Plasma Is Dead?
Say what you will about it, for my money, Plasma was the way to go for my TV. Yes, there is no question that it uses a little more power than an LCD television. But the fact that I am finding it just “looks better” with the programming I enjoy, translates into real sadness when I heard that LCD has finally trumped Plasma in the marketplace.
Yup, LCD has gone out and pulled a “Blue-ray” format win on Plasma it seems. And as this article points out accurately from my own experience, those crappy cheaper LCD TVs everyone is spending money on do not even come close to providing the same kind of quality picture seen on a comparatively priced Plasma TV. Well that and Plasma was just cheaper, too. I own a Samsung 42″ that I purchased CHEAP and it has thus far, blown the doors off anything I have seen in the LCD fleet in the $1000-2000 range. My TV cost me less than $600, too. And before anyone even tries to mention burn-in with a straight face, consider than today’s Plasmas have a myriad of anti-burn-in options to choose from. I find that the provided screensaver has worked wonders for me. I have paused video content for hours, NEVER had one problem.
So again, we see yet another great technology being trumped over for a more expensive, to outrageously expensive alternative if you are hoping to gain comparable quality. It’s Blue-ray/HD-DVD all over again. Sure, if you want to spent $1800+, you can buy a LCD TV that does not present a picture that looks like crap in a TV size that does not defeat the purpose of upgrading in the first place. But for half that, you can buy the same size/brand TV and end up with a picture that is at least as good if not better in some cases.
The only thing I would even touch in the future myself, would likely be something DLP based. At least that can actually walk the walk with quality behind the cost involve. LCD TVs are highway robbery in my honest opinion. The picture-to-cost value is simply not there and no one has been able to show me otherwise thus far.
10 Comments
Vince Andrews
February 18th, 2009
at 2:33am
Well looks like the crap wins out again.
Why is it that this happens so often in products.
I remember the war with betamax and vhs video recorder/players. For my money the betamax was the best of the bunch for picture quality..
Sad times again….
stormtrooper190
February 18th, 2009
at 10:06am
LCD have better colour contrast but the plasmas are better with movement. LCD are best for video games wile plasmas are best for watching sports and other things
Dark
February 18th, 2009
at 10:15am
just so you know, “a myriad” is incorrect, there should never be an “a” placed before the word myriad.
M. Free
February 18th, 2009
at 1:10pm
Not that I’m an expert, but I own 2 HDTV, one DLP and one LCD. I’ve owned the DLP for more than 5 years and the LCD for less than a year. I can only tell you that I did extensive research online and in a number of stores that sell HDTV. Th end result was I could barely tell the difference between DLP, LCD and Plasma other than the price. I currently prefer my DLP over the LCD because i believe it is a more lifelike true image. So, if you are willing to pay MORE for a Plasma, go ahead, but if you do a true comparison among several brands and types of HDTV, you probably will be hard pressed to see a real difference. As it turns out, if you want a screen larger than 50 inches, nearly all of them available are DLP’s For smaller screens, go to a store and then just look at the pictures of the same station, but do not look at the type of HDTV and see if you can tell the difference.
Matt Hartley
February 18th, 2009
at 1:48pm
M Free: I was with you until you mentioned that Plasma was more expensive than LCD. Unless I am mistaken, LCD is NOT cheaper by any stretch of the imagination. Well, with brand names worth owning anyway.
That being said, you can certainly spend more for a LCD set that looks great. But you will not buy a $600 42 inch LCD TV that is going to look as good as Plasma. Plasma has richer colors, less “mud” and provides a better contrast based on my own experiences.
Matt Hartley
February 18th, 2009
at 2:12pm
Here we go – be it from 2007, I think this highlights the benefits of each. And speaking as someone who has better things to do that play video games, Plasma worked for my movies and TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzoFoy8W2dI
Brittany
February 18th, 2009
at 4:12pm
So I have to say I had the utmost respect for this article until you actually said that DLP is better than LCD. DLP is great if you have ABSOLUTELY NO light in the room, but once there’s ambient light they wash out and look horrible. And whoever made the comment about LCD’s having better color contrast and being better for videogames is comepletely wrong as well. Number one, you can’t compare contrast out of brand because every brand has its own scale to measure on, but other than that Plasma has the BEST range of color and the highest contrast ratio out of any technology for TV’s. Number two, Plasma has the best refresh ratio (480Hz) while the best LCD is only 120Hz so both sports AND video games would look phenomenally better on a Plasma rather than an LCD. Just so you know…The only advantage to an LCD is that they use less energy (though a calibration would make a Plasma run on 40% less energy). Plus they both have virtually the same longevity, so why go LCD over Plasma???
Matt Hartley
February 18th, 2009
at 4:24pm
Brittany: Point taken on DLP. Was not aware of that specific issue. Thanks for pointing it out. :)
Simon
February 19th, 2009
at 9:54am
I wonder whether plasma is just less profitable to make?
I personally ruled it out at home because of power draw. In the end we lined our curtains and went with a front projector which uses about 1/4 the power. I wasn’t happy with LCD PQ in the same price range.
I went with LCD projection over DLP simply because layout required some lens shift. I haven’t noticed the same problems that bugged me on large LCD panels.
John O'Rourke
February 22nd, 2009
at 3:41pm
Both Plasma and LCD are out. Have you heard of LED HDTV?