Jump to content



Photo

Why don't many people buy Plasma TVs anymore?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 DaDude

DaDude

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 19-May 08

Posted 06 July 2008 - 17:32

Whenever I go to stores, such as Best Buy, PC Richards, Sears, etc. to look at HDTVs, they don't have many Plasma TVs on display. Most of them are LCDs. I've read that this is due to the fact that most people are buying LCDs and very few are buying Plasmas now. A few people I know bought LCD HDTVs and I asked them why they never bought a Plasma TV. They said because plasmas burn in. But I thought the burn in problem was fixed. So, is there any other reason why people are picking LCDs over Plasmas? I thought Plasmas had better picture.


#2 benplace

benplace

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 26-March 05

Posted 06 July 2008 - 17:34

I thought plasmas slowly lose their picture quality over time with usage, and LCDs do not. Could be wrong.

#3 duritz

duritz

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 23-March 08
  • Location: Texas

Posted 06 July 2008 - 17:36

they are more expensive and lcds are just as good. (the problem of viewing lcd at an angle doesn't exist anymore.)

and plasmas do not lose their picture significantly. they lose half their brightness at around 27 years or 60,000 hours of use.

#4 C++

C++

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 15-July 06

Posted 06 July 2008 - 17:36

The burn in problem was improved but not eliminated. Eventually plasmas still burn in, while LCDs do not. Also, plasma TVs have to be rather large because the size of the pixels can only get so small. LCD pixels can be as small as you want, allowing for a very wide range of TV sizes. Plasma used to look a lot better while LCD was a young technology. But LCD is catching up in terms of quality now.

#5 Cyplex

Cyplex

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 03-October 05
  • Location: US

Posted 06 July 2008 - 17:46

Based on the last time I bought my last TV (1yr ago), plasmas also used a lot more energy than LCDs (more energy = more heat).

#6 +Troll

Troll

    Resident Politician

  • Joined: 19-January 04
  • Location: Detroit

Posted 06 July 2008 - 17:48

I'd think the biggest reason is that they don't have the same level of price/performance ratio as LCD does. If you can afford to spend more, then by all means, but in many cases the added cost could be used towards a nice surround sound system (read: nice, not HTIB cheapness) and/or a higher end Blu-Ray player.

#7 AudioDope

AudioDope

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 18-May 04
  • Location: snet

Posted 06 July 2008 - 17:56

Why not consult a CNet editor?


LCD TV vs DLP Vs PLASMA

#8 shockz

shockz

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 09-November 01
  • Location: USA
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 06 July 2008 - 18:02

they are more expensive and lcds are just as good. (the problem of viewing lcd at an angle doesn't exist anymore.)

and plasmas do not lose their picture significantly. they lose half their brightness at around 27 years or 60,000 hours of use.


Wrong. They are the same if not cheaper than plasmas.

LCD's have been marketed better... and then sold by people who have really no idea on what they are talking about.

The black levels in plasmas have not yet been matched by LCD's... even TV's like the XBR/Z series from sony and the Series 7 from samsung can't do it as well.

Plasmas have superior picture quality.

The biggest con's of plasmas are heat, power, and weight. Burn in really isn't as big of an issue as people make it out to be... providing you get a name brand mid range plasma. And after the 1st 100 hours of use... the chances of burn in go down a ton. Features like pixel orbiter/shift and scrolling pretty much eliminate the problems of burn in.

#9 rajputwarrior

rajputwarrior

    olé olé olé olé

  • Joined: 20-June 04
  • Location: BC, CANADA

Posted 06 July 2008 - 18:02

I thought plasmas slowly lose their picture quality over time with usage, and LCDs do not. Could be wrong.


thats wrong

i got a plasma, a pannasonic and i love it. Its a great tv, the colours are unbeleivable. In my opinion i would always for a plasma (unless its a sharp, IMO they make the best tvs in the world).

at the last CES (i can't find the article), pannasonic said they prefer plasma over LCD. I honestly think it just comes down to personal preference.

#10 OP DaDude

DaDude

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 19-May 08

Posted 06 July 2008 - 18:51

Why not consult a CNet editor?


LCD TV vs DLP Vs PLASMA


I have read plenty of those and I always think plasma is the way to go. No motion blur, better picture, and you can view at every angle. The only disadvantage with plasmas, in my opinion, is that the smallest size you can get is 42". But that's only a problem for me because most people like to get 42" or bigger. With me, I don't want to get anything higher than 32". However, if size wasn't an issue, I would definitely go for a plasma. I just started this thread because I want to see why people didn't think the same way.

#11 quanta

quanta

    Wanna bet money?

  • Joined: 04-November 02
  • Location: Canada

Posted 06 July 2008 - 20:57

Burn-in has been greatly reduced with the latest models. Still, it is inappropriate for any application involving static images (i.e. using it with a PC).

Otherwise, plasmas produce blacker blacks but use twice the power, generate more heat, and are much heavier than an equivalent sized LCD.

Fast action on plasmas tend to look more fluid as well although the new 120Hz LCDs largely bridges this gap. The new LCDs with LED lighting tend to produce dark colours well but plasma is still a bit better.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!