I don't even know why people buy LCDs. These plasma displays smoke the crap out of the LCD ones. I have several TVs in my house and they are all plasmas. They are so much more superior than LCDs in every way (blacks, colors, playback).
LCD is again that thing, where CEs manag to rip people with worse quality that is easier for them to produce and then hype the 120hz or 240hz features as something great where it's actually just a thing to catch up to plasma quality since plasma's don't have refresh rate problems.
I'm glad Panny is making these. If I were getting a new set it would be this one.
I think it's easy to see why the mass-market went for LCD and not Plasma. You only have to look at this review.
"The bad: Expensive; less accurate primary and secondary colors in non-THX modes; somewhat limited picture controls; still less efficient than comparable LCDs".
Most don't care that Plasma is (at the very nth degree) 'better'. Most of the time LCD is close enough not to be a big deal. Most just have their TV for watching TV (most of the time) and your average reality/soap type TV garbage just doesn't need an expensive TV.
LCD matches a price and performance which for the majority is (easily) 'good enough'.
When they start shelling out OLED at LCD prices and lower I think it's then that we'll see average quality jump in the mass-market. But I think it's pretty obvious that (aside from the a/v enthusiast who isn't bothered by the higher price or higher running costs) Plasma has failed in the mass market and is going to see out the rest of its days as a high margin niche product.
Whilst I personally could buy one if I wanted to I just would never do so, in the same way that my buying a gas-guzzling car is just never going to happen. Further, I look forward to us gradually banning such energy inefficient devices (and devices which are disproportionately energy intensive to produce), something some US states are beginning and the EU is starting to do also.
I STRONGLY agree with you. General public has a mentality that LCDs have better picture quality than plasma TVs. Of course this this totally a false statement.
Many of LCD TV owners' excuse is that plasmas has that famous permenant "burn" effect. Again, they have no idea that plasmas don't have this problem anymore (Unless you freeze the screen for a day or something).
Anther excuse I heard is that they eat more electricity. This is true, but I think it's worth extra $1-2 dollars a month for better picture quality.
So final verdict:
The fact is that plasmas are cheaper AND have better picture quality. This is a win win situation!
It would also be a point of order to mention that plasma 'operation' costs are more or less the same as an LCD. With a dark movie a plasma is more efficient than lcd but on the flipside, a bright movie uses more energy. Thus making the debate a wash overall. That being said, the new lines of plasmas from Samsung and Panasonic both claim significantly lower energy costs (40% less according to the specs) which would put the plasma technology on par with any lcd ( light and dark movie performance) out there not sporting led lighting.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Bozster @ Jun 9th 2009 1:47PM
I don't even know why people buy LCDs. These plasma displays smoke the crap out of the LCD ones. I have several TVs in my house and they are all plasmas. They are so much more superior than LCDs in every way (blacks, colors, playback).
LCD is again that thing, where CEs manag to rip people with worse quality that is easier for them to produce and then hype the 120hz or 240hz features as something great where it's actually just a thing to catch up to plasma quality since plasma's don't have refresh rate problems.
I'm glad Panny is making these. If I were getting a new set it would be this one.
Multi-format-mayhem @ Jun 9th 2009 2:46PM
I think it's easy to see why the mass-market went for LCD and not Plasma.
You only have to look at this review.
"The bad:
Expensive; less accurate primary and secondary colors in non-THX modes; somewhat limited picture controls; still less efficient than comparable LCDs".
Most don't care that Plasma is (at the very nth degree) 'better'.
Most of the time LCD is close enough not to be a big deal.
Most just have their TV for watching TV (most of the time) and your average reality/soap type TV garbage just doesn't need an expensive TV.
LCD matches a price and performance which for the majority is (easily) 'good enough'.
When they start shelling out OLED at LCD prices and lower I think it's then that we'll see average quality jump in the mass-market.
But I think it's pretty obvious that (aside from the a/v enthusiast who isn't bothered by the higher price or higher running costs) Plasma has failed in the mass market and is going to see out the rest of its days as a high margin niche product.
Whilst I personally could buy one if I wanted to I just would never do so, in the same way that my buying a gas-guzzling car is just never going to happen.
Further, I look forward to us gradually banning such energy inefficient devices
(and devices which are disproportionately energy intensive to produce), something some US states are beginning and the EU is starting to do also.
skimrn @ Jun 9th 2009 4:39PM
I STRONGLY agree with you. General public has a mentality that LCDs have better picture quality
than plasma TVs. Of course this this totally a false statement.
Many of LCD TV owners' excuse is that plasmas has that famous permenant "burn" effect.
Again, they have no idea that plasmas don't have this problem anymore (Unless you freeze the
screen for a day or something).
Anther excuse I heard is that they eat more electricity. This is true, but I think it's worth extra $1-2
dollars a month for better picture quality.
So final verdict:
The fact is that plasmas are cheaper AND have better picture quality. This is a win win situation!
This is a no brainer. End of story...
Ironhide @ Jun 9th 2009 6:39PM
It would also be a point of order to mention that plasma 'operation' costs are more or less the same as an LCD. With a dark movie a plasma is more efficient than lcd but on the flipside, a bright movie uses more energy. Thus making the debate a wash overall. That being said, the new lines of plasmas from Samsung and Panasonic both claim significantly lower energy costs (40% less according to the specs) which would put the plasma technology on par with any lcd ( light and dark movie performance) out there not sporting led lighting.