Top of the range 1080P

plasma was making a loss year on year that is why it died.

not enough people were buying them because lcd's were thinner and all the LED marketing BS.


also 200hz OLED may never happen ever. you would be lucky to get 120hz. 60hz is fine for now.
 
plasma was making a loss year on year that is why it died.

not enough people were buying them because lcd's were thinner and all the LED marketing BS.

also 200hz OLED may never happen ever. you would be lucky to get 120hz. 60hz is fine for now.

And why was it making a loss? Because a comparable but cheaper tech had emerged and took over the market place. Because of this, the plasma manufacturers had to decrease their profit margins, just to stay competitive and move the merchandise. And this strategy was indeed viable for a while, but as the LCD technology kept maturing, it not only improved quality-wise, but its cost structure also improved, and plasma simply couldn't keep up with it, anymore. The manufacturers knew that bringing a higher resolution to the plasma tech would be very hard. And because of the very design of plasma, this would have also tremendously increased the power draw, which was already its Achilles' heel. Yes, plasma had its strengths, but it died because over time, LCD became cheaper and more versatile.

And with regards to thinness:
http://www.digsdigs.com/thinnest-plasma-tv-in-the-world-by-panasonic/
http://gizmodo.com/341431/pioneer-9mm-thin-concept-plasma-ogled-from-all-angles
http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/PN43D450A2DXZA-specs

So the plasma didn't die because they couldn't make them thin enough. It died because it couldn't keep up with the competition in a profitable way.

As for 200Hz OLED:
Yeah, I would put a big emphasis on the "may" word. Furthermore, I wouldn't consider achieving 120Hz to be "lucky", I see it (pretty much as inevitable) as already done. I'd even estimate substantially high odds at OLED achieving 200Hz. Or is there some sort of technological barrier that I haven't heard of? From what I've understood, with the current LCD panel techs, the main issue has been getting the pixel response times low enough. With OLED, this certainly shouldn't be an issue.
 
Last edited:
plasma was making a loss year on year that is why it died.

not enough people were buying them because lcd's were thinner and all the LED marketing BS.


also 200hz OLED may never happen ever. you would be lucky to get 120hz. 60hz is fine for now.

You said all that already and it was all debunked. :confused:

I myself even posted a link to a 120Hz OLED.
 
You said all that already and it was all debunked. :confused:

I myself even posted a link to a 120Hz OLED.

price of $4999

for a 30 inch? your having a giraffe.

obviously if your looking to spend crazy money then anything is on offer.

i could show you an 100 inch tv but that isn't exactly what the average person is looking to buy.

joe bloggs looks to spend about £100 on a monitor no more.

the pc enthusiast looks to spend around £200-£300.

then the crazy enthusiast looks to spend around £500.

show me a 200hz OLED available for sensible money. it's a pipe dream for the next 5 years. yes they will come down in price but not that quickly it's a new tech and again people will opt for cheaper lcds because they simply don't care enough.

that is the main barrier to cheap 200hz oleds, not enough people want to buy them to make manufacturers make them.

we will see if i'm right or wrong.

basically its an extremely small niche market. why pay £5000 for a monitor when a £500 one does a very good job?

basically enough people don't care as cheaper alternatives are on offer which do a good enough job.
 
where exactly does it say in it's spec that it's 200hz? :o

Either there is something wrong with how you bring your thoughts forward in writing, or you're just now trying to back down to the "cost"-argument. But, at least to me (and from the looks of it, I'm certainly not the only one), your earlier messages came through as 200Hz being nigh impossible for OLED, in the sense of some technological barrier of the whole design. From your point of view, even 120Hz would have been "lucky". But as Orangey's link pointed out, that Dell already showcased 120Hz to be a reality for OLED.

Furthermore, if the "current high cost for a new tech" would have been the main issue/reason in your mind, then why didn't you emphasize it earlier? I had even already brought forward (#3) all the same points you stated later on (#24) as the basis of your reasoning. So, if you already agreed with those same points, and also considered 200Hz to be plausible in the future (and logically by that extension, 120Hz being even more plausible), then why counter-argue against them (#21), at all?

(Also, I'm the only one who discussed about the plasmas and opened up the 200Hz OLED discussion further, so it's indeed fairly certain that you were counter-arguing to my posts, specifically.)
 
So what are 2560x1080 monitors like, is 29" too thin and 34" to big for the resolution?

There doesnt seem to be much choice in regards to 120/144hz Freesync, I cant see any at all

I got the upgrade itch so bad at the moment :(
 
basically anything that doesn't have a big enough market won't take off.

3D for example in tv's. Small OLED's will never take off when you can make an LCD for less than 1/4 of the price.

1080P is also being phased out of consumer tv's with everyone focusing on 4K so i doubt pc enthusiasts want anything less than 4k these days.

Basically there isn't a big enough market for a 24" 1080p OLED. Prices would also be ridiculously high. Which makes that market even smaller.

The U2414H can be had for £140 (WOST). It's hard to beat that tbh in terms of quality and 1080p. It's only 60hz but IMO that is more than adequate. Movies at the cinema are only 24fps.

I had a 120hz/140hz TN monitor and I sold it and went back to 60hz but IPS.

If you think it would be successful it's already clear there is a gap in the market why not build these monitors and try and sell them? Point being they don't do enough to justify the cost of them to be marketable to enough people to make it worthwhile.

Unless you want to spend $5K. A grand total of zero of those will be sold I imagine and then that project will be thrown out with plasma.
 
basically anything that doesn't have a big enough market won't take off.

3D for example in tv's. Small OLED's will never take off when you can make an LCD for less than 1/4 of the price.

1080P is also being phased out of consumer tv's with everyone focusing on 4K so i doubt pc enthusiasts want anything less than 4k these days.

Basically there isn't a big enough market for a 24" 1080p OLED. Prices would also be ridiculously high. Which makes that market even smaller.

The U2414H can be had for £140 (WOST). It's hard to beat that tbh in terms of quality and 1080p. It's only 60hz but IMO that is more than adequate. Movies at the cinema are only 24fps.

I had a 120hz/140hz TN monitor and I sold it and went back to 60hz but IPS.

If you think it would be successful it's already clear there is a gap in the market why not build these monitors and try and sell them? Point being they don't do enough to justify the cost of them to be marketable to enough people to make it worthwhile.

Unless you want to spend $5K. A grand total of zero of those will be sold I imagine and then that project will be thrown out with plasma.

There has never been a technology that had a big market from the day 1. Please read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle

Your whole post rests on the assumption that OLED will never become price-competitive with LCD tech. But OLED is not some fringe technology from a random company. On the contrary, there's a huge push from all the big market players to drive this technology forward. If the technology were inherently so expensive without any room for improvement, then why would they invest so heavily in it?

As for 3D:
It's a periodical fad, it always takes off for a few years, then lays dormant for 10-15 years (or was it 30...?), and raises its head yet again. You must have missed the last wave, as 3D indeed took off and faded out, already. But actually, from the looks of it, now that periodic behaviour even seems to change, as there's a chance that VR will force the new wave back faster than before. Then again, there's indeed a chance it will stay as a smaller wave inside the computer market, not even reaching the TV market.

As for 1080p:
1080p as a whole won't be going anywhere anytime soon. At least here in Finland, most channels are still shown in SD, and HD being more of a luxury. What you see here in the forums is indeed an enthusiasts' point of view. And even here, 4k is still quite low-key. It will take quite a while before 4k reaches mass adoption.

And once again, with regards to plasma:
Plasma died because it couldn't keep up with the competitors. OLED is in a totally different situation. OLED is the "new tech". So, on the contrary, there's actually a chance that OLED will eventually replace LCD, like LCD replaced plasma and CRT.
 
So what are 2560x1080 monitors like, is 29" too thin and 34" to big for the resolution?

There doesnt seem to be much choice in regards to 120/144hz Freesync, I cant see any at all

I got the upgrade itch so bad at the moment :(

Indeed, most of the super-wide Freesync screens are 60-75Hz. And G-sync is even rarer among super-wide. Not sure why. There are two Freesync monitors you might want to take a look at, though:
AOC C3583FQ
Acer XZ350CU (also stocked by OcUK)

Both are 35", super-wide 2560x1080, Freesync (not sure with what range), VA ("AMVA3"), curved, around £600. AOC is 160Hz, Acer is 144Hz.

If the Freesync range is good, and they weren't super-wide, I would even myself be interested in those.
 
Back
Top Bottom