Vizio Also Ditches Plasma TV Technology

[Marcus Yam]

When it comes to high-definition televisions, the brands and makes most commonly on our minds are Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Panasonic, and even still, Pioneer. What most Americans take home with them, however, are Vizio sets.

Vizio Also Ditches Plasma TV Technology : Read more

 

[A Stoner]

Another instance where new technology is not always better. Plasma TVs have strengths, as they have a far superior native picture than LCD. The only way LCD competes with Plasma on picture quality is through eye confusing technology. But Plasma loses out in the place where many people actually look, an that is not on the screen. It costs more to produce than an LCD and had early hicups that were completely possible to avoid. Explain why after CRT burn in has been cured why a plasma TV would have had this problem? It also has a "green" problem that entirely too many people take seriously, but it does hurt sales. The other area where LCD ended up gaining was the fact that is is possible to make small LCDs and the market for 60+ inch displays was small, but the market for sub 50 inch (15, 17, 19, 22, 24 for computer monitors) displays is huge, allowing more money to be spent on research and development and that money spread out over tens of millions of sales instead of a few hundred thousand. It really came down to an economy of scales in this instance along with a few problems preventing early adopters from purchasing Plasma.

 

[hakesterman]

Plasma isn't any better than the new 120 HZ LCD's. There is a 50" Plasma in our house and a 47" 120 HZ LCD and all four members in this house hold agree hands down that the 120 HZ LCD looks better than the plasma. Plasma TV's also put out more emmissions and use twice the electricity as an LCD. So please lighten up with all this
godly talk of Plasma.

 

[cl_spdhax1]

120hz is not related to picture quality. its an image processing engine that takes a 24 fps video feed up to 120 fps by making new frames in between. I doubt the human eye can see at 120 fps anyway.

 

[ahmshaegar]

Ooh, that's where you're wrong. It does matter. Let's say we have 60 Hz TV and a 24 fps source. 60/24 = OH NOES. If we show the first frame two times and then the second frame three times and repeat that, we're in business. 12 frames shown 2 times and 12 frames shown 3 times = 12*2+12*3 = 12*5 = 60. BUT IT'S JERKY! Now, if we have a 120 Hz TV... 120/24 = 5. 120 also happens to be divisible by 30, so we're in business.

 

[jwl3]

hakesterman:


Why don't you compare apples to apples. Lemme guess, your plasma is years older than the LCD. Or even more probable: you never calibrated either. Just took it home from the store and called it a day.

All the professional reviewers ALL state that Plasmas have the better picture by a slight degree. Plus, the best thing about them is that there isn't that ABSOLUTELY IRRITATING small viewing angle from the side. I can be at 176 degrees and still see perfect clarity from my plasma. Why don't you try it on the lcd?

 

[jwl3]

Check out the article right below this one. I have seen LCD tv's and LCD monitors and they're awful. Viewing my LCD monitor from anything short of head on means a total shift in color and brightness. This is a big problem when you're sitting close to a screen. Next time you watch your lcd tv, try sitting 5 feet away and looking at the corners of the screen. Discoloration? That's because the viewing angles suck.



"Despite the shake up in the HDTV market place and the announcement by various manufacturers to stop making plasmas, it continues to be, in my opinion, a superior technology for HDTV panels. While LCD panels are more affordable and more widely available, the inherent cons of the technology take away from the overall quality.

For example, backlighting on LCD panels remain on at all times, and light emission is controlled by a liquid crystal layer, which passes light through to a color filter at varying intensities to create the final image. While LCDs have improved significantly about being able to block light from passing through, it's still a primary draw back of the technology. LED based LCD panels that can turn off backlighting at specific screen locations help LCDs in this department greatly, but aren't yet available in very big screen sizes and are priced significantly higher than traditional LCDs.

Another area where plasmas edge out LCDs is in response time and problems with ghosting. LCD manufacturers try to combat this problem by decreasing pixel response times to very low levels, but most do it by applying more voltage to the liquid crystal gates. While the results do improve pixel response time, they introduce inverse ghosting problems, where certain colors will appear to be inverted.

For many consumers, the primary focus has been on LCDs, due to several factors, but mainly affordability. "

 

[slapdashzero]

Jeez, how old/cheap are your LCD TVs that you can't watch them from anything other than head on? My Sony 52" LCD in the living room can be viewed like a picture on the wall, with no loss of clarity or color. Same with the Toshiba in my room. My cheap Acer 24" monitor has a bit of that viewing angle problem, but I knew it would when I bought it, as I'm never viewing it from the side anyway. LCDs are just more flexible in terms of areas they can be used. And while the big LCDs do get warm, they aren't so heavy and hot as their plasma equivalent.

 

[ahmshaegar]

176 degrees? I don't think you could see much from that angle =D

Ok guys, why all the hate for LCDs? They didn't beat you up as a kid or anything, did they? But all joking aside...

I don't think the viewing angle problem is as bad as you guys make it out to be. Look at movie theaters. They don't seat their audiences at such large angles. Even during a party, I don't think I have to seat anyone at an extreme angle. Besides, usually I don't watch TV with a huge crowd. My chairs are where they are, and I don't sit on the floor, so I don't really see why the viewing angle is an issue. Now, if you watch TV while pacing the room...

With that being said, I don't have an LCD TV, so maybe I'm wrong?

 

[ravenware]

[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]Another instance where new technology is not always better. Plasma TVs have strengths, as they have a far superior native picture than LCD. The only way LCD competes with Plasma on picture quality is through eye confusing technology. But Plasma loses out in the place where many people actually look, an that is not on the screen. It costs more to produce than an LCD and had early hicups that were completely possible to avoid. Explain why after CRT burn in has been cured why a plasma TV would have had this problem? It also has a "green" problem that entirely too many people take seriously, but it does hurt sales. The other area where LCD ended up gaining was the fact that is is possible to make small LCDs and the market for 60+ inch displays was small, but the market for sub 50 inch (15, 17, 19, 22, 24 for computer monitors) displays is huge, allowing more money to be spent on research and development and that money spread out over tens of millions of sales instead of a few hundred thousand. It really came down to an economy of scales in this instance along with a few problems preventing early adopters from purchasing Plasma.[/citation]

Plasmas simply aren't suited for computer use.

I do have a distaste for lcd's when it comes to gaming, do to blur motion and insufficient black levels (both noticeable while playing fps games). These are problems that simply did not exist on my CRT, unfortunately my CRT started malfunctioning and needed to be replaced.(Thank you viewsonic .|.. ) For general computer use LCDs work fine and their easier to read though.

My conundrum is now that plasmas have dropped significantly in price what should i get for a set?