CES 2013 - Page 2  

Of course it's uninteresting. I was being 100% sarcastic in my post.

Outdated because it uses more watts than its crappy counterpart in LCD? I dun't think so.

In what way is plasma an outdated technology?

Fragile, heavy, power-hungry, dim, loses contrast in a bright room, obvious pixel structure, still suffering from image retention, still flickers, difficulty producing smaller pixels. There’s no word on 4K plasmas below 100″ for a reason, when we have extremely high density LCD and OLED displays. (Thousands of pixels per inch)

LG's Hecto laser projector looks promising. This ultra-short-throw technology has been around for years so, maybe, finally it has matured enough for a consumer product? Laser projection has huge potential, so I'm most interested in the PQ that this Hepto produces. It's probably just a standard chip-based implementation, though, not the CRT-like scanning laser tech that would be really exciting.

Why is weight relevant in terms of performance for the unit? The 55" ST50 operates at $24 a year; today's PDP's get plenty bright; here's a nice photo of a VT50 is pretty well lit environment, http://www.avsforum.com/t/1408338/official-panasonic-vt50-owners-thread/7740#post_22614680; I would say "obvious" pixel structure is a personal opinion and not fact; IR is NOT a relevant issue, it's all ghost stories; I've only seen flicker when you turn 48Hz on rather than 60Hz, and why would I want to do that? And how often have you noticed a PDP struggling to produce smaller pixels which in turn degraded the video quality? I agree about the 4k future of PDP especially in large sizes and I'm aware the cost of these units aren't competitive compared to LCD's. I'm also aware that eventually, probably by 2015, PDP's will be gone. However I don't believe the technology will be gone due to these "supposed" issues you're referring too, nor do I believe it's being phased out because its an inferior technology. The mass market isn't driven by pure performance, it's driven by mass marketing, and today for some reason LED/LCD's sound better to people, and 4K sounds sexier and the manufacturers can, will and have run with it.

Lower weight is always a good thing if you ever have to move the display, and it's definitely a concern if you are planning on wall-mounting. Not everyone has solid brick walls.
Today's PDPs still suffer from ABL dimming, and photographs don't really tell you anything - how bright something looks in a photograph depends on the exposure, and in that example, it looks like the room itself is relatively dim, with light coming in from behind the TV.
1/40s is rather slow for a "bright room" and considering how bright the windows look, it definitely seems to be an over-exposed photograph. (which makes the TV look brighter than it would in person)
And that still doesn't address the loss of contrast that Plasmas suffer in a brighter room.
Particularly as sizes increase, it becomes more of an issue. Pixel structure has always been more obvious on Plasmas compared to many other display types.
Many people would argue that Panasonic went back on a lot of progress they made with image retention when they switched to the new phosphors for their 3D sets, and others have never been as good as Panasonic in that regard. Image retention is still very much an issue with Plasma displays today.
Well if you are watching a film, you need to be watching at a multiple of 24fps. And as refresh rate increases, image quality decreases with Plasma displays. So they have to decide between 48/72/96Hz. 48Hz has the best image quality, but the worst flicker. 96Hz has less flicker, but much worse image quality. If you were to play back films at 60Hz, you get judder. And many people still see flicker at 60Hz.

LED models can be essentially flicker-free displays.
They have given up making smaller Plasma displays now, because Panasonic haven't been able to make 1080p sets any smaller than 42″, other manufacturers have even struggled to do that, and they simply couldn't compete on price with LCD at that size due to the complexity. If we take 1080p at 42″ as a reference, that means the smallest we are likely to see a 4K plasma will be an 84″ panel - and probably larger than that to begin with.

With LCD, we have 651 PPI working prototypes being shown, and microdisplays have even higher pixel densities. (electronic camera viewfinders etc.)
4K displays are already being sold under 32″ and Panasonic has shown off a 20″ 4K monitor.

Again, weight has nothing to do with performance. You can't call a technology outdated because a small percentage of people who would like to wall mount their FP can't because of their specific homes.

You're right photos don't tell you everything, however I can tell you from personal experience that quality PDP's today, and over the past few years handle ambient light pretty well and the "lack of contrast" you're speaking of is no where near as drastic as you tout. I'd argue that if you're going to put your FP in an environment that's just flooded with natural light then you're display is going to suffer regardless. The users going to have the display set to Dynamic or Vivid and just torched through the roof.

I think as many people would argue against the fact that IR is an issue as they would for it. So lets call that one a wash.

I'm well aware about the playback of film and such. I however disagree that 48Hz gives you best quality and 96Hz gives you the worst. I do see judder at 60Hz but I don't necessarily blame that on the display, rather the film itself. 48Hz does give an unbearable amount of flicker, so ill take some judder over flicker, and I'll take both of those against frame interpolation, black light flicker, and such that LCD's use. And I also disagree that "many" people see flicker at 60Hz.

Correct they don't make PDP's in the 42" and below size anymore, again I don't see that as a flaw, because IMO, in terms of performance PDP's dominate the market at 43" and up. And I agreed with you about the 4K panels and larger screen sizes. No argument there.

There was a 2008 Samsung 63 inch 4K prototype
http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/10/30/samsung.63.ultrahd.plasma/


...and there is the 2010 $500.000 152 inch 4K Panasonic.
.http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/09/panasonics-152-inch-4k-resolution-3d-plasma-ships-this-fall/

^^that is all i could find on the net.

We are likely gonne see no affordable 4K Plasma's and we are likely gonna see no -152 inch 4K Plasma except for prototypes.

Honestly though, if you're looking at the 70" and up market, why are you not going the projection route?

I'm not saying that you're not encouraging that, matter of fact these were good links, it's just honestly people. Why are you going for a 100"+ FP over front projection?

The projection stuff has a different feel, its a different experience. Most folks here are TV fans, we do not care much about the projection stuff Projection stuff has its own Forum

Touché.

Thanks, I was not aware of this at all. It's impressive that they were able to manufacture a Plasma with that high a pixel density, but I suspect the efficiency must have been terrible though.
Yes, I knew about this - it was my understanding that these massive PDPs from Panasonic were essentially built from four panels (I seem to recall someone mentioning that they could see it when they were right up close to it, in the $20K forum a while back) but my point was that they have problems making the pixels small enough for reasonably sized 4K sets on a wide scale (rather than a prototype) and that efficiency is seriously compromised at that pixel density, Plasmas are probably the least-efficient display available as it is, and more regulations are being put in place worldwide to focus on efficiency targets that must be met.

This is why the ABL in Plasmas is getting more aggressive as time goes on, even though Plasmas are improving their efficiency. Brightness/ABL probably wouldn't be a concern today if they were still allowed to have 50″ panels that draw 500+ watts.
It will be interesting to see if there are any smaller 4K Plasmas displayed at CES this year, I suspect there won't be anything smaller than 80″ if that.
Projection has positioning issues, heat, noise and lamp-life to contend with. All but the best projectors are much lower contrast than flat panel displays, and they require a dark room for use - preferably one completely blacked out with a dark fabric surround to absorb reflected light. (any light in the room will reduce contrast further)

Laser or LED light sources and short-throw projectors take care of a number of the issues, but it still requires a darkened room for decent image quality.

My issue with these large flat panels is that when they're off, you have this giant black slab just sitting there in the middle of your wall. It dominates the room, and it's why panels over 50″ or so will not be popular in Europe even if they were able to significantly reduce prices. (and that's why it's mainly bachelors that buy them) With a projector, you can have have a motorized screen (and projector mount, if you want) or a fixed-frame that is mostly white, and you get the 100″ or larger image without the giant black screen imposing on your room.

Same old story. LCD is presently inferior in an array of other areas that LCD fanatics tend to ignore, but these issues can all apparently be overcome by current and ongoing developments. The first 3 complaints are nonstarters to the videophile. And DIM!? Because it's slightly less eye-searing than an equivalently sized LCD? Puhlease. No display is meant to be watched in a sunroom. More subjective shellacking in the "obvious pixel structure" complaint, which leaves image retention (minor to nearly nonexistent concern) and flickering (detectable by some in certain scenarios, I presume, but I am at loss as to find such an artifact in my current set to any appreciable degree). Your last and final point might be the best one.

+1. Spot on.

All this veiled/subtle wishful hoping for Plasma to die (I know Chrono has denied this, but that's not quite the case with the auditor) is getting to be tiresome, and the end result is one that is not favorable for videophiles while OLED attempts to gain a footing.

Has anyone said that? It doesn’t matter what you believe, Plasma is clearly on the way out, with it looking like we will have Edge LED dominance until OLED is affordable, and I don’t think any of us want that.
Yes, plasma displays are dim. All of them.

It is not a case of maximum light output (an area where they are also lacking) but rather it is the ABL which makes them dim.

Even if you were to set one to a very low peak brightness, say 48nits, which is the projector reference brightness (flat panel reference is 100) which I actually prefer to watch on my LCD in a dark room, they will dim the picture as much as 50% or more going from peak brightness when displaying a small white area to a full white screen. This makes them dim no matter how bright you set the contrast control.

Furthermore, they are dim when placed in a brighter room, even if it’s just watching TV on an overcast day.
Perhaps not, but an LED set can be, and will maintain a high contrast image at the same time. Even in a moderately bright room, an LED set will put out a much better image. As soon as you have some level of ambient light, black level is no longer a concern even for Edge-lit sets, and viewing angle problems are minimized.

The inverse is true with plasma. The higher the ambient light, the worse contrast gets.

We're going over the LCD Toilet Cliff!

None of those are outdated technology; they're all still working just fine. And Plasma is much more cost efficient to manufacture and sells for much less than LED.

Yesterday i spent about 10 minutes playing with the Sony 55" HX950 flagship LED at Magnolia that was sitting 10 feet to the left of a 55GT50 Plasma. I moved 15 degrees off axis from the Sony and it immediately started losing contrast and the blacks on the screen turned to dark grey, and even from straight on the much cheaper GT50 was kicking it's butt. It was extremely disheartening. I don't understand why so many people in the Sony threads keep insisting that off-axis viewing isn't a problem on these sets - it's actually very unacceptable.

Meanwhile, that GT50 that was about 60 degrees to my right maintained it's full contrast and blacks were still inky from way off to the side. There would be nothing graceful about Plasma going away, it would be tragic for the manufacturers to leave us with sub-standard LED technology. OLED is the only saving grace if that happens.

Relatively speaking, they might be dimmer than LCD, but anything less than the searing blinding levels from LCD could be considered dim. I'm really done arguing this point, since I use my flat panel to watch movies in a dark setting. I'm done swirling around the toilet with you.

As long as we need to be reminded about the "inferiority" of a certain tech at every turn by some folks, this won't stop.

Then the recent report of OLED's troubles that I believe you sourced may not be exaggerated after all.

So it appears LG's prepping for yet another year of mediocre performers with one, maybe 2 stands out. Fantastic.

On a less related note, despite all the troubles Sharps been having, anyone expect a revamp of the Elites soon? Like maybe a teaser at CES?

Just because something works, doesn't mean it isn't outdated.
I'd be surprised if Plasma is still around in five years time. I would be even more surprised if LCD is not.
Are you sure about that these days?
We don't have those kind of stores here; what kind of lighting setup do they have? I can't imagine it being especially dim for safety reasons, and in a reasonably well lit environment, you should be able to move much further than 15° off-axis before you notice any kind of loss of contrast - at least not having the black level rising. Depending on the panel type, you might see colour or gamma shifting, or a loss of brightness though. As soon as there are any lights on in my room, any black level issues at an angle disappear until you are at such an angle you can't watch the picture anyway.

With the better IPS panels in a bright room, there's almost no change to the image as you move off to the side. (a different story in the dark though)
And Plasma black levels don't look "inky" in any environment to me; if you're in a dark environment, it's enough to let you see that they only have about 10,000:1 contrast, and if you're in a well lit environment, contrast of the panel is reduced even further.

Are you sure it was a HX950 and not an edge-lit set? (perhaps the HX850) Was local dimming actually enabled on the set? If we are actually talking about black level, it remains black at any angle, because those areas of the screen are turned off. What happens when you go off-axis with an LED backlit screen is that you start seeing haloing around bright objects. Black areas stay black.

An example I posted some time ago, one of the worst case scenarios for a local dimming set; bright white text (the colour is moire from the camera) on a full black background in a dark room, at a much steeper angle than you could actually watch the TV from.

Unfortunately Imageshack seems to have removed the full resolution images now, and I don't have a local copy. (they seem to have started doing that some time this year)

Admittedly the newer HX920 and HX950 use lower contrast panels than my HX900, but viewing angle was never UV2A's strong point.


You won't have any argument from me about viewing angle being less than ideal on any LCD - it's the main area they're lacking in - but it's never been that bad. Depending on how close you are to the panel, 15° is most likely less than 2ft off centre.
Plasma is clearly better in that regard, but I don't buy high-end displays to be sitting anywhere except directly in front of them when watching anything, so it's almost irrelevant in my opinion.
Congratulations for not reading my post. Even if you keep them at a dim output level in a darkened room, the ABL automatically dims the picture on a Plasma display. Bright outdoor scenes are displayed dimmer than they are supposed to, even if you set peak brightness to half the reference level for flat panel displays. With LCD, there are no brightness fluctuations depending on the picture content being displayed.

---

I wonder if anyone here knowledgeable about the cost of TV manufacture knows how feasible it would be to produce a double-layer panel now?
Surely the cost of LCD manufacture is dropping at a considerable rate, and it's becoming more realistic to have something like the old Sharp 1,000,000:1 contrast prototype that used two LCD panels layered on top of each other.

With IGZO allowing the panels to transmit much more light, and contrast in excess of 2,000:1 native (3,500:1+ for Sharp's UV2A) that could result in an edge-lit panel with 4,000,000:1 native contrast or greater, and I'm sure that uniformity correction could be implemented.
Edited by Chronoptimist - 12/31/12 at 11:07am