AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Very reassuring article... though maybe a little too reassuring. It really sounds like it's designed to sell plasma technology (which, ultimately, it probably was), and doesn't really say anything bad about them. Still, there is quite a bit of empirical info in there so as long as their tests weren't specifically geared to favor plasmas, I think the study is useful at the very least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
This is really a nice paper. It's biased, but seems fair enough. The point of the paper is too dispel plasma myths and was commisioned by pioneer. I really wish they told us what displays they used for testing. Since pioneer was the one to pay for this study I assume they used at least one pioneer plasma display. The very surprising results that some of the plasma displays had better black levels than their reference CRT indicates to me that they must be using one of pioneers new 6th gen plasmas which is supposed to have great black. I'm just guessing though. I would also guess that they used at least one Panny as that is the market leader right now (and is well regarded to be one of the best plasmas).


This is exactly the information I wanted on image retention. Panny has always been saying 'like CRT' but I never really knew what that meant in terms of how long can a static image be displayed before damage occurs.


For those who don't feel like reading the paper... They left a static image on screen for 48hrs. There was significant image retention on the plasma but it disappeared after running a video loop for 24hrs.


EDIT: I have to add after looking at the article more carefully, they did the image retention test AFTER breaking-in the plasma for 4 weeks of continuous use. This is important as permanent burn-in has been reported to happen if the display is not properly broken in.



There conclusion is that pausing tivo for a few hours should be harmless and that burn-in won't happen. Just 'correctable' image retention.


Finally the Challenges section sounds like it could have been written by Mark (Rogo) himself. It sounds almost exactly like something he would say :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
This was done my IDC. They are not shills or pikers.


And this says a lot. "we expect unit shipments to reach 14.3 million units in 2009, which

works out to a compound annual growth rate of nearly 32% for the 2005-2009 time

period."


It's going to be 7 million PDPs this year, with most (although I'm not sure the breakdown) being turned into TVs. Despite everything going on, IDC says that will more than double over 4 years. RPTV will be lucky to hold onto its current share over that time, let alone grow share. Obviously, LCD -- coming from essetntially zero share in these sizes -- will grow nicely over the period as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
For those who have not read the document, a total of 9 TVs (3 plasma, 3 LCD and 3 MD RPTV) were purchased from retailers for this test (no mention of models except that purchases were from 7 major brands).


The test that suprised me the most was the Accelerated Aging test that compared the brightness capabilities before and after running the TVs for 4 weeks (24hrs a day), the equivalent of 672 hrs. The plasma TVs brightness diminished by 5.5%, LCD by 11.2% and MD RPTV by 22.8%.


I guess those RP bulbs won't last as long as suggested?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
912 Posts
Very interesting paper, but they left out a very important detail: How much variability exists within the results for a given technology. They averaged the results by technology, from 3 plasma, 3 LCD, and 3 RP units. If one of the three units of a given technology was a poor performer, it would bias the results for that technology.


To state it another way, if you pick the right 3 LCD panels, and the wrong 3 plasma panels, you could write the same paper showing how LCD is better than plasma. What would be more informative would be to compare the best units for each technology. I don't care if the average plasma is better than the average LCD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
912 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Nice
The correct way would be to pick 1 best, 1 average, and 1 poor in each technology.
Yes! If they showed the best, average, and worst for each technology for each measurement, then they could make some statement of the significance of the differences found. Since they didn't provide this information it makes me very suspicious of any conclusions made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
The very title of the report sets it up to be biased, things that are true about plasma that people may not like (e.q. lowered brightness on white scenes) aren't myths to be busted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
I agree with you guys partially, but I think you are being overly dismissive. There is some good data packed in here. Based on info I've picked up here on the forums I don't think this paper would be too misleading for very general comparison of current tech.


The really nice thing is to get some data on image retention though. As far as I know that has not been done before. No one here on the forums has put their plasma to the test like this for obvious reasons. Hearing Panny say CRT like levels of burn-in is nice but it is good to get some data to back it up. True, we don't know what plasmas were tested so we are forced to make some assumptions. I still believe they tested a pioneer and a panny at least.


Also, as far as I know no one has ever attempt to test longevity of displays before. We always have to assume the manufacturers are telling the truth. I don't know how much weight we can put into this particular test, but its interesting none the less.


I find it odd that the paper seems to make a point that plasma is the most expensive technology. Is that even true? I always thought LCD was more expensive in comparable sizes...


Though the paper is obviously slanted towards shedding light on negative plasma myths, they do make some fair statements.


Such as in a room with uncontrollable natural light a lot of the PQ advantages of the plasma are negated.


Also they point out that some people won't notice meaningful differences in PQ among the 3 types of techs.


They also point out that plasma is lacking in pixels (buried in there though).


Also they don't hammer LCD on response time as they had no reliable way of testing this metric. Newer LCDs probably don't deserve being hammered anyway.


It woulda been interesting to get some tests on power consumption.


I think LCD comes out looking pretty good from this report.


I wish we could get more info like this, preferably not sponsored by pioneer and with all data available. Something Consumer Reports should fund.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
912 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by srohde
I find it odd that the paper seems to make a point that plasma is the most expensive technology. Is that even true? I always thought LCD was more expensive in comparable sizes...
This is another thing that makes me suspicious about the results. The average price of the 3 tested LCDs was lower than the average price of the 3 tested plasmas. From this I conclude that they picked at least one low quality LCD which biased the average price, and probably also the results. Later in the article they state:

Quote:
Price declines for (current) large format LCD TVs have fallen

faster than anticipated, for example, with 40"-42" native HD LCD TVs coming to

market at near price parity to like size HD plasma by the end of 2005 —about a year

earlier than many industry observers had expected.
so they do acknowledge that overall market prices for LCDs are currently higher than those of equivalent plasmas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Or maybe they chose smaller LCD TVs to compare with the plasmas. The article doesn't mention what sizes were compared.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,948 Posts
Seems to me test results should not vary with size, so a 26" LCD should give the same results as a 40" LCD, and look at the cost savings for those paying for the test!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,266 Posts
This was very well done IMO. It ought to be a sticky!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,723 Posts
Greetings


The article is interesting, but I had a couple of questions about the conditions of certain tests.


The image retention test did not indicate if this was done at high contrast levels or "calibrated" contrast levels. Which makes a difference.


I noticed that they did not do a 4:3 viewing test with black bars on the sides ... choosing to go with the game menu which would be far milder on the set.


Try 4:3 bars and then see if you can go for 1 or 2 more days just watching full screen ...


This would cause quite a lot of chaos in some home to have 2 days out of every week set aside for damage control. Like who watches TV like that.


A consumer is more likely to use the 4:3 mode than leave a menu on screen.



I had a problem with how they did not mention that different technologies might have different break in periods ... sure the brightness drops by "x" amount over that period, but it would seem to imply that the drop off would be linear in response after that period and that simply is not the case. Some of the other technologies experience their biggest changes in the first 500 hours and then they stabilize ...


While not tested here ... CRT rptv's for instance would always experience a brightness drop of 30-40% in the first 12 to 18 months. The TV's would then stabilize for the rest of their operating lives ...


All in all, an okay article. There will never be a perfectly unbiased article. Everyone has some bias.


Regards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
there is a difference between being biased toward a technology and that technology being the comparison point of the article.


This isnt a comparison of all technologies to each other.


It is a comparison of plasma to other technologies.


I did not see anything in the article that was not commonly accepted knowledge or not backed up by test results.


People say they leave out things... Well, those things you think they leave out do not apply when you look at the thesis of the paper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael TLV
Greetings


The image retention test did not indicate if this was done at high contrast levels or "calibrated" contrast levels. Which makes a difference.


I noticed that they did not do a 4:3 viewing test with black bars on the sides ... choosing to go with the game menu which would be far milder on the set.
At the beginning of the article they stated they calibrated each display using the THX tools found on many DVDs.

After this calibration they did 4weeks of continuous playback. After this they did the image retention test.


I think thats somewhat fair. The image retention test may have gone differently if they did it before the 4week continuous test though.


I agree with you that running 4:3 would have been a better test.


I guess what we learn is IF we calibrate and IF we take care to break-in the set and IF we watch in zoom mode, THEN we are reasonably immune to permanent burn-in damage. Kinda what we've always known anyway, but here is one more data point and a fairly good one.


I also guess that a ISF technician with 10+ years experience will do a better job of calibration than I could do (even if they are limited to the common THX tools).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,723 Posts
Greetings


That's the big danger period ... the first 200-300 hours ...


For many uninformed consumers, telling them that image retention isn't a big deal comes a little too late as they stare at their 4:3 bars.


I have a store owner client ... and he just put a Runco 43" plasma in his home. Two months later, he's already burned some of the Dish network graphics into the screen. He should have known better ...


Regards
 
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top