their humor was somewhat intentional, and not purely accidental like yours.

OMG, you REALLY need to get out of the 70s every now and then! Of course, all the experimentation prevalent in that decade probably goes a long way towards splainin' all this delusional nonsense you keep cracking.

THEY ARE not "DEBUNKED", they are still serious problems.
especially price, 1080p in plasma is so much more expensive than LCD that most are passing on them

If plasma's "much more expensive" then how come the 120 Hz LCDs are more expensive than the 1080p plasmas? Like I said before, the Panasonic 1080p plasmas list at $1,600, which is the same as other name brand LCD sets.

Again, THANKS

Still too dumb/drunk/high to recognize a snark when you see one, eh? You must be the one with the "KICK ME" sign still taped to his back!

Who cares? THE market for such sizes is a lot smaller

And much more profitable.

You really are clueless arent you?

Nope. I'm not the one recycling talking points from 10 years ago, and trying to pass them off as relevant to today's market. If being clueless means daring to argue logic with someone like you who's clearly overmatched by those kinds of ground rules, then you're welcome to keep on believing that!

THE 70 AND 150 MARKETS ARE SMALL, not even worth worrying about.

But, the overall market for sizes above 52" are certainly consequential, and it's plasma that's now moving RPTV models out of that segment. Those large screen sizes remain the most profitable niche. LCD manufacturers have been killing each other in the 32" and under segment, and the margins in those screen sizes are razor thin. They might be moving a lot of volume, but they're making progressively less on each set.

And your subjective assesment of plasma quality, even if true, isnt a deciding factor in the marketplace.
Only a small percentage of the market buys a set based on subjective things like "black level", etc. you think people are out there measuring such when they buy a set?

Nope, they're looking at the price tag. That's why plasma competes in the higher margin markets where product quality is more of a primary consideration.

Everybody who buys a lcd in my circle, know what they talk about?
The bright glarefree picture!

So who's actually in your circle, aside from the jerk part? Are they all as clueless as you?

Tv companies put the default setting for contrast on "TORCH" mode (with enthusaists
complaining all the time) for a reason, people like a bright picture.

And putting a TV on torch mode is a good thing in your view? What looks good under bright fluorescent lighting in a big box warehouse floor is very different once you take it home.

And the list of tech that was strangled in the grave for financial reasons is rather large.
LASER was only supported by pioneer, most thought that laser would hurt VCRS.
fm radio was very superiour to AM, but RCA tried to kill IT because they thought it
would take sales away from their new toy, TELEVISION.

Boy, and you accuse everybody else of perpetuating conspiracies!

EVERY PLASMA B "sale" has a major problem, its not an lcd sale.

It's only a problem to YOU because you're a low-end LCD fanboy! No problem to people like me who prefer to have choice in the market.

If it sells too many it will be finished because its canabalizing lcd sales at a high cost.
In other words why go to the expense of making plasma when people will buy LCD if it doesnt exist?

More theoretical nonsense -- fact of the matter is that plasma does exist and meets a very specific need in the actual market. People want flat panel screens, and they want larger sizes. For years, plasma was the most affordable flat panel option in those screen sizes. LCD is now another option, but only up through the 52" screen size. You want something bigger, plasma's your only option.

By your pretzel logic, you're saying that screen sizes in the market at any given time should be constrained by what LCD technology can affordably provide. This is pure fanboy nonsense because there has been demand for big screen TVs since the CRT days. Are you saying that no one should have made a big screen TV because LCD would hit the market someday?

This is one of the reasons that video rental companies were reluctant to go to DVD,
why bother if VIDEOCASSETTE is "good enough"?

Nope, the major video rental chains did not want to rock the boat because they had a very cozy and profitable revenue sharing arrangement with the studios. By going to DVD, which has a sell-through rather than rental pricing structure, they would have to pay the same wholesale cost as other retailers. I don't think that anyone said that VHS was "good enough" -- well, maybe you did, so I guess that's one person.

And its the reason that a lot of broadcasters fought HD, AND STEREO TV.

Again, it came down to cost. Upgrading equipment is expensive, but eventually broadcasters bought in. So, what does this have to do with plasma v. LCD?

Why invest in the good stuff if people will buy crud?

Because if there is a large enough market for the good stuff, then it will continue in the market.

On the other hand if not enough sets of teh plasdma variety arent sold it will be killed off for being nonprofiftable.
Either way its going to be killed off. For marketing reasons if nothing else.

By who? So long as manufacturers and retailers continue to maintain higher margins on plasma sets (again, because they primarily compete in the big screen sizes), what reason would there be to kill it off?

THEY DODGED a few bullets, settling the leaking gas and burn in lawsuits out of court and keeping them quiet, but plasma isnt a cat, it doesnt have nine lives.

And how old are the sets in question? Nothing of the kind has occurred for years, and your burn-in regurgitation speaks volumes to how old your information continues to be.

Eventually it wont be worth the trouble.

Just not anytime soon.

WHICH IS WHY PLASMA IS DEAD

Apparently, someone needs to go back to remedial courses on grammar. Your tense usage IS obviously lacking (and so is your sentence structure, clarity, spelling et al, but that's a lesson for another day). But, if you diligently do your work, you might actually use the correct tense in your sentences.

Of course, it would be very premature for me to say that your sentence tense IS not piss poor, because it STILL IS! Now, if I were presuming to have any confidence in your learning ability (which BTW I don't), I would say that your sentence tense WILL NOT BE piss poor IN THE FUTURE. But, since I doubt you can even comprehend 1/10 of what I just said, it would be more logical to simply conclude that your sentence tense IS piss poor, WILL BE piss poor, and ALWAYS WILL BE piss poor!

Given that plasma IS still ALIVE, that makes your bone-headed proclamation pure nonsense. Of course, if you had just said that plasma WILL BE DEAD, I might just agree with you. After all, ALL of us WILL BE DEAD someday, it's just that none of us ARE DEAD right now. And I'm sure that just makes your day, since death and doom seem to do better than anything to get a rise out of you!

[GMichael]

Holey F'k Wooch! There is no way in he!! that I'm reading all that. Is RGA over your house or something?

[GMichael]

Dude, if this guy starts posting DVD reviews...

I just felt a cold chill down my spine.

[Woochifer]

So go ahead and eat your cake, but dont give any to wooch, I've already fed him so much hes starting to bloat

Considering that cake is junk food, that's a rather apt comparison for the misinformation that you keep repeating over and over. You can keep dishing it out, and I'll keep throwing it right back at you.

[Woochifer]

Holey F'k Wooch! There is no way in he!! that I'm reading all that.

You loss GM! It's a good read, trust me! All the more fun because he keeps digging his own hole for all to see.

Is RGA over your house or something?

Nope, and this doesn't remind me of those days either. At least RGA was coherent and presented a reasoned argument most of the time. Pixel's just lost, and who know's where!

[Luvin Da Blues]

You loss GM! It's a good read, trust me! All the more fun because he keeps digging his own hole for all to see.

Excellent read Wooch, but way too much effort on him. Remember, a ignorant man can learn but an idiot........

[GMichael]

You loss GM! It's a good read, trust me! All the more fun because he keeps digging his own hole for all to see.



Nope, and this doesn't remind me of those days either. At least RGA was coherent and presented a reasoned argument most of the time. Pixel's just lost, and who know's where!

OK OK. I admit it. I went back and read it all. Yeah, it was fun. Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel though. He sets you up very nicely.