Plasma panel collapse coming soon?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

From the Beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4110283.stm

Analysts say Sony would be better off sticking to rival technology LCD.

With plasma and LCD competing to be the most popular flat television
technology, plasma currently has the advantage in that its screens can be
made significantly larger.

Yet Sharp, one of Sony's television rivals, is already concentrating on LCD
screens in the belief it will eventually be able to produce models as large
as those using plasma technology.

'Little room to lower costs'

The Nihon Keizai Shimbun newspaper said Sony, the world's number two plasma
TV maker behind Matsushita, owner of Panasonic, and ahead of third-largest
Hitachi, would exit the plasma business as early as the spring of 2005.

Sony responded with a statement that while it would concentrate on LCD
screens, it had no plans to pull out of plasma.

Electronics analyst Kazuya Yamamoto said it was difficult for Sony to make a
profit out of plasma screens.

"Because Sony relies 100% on others for its panels, it has little room to
lower costs," he said.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:15:44 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
<rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

>From the Beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4110283.stm

>The Nihon Keizai Shimbun newspaper said Sony, the world's number two plasma
>TV maker behind Matsushita, owner of Panasonic, and ahead of third-largest
>Hitachi, would exit the plasma business as early as the spring of 2005.

>"Because Sony relies 100% on others for its panels, it has little room to
>lower costs," he said.

These two statements are in apparent conflict but the point they make
is that, despite being the number two plasma marketer, Sony does not
make any plasma panels and must pay someone's elses profit for them.
Not a good position for competition.

Kal
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:6h4fs0d5rk7vhk5bq4vtroui1vf09p264n@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:15:44 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
> <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>From the Beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4110283.stm
>
>>The Nihon Keizai Shimbun newspaper said Sony, the world's number two
>>plasma
>>TV maker behind Matsushita, owner of Panasonic, and ahead of third-largest
>>Hitachi, would exit the plasma business as early as the spring of 2005.
>
>>"Because Sony relies 100% on others for its panels, it has little room to
>>lower costs," he said.
>
> These two statements are in apparent conflict but the point they make
> is that, despite being the number two plasma marketer, Sony does not
> make any plasma panels and must pay someone's elses profit for them.
> Not a good position for competition.
>
> Kal

indeed... but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in the near
term is news to many
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:28:28 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
<rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

>indeed... but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in the near
>term is news to many

It was inevitable.

Kal (who is not sorry he just bought a plasma)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:
>
> indeed... but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in the near
> term is news to many

The consensus opinion that I read for large flat panel displays, in
the 37" and up size, is that plasma has and will have an inherent price
advantage. The cost of building a plasma manufacturing plants is in the
several hundred million dollar range while an LCD plant is a billion
plus range. Yes, the LCD plant may have the LCD computer monitor market
to help recover it's capital cost, but it is still a big difference in
cost to make up.

While the computer crowd may think LCD displays will win for TVs,
plasma simply currently has a better picture for video. I spent a long
time deciding what HD TV to get and ended up buying a Panasonic
commercial 42" HD plasma. The picture quality for HD channels and DVD
material is amazing. I was never able to get pass the poor black levels
of even the better LCD TVs such as the Sharp Aquos, the improved but
still present motion smear, and the pixelation picture noise I would see
for slow moving objects.

Before anybody posts about short lifespan or high power consumption, I
have measured the power consumption of the Panasonic TH-42PHD7UY 42" HD
plasma. It averages around only 120 to 140 Watts with occasional swings
down to < 100 Watts for dark scenes and up to 150 to 160 Watts for white
scenes. Compare that to the 80 Watts my 10 year old 27" Sony CRT draws
(with a screen area 46% of the 42" plasma). Both Matsushita / Panasonic
and Pioneer have made major strides in reducing power consumption and
increasing lifespan for plasmas with ratings of 60,000 hours or more to
1/2 brightness.

Sony may be making plans to exit the plasma TV market just because
they don't make the glass and thus can't keep much of the profits for
selling the set. The business decision may be to focus on one technology
and hope it pays off. Too bad if true, as their recently introduced
XS955 plasmas are much improved sets over the earlier models.

The real losers in the developing flat panel - LCD, plasma, and
perhaps SED - and RP microdisplay (DLP, LCOS, LCD) wars will be the
venerable direct view CRT. Sony dropped the 40" 4:3 set this year. In
the next several years, the larger size brand name CRT TVs will start
fading from the market as people shift to buying flat panels or RP TVs
instead.

Alan Figgatt

Oops, that ended up being a long rant...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> indeed... but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in the near
> term is news to many

It's already happened.

The Sharp LC-45GD6U 45" 1920x1080 LCD display available for about $5,800
beats any 42-50" plasma in resolution. It's bit more expensive (the plasmas
are around $3,600), but the amount of extra resolution makes the price
reasonable: the LCD has around twice as many pixels as the plasmas.

Consider, too, that the Sharp is less than 3 months old and was selling for
the $8,000 MSRP *everywhere* until about a month ago. It's likely to
be around $4,000 in six months, and there's no sign of a plasma with that
much resolution at *any* size showing up in that timeframe.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/ShatnerHair.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:

>
> indeed... but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in the near
> term is news to many
>

Not to those who have been paying attention.

Matthew
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

> Consider, too, that the Sharp is less than 3 months old and was selling for
> the $8,000 MSRP *everywhere* until about a month ago. It's likely to
> be around $4,000 in six months, and there's no sign of a plasma with that
> much resolution at *any* size showing up in that timeframe.
>

<http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=55800804>

"Samsung SDI intends to invest about 30 billion won to begin producing
large size 80 and 102 in. [1920x1080 plasma] panels the first half of
next year".

I have no idea what the MSRP will be, but I would expect shipping costs
(with insurance) to be more than the price of a CRT RPTV.

Matthew
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>indeed... but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in the near
>>term is news to many
>
> It's already happened.
>
> The Sharp LC-45GD6U 45" 1920x1080 LCD display available for about $5,800
> beats any 42-50" plasma in resolution. It's bit more expensive (the plasmas
> are around $3,600), but the amount of extra resolution makes the price
> reasonable: the LCD has around twice as many pixels as the plasmas.
>
> Consider, too, that the Sharp is less than 3 months old and was selling for
> the $8,000 MSRP *everywhere* until about a month ago. It's likely to
> be around $4,000 in six months, and there's no sign of a plasma with that
> much resolution at *any* size showing up in that timeframe.

But you fixating on the resolution which for a 45" TV which at a, say,
viewing distance of 10 feet is not the most important consideration.
Figure out how many arc minutes the apparent viewing angle is of the 45"
16:9 screen is at 10 feet. (Answer approx 1085 x 625 arc minutes).
Unless you are using the set as a PC game display or watching it up real
close, the 1920x1080 resolution won't add much. The advantage of
1920x1080 only really comes into play for really big sets, say > 50".
Dynamic range of the contrast & color and refresh rate are arguably more
important.

Many who have brought the 45" Aquos display are not completely happy
with it. The screen has this soft look and can't be driven at 1920x1080
from a PC without a lot of workarounds, the last time I checked in on
the very long threads on it in avsforum.com. But some of that is due to
it being a first generation big 1920x1080 TV with limits probably caused
by carrying over hardware designs from the 1366x768 sets.

I have seen the Sharp 45" Aquos at a number of stores. In all cases,
the plasmas were providing a better looking picture. I was rather
disappointed as I thought at one time that the 1920x1080 resolution
would make it the better set. At $8K list, it costs more than the list
for 50" HD plasmas, but not the better picture for movies or TV watching.

If Sharp drops the price to match the current typical $7K MSRP for the
brand name 50" consumer plasmas, it is a very good bet that the HD
plasmas will drop in price to stay ahead. Don't expect to see a price
drop to $4K MSRP for the 45" Aquos anytime soon. In fact, there was a
report yesterday that prices for LCD monitor screens may start
rising in 2nd quarter 2005.

Alan Figgatt
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10sg880kakg3h56@corp.supernews.com...
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
>
>>
>> indeed... but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in the
>> near term is news to many
>
> Not to those who have been paying attention.
>
> Matthew

I remember a few years ago that there was quite a discussion here as to the
future of plasma versus other technologies.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:

>
>
> I remember a few years ago that there was quite a discussion here as to the
> future of plasma versus other technologies.
>

Some weren't paying attention then, either.

Matthew
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Jeff Rife wrote:
>
> > Consider, too, that the Sharp is less than 3 months old and was selling for
> > the $8,000 MSRP *everywhere* until about a month ago. It's likely to
> > be around $4,000 in six months, and there's no sign of a plasma with that
> > much resolution at *any* size showing up in that timeframe.
> >
>
> <http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=55800804>
>
> "Samsung SDI intends to invest about 30 billion won to begin producing
> large size 80 and 102 in. [1920x1080 plasma] panels the first half of
> next year".

OK, I stand corrected. Now, how many people will buy an 80" display
at *any* price? When we see a 1920x1080 50" plasma, we can make
comparisons. But, with the ever-increasing size of plasmas with more
pixels, I suspect that they can't easily make the cells smaller.

I know that some people think "larger is better", but part of the reason
that flat panel displays have taken off is the smaller space they need.
Clearing out the whole wall for the panel isn't something people are
going to do.

--
Jeff Rife | "I've never understood the female capacity to
SPAM bait: | avoid a direct answer to any question."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov | -- Mr. Spock, "This Side of Paradise"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zMednSdkqdsTGlrcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> From the Beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4110283.stm
>
> Analysts say Sony would be better off sticking to rival technology LCD.
>
> With plasma and LCD competing to be the most popular flat television
> technology, plasma currently has the advantage in that its screens can be
> made significantly larger.

I'm a recent but enthusiastic arrival on the large-screen HDTV scene (a
serious wannabe, not a present owner), I've been pouring over the huge
amount of web material available, and I'm foolish enough to venture a
prediction: everything, including plasma, lcd projection, dlp projection,
and large direct lcd will be swept away by ILA rear projection. I say this
because it seems to be making such rapid progress for home use, and because
it has such a solid background in commercial and institutional use.

Of course, this is only a medium -term prediction, which in the HDTV world
means maybe 10 years. After that it's anyone's guess (dancing 3-D holograms
anyone?) .

I now retreat into my foxhole and await the incoming artillery... :<)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In the new Home Theater Magazine there is a review on the JVC 61Z575 D-ILA

Retina Searing bright.
But the blacks aren't that great.
So so with DVD (artifacts, JVCs scaler) but HDTV is very good.

They said that if the lamp brightness was switchable (hi, med low) the
blacks
should be better.


--
Ric Seyler

--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>Jeff Rife wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Consider, too, that the Sharp is less than 3 months old and was selling for
>>>the $8,000 MSRP *everywhere* until about a month ago. It's likely to
>>>be around $4,000 in six months, and there's no sign of a plasma with that
>>>much resolution at *any* size showing up in that timeframe.
>>>
>>
>><http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=55800804>
>>
>>"Samsung SDI intends to invest about 30 billion won to begin producing
>>large size 80 and 102 in. [1920x1080 plasma] panels the first half of
>>next year".
>
>
> OK, I stand corrected. Now, how many people will buy an 80" display
> at *any* price?

I suspect that Mitsubishi hasn't sold very many of their Alpha HDTVs,
though the street price has fallen as low as $13,000. It's far cheaper
to do those sizes with a FP system, including the light management.

> When we see a 1920x1080 50" plasma, we can make
> comparisons. But, with the ever-increasing size of plasmas with more
> pixels, I suspect that they can't easily make the cells smaller.

There may well be a lower bound in cell size.

> I know that some people think "larger is better", but part of the reason
> that flat panel displays have taken off is the smaller space they need.
> Clearing out the whole wall for the panel isn't something people are
> going to do.
>

Certainly not the average TV buyer. I'm contemplating a 73" Mitsubishi
and the space it is going into would be large enough for an 85" flat
panel. Once flat panel displays become cheap enough (think OLED printed
on offset presses), I wouldn't be at all surprised if people were
willing to move the furniture out of the way.

Then again, an OLED screen could be rolled up when not in use.

Matthew
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3235a6dfc5a40e9899fa@news.nabs.net...


> OK, I stand corrected. Now, how many people will buy an 80" display
> at *any* price?

I'll take an 80" please.

Maybe two (one for the bedroom)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1c31b3bab7d7616d9899f8@news.nabs.net:

> Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> indeed... but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in
>> the near term is news to many
>
> It's already happened.
>
> The Sharp LC-45GD6U 45" 1920x1080 LCD display available for about
> $5,800 beats any 42-50" plasma in resolution. It's bit more expensive
> (the plasmas are around $3,600), but the amount of extra resolution
> makes the price reasonable: the LCD has around twice as many pixels as
> the plasmas.
>
> Consider, too, that the Sharp is less than 3 months old and was
> selling for the $8,000 MSRP *everywhere* until about a month ago.
> It's likely to be around $4,000 in six months, and there's no sign of
> a plasma with that much resolution at *any* size showing up in that
> timeframe.
>

The good news about these LCD's is they are continuing to make them
better and cheaper. Eventually I will buy the Sharp 45 inch or somehing
better that can convert to 1080p. I am waiting a year or two, just
because I really can't spend the money now. There is no way in hell I
would buy a plasma.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1c31b3bab7d7616d9899f8@news.nabs.net:

> Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> indeed... but the idea that LCD's will cross PDP's in size/cost in
>> the near term is news to many
>
> It's already happened.
>
> The Sharp LC-45GD6U 45" 1920x1080 LCD display available for about
> $5,800 beats any 42-50" plasma in resolution. It's bit more expensive
> (the plasmas are around $3,600), but the amount of extra resolution
> makes the price reasonable: the LCD has around twice as many pixels as
> the plasmas.
>
> Consider, too, that the Sharp is less than 3 months old and was
> selling for the $8,000 MSRP *everywhere* until about a month ago.
> It's likely to be around $4,000 in six months, and there's no sign of
> a plasma with that much resolution at *any* size showing up in that
> timeframe.
>


BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | November 29, 2004, Monday

Signs of a Glut And Lower Prices

By ERIC A. TAUB (NYT)

ABSTRACT - Glut of liquid crystal display flat-panel televisions, called
LCD's, are about to enter market, result of boom in new factories;
analysts say prices will drop as much as 30 percent by end of 2005.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

RobH wrote:
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.1c31b3bab7d7616d9899f8@news.nabs.net:
>
> BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | November 29, 2004, Monday
>
> Signs of a Glut And Lower Prices
>
> By ERIC A. TAUB (NYT)
>
> ABSTRACT - Glut of liquid crystal display flat-panel televisions, called
> LCD's, are about to enter market, result of boom in new factories;
> analysts say prices will drop as much as 30 percent by end of 2005.

A counter press article: "Rumors circulate that Samsung will raise
panel prices" in January.

http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20041215A5024.html

Reports are that some of the Taiwan TFT-LCD panel makers will report a
loss and many of the other LCD makers are showing big profit drops. We
have been in a period of rapid price drops for smaller to mid sized LCD
panels, but that may level off for a period if few companies are making
money. Complex situation as all the makers are chasing market share and
building increased capacity to go after it. It will be interesting to
see who wins. Despite my comments on the Sharp 45" Aquos, I think the
Aquos G series are the best buys for LCD TVs on the market right now.
Sharp may be in the best situation among the Japanese companies to
thrive in the LCD TV market, don't know about Sony.

Alan Figgatt
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"RicSeyler" <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> wrote

> They said that if the lamp brightness was switchable (hi, med low) the
> blacks should be better.

This technology is really only 6 months old in terms of being in people's
houses, being presented to the press last June. Based on the reviews I've
read, it has the best basic mathematics, especially the fact that there is
less dead space than competing technologies, plus it seems likely to be more
controllable. There's an interesting review of the JVC 52 inch at
http://www.ultimateavmag.com/directviewandptvtelevisions/1204jvc/

To be honest, when I say it will sweep away the others, I'm ignoring the
fact that some people want ultra-thin models to hang on the wall, and it's
unlikely to be that. But it is remarkably light and compact for its screen
size.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A Streaming Video & TVs 2
M Streaming Video & TVs 4
S Streaming Video & TVs 1
R Streaming Video & TVs 1
N Streaming Video & TVs 1
E Streaming Video & TVs 2
L Streaming Video & TVs 1
K Streaming Video & TVs 2
A Streaming Video & TVs 1
E Streaming Video & TVs 1
V Streaming Video & TVs 2
B Streaming Video & TVs 1
A Streaming Video & TVs 2
W Streaming Video & TVs 2
L Streaming Video & TVs 3
D Streaming Video & TVs 2
L Streaming Video & TVs 7
G Streaming Video & TVs 2
B Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY