Plasmas on their way out?

Thought id pick out a part of that, though not directly relating to plasmas.

Here, the experts even had to defend manufacturers in the face of critical questions from the public: visitors complained especially that the "HD ready" label was misleading, since the televisions cannot receive HD quality material without a HDTV receiver.

Surely that would actually be HDTV ready . . . . Its also wrong. I dont have a HDTV receiver, but I am capable of playing HD content through my Blu-ray.

I was under the impression that plasma was just invented till LCD was better anyway . . . .
 
Plasmas will eventually die out as they are more expensive and less power efficient than LCD's. However, this doesn't change the fact that they also provide the best cinematic experience this side of Pluto. LCD or related technology will catch up, but not for a couple/few years.

I'd have a Kuro tommorrow if I could afford it.
 
If LCD is the future, should we be ignoring OLED developments then?

LCD is cheaper to produce and margins are better, that's why it's become the mainstream rather than because of the quiality of the technology.

It reminds me of the situation with music, where songs are being mastered at lower quality in order to sound loud on portable MP3 players. It's for convenience and the marketing tells people this is a good thing, but all the time the quality of the product is being ignored.
 
CRT is dead but that's the best tech of all. LCD is low cost, manufacturers and consumers want cheap not quality and LCD will never be anything but poor quality.
 
Plasmas will eventually die out as they are more expensive and less power efficient than LCD's.

Panasonic's mass production line for plasma is really pushing the price down considerably, and its certainly a better image quality than most LCD panels.

In terms of power efficiency, its an urban myth that plasma's are horrible power hogs. LCD panels use the most power displaying a black image, and plasma uses the most power displaying a bright white image. But overall both tech's are better than CRT if you work out power per "inch" of the display.

A good Plasma's only 10-15% more power hungry than a good LCD panel of the same size. Of course if your compare a 40inch lcd and a 42inch plasma, the extra size of the plasma will certainly affect the power requirements. (The paper specs for plasma's virtually always qoute maximum power, rather than "average" power). My own set claims just under 300W, but in reality its more like 180W, and on dark Sci-Fi it can be as low as 90W :) Thats the thing, Plasma's power changes dramatically based on the image displayed, but LCD is more consistant, as the majority of the power is running the backlight.

Sony pulled out of Plasma, because they never made any Plasma panels inhouse. They were just branding someone elses plasma panels. Now they have a 50/50 ownership of an LCD factory with Sharp. Thus sony pulled out of the plasma market.

Pioneer had a good stab, they bought NEC's plasma fabs, and brought out the stunning Kuro panels. But Panasonic and Samsung have been targetting the mass market, and producing great (but not stunning) panels at a faction of the price. Apparently pioneer will have the kuro panels made by another oem, using current Kuro tech, so they will continue to sell plasma sets for some time. ( It may be panasonic making their panels once the deal's all sorted ).

Panasonic are still putting millions of dollars into research of plasma tech, as demonstrated by their 37inch TrueHD panel, and their crazy 150inch 4k panel. Samsung also still seem to be in the game for making consumer priced Plasma panels.

Oled is still a long way away, I believe there are issues with the lifespan of the blue oleds, at least compared to the 60k halflife we see on modern plasmas. (And dont forget the backlight can fail on an LCD set, and its pretty much a bin job if that happens). Plasma sets just gracefully fade away over the course of around 10-20 years... Although there are plenty of other things that can go wrong long before that, and as we seem to live in a throwaway society these days even a minor PSU fault can be the end of a TV.
 
Last edited:
Panasonic's mass production line for plasma is really pushing the price down considerably, and its certainly a better image quality than most LCD panels.

In terms of power efficiency, its an urban myth that plasma's are horrible power hogs. LCD panels use the most power displaying a black image, and plasma uses the most power displaying a bright white image. But overall both tech's are better than CRT if you work out power per "inch" of the display.

im not really sure where this comes from, because my sony lcd definitely uses more displaying a white image, although we're talking a difference of about 10w here - 160w on black, 170w on white.
 
im not really sure where this comes from, because my sony lcd definitely uses more displaying a white image, although we're talking a difference of about 10w here - 160w on black, 170w on white.

He means that Plasma uses less displaying black than LCD, and the other way around for white. LCD power use is constant as the backlight is always on, whereas with Plasmas each pixel is illuminated seperately so power consumption depends upon what's on the screen, peak power consumption is something like 20-25% more than an LCD's as I recall. In the long run Plasma uses less energy apparently.
 
He means that Plasma uses less displaying black than LCD, and the other way around for white. LCD power use is constant as the backlight is always on, whereas with Plasmas each pixel is illuminated seperately so power consumption depends upon what's on the screen, peak power consumption is something like 20-25% more than an LCD's as I recall. In the long run Plasma uses less energy apparently.

im pretty sure he's referring to the misconception that lcd's use more power when displaying blacks than they do with whites. if he's not then people still do say that - it gets passed around a lot on forums and it isnt true from my own findings.
 
Last edited:
I've also read that they have just increased the lifespan of the Blue light thanks to research by another Japanese firm, Idemitsu Kosan.

It's on the Register, if I'm aloud to mention them.
 
im not really sure where this comes from, because my sony lcd definitely uses more displaying a white image, although we're talking a difference of about 10w here - 160w on black, 170w on white.

Perhaps if it uses dynamic brightness. But if you have a "fixed" brightness backlight, the LCD matrix uses most power when its aligned to allow light to pass through. If combined with dynamic backlights then this will certainly change it.. a lot of monitors use overdrive to reduce latency, so I suppose if that tech has made it into the TV's then it could be increasing the power on whites.

However you have proven my point that plasma's are very dynamic in power, and LCD's are more stable. As I said, my 42inch plasma uses under 90W on a plain black display, and probably peaks at 300W!. But its average is around 180W which if you assum your sony averages 165w, is a 10% difference.

Plasma is not as high power consumption as marketting people will have you believe. 15W isnt going to kill the planet :)
 
I've also read that they have just increased the lifespan of the Blue light thanks to research by another Japanese firm, Idemitsu Kosan.

It's on the Register, if I'm aloud to mention them.

Yep, I've read about improvements in blue as well, but arnt OLed still considerably behind conventional LCD, and Plasma in terms of long term lifespan.

Another tech to watch out for, which could kill LCD and Plasma is SED. Its yet another phospor technology, but instead of using plasma cells, it has a tiny electron emmitter behind every pixel, it can be thin like LCD/Plasma, and has much finer control, as you can basically control the electron flow much more easily than plasma for example, especially at the "black" end of the scale. Plasma needs a minimum power to "drive" each cell, which can limit black detail.

SED will probably be expensive to start with, but it is very likely to take off for broadcasters and TV production, to make sure the source material is "perfect". Think of it as "studio" level gear. But studio gear often ends up in the consumer market as the technologies are made cheaper.
 
Perhaps if it uses dynamic brightness. But if you have a "fixed" brightness backlight, the LCD matrix uses most power when its aligned to allow light to pass through. If combined with dynamic backlights then this will certainly change it.. a lot of monitors use overdrive to reduce latency, so I suppose if that tech has made it into the TV's then it could be increasing the power on whites.


nooo >devil<. dynamic contrast stays off on my sony. my lcd monitor does exactly the same though - 72w on black, 75w on white. bare in mind those figures for my sony were with the backlight on full though (setting of 10). i normally leave it at 7 in the day and 1 at night. ill do some more testing later on
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom