Why I'd still buy plasma over LCD
This column has been updated with a correction. See details below.
Everywhere I turn, someone is talking about the death of plasma technology in HDTVs. They contend that since Pioneer dropped out of the plasma production market, it's only a matter of time before the few companies left in the plasma business admit defeat and stick to liquid crystal displays (LCDs).
Long live the plasma HDTV.
(Credit: Panasonic)South Korea's LG disagrees. Speaking in an interview with HDguru.com published this week, LG Electronics USA's director of product development, Tim Alessi, told the publication that assertions that the plasma TV market is almost dead are, well, dead wrong.
"Plasma will continue to be a viable technology for flat-panel displays in the near- to midterm future," Alessi told HD Guru. "Plasma continues to be the technology of choice for home theater enthusiasts, sports fans, and consumers desiring a larger screen size. In 2009, we estimate that plasma will account for more than 40 percent of the 50-inch and larger-screen-size sales. That unit volume will probably continue for at least the next three to four years."
I share Alessi's optimism. Although I'm fully aware that LCDs are chipping away at plasma sales, I wouldn't jump to LCDs, if given the choice.
Being a plasma lover is indeed difficult in today's market. The vast majority of HDTVs with 42-inch and smaller displays are LCDs. So when I say that I won't abandon plasma, I should note that I'm staying true to plasmas in the 42-inch-and-larger range; for something smaller, LCD is an increasingly obvious choice.
In my testing of televisions, I've found (as have others) that plasmas generally have deeper blacks. Color reproduction is also generally deemed much more vivid and accurate. Since looking good from many angles is a real concern of mine, plasma is my choice.
More brands may support LCD technology, but vendors that offer plasmas are doing a great job. Before Pioneer got out of the plasma game, its panels were the best on the market, regardless of technology. Panasonic, the new leader in the plasma space, has been making great plasma displays for years. In fact, although the HDTV in my living room is a 50-inch Panasonic plasma I purchased in 2007, I feel that it is much better than most LCDs in today's market.
Sony is seen by many as the LCD manufacturer of choice--for good reason. In my testing of Sony's XBR-line of LCDs, I was generally impressed. Colors were accurate, and black levels were fantastic. Surprisingly, motion was handled well (most LCDs suffer from blurriness, when there's too much motion on-screen).
But for what I was getting--a high-end LCD--it didn't stand up to the second-tier plasmas from Panasonic. And it certainly couldn't match Pioneer's Kuro line. Worse, Sony's 55-inch Bravia XBR-series LCD is currently retailing at Best Buy for $5,500. Those Panasonic HDTVs are on sale for substantially less. Best Buy's price is $2,800 for the 58-inch model.
In my experience, HDTV preference is very much in the eye of the beholder. Some people don't watch sports, so having an LCD with its blurring of on-screen action won't matter. Others see LCD as an opportunity to invest in the future. I don't.
I'm looking for the best picture in an HDTV. Based on my experience (and basic research), that comes from plasma technology. So while everyone else is counting it out, I'm standing firm. Plasma isn't dying, it's getting better. And I believe that companies like Panasonic will continue offering better HDTVs for better prices. I couldn't be happier.
Correction: This column misstated the first name of LG Electronics USA's director of product development, as well as the country in which LG is based. HDguru.com published an interview with Tim Alessi, and LG is based in South Korea.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter stream, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
The motion blur in LCDs used to be caused by the frame-rate issues they had. More recent LCDs have much better frame rates so the motion blur shouldn't be an issue any more.
At least not on the part of the TV that is -- the broadcaster still has to use very aggressive compression to fit HD channels into their allocated bandwidth. This compression also contributes to motion blur. The resultant blur will be visible across all display technologies of course.
In the future, I'm really hoping OLEDs will show some promise. Like you, I also have a Panasonic plasma that I purchased in late 2006 -- and it has very good blacks that LCDs today can't reproduce (watch Batman Begins on a plasma and LCD side-by-side to get an idea of how good plasma blacks are). But then, in very dark scenes it can become hard to pick out detail in plasmas -- LCDs are marginally better here.
So that's why I'm really hoping OLEDs come of age soon. All display technologies in the market have disadvantages. Plasmas are power hungry and can't deliver the same brightness as LCDs. LCDs have backlight seepage issues that ruin any dark scene and are also power hungry. DLPs solve these issues but they're not flat, and their viewing angles are terrible. OLEDs might actually be able to solve all these problems. Since I already have an HD tv, I plan to hold out as long as I can and hopefully OLEDs will become affordable by then.
The most recent numbers (2009Q1) show a 23% increase in LCD TV sales year-to-year, and an 18% drop between 2008Q4 and 2009Q1. For plasma TV sales, there was a 5% year-to-year increase and a 50% drop from the previous quarter. (Source: DisplaySearch: http://tinyurl.com/olg52s)
Screen burn potential if you leave the same image (like a DVD menu) up too long.
Displays gray bars at sides of picture when viewing standard TV or 1:33 movies (to prevent burn).
Potential for screen burn from watching too many letterboxed (2.35:1) wide movies.
Light output is lower than LCD (partially to help prevent burn).
Difficult to see picture in a bright, sun-lit room.
Screen glass is often highly refective of windows and lamps, which further reduce visibility.
Weight (compared to LCD).
Heat.
Brightness drops (permanently) as set ages. (With LCD, you can replace the lamp.)
Your mileage will vary depending on the set and maker.
Frankly, I love the "looking through a window" punch of plama pictures, but it's not perfect. Neither is LCD. Just wanted to give cnet readers (and potential buyers) a little more information before they spend big bucks on one of these sets.
-Screen burn is no longer an issue (hasn't been for years). Nothing I have ever done has caused burn in, and I'm not exactly careful.
-My Panasonic plasma lets me change the bars between gray or black, explore your menus.
-I've watched lots of letterboxed stuff...no burn in.
-My plasma is very bright. It lights up the room more than the lamp with a 100 watt light bulb.
-The Panasonic plasma that I bought 2 years ago has an antireflective screen that works extremely well. Glare is not an issue.
-How often are you moving your TV? Seriously?
-Saves on heating bills.
-The lamp life is rated as 60,000 hours to HALF brightness. This woks out to something like 30 years if you watch TV 6 hours a day.
I don't care for most of Don's articles. He totally overlooked the fact that high-end LCD units are making huge strides against plasmas. He didn't even mention the newer LCD matrix displays with local dimming that are able to produce amazing contract and color. Look at the Samsung A950. Yeah, a touch pricey, but it's the first unit with the new lighting tech. Give it a year or two for that to filter down and it'll given even mid-priced plasma a major run for it's money.
I'm still a big screen fan, so I haven't ruled out DLP, personally. I am one of those that can see the wheel, so I haven't bought one - and now with 120 and 240 refresh capabilities I may go straight for the successor of the A950.
I'm sure your Bravia looks amazing with 120Hz. But how much did you pay for it? I get amazing picture, no glare, and no blurring, and I paid under a grand for my Panasonic a few months back. As Don says in the article - top end LCDs can produce great picture too, but how much more are you willing to pay for a picture that's the same as that as what a midrange plasma can offer?
OK, so less than half of buyers select the "technology of choice" ?
Drop Don. The large number of errors in this piece is yet more proof of the lack of professionalism in his writing. While I do disagree with most of his pieces (not all), he's just not a quality writer and doesn't do enough research before he begins his pieces. He's made erroneous errors like "China's LG" in too many pieces. Whip him into shape or cancel his contract.
Also, once you see the new line of Samsung's LED-LCD panels (the 1.2" thick ones) you will not want to look at anything else. Those things look almost as black as Sony's 11" OLED screen.
- by punisher1001 May 15, 2009 12:02 PM PDT
- I would choose a LCD over a plasma because:
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (40 Comments)- Gaming: Burn in issues with static HUDs. Manufacturer have addressed this issue somewhat but its is still a problem with plasma tvs.
- Shorter Lifetime: LCD on average have a longer life expectancy then Plasma TV.
- Energy Consumption: Plasma TVs are pigs for electricity and consume a lot more power.