|
|
|
Panasonic drops out of the plasma TV market, for good
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 1 November, 2013
This may be the final nail in the coffin of plasma display televisions.
Following Pioneer exiting the market earlier this year, Panasonic had confirmed today that they will be exiting the plasma TV market, ending production in December and all related operations by March of next year.
Two of Panasonic's three factories have already ceased production of new plasma displays, and the ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
serazin
Newbie
|
1. November 2013 @ 00:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
700,000 ham radio operators rejoice in this news!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
mukhis
Member
|
1. November 2013 @ 01:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
sad. very sad as LED or OLED PQ does not come close to plasma PQ, EVER.
ASUS G73JW | Intel Core i7-740QM, 1.73GHz | 8GB DDR3 | Nvidia GeForce GTX 460M, 1.5GB | OCZ 120GB SSD + Seagate 500GB Hybrid 7200rpm | 17.3" FHD/3D | Blu-ray Write | Win7Pro64
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
1. November 2013 @ 02:21 |
Link to this message
|
I cannot agree, mukhis, having seen several side-by-side comparisons, especially with high-end OLEDs, although you're welcome to your opinion.
I also don't like the increased power usage, heat, interference, thickness, and burn-in problems of plasmas either. Costs also never really came down sufficiently. OLEDs are quite expensive at the moment, but they're getting cheaper.
edit --> You can find an excellent comparison of OLED vs. plasma here.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. November 2013 @ 02:27
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
1. November 2013 @ 12:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Bozobub:
I cannot agree, mukhis, having seen several side-by-side comparisons, especially with high-end OLEDs, although you're welcome to your opinion.
I also don't like the increased power usage, heat, interference, thickness, and burn-in problems of plasmas either. Costs also never really came down sufficiently. OLEDs are quite expensive at the moment, but they're getting cheaper.
edit --> You can find an excellent comparison of OLED vs. plasma here.
Read the article link and I have to agree that OLED trumps plasma and LED except for price and viewing angles with curved OLEDs. The only downside for OLEDs is they only have a life expectancy of 2 1/2 to 3 years. Yikes! This tech is new I understand but that a bajor blemish for consumers to think about. Hopefully in the future they will find a way to fix it and not bandage the problem...
Chance prepares the favored mind. Look up once in a while and you might learn something. - BLUEBOY
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. November 2013 @ 12:15
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
1. November 2013 @ 13:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, no one REALLY knows, yet, how long OLEDs will last =/ . They're just too damn new. So the life expectancy may be better (or worse!) than that.
They may be able to extend that lifespan a bit, but I dunno. We'll just have to see...
|
|
gnovak1
Member
|
1. November 2013 @ 15:06 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by blueboy09:
Originally posted by Bozobub:
I cannot agree, mukhis, having seen several side-by-side comparisons, especially with high-end OLEDs, although you're welcome to your opinion.
I also don't like the increased power usage, heat, interference, thickness, and burn-in problems of plasmas either. Costs also never really came down sufficiently. OLEDs are quite expensive at the moment, but they're getting cheaper.
edit --> You can find an excellent comparison of OLED vs. plasma here.
Read the article link and I have to agree that OLED trumps plasma and LED except for price and viewing angles with curved OLEDs. The only downside for OLEDs is they only have a life expectancy of 2 1/2 to 3 years. Yikes! This tech is new I understand but that a bajor blemish for consumers to think about. Hopefully in the future they will find a way to fix it and not bandage the problem...
That would be bad for me. I don't buy TVs every few years, so I need one to last a long time. I keep TVs for 7 to 8 years so thanks for the info. I will NOT be buying an OLED TV.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
1. November 2013 @ 15:24 |
Link to this message
|
Remember, gnovak, that no one actually knows how long OLEDs last; they simply haven't been on the market long enough. But waiting to see how the tech pans out is also not a bad idea. My main point is really that OLEDs (to most people) deliver superior picture quality to plasma, I wasn't trying to imply the tech is *overall* superior. =)
If you want the longest-lasting TV, your choice is currently between an LED-LCD (LED backlights on LCDs last longer than other types) and a traditional, heavy CRT, which is actually the longest-lasting type there is to date. But remember, ALL display techs lose performance over time, they just vary by rate and how the degradation presents itself.
My main quibble with plasma is actually its nasty tendency to easily "burn-in" (become permanently visible in some form on the display, like an old, converted Pac-Man game - lol). Using one as a PC monitor, for example, is likely a serious mistake, as any feature, such as the Windows taskbar, that is often on-screen WILL burn-in unpleasantly quickly. There are methods - generally, by displaying "static" - to attempt to address this, but burn-in pretty much obviates many uses a large TV/monitor would otherwise be excellent for. As another example, most plasma displays don't do all that well with video game consoles.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. November 2013 @ 15:25
|
|
mukhis
Member
|
1. November 2013 @ 15:39 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Bozobub:
I also don't like the increased power usage, heat, interference, thickness, and burn-in problems of plasmas either. Costs also never really came down sufficiently.
i agree when you say heat, power, thickness but don't when you say burn-in. it has been fixed since they stopped gas-based tech.
since LED is newer, plasma is cheaper, so price adv is here.
and regarding PQ...
if you want sharpness and brightness, LED is your choice. if you want natural colors, plasma is your fav. since i watch classics and documentaries, plasma is my choice.
ASUS G73JW | Intel Core i7-740QM, 1.73GHz | 8GB DDR3 | Nvidia GeForce GTX 460M, 1.5GB | OCZ 120GB SSD + Seagate 500GB Hybrid 7200rpm | 17.3" FHD/3D | Blu-ray Write | Win7Pro64
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
1. November 2013 @ 18:12 |
Link to this message
|
Er, plasma displays, by definition ARE "gas-based tech". A plasma is an ionized gas. And burn-in has been improved a good deal, but still is an issue with the technology. As for cheaper... I don't think you have done sufficient legwork on that one at all. OLEDs are VERY expensive, but LCDs of all types are quite a bit cheaper than otherwise equivalent plasma displays, barring sales and such.
As for your opinions on picture quality, I cannot agree with you, and for that matter, apparently no one else - at least with any authority in the matter - does, either. OLEDs match plasmas for displaying blacks and are quite superior in color balance. As for sharpness and brightness, no, OLEDs are far superior to LED-LCD panels (again, this isn't just me talking). OLEDs get MUCH brighter than any LCD panel, for example, LED backlit or not, and in fact, are brighter than otherwise equivalent plasmas; all for far less power, to boot.
I think you are equating all OLEDs with pentile OLEDs, which definitely do have some issues with sharpness (they have a Penrose-tiled pixel setup, not the rectangular grid of most other types of display), as well as color balance at times (Samsung, for example, changes how the blue pixels work to combat possible wear). But those displays are only found in smartphones (specifically, the Samsung Galaxy S and Note series), not in TVs.
Look, you are allowed to like whatever you like, but you're bucking the opinion of the entire industry (as well as most independent reviewers) on this one. I think you need to stop making such definite statements about an opinion.
Additionally, the point is pretty much moot; this article is talking about how plasma display manufacturers are getting out of the business. Plasma simply won't be an option for much longer, for better or worse.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. November 2013 @ 18:19
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
1. November 2013 @ 18:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
*oops, double post*
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. November 2013 @ 18:16
|
|
ivymike
Member
|
1. November 2013 @ 22:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
LED-based LCD TV's and Monitors are more durable.
Plasmas tend to degrade over time and fluorescent- backlit LCD's require a bulb change every so often.
|
|
mukhis
Member
|
2. November 2013 @ 15:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Bozobub:
#1 A plasma is an ionized gas. And burn-in has been improved a good deal, but still is an issue with the technology.
#2 As for cheaper... I don't think you have done sufficient legwork on that one at all. OLEDs are VERY expensive, but LCDs of all types are quite a bit cheaper than otherwise equivalent plasma displays, barring sales and such.
#3 As for your opinions on picture quality, I cannot agree with you, and for that matter, apparently no one else - at least with any authority in the matter - does, either.
#1 yes, by definition, it is. but as you said, it has been improved, and it is quite improved now. FYI, my plasma TV is from 2006, but i still don't get burn-in issue (it is from panasonic indeed). therefore, to me, plasma burn-in issue is a bit exaggerated, more often than not.
#2 if i find a LED TV in the market (i am not talking about non-LED LCDs), it is always more expensive than eqv. plasma, at least in my country.
#3 you did not read what i said. i am not comparing plasma with OLED, but with LED. yes, OLED will beat plasma out almost in every dept, but OLED has a SERIOUS limitation, at least as of now, which is its lifetime. unless OLED is proved to be long-lasting in future, this technology will NOT be widely accepted, IMO, no matter how great it is.
i will still hold my opinion that plasma PQ looks better than LED PQ unless i can see the reverse by myself. plasma looks smoother and more natural, e.g., the production of black by plasma is better than that by LED. it is MY HUMBLE OPINION, and you cannot prevent me to adhere to my opinion. there is a reason why manufacturers like samsung, sony still make plasma TVs despite wide applause and acceptance of LED TVs.
ASUS G73JW | Intel Core i7-740QM, 1.73GHz | 8GB DDR3 | Nvidia GeForce GTX 460M, 1.5GB | OCZ 120GB SSD + Seagate 500GB Hybrid 7200rpm | 17.3" FHD/3D | Blu-ray Write | Win7Pro64
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. November 2013 @ 15:15
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
2. November 2013 @ 16:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mukhis:
i agree when you say heat, power, thickness but don't when you say burn-in. it has been fixed since they stopped gas-based tech
Originally posted by mukhis:
sad. very sad as LED or OLED PQ does not come close to plasma PQ, EVER.
(my emphasis) -.-'
Sony has also said that, if the plasmas doesn't improve profits soon, they'll shut down their production; it's a big part of why they recently split their TV production into 3 subdivisions. Their entire TV division, in fact, has been having serious issues (not surprising; their quality has fallen off badly overall).
Re: burn-in, I've SEEN burn-in on display plasmas in brick-and-mortar stores in recent months, and those displays were new (albeit, admittedly, with very heavy use). Yes, burn-in isn't as bad as it used to be, but also, burn-in is still far worse than LCDs or OLEDs by a good margin. This is especially significant, considering LCDs are already more susceptible to burn-in than traditional CRTs.
And yes, plasma picture quality does, in general (but nowhere near always) trump LCDs. I never argued otherwise, and that's why they still are for sale. The brutal truth of it is that plasmas are simply available; the largest commercially-available OLED is "only" 55". You can get simply huge plasma displays. But that's also changing as we speak.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. November 2013 @ 16:01
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
mukhis
Member
|
3. November 2013 @ 07:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Bozobub:
Originally posted by mukhis:
i agree when you say heat, power, thickness but don't when you say burn-in. it has been fixed since they stopped gas-based tech
Originally posted by mukhis:
sad. very sad as LED or OLED PQ does not come close to plasma PQ, EVER.
(my emphasis) -.-'
thanks for pointing out those. saying "stopped" and inclusion of "OLED" in the 2nd sentence above were my mistakes. anyway, your link involving comparison of OLED and plasma was very helpful. hope that OLED life span increases.
ASUS G73JW | Intel Core i7-740QM, 1.73GHz | 8GB DDR3 | Nvidia GeForce GTX 460M, 1.5GB | OCZ 120GB SSD + Seagate 500GB Hybrid 7200rpm | 17.3" FHD/3D | Blu-ray Write | Win7Pro64
|
|
