Don't know how this one slipped by us, but better later than never. The
Plasma Display Coalition, made up of Hitachi, LG, Panasonic and Pioneer, recently surveyed plasma owners to find out what drew them to the technology. No big surprise in the results -- 98-percent cited "excellent" or "good" picture quality. Taking the lesson to heart, the coalition has put together a brochure for retail trainers entitled "Plasma HDTV: Simply the Best Picture." As LCD increases its dominance, manufacturers will have to justify keeping plasma displays in their lineups. The titles for "
thinnest" and "
greenest" are out of reach; so for plasma's sake, let's hope the coalition members leave aside "
biggest" bragging rights in favor of "best PQ for normal people."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Video Master @ Jun 20th 2008 10:38PM
Idiots - just because Mercedes Benz and BMW are the best cars doesn't mean everybody is going to go out and buy them. If Plasma wants to compete with LCD then that have to do one thing - make the prices lower. Use common sense.
Phour ZwanZig @ Jun 20th 2008 11:34PM
Not to forget also to fix the life span on these stupid tvs.. Many Plasmas I come across on a day to day basis have color dots all over the screen.. When I ask how long theyve had it, I always get the answer of a year and 1/2 to 2 years.. And it just gets worse as the time goes by.. Id take an LCD over any plasma, even if the Plasma is given to me and I have to buy the LCD..
Phour ZwanZig @ Jun 20th 2008 11:34PM
Not to forget also to fix the life span on these stupid tvs.. Many Plasmas I come across on a day to day basis have color dots all over the screen.. When I ask how long theyve had it, I always get the answer of a year and 1/2 to 2 years.. And it just gets worse as the time goes by.. Id take an LCD over any plasma, even if the Plasma is given to me and I have to buy the LCD..
gr689 @ Jun 20th 2008 11:37PM
you have got to be a moron; Plasma prices are WAY LOWER THAN LCD!!!
Loban @ Jun 24th 2008 2:39PM
If plasma has to resort to lowering prices and quality to compete with LCD, then I would rather see them go out with honor than stoop to the level of "bargain" HDTV technologies. If I'm willing to spend $1500 on an LCD, what's another $500 to get a much better plasma?
kcjones @ Jun 20th 2008 11:01PM
Consumers pursue value, not cheap. American consumers are also obsessed with reliability/longevity. The plasma display coalition needs to buy airtime reasuring consumers that Plasma is a more mature display technology than LCD, has just as long, if not longer panel longevity, and offers the best picture quality. Add this to its cheaper price compared with LCD of the same size, and consumers will see value in Plasma technology.
gr689 @ Jun 20th 2008 11:43PM
so far the only smart one here is kcjones; he likes the dead and knows his stuff about plasma. The rest of you guys-life span=Plasmas have an excellent lifespan, do your research. Color dots???? I'm not gonna even touch that one, you have no idea of what a plasma is. I'm glad idiots like you will "take a lcd over plasma any day" cause your missing out of the best picture and havent got a clue.
If plasma wants to compete with lcd they have to lower there prices. I think this statement is a little backwards pal. Do some research instead of making ridiculous statements like that one.
Loban @ Jun 24th 2008 2:39PM
Actually, American consumers are obsessed with bling and flashy buzz words and marketing numbers more than anything so they can brag to their friends. They would rather buy a 240Hz LCD with 4000x2000 resolution and a crappy picture than a 720p plasma with an amazing picture, which is why LCD is beating plasma in the market even though plasma is superior.
DVD4ME @ Jun 21st 2008 8:45AM
OK, so all BS aside, what is the attraction to LCD, why is it so dominant????
Spiza @ Jun 21st 2008 8:52AM
It usually looks better (or just brighter) in the light blasting store.
DVD4ME @ Jun 21st 2008 9:04AM
Is that it, there must be a lot of muppets buying TVs if thats the case, just shows that 99% of the population don't do any research, i don't know why but surely there is more to it than that?
Paul @ Jun 21st 2008 10:36AM
LCD has become synonymous with HDTV for a lot of people. When I tell people that I bought a 1080p plasma, they ask me "Why not an LCD?"
I try to explain to them that the black levels and colors are deeper and richer and that the response times are almost non-existent. I usually get blank stares after that.
Loban @ Jun 24th 2008 2:39PM
People know what LCD is, they are familiar with it and they understand it. You see LCD technology everywhere. In our cars, cell phones, ATM machines, TVs, computer monitors, PDAs, etc. etc. Plasmas are only in one market, televisions, and the only things people know about Plasma are the myths (burn-in, brightness life, panel life, etc.). People are unfamiliar with Plasma and are therefore afraid of it until it's explained to them by someone who knows what they're talking about, in other words not a salesman at Best Buy.
MrSatyre @ Jun 21st 2008 9:38AM
It's important to know that the power consumption differences between PDP and LCD are not what they seem. All manufacturers rate their TVs by maximum power, not by average power. An LCD's CCFL backlight typically does not change in intensity, so it maintains a constant state of energy consumption. An LED-backlit LCD somewhat alters this by switching on and off various banks of LEDs, so an LED-backlit LCD display will generally have a lower power consumption than a same-size CCFL-backlit LCD, and not just due to the higher efficiency of LED vs. CCFL. However, because each cell in a PDP is its own light source, and because not all cells are being driven identically 100% of the time, PDPs tend to be more energy efficient PER INCH than CCFL-backlit LCD displays in size larger than 42". This is very easy to demonstrate with a power meter. Again, "tend to be", not always, because some PDP manufacturers may lean towards overdriving their panels.
GhostDoggy @ Jun 21st 2008 11:00AM
"98-percent cited "excellent" or "good" picture quality" compared to what? Pathetic pillbox cinema houses or conventional boob-tube NTSC muted resolutions (color, pixels)?
Its easy to take ten year old technology and get someone to respond that its terrific if the only thing they've seen of late is 50-year old technology.
Another ignorance is bliss illustration.
joe @ Jun 21st 2008 2:43PM
When there is no absolute reference for absolute picture quality there are a few rules of thumb that apply.
People are going for image preference, not quality , at that point. This makes sense, who cares if if looks like the director intended if you can make it more to your likening.
in image retouching the rhyme went
"clear and bright are always right, dull and grey are never the way."
Clear in this case refers to contrast . People prefer images with extra contrast, even at the expense of image details.
Brightness is apparent. Until it gets painful, people will prefer an image that is brighter.
Dull and Grey refer to saturation people like saturated images and will pick a bright and rosy face on a tv over a realistic one.
Leonardo DiCrapio @ Jun 21st 2008 12:43PM
A lot of people buy Sony LCD televisions because they like the Sony brand. Sony gave up on Plasma because they couldn't get the quality control that they desired. I own one of the first Sony Wega tube televisions circa 2000, and Sony got a lot of fans from this line, which it has successfully extended to its LCD lines.
But the biggest problem plasma has is the burn-in experienced with the early sets. Burn-in still plagues plasma -- not because it is a current problem -- but because it used to be a serious problem. And 80-90% of customers associate plasma with burn-in and will not even look at a plasma. I should know -- when I first started looking at HDTV's I didn't even want to look at Plasmas because I was dead-set on LCD because of burn-in. However, after doing a considerable amount of research, I am a proud owner of a 42" non-1080P Panasonic plasma HDTV. I took great care to change the vivid setting to cinema shortly after (within a few days) buying the television, and I watched almost all (90-95%) of programming in 16:9 format for the first 100-200 viewing hours (I stretched 4:3 programs for the first 3-4 weeks) And I will probably buy another plasma HDTV in the next 1-2 years (probably 50" in size, and it will be a Panasonic or Pioneer).
gr689 @ Jun 21st 2008 1:25PM
Thank you thank you thank you......... finally some people with smarts and not ignorance.
Yes the biggest PROBLEM with plasma today is BURN-IN!!! I could not have said it better myself but it's not that plasma still has burn in issues, because it absolutely DOES NOT!! but rather people still associate plasma with burn-in. The average consumer has no idea as to what they are buying and why, neither do most best buy employees, but this is how the companies market to them.
joe @ Jun 21st 2008 2:32PM
gr689
A stunning problem with plasma displays is low bit depth. While they have deep blacks if you look at gradated images, such as a street light at night , you see very distinct stair steps.
Many sets get by with the fact most people don't pay attention and most images are to busy for it to be readily spotted. There is also the habit for plasmas ,and cheaper lcds, to add noise to the image to break up such smooth gradients.
If you drive your TV with a computer it really stands out. It's not a limitation of plasma, the sets can produce smooth gradients they would just have to be more expensive.
gr689 @ Jun 21st 2008 9:01PM
on a low priced plasma maybe but not a kuro or panasonic and if you do see "stair step" or floating blacks that mainly has to do with your source and not your set. I've never seen my pansonic with this stair step thing, ever. Maybe on a vizio.
kcjones @ Jun 22nd 2008 12:19AM
A few years ago, consumers were convinced that LCDs lasted longer than plasma displays; a fallacy still passed down even today. Also, LCD manufacturers promoted 1080p panels as "FULL HD", implying that 720p and 1080i are insufficient resolutions. Unfortunately, consumers were never taught that resolution is relative to distance, that contrast trumps resolution, that many 1080p LCDs revert to 600p with moving images due to motion blur, and that LCDs' brighter image comes at the loss of contrast. So if consumers only know that LCDs last longer and are the only "FULL HD" displays, then why wouldn't consumers buy them by the truckload. The Plasma Display Coalition only has themselves to blame.