Which format will prove the ultimate winner?

[la gran siete]

With Seds ,Leds (and I believe there is another format) due to be released and joining Lcds and Plasma ,which one will turn out to be the winner in terms of pricxe , picture quality and reliability? Which one will the public take to?Plamsa seem to score with the bigger screens but for me they are too big ,heavy and seem to have a too limited lifespan( 30000 hrs). At the mo lcd would seem the best option.

 

[ianh64]

I don't think that there needs to be a winner as far as the public is concerned. A flat screen will also be a plasma as for a Joe Public is concerned no matter what technology it is. Bit like a Dyson hoover will always be a hoover and a JCB digger will always be a JCB digger even if it is made by Catapiller.

Each display technology has their own pro's and con's and the future will only bring cheaper and/or better versions. I do agree though that LCD's have many advantages over plasma which is why I personally went the LCD route. The only things that plasma have going for it over and above LCD's are size, cost / size ratio and, by an ever decreasing margain, picture quality.

-Ian

 

[scrapbook]

It's a good question. I am not sure who the winner will be, but I'm pretty sure the loser will be plasma!


I have thought this for a few months now...and a friend of my that works in the broadcast industry was telling me that they have stopped using plasma's due to their limitations/life span.

 

[jimsan]

I agree Scrapbook, Plasmas are fading fast! Literally! With a lifespan reckoned by Plasma fans at 30000hrs, but by other experts at nearer 10000hrs Plasmas are bad news. Once it fades to intolerable levels you just have to chuck it in the skip! Plasmas start fading from the day you buy them...I couldn't suffer that. Just knowing that tomorrow the telly is going to be worse than it is today! Yuk. Plasma buffs will react angrily to this, but there is little now to recommend them apart from price.

To be fair some manufacturers are wringing the life out of some of the bigger ones now, and to be fair the performance of some of these, last fling, sets is OK.

LCD technology is still marching on. Ever faster response times and clever LED backlights are lurking in the near future. Got to be good.

Then there are the multitudes of other new technologies...OLED, SED etc. Neither of these are going to be properly marketable really soon, although I expect to see something new to tittilate us in a couple of years. (There will be stuff before that, but the prices and performance may not be just right.)

So, it's still LCD for the moment....

Jimmy

 

[psotfx]

If the manufacturers are to be believed; SED/FED will replace plasmas for screens >32" in the 2005-2007 timeframe. And OLED (assuming the remaining problems are indeed overcome) will replace LCD in the <32" screen size category in the 2007+ timeframe.

 

[la gran siete]

If the manufacturers are to be believed; SED/FED will replace plasmas for screens >32" in the 2005-2007 timeframe. And OLED (assuming the remaining problems are indeed overcome) will replace LCD in the <32" screen size category in the 2007+ timeframe.

Considering the limitations of Plasma why would Lcd,s be replaced by Oleds Are there distinct advantages to the latter?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

'Plasmas are fading fast!'.....sorry but have to disagree.

Some low cost, low performance plasmas are reaching the <£1K price point this means a lot more 'Joe Public' purchasers will perceive plasma to be a more achieveable 'spot' purchase.

Winners or losers ? Technology develops every day. Ask any of the plasma manufacturers how many millions of plasma panels they have produced and are continuing to manufacture. A 'loser' I don't think so ? Long term future: more debatable.

LCDs are good and getting better and probably have a better long term future than plasma.

Field Emission Displays and OLEDs are coming but the technology is no where near mature enough for large size, long life consumer products.....yet.

Mr Sparkle

 

[la gran siete]

LCDs are good and getting better and probably have a better long term future than plasma.


I think that was the point he was trying to make.

 

[richjthorpe]

The current loser is Plasma and the current winner is LCD. You only have to look at the number of Plasma panels that actually do HDTV compared to LCD. Hi Def is the buzz word at the moment and most Plasmas can't do it. This might change though.

As for the future, with OLEDs, FEDs, SEDs on the horizon it's anyones guess who will win. They might find all 3 technologies are crap because they are unstable over 30" or it might be all 3 are great. It'll come down to performance vs cost, similar to the projectors. Is it that LCD PJs are cheaper and the DLPs are more expensive ?! Don't know about PJs much !

Richie.

 

[jimsan]

Mr Sparkle]'Plasmas are fading fast!'.....sorry but have to disagree.

Sorry, but their days are numbered. Not only do they actually fade, but no new developments are lurking that are going to re-establish them as class competitors.

Some low cost, low performance plasmas are reaching the <£1K price point this means a lot more 'Joe Public' purchasers will perceive plasma to be a more achieveable 'spot' purchase.

Trouble with low cost low performance Plasmas is just that! Low performance! Even some of the more expensive Plasmas are Low Performance, offering diabolical resolutions (Typically 852x480) that can't hope to compete with even the cheapest, nastiest LCD. Again, the only thing in their favour is their Size. Big blurry tellys...

Winners or losers ? Technology develops every day. Ask any of the plasma manufacturers how many millions of plasma panels they have produced and are continuing to manufacture. A 'loser' I don't think so ? Long term future: more debatable.

Of course plasma screens are made in greater numbers than any other, they've had a 4-5 year jump! Ask these same manufacturers how many 30"-40" panels they're making now compared to 2 years ago and I think you'd get an insight into Plasmas future trend.

However, until one of the other technologies can market proper big screens as cheaply as plasmas, they will remain viable, but not for much longer...

Jimmy

 

[psotfx]

Considering the limitations of Plasma why would Lcd,s be replaced by Oleds Are there distinct advantages to the latter?

Yes, OLED's are emissive rather than transmissive. They don't suffer the "grey blacks" (before anyone jumps on that comment be sure you note the quotes ) of LCD, colour reproduction should in theory be better, response times should be significantly faster. Though scale up has obviously been significantly harder than first predicted many years ago the processes involved in manufacture should be significantly simpler with less wastage compared to LCD.

As others here have noted before, OLED has been long promised and beyond short life mobile phone screens those promises haven't been delivered. But with Samsung showing a 21" display with good colour reproduction and increased life span ... and comments from same suggesting the remaining limitations can be overcome within the next two or so years ... OLED's time may be coming.

As for SED ... not sure why some here are suggesting it's years away. Toshiba and Canon have stated they plan on releasing an SED set in Japan later this year. Indeed Toshiba have indicated their medium term (2007) goal is to ditch plasma production in favour of SED.

Of course when I say "in the X timeframe" I'm not saying LCD/PDP production will cease. Merely that these new technologies are clearly being positioned by relevant manufacturers to ultimately replace current PDP/LCD technologies. Will they suceed? Well that depends on us, the consumers

 

[jimsan]

As for SED ... not sure why some here are suggesting it's years away. Toshiba and Canon have stated they plan on releasing an SED set in Japan later this year. Indeed Toshiba have indicated their medium term (2007) goal is to ditch plasma production in favour of SED.

Both Toshiba and Canon are well ahead with technology now, but it seems they are having problems with the screens stability. The structure of the screen requires a box-like constructuin within it to support the screen against the vacuum. Apparently this structure is visible on the display. Once this is sorted (?) the screens may hit production. Not this year I think...

Jimmy

 

[psotfx]

Going off on a slight tangent ... when did this happen? Toshiba stated (again) last month at CES they intend to begin limited production of a 1080 line 50" model for the Japanese market this year.

 

[jimsan]

It seems the grid is only just visible, so there's a chance that they'll just market it like that!

Hope not...

Jimmy

 

[Alan D]

Whatever the format, the ultimate winner will always be the manufacturers - and they will always be tempting us to buy the newest best thing...

 

[expat]

Whatever the format, the ultimate winner will always be the manufacturers - and they will always be tempting us to buy the newest best thing...

I disagree -- the consumer is the "ultimate winner". We're the ones who benefit most from the manufacturers' eternal quest to deliver better technology at lower prices!

And don't forget the risk that manufacturers take in developing new technologies -- such efforts don't always pan out...

 

[richjthorpe]

The winner will completely depend on the picture quality of the panels. If, for example, OLED and SED are exactly the same and Philips adopt OLED and Pioneer adopt SED. How will the business tempt the consumer ? By either putting more gadgets on or lowering the price to beat the other technology.

Now, same manufacturers, same adoption but SED comes out better than OLED. Pioneer wouldn't need to start competing with Philips because they know that SED is better quality pictures and so a price war or technology war wouldn't happen, thus keeping the price higher for longer. In this situation, the manufacturers win.

Richie.

 

[la gran siete]

I disagree -- the consumer is the "ultimate winner". We're the ones who benefit most from the manufacturers' eternal quest to deliver better technology at lower prices!

And don't forget the risk that manufacturers take in developing new technologies -- such efforts don't always pan out...

The consumer isnt always the winner and invariably gets ripped off because of so called "different markets" syndrome ,for eg cars have for years been cheaper on the continent simply because we drive on the left hand side. Similarly many appliances are cheaper there too.Manufacturers will make it as difficult as possible for us to buy our goods there ( for eg no warranty cover , no servicing etc)
Also remember the VHS versus Betamax war which the former won despite the latter being much better- case of consumer making the wrong choice( admittedly because of the rental market)

 

[la gran siete]

Another area where I believe that I as a consumer an not the winner is tv subscripitons or to be more precise Sky subs. The only reason I subscribe to Sky is so I can watch rugby weekly , tennis( for my wife) and the occasional footy match. As I have a sky + box I have to have minimum number of premiuim channels and pay an extra £ 10 for the benefit of " owning" a sky plus box???? All told it costs me knocking on £ 50 per month and for that I get dozens of totally *%$ channels which I never watch. Consumer winning ? Dont think so! I would far rather pay an increased tv licence which would enable me to watch the progs I want via BBC( and no adverts) and I would love to see the ghastly Murdoch empire disappear into oblivion.

 

[richjthorpe]

Ditch Sky and get Freeview then. If everyone started doing this HDTV might get to terrestrial a little bit quicker !

Richie.

 

[la gran siete]

Ditch Sky and get Freeview then. If everyone started doing this HDTV might get to terrestrial a little bit quicker !

Richie.

I would if I could get ALL the progs I want ie Zurich premiership, Heineken cup, autumn internationals, tennis grand slam tournaments plus all the terrestrial channels