Here's an interesting, but some what uninformed article. It's not quite as "anti-plasma" as the title implies.
Was Plasma Just a Moment?
-Steve
Was Plasma Just a Moment?
-Steve
Is Today's Hottest Technology Already On The Way Out?
-
Now Available: Tech Talk Podcast with Scott Wilkinson, Episode 19 Click here for details.
- Status
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
I like how the article says the hook for DLP and other technologies is: it lasts longer, no burn in, and better blacks.
now most frequent users to thsi forum knows that the current generation 7 of panasonics have all but eliminited the burn in issue, and I dont see how it "lasts longer" when the DLP bulbs last at most 2000 -4000 hours (vs 60,000 hours on a PDP).
articles like these are just sour grapes from people who just cant afford a PDP, and feel they have to research other such people to back up their claims about the demise of PDPs.
They have all but compared the state of PDPs to the whole Circuit City Divx DVD player debacle from like 6-7 years ago.
simply put, there is nothing now or that will emerge in the near future, that will approach/surpass the allure of a PDP. DLP/LCoS will never be as thin. LCDs will never be as bright, fast, or colorful. and OLEDs will appear the day I sell my car in order to buy a teleporter.
now most frequent users to thsi forum knows that the current generation 7 of panasonics have all but eliminited the burn in issue, and I dont see how it "lasts longer" when the DLP bulbs last at most 2000 -4000 hours (vs 60,000 hours on a PDP).
articles like these are just sour grapes from people who just cant afford a PDP, and feel they have to research other such people to back up their claims about the demise of PDPs.
They have all but compared the state of PDPs to the whole Circuit City Divx DVD player debacle from like 6-7 years ago.
simply put, there is nothing now or that will emerge in the near future, that will approach/surpass the allure of a PDP. DLP/LCoS will never be as thin. LCDs will never be as bright, fast, or colorful. and OLEDs will appear the day I sell my car in order to buy a teleporter.
Another LCD vs Plasma story.
It seems that the gods that be have proclaimed LCD King and all we mere peasants had better get in line!!
It still baffles me though. I understand the Pro's & Con's of both but the only one I'm concerned about is cost.
Seems to me that Plasma is an inherently cheaper technology to manufacture due to the following.
- Screen printing.
- Fabs are much cheaper to construct.
- Fab contruction has shorter lead times.
- Components as easier and cheaper to acquire (Witness the problems LCD guys are having with sourcing)
- Tolerances are much less.
Mark the effortless way Plasma manufacturers scaled from hundreds of thousands to millions of sets in a couple of years.
And mark the incredible difficulty LCD guys have had making their deadlines and pitiful trickles at inflated costs. It was mentioned here earlier that Sharps entire run of 45" TV's was 600 a month or some other ridiculous figure.
Mark the incredible prices for even 20" televisions. Even computer monitors seem to have a lower price threshold that they can not cross. The day there is a sub $100 15" LCD monitor we can talk.
Yes plasma has higher voltages (they are working on it), yes burn in is constantly mentioned yet on this forums thousands of members I count two who have mentioned having seen it. And two who have seen similar stuff on LCD. Admittedly I have not checked a lot of posts.
What burns me up is the attitude of these analysts that Gosh! the LCD guys have invested Billions of dollars in their plants so consumers must buy this technology cos it must be better or they wouldn't have invested in their 3 Billion with a "B" plants.
I think LCD's are not going to be cheaper than Plasma to the end of this decade. In simple terms that will settle the issue. I can not see Joe consumer spending $500 to get a LCD of same size let alone thousands.
My fear is that the LCD guys are using FUD to stick us with the billions their plants cost.
It seems that the gods that be have proclaimed LCD King and all we mere peasants had better get in line!!
It still baffles me though. I understand the Pro's & Con's of both but the only one I'm concerned about is cost.
Seems to me that Plasma is an inherently cheaper technology to manufacture due to the following.
- Screen printing.
- Fabs are much cheaper to construct.
- Fab contruction has shorter lead times.
- Components as easier and cheaper to acquire (Witness the problems LCD guys are having with sourcing)
- Tolerances are much less.
Mark the effortless way Plasma manufacturers scaled from hundreds of thousands to millions of sets in a couple of years.
And mark the incredible difficulty LCD guys have had making their deadlines and pitiful trickles at inflated costs. It was mentioned here earlier that Sharps entire run of 45" TV's was 600 a month or some other ridiculous figure.
Mark the incredible prices for even 20" televisions. Even computer monitors seem to have a lower price threshold that they can not cross. The day there is a sub $100 15" LCD monitor we can talk.
Yes plasma has higher voltages (they are working on it), yes burn in is constantly mentioned yet on this forums thousands of members I count two who have mentioned having seen it. And two who have seen similar stuff on LCD. Admittedly I have not checked a lot of posts.
What burns me up is the attitude of these analysts that Gosh! the LCD guys have invested Billions of dollars in their plants so consumers must buy this technology cos it must be better or they wouldn't have invested in their 3 Billion with a "B" plants.
I think LCD's are not going to be cheaper than Plasma to the end of this decade. In simple terms that will settle the issue. I can not see Joe consumer spending $500 to get a LCD of same size let alone thousands.
My fear is that the LCD guys are using FUD to stick us with the billions their plants cost.
Joined
·
395 Posts
Quote:
When a DLP bulb blows (after 8,000 hours, not 2,000) you get a new bulb for a couple hundred bucks and you're back in business. When your Plasma fades out totally then what? Or even hits its half-life in 30,000 hours...
And why the LCD hate? They may not have the brightness or size, but they can handle resolutions I haven't seen Plasmas capable of.
| Originally posted by Ou8thisSN now most frequent users to thsi forum knows that the current generation 7 of panasonics have all but eliminited the burn in issue, and I dont see how it "lasts longer" when the DLP bulbs last at most 2000 -4000 hours (vs 60,000 hours on a PDP). |
And why the LCD hate? They may not have the brightness or size, but they can handle resolutions I haven't seen Plasmas capable of.
Joined
·
7,295 Posts
I guess it's time to sit back and watch another LCD vs. Plasma thrashing....
Here are a few of the notable quotes:
says Apex President Steve Brothers. "We have no plans for plasma; we think LCD is a better technology. We have concerns about the liability issues with plasma. Plasma has the potential of degrading over time. We just don't want to deal with that issue."
The low margin players have for the most part been scared out of the Plasma arena. They just don't want to deal with the potential burn-in issue, no matter how much the plasma displays have improved. These guys don't want to spend time educating the average consumer.
Mitsubishi's Zanfino says that "aside from normal wear and tear, plasma panels have a higher tendency to develop a circuit failure. Their internal circuitry tends to consume more power, run hotter and be exposed to higher voltages, all of which take their toll. In comparison, LCD displays are statistically less likely to develop a failure under normal use because of their lower power consumption, cooler operation and lower voltages. If I had to bet, an LCD panel would outlast a plasma panel for this reason and not because of the phosphor-versus-fluorescent lifetime."
This is an interesting comment. Has anyone compared the different Plasmas screens between each other as well as LCD screens of similar size. With ED screens from Pioneer, NEC and Panasonic now requiring less than 300 Watts and similar size LCD screens requiring at least 250 Watts, is there really that much difference? What are the voltage requirements of similar size LCD and Plasma screens. Here is Pioneer's response to this comment.
"Dickson also believes that, under normal usage, plasma lifespans are generally underestimated, while LCD lifespans are overstated. "My plasmas will last as long as an LCD, without any issues," he maintains, predicting Pioneer plasmas will last on average 15 to 17 years, not the seven years some plasma naysayers regularly cite. Dickson claims Pioneer plasmas consume about the same amount of wattage as large LCDs do (and less than many other plasmas), and unlike the constant backlight of an LCD, plasmas are capable of more variable energy consumption depending on the intensity of the image displayed."
And here is an interesting test that Pioneer did to show how their displays are immune to burn-in.
Dickson says the burn-in issue is also overplayed."When you get a plasma panel, it's like getting a new car," he explains. "You need to break in the engine." He said that at the recent InfoComm show, Pioneer "aged" a plasma's phosphors for about 500 hours, then left a static image on it for three days, and there was no burn-in.
says Apex President Steve Brothers. "We have no plans for plasma; we think LCD is a better technology. We have concerns about the liability issues with plasma. Plasma has the potential of degrading over time. We just don't want to deal with that issue."
The low margin players have for the most part been scared out of the Plasma arena. They just don't want to deal with the potential burn-in issue, no matter how much the plasma displays have improved. These guys don't want to spend time educating the average consumer.
Mitsubishi's Zanfino says that "aside from normal wear and tear, plasma panels have a higher tendency to develop a circuit failure. Their internal circuitry tends to consume more power, run hotter and be exposed to higher voltages, all of which take their toll. In comparison, LCD displays are statistically less likely to develop a failure under normal use because of their lower power consumption, cooler operation and lower voltages. If I had to bet, an LCD panel would outlast a plasma panel for this reason and not because of the phosphor-versus-fluorescent lifetime."
This is an interesting comment. Has anyone compared the different Plasmas screens between each other as well as LCD screens of similar size. With ED screens from Pioneer, NEC and Panasonic now requiring less than 300 Watts and similar size LCD screens requiring at least 250 Watts, is there really that much difference? What are the voltage requirements of similar size LCD and Plasma screens. Here is Pioneer's response to this comment.
"Dickson also believes that, under normal usage, plasma lifespans are generally underestimated, while LCD lifespans are overstated. "My plasmas will last as long as an LCD, without any issues," he maintains, predicting Pioneer plasmas will last on average 15 to 17 years, not the seven years some plasma naysayers regularly cite. Dickson claims Pioneer plasmas consume about the same amount of wattage as large LCDs do (and less than many other plasmas), and unlike the constant backlight of an LCD, plasmas are capable of more variable energy consumption depending on the intensity of the image displayed."
And here is an interesting test that Pioneer did to show how their displays are immune to burn-in.
Dickson says the burn-in issue is also overplayed."When you get a plasma panel, it's like getting a new car," he explains. "You need to break in the engine." He said that at the recent InfoComm show, Pioneer "aged" a plasma's phosphors for about 500 hours, then left a static image on it for three days, and there was no burn-in.
>>And why the LCD hate? They may not have the brightness or size, but they can handle resolutions I haven't seen Plasmas capable of.
Not hate, frustration.
Mostly from cost. I hate being told to buy the more expensive technology because it improves image quality another 10% but costs twice as much. We've gotten stuck with many expensive Kludges because of this.
Just to line up a few.
- Nuclear energy. Remember that miracle
- DVD encryption, Macrovision and Region codes. Guess who paid for that mess.
- DVD + & -. Maybe not so extreme but we paid to have multi format players.
- RAMBUS. Incredibly DDR is being stuck for the costs of that mess.
Not hate, frustration.
Mostly from cost. I hate being told to buy the more expensive technology because it improves image quality another 10% but costs twice as much. We've gotten stuck with many expensive Kludges because of this.
Just to line up a few.
- Nuclear energy. Remember that miracle
- DVD encryption, Macrovision and Region codes. Guess who paid for that mess.
- DVD + & -. Maybe not so extreme but we paid to have multi format players.
- RAMBUS. Incredibly DDR is being stuck for the costs of that mess.
It looks like the voltage gap between LCD and Plasma may disappear if LCD is to continue improving it's contrast.
"LCD by contrast has to increase the power voltage to make pixels darker. Thus, the higher the voltage surging into and through the pixel, the darker the LCD pixel. Though there are improvements in LCD contrast and black level, even the best producers of LCD technology such as Sharp can only produce a contrast of between 500:1 to 700:1."
Plasma TV vs LCD
The more I read about where these technologies are now and where they are heading the more it seams that they will be converging. There will always be some inherent advantage/disadvantage to each technology but these will not be as great as they are today.
"LCD by contrast has to increase the power voltage to make pixels darker. Thus, the higher the voltage surging into and through the pixel, the darker the LCD pixel. Though there are improvements in LCD contrast and black level, even the best producers of LCD technology such as Sharp can only produce a contrast of between 500:1 to 700:1."
Plasma TV vs LCD
The more I read about where these technologies are now and where they are heading the more it seams that they will be converging. There will always be some inherent advantage/disadvantage to each technology but these will not be as great as they are today.
Quote:
When my PDP fades out in 15 years, i'll be sure to buy something else that will be not only the new "standard" but also the envy of all other commoners.
I am not knocking DLP. We built a theater around a DLP projector. I just think its ludicrous to compare a DLP tv to a plasma screen. I love the slogan "its ONLY 7 inches deep". thats more than 1/2 a foot. Thats a lot! its never gonna be as cool as owning a PDP, period. I mean, if people were trying to argue that DLP is a different technology with pros and cons, and are mutually exclusive, thats one thing.
But like all these new LCD projection and DLP sets brag about how thin and light they are when they really arent, and pretend to be a "plasma" substitute at a lower price. thats just crap, IMHO. Plasma is king, and will be for quite a while, they shouldnt try to pretend to emulate a PDP, they should create their own niche. You dont see a corvette trying to be a ferrari, do you? yes, a corvette is a great car, but it'll never be a ferrari, which is the king, and to market yourself as a cheaper substitute only degrades the product further.
| Originally posted by BobDobalina When a DLP bulb blows (after 8,000 hours, not 2,000) you get a new bulb for a couple hundred bucks and you're back in business. When your Plasma fades out totally then what? Or even hits its half-life in 30,000 hours... And why the LCD hate? They may not have the brightness or size, but they can handle resolutions I haven't seen Plasmas capable of. |
I am not knocking DLP. We built a theater around a DLP projector. I just think its ludicrous to compare a DLP tv to a plasma screen. I love the slogan "its ONLY 7 inches deep". thats more than 1/2 a foot. Thats a lot! its never gonna be as cool as owning a PDP, period. I mean, if people were trying to argue that DLP is a different technology with pros and cons, and are mutually exclusive, thats one thing.
But like all these new LCD projection and DLP sets brag about how thin and light they are when they really arent, and pretend to be a "plasma" substitute at a lower price. thats just crap, IMHO. Plasma is king, and will be for quite a while, they shouldnt try to pretend to emulate a PDP, they should create their own niche. You dont see a corvette trying to be a ferrari, do you? yes, a corvette is a great car, but it'll never be a ferrari, which is the king, and to market yourself as a cheaper substitute only degrades the product further.
Quote:
\\
The 8000 hours bulb life is what the manufacture claimed. The reality is about a few handred to less than 2000 hours . Check the rptv section and you will get the truth. 5 lamps in 10 years will costs more than $1000. But lets keep it a secret!
| Originally posted by BobDobalina When a DLP bulb blows (after 8,000 hours, not 2,000) you get a new bulb for a couple hundred bucks and you're back in business. When your Plasma fades out totally then what? Or even hits its half-life in 30,000 hours... And why the LCD hate? They may not have the brightness or size, but they can handle resolutions I haven't seen Plasmas capable of. |
The 8000 hours bulb life is what the manufacture claimed. The reality is about a few handred to less than 2000 hours . Check the rptv section and you will get the truth. 5 lamps in 10 years will costs more than $1000. But lets keep it a secret!
Joined
·
395 Posts
Quote:
I hear ya on the frustration, as I've been having quite a bit of it myself deciding on which to buy (still haven't pulled the trigger...) but I do think your numbers are swapped. A 37'' EDTV plasma will cost you in the mid $2000's, right? Syntax's new 37'' LCD has the resolution to do 1080p and looks like it'll cost between $2500 and $3000. Sure, more than a comprably sized plasma, but you're getting more than 2x the resolution for about 10% more cost 
Obviously the larger you get the more the price differential increases, but for many who aren't interested in anything larger than 42'' or so, that's not a factor.
| Originally posted by dusty144 >>And why the LCD hate? They may not have the brightness or size, but they can handle resolutions I haven't seen Plasmas capable of. Not hate, frustration. Mostly from cost. I hate being told to buy the more expensive technology because it improves image quality another 10% but costs twice as much. We've gotten stuck with many expensive Kludges because of this. |
Obviously the larger you get the more the price differential increases, but for many who aren't interested in anything larger than 42'' or so, that's not a factor.
Joined
·
395 Posts
Quote:
So we're trusting one manufacturer's estimations but not another's?
| Originally posted by technofan \\ The 8000 hours bulb life is what the manufacture claimed. The reality is about a few handred to less than 2000 hours . Check the rptv section and you will get the truth. 5 lamps in 10 years will costs more than $1000. But lets keep it a secret! |
If the forecast is correct that additional FP manufacturers will flood the PDP consumer market, the price may become so competitive that other technologies will not come to fruition because there will not be enough profit to justify the start-up costs.
Kind of like what ethernet did to token-ring back in the mid 90's.
Kind of like what ethernet did to token-ring back in the mid 90's.
Yeah, you can forget about Burn in with the latest gen PDP's. You guys all remember the incident I had on the first night of getting my Panasonic 6U. I decided to calibrate my new unit with Avia and have a few beers in the process. I woke up to find I had left the color bar scene on the display in torch mode for about 10 hours. A warning to all don't drink and calibrate, but the set was perfect to say the least. I threw up all white backgrounds, nothing. From that incident I have not worried about burn in since and my set is perfect. I can only imagine the new 7 which claimes to be even more resistant to burn in.
And who is going to keep the panel after 60,000 hours? Everything needs to be replaced in time. I would rather get a new PDP in 7-8 years or whatever is the newest technolgy than to keep replacing Lamps that will only get more expensive as the years pass and they become harder to find etc.
Someone else said that plasma was king and I agree.
And who is going to keep the panel after 60,000 hours? Everything needs to be replaced in time. I would rather get a new PDP in 7-8 years or whatever is the newest technolgy than to keep replacing Lamps that will only get more expensive as the years pass and they become harder to find etc.
Someone else said that plasma was king and I agree.
Joined
·
597 Posts
Quote:
I would Definatly not say it all but eliminated the issue, thats still a big concern of mine while lookin at what tv to buy. Would you feel comfortable playing a playstation game on the plasma for 5 or 6 hours straight? with the static menu's on the screen the whole time? Or watching msnbc (with the stock bar on the bottom) all day? or even for 3 or 4 hours a day every day? Or watching exclusively with the black bars on the side, or even just 80 or 90% of the time? I wouldnt.
| Originally posted by Ou8thisSN I like how the article says the hook for DLP and other technologies is: it lasts longer, no burn in, and better blacks. now most frequent users to thsi forum knows that the current generation 7 of panasonics have all but eliminited the burn in issue |
The author of the article really did poorly in laying out the price/performance differences of the technologies discussed. They all have their merits and short comings, but for the uninformed, the article gives the impression that plasma technology, while still good, has peaked and will probably be surpassed by the other technologies (particularly LCD). But there are continuing improvements to plasma performance by the first tier manufacturers and while LCDs will likely dominate displays below 40", there is no evidence that they will dominate or even be price competitive with plasmas in the larger sizes (at least not any time soon).
-Steve
-Steve
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
