LOL
In general my friend.
Thanks jpb, makes sense.
Could you provide a better explanation for the concept I bolded?Plus, for those who are in the know, although plasma arguably is better at conveying dark shades, it costs a lot more for the same pixel density as an LCD. So given the choice of more detailed picture or slightly better blacks of greys, most folks on a limited budget choose detail - which let's face it is the principal selling point of high def television. And I think overall, there's a growing current of feeling that plasma has had its day, and LCD/LED are the way of the future. Whether that's a god or bad thing is open to debate, of course.
LOL
In general my friend.
Thanks jpb, makes sense.
Could you provide a better explanation for the concept I bolded?
It's actually really funny that "plasma has had its day" when, as of today, the best picture quality is offered by a plasma display (in the big flat panel field, I leave aside the 11" OLED screen which is little more than a tech exercise).
I think the reason is even more simple than that. Most ordinary people (I mean Joe Public) have not got a clue of the difference between LCD and Plasma. Most people I speak to think they are one and the same.
So, in short, plasmas are cheaper because people are stupid.
hahaha omg, can i use that as a sig mate
isnt plamsa getting more popular recently?
Maybe true at small sizes, not so much at intermediate sizes (42-50"), false at 50"+ sizes where plasma hold a significant price advantage. What's the price on a 65" LCD? Bearing in mind that 60" is clearly needed to get the full benefits of 1080p for view distances common in household.Simple explanation - if you look at the same size screen with the same pixel count, LCD is cheaper. From this it follows logically enough that if you are on a limited budget, any plasma you can get will have a lower pixel count than an LCD screen. If you're sitting even at a sensible distance from a TV screen, this can be noticeable. When I bought my first thin screen it was this very point that put me off plasma (relative to an LCD of the same price, the plasma picture looked like newspaper print). Okay, things have improved since then, but one of my students has a part time job at one of our bigger electrical goods emporia and he says that the pixel issue still gets raised a surprisingly large proportion of the time by customers.
Last year's quarter saw plasma as the only technology with an increase in sales (US market), it hardly seems a technology that's had its day. Energy consumption is getting significantly better this year and I don't need to ignore price: in 50"+ size I don't see LCDs holding a significant advantage, do you?And as for 'plasma has had its day', it's important to distinguish between statements on quality and simple economic facts. Plasma is likely to lose ground and eventually stop being produced simply because Joe Public wants LCD. This has zilch to do with the actual quality of the product. FWIW, I totally agree that if you ignore price and energy consumption issues, plasma is overall better than LCD. In saying that plasma is on its way out, I take no pleasure in saying it.
A lot of LED screens this year have moved backwards with regard to off-axis view. One of the things I hate the most in LCD.Oh, and LED is rapidly moving beyond the novelty stage - check out some of the reports on AV fairs or the new Macintosh screens.
but you can get a 42" 1080p plasma for less than a grand now .
Yeah - Andrew's comments were probably true about a year to 18 months ago but you can get a 42" 1080p plasma for less than a grand now
What's the price on a 65" LCD? Bearing in mind that 60" is clearly needed to get the full benefits of 1080p for view distances common in household.