Samsung's still the #1 TV manufacturer
Vizio may have snatched the sales crown when it comes to LCDs in the U.S., but Samsung maintained it's position as the largest worldwide TV manufacturer in the second quarter. Following Samsung's 12.4% market share were LG with 11.4% and Philips with 7.1%. The numbers were run by iSuppli, who forecast the quickening demise of the CRT, with it dropping to 38% of unit shipments in 2009, compared to 56% this year. No word on exactly what part of that was HDTVs, but we hope buyers are getting the most quality possible out of those new plasmas and LCDs.[Via TV Snob]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Sean @ Sep 28th 2007 3:39PM
I love my Samsung LCD tv. Here is the model number just in case you want to do research on the unit.
LN-T4061F
-dad
TrentD @ Sep 29th 2007 8:37AM
Sean/Dad - that's a very nice LCD, but I did A/B comparisons with an identical HDMI source fed into both the Samsung 4091, and the Panasonic PX4277U, and the lower resolution Panasonic blew the LCD away in picture quality. This is with a 1080p source, as well.
Plasma is still > LCD, even at lower resolutions.
Daniel @ Sep 30th 2007 3:26PM
same model i have. its great! even better when you use this to calibrate it... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11287410&&#post11287410
Vince @ Sep 28th 2007 4:09PM
Likewise, the LNT4665F is a beaute.
Of course, we're a generation behind already, Sean. :p
mike @ Sep 29th 2007 12:36AM
I bought a LNT6471. Much better cause it has 120hz.
And plasma does NOT < LCD. Your comparing last years models at a store? Top of the line LCDs beat plasmas now. + I just left my halo 3 on the menu screenn for 9 hours last night (fell asleep). Good thing I didnt own a plasma or I would be screwed. Plasma = crap. If they ever 100% fix that burn in issue, and find some sort of way to stop it from losing brightness over time, then perhaps I will consider it as a product some1 might want to buy.
JeffDM @ Sep 29th 2007 1:24AM
I'm an LCD owner, never had a plasma, but I'm skeptical that LCD is better than plasma at everything. Something like 120Hz just seems like a hack simply because the crystals just can't change anywhere nearly that quickly. And those sets are more expensive than plasma anyway.
Keep in mind that current LCDs lose brightness over time too. LCDs in general still use phosphors in the form of fluorescent lighting, and phosphors just fade over time. I say in general because there are a few extremely expensive LCD panels that use LED backlighting, but they are such a rare exception that they prove the rule.
Duncan @ Sep 29th 2007 1:09AM
@ Mike. Plasma is deff. > than LCD. Look at for example the Pioneer PDP4280HD (720) or the Panasonic TH42PZ700u (1080) vs Samsungs 4071 or 81 series. The motion on the 71 is very rigid and does not flow well. The blacks do not compare or does the color in comparison to the Pioneer or Panasonic. The Pioneer has a built in orbiter and the Panasonic uses different phosphors in their plasmas so burn in is not an issue. Therefore better blacks which equal better colors, better contrast, wider viewing angle, no burn in and a 60,000 half life. (twice as long as a tube tv) what more can you ask for?
Sean @ Sep 29th 2007 1:30AM
Just for the sake of argument :) The Panasonic Plasmas at Best Buy today give excellent blacks, but I chose to steer clear of Plasmas for a few reasons, one being weight. The same size TV in Plasma is double the weight of the LCD. I went from a 30 inch CRT Samsung (WHF3098TXN) to the LCD and it was night and day. The CRT had malfunction issues as well. But back on subject, the Plasma also gave a picture I wasn't to fond of. Instead of a smooth picture surface, you can see more grain on the plasmas and the phosphors. So, for the sake of argument, I love the LCD (Took me years to switch over) and the weight decrease is damn near sexual!
-dad
Vince @ Sep 29th 2007 5:06AM
I don't know, this LNT-4665F provides such detail that it reveals grain and video artifacting out more than any TV I've previously owned. I doubt Plasma would accentuate further (or else there's something seriously wrong with my TV/setup. :P)
TrentD @ Sep 29th 2007 8:44AM
Sean,
I don't really see how weight matters - I don't care how much my TV weighs while I'm watching it. I guess it could matter if you're moving it by yourself, but that's about the only situation I can think of.
One thing I do agree with - LCD has a "smoother" picture (I'm not talking about motion, but doing something like displaying a picture of the sky with a steady gradient. Plasmas dither by flickering pixels off and on, so it can be a bit "coarser" of an image sometimes. That's the only thing I see that LCDs have over plasma from a performance standpoint.
@the person that was talking about me comparing at Best Buy...
I wasn't comparing at BB, I was comparing at my office at an electronics manufacturer, using a high quality HDMI distribution amplifier fed by a Blu-ray and HD DVD source.
Jason @ Sep 29th 2007 6:01AM
True that TrentD.
DarkRogue @ Sep 29th 2007 6:17AM
I totally agree and tell this to everyone time and time again. Already bought two LCD panels from them this year and I'm sure more are on the way. Awesome brand, Design, Innovation, and Customer Service!
Jason @ Sep 29th 2007 6:17AM
I didn't activate this comment fast enough.
Vince the plasma vs lcd argument ins't about detail its about color accuracy. Yea most lcd have more detail because they are 1080p, but the color accuracy just isn't there. Go to best buy wait for the pioneer commercial to come on and compare the black levels of any plasma and the best lcd. The plasma is always going to win because lcd is blacklit. Because of the better black levels a plasma can get more natural colors. This will be most noticable in skin tones. Find a plasma and an lcd and just compare skin tones. The lcd is going to look a little washed out.
and Mike I sure am glad your playing halo 3 on an xbox 360 that goes to a screensaver after a few hours inactivity, or even better and conserve a bit of energy and have the xbox turn off when you leave it idle. But for some crazy reason you went and turned off that factory default setting and it would have been burned why not get one of "this year model" plasmas with orbital pixels or the abilty to white wash and not worry about burn in anymore.
GhostDoggy @ Sep 29th 2007 3:07PM
Jason, color accuracy and black level are completely different things. BTW, I see a lot of plasmas with black levels much higher than some select LCD products these days. And a flat-panel no matter what the technology can get only as dark as the panel in the off-position yields.
Additionally, why on earth would you go into a Best Buy and presume you could measure a black level with all the darn ambient light around the place, all the consumers playing with the picture, etc., etc., etc.?
Finally, I am not aware of any consumer product in the video category that leaves the factory CALIBRATED. And if you think the nitwits at Best Buy or any of their competitor shops are actually calibrating the units then you need to think again when talking about COLOR and talking about BLACK level.
JeffDM @ Sep 29th 2007 10:37PM
The difference is that plasma's off position is to not energize the cell. The adjustments should allow the black to be black. LCD's black is kind of like the "full on", they have to block light to make black and that's the limiting factor.
That said, I'm quite happy with the blacks on my Epson Home Cinema 1080, which is an LCD projector. I wish the response time was better, I can still tell the motion smears more than it should.
Jason @ Sep 30th 2007 9:08PM
I would like to start off with apologizing for mixing black levels and color accuracy. I do know they are not the same, but I feel my points are still valid. I think over saturated is a better word for the lcds.
Straight out of the box any of the lcd cheap to expensive are going to look over saturated. To me this is noticeable even in a brightly lit retail store. And of course best buy isn't the best place to compare tv's but how many people have a theater room they can freely test out lcd and plasmas most people relie on place like best buy to compare the two. And then even seeing the difference some want the brightest picture over most accurate and prefer lcd.
And as far as the calibration of course a big box retailer isn't going to calibrate any of their tv's. And probally 9 out of every 10 hdtv buyers won't either, but with that said of course a calibrated tv is going to look better. Thats why people pay technicians hundreds of dollars to calibrater their tv. The technology of plasma can get more accurate colors than lcd hands down and a little bit of research reveals that. So if we compare apples to apples a calibrated expensive plasma to a calibrated expensive lcd the plasma will always have the more accurate color.
jsw @ Oct 1st 2007 12:48AM
The best lcd tv as of oct 1st 07, is the Sony xbr4 1080p series.
No other lcd including samsungs best can compare of u look at them at length.
as for plasmas sure they do richer color bit often with less detail then the new 1080p lcd's !
All plasmas in say abest buy are not up to par with a true high end plasma like fujinon....
for a few grand u r not getting close to what a plasma can be. just go to a bang & ofsen store
to see what i mean. The processor and matrix and far superior.
The newest technology that may or may not be the best for 08, is canon's SED tv's which claim to to have the speed of tubes, the contrast and color of plasma and the thinness, detail of lcds.
anyway for about 2-2.5k u can get a sony xbr4 and forget the other companies cause they still r
trailing sony even after all these years !
Dustin @ Oct 16th 2007 3:57AM
jsw, you're right, that sony xbr4 has a magnificent color depth and clarity is superb.
The one painful drawback of the sony over the samsung is the terrible cloudiness:
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x97/zx3junglist/1129573456_b7be865445_b.jpg
which is an absolute shame since it really is a deal-killer on a theater-grade lcd :-/