How are plasma sales compared to LCDS?

[Santeria]

1) are they a lot worst?
2) why do i get the sense that plasma is having a hard time in the market?
3) if the PQ is better and blacks are better, why dont plasma companies market this?
4) why dont i see any marketing at all for plasmas? no commercials no anything
5) why are lcds more "accepted" then plasmas?
6) if u can get a bigger screen for less $$ compared to lcds, why do LCDS still seem to sell better( i dont know hard numbers, this is just an assumption because like 9 outta 10 of my friends their parents own LCDS)

sorry if i am opening a huge can of worms, but i have always thought of these questions but never answered them...

[sheedoe]

I think its because LCDs look good in the showrooms, like best buy, where most average consumers go shopping. Since LCDs are brighter and more vivid, it captures people's eyes.
Also, many people may still have fear of burn-ins from plasma.

[Santeria]

why dont plasma producers make commercials or something to educate the public then...? are they keeping this a complete mystery? lol

[sheedoe]

Originally Posted by Santeria

why dont plasma producers make commercials or something to educate the public then...? are they keeping this a complete mystery? lol

I guess because people will still buy what looks good in the store. I think Plasma, such as Kuro and viera, are for the videophiles... Just my 2 cents.

[sheedoe]

Let me add a couple of more thoughts. LCDs are maintenance free, while Plasmas require a little care taking to avoid IR and BI. For example, my friend doesn't watch regular channels on his LCD TV. He only watches movies, 90% of which have black bars. This kind of practice is not suitable for plasma because it can lead to uneven phosphor wear. The average consumer may find this unacceptable.
Also, Plasma can never achieve the brightness level of a LCD because its pixels are not backlit. The pixels in plasmas provide their own illumination.

[RiseDarthVader]

Yeah but do you really want a bright image that doesn't look as close to the film source. Or would you prefer realistic colours and deep blacks? What I have noticed though is that in cinemas 35mm prints have the contrast ratio more closer to LCDs the black aren't that deep. And I think 35mm prints do only have a contrast ratio of 500:1. I think DLP projection is alot higher then that allowing better colour reproduction.

[mreilly611]

The main reason that I purchased a LCD over a Plasma was TV was going in a bright room and the Lcd had no glare from the screen when the light hit it. The Lcd's screen was a matte finish and did not reflect light like a Plasma.

[sheedoe]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Yeah but do you really want a bright image that doesn't look as close to the film source.

Exactly...I certainly don't. But it does look apealing in the bright showrooms. Home setting and dark room is another story. This is where plasmas perform the best.

[Zombienietzsche]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Yeah but do you really want a bright image that doesn't look as close to the film source. Or would you prefer realistic colours and deep blacks? What I have noticed though is that in cinemas 35mm prints have the contrast ratio more closer to LCDs the black aren't that deep. And I think 35mm prints do only have a contrast ratio of 500:1. I think DLP projection is alot higher then that allowing better colour reproduction.

A 35 MM 4-PERF negative has a 1000:1 contrast ratio...just saying

[wafi]

Originally Posted by sheedoe

Let me add a couple of more thoughts. LCDs are maintance free, while Plasmas recquire a little care taking to avoid IR and BI. For example, my friend doesn't watch regular channel on his LCD TV. He only watched movies, 90% of which have black bars. This kind of practice is not suitable for plasma because it can lead to uneven phosphor wear. The average consumer may find this unacceptable.
Also, Plasma can never achieve the brightness level of a LCD because its pixels are not backlit. The pixels in plasmas provide their own illumination.

So black bars are a NO NO when breaking in say a Pioneer 5020 huh? And we would be talking about 100-150 hours or so? That kinda puts a monkey wrench in my plans. I watch regular HD channels during the week but make it a point to watch blu-rays and a lot of them during the weekend.

[matt2009]

cost of running is considerably more than an lcd equivalent .
screen burn / image retention.
and theres talk of them being banned in europe .

[jeff92k7]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

What I have noticed though is that in cinemas 35mm prints have the contrast ratio more closer to LCDs. The blacks aren't that deep.

That brings up an interesting thought. I wonder how many Directors, editors, sound editors, etc. are using LCD panels when putting movies together. I remember reading about how The Dark Knight was edited by multiple people, in multiple locations - some even using laptops. I wonder how many of those laptops had a plasma screen and not an LCD. I would guess....oh say...none.

I'm sure there were a few projection setups used at various stages of compilation but I would bet that the vast majority of the work was done on LCD panels.

[dobyblue]

1) It is foolish to compare plasma sales to LCD sales when you can buy a 19" Sansui LCD for $200 at Wal*Mart.
2) I don't know why you'd sense that plasma was having a hard time, given that sales have increased every year.
3) they do
4) there are, I don't know why you haven't seen them, I've seen plenty of Viera, Kuro and LG plasma ads on TV and in publications
5) and 6) uneducated salespersons = uneducated consumers

[fatediesel]

Originally Posted by matt2009

cost of running is considerably more than an lcd equivalent .
screen burn / image retention.
and theres talk of them being banned in europe .

In what way is the cost of running higher than an LCD? My 50" plasma is energy star certified and I've tested my 50" and it uses less power than my 32" LCD, 40" LCD, and 56" DLP. I'm not biased toward one display obviously as I own all 3 and some plasmas may use more but not all.

When I bought my plasma I ran a special disc I downloaded over at AVS for about 100 hours to prevent burn in. I've never had any sort of burn-in or IR since then.

Another part of the reason sales are so much better for LCD is because there aren't many plasmas under 42". It just wouldn't be cost effective to make plasmas that small. Also, a high end plasma is more expensive than an LCD of the same size.

[SellmeyourDVD]

Originally Posted by Santeria

why dont plasma producers make commercials or something to educate the public then...? are they keeping this a complete mystery? lol

pioneer does. LCDs are cheaper so people think "wow that tv is cheaper and looks better."

Most consumers arn't rational, they buy what catches their eye. Which is why i have an lcd, and i don't doubt my purchase 1 bit.

[matt2009]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

In what way is the cost of running higher than an LCD? My 50" plasma is energy star certified and I've tested my 50" and it uses less power than my 32" LCD, 40" LCD, and 56" DLP. I'm not biased toward one display obviously as I own all 3 and some plasmas may use more but not all.

When I bought my plasma I ran a special disc I downloaded over at AVS for about 100 hours to prevent burn in. I've never had any sort of burn-in or IR since then.

Another part of the reason sales are so much better for LCD is because there aren't many plasmas under 42". It just wouldn't be cost effective to make plasmas that small. Also, a high end plasma is more expensive than an LCD of the same size.

when i was looking at tvs before new year in my local comet /currys i couldnt find one plasma that was cheaper to run than an lcd of the same size .

ir and screen burn stiil happens wich is enough to put people off .

there reliability is very questionable .

i would have loved a plasma but with those few niggles the missus just wouldnt have it .

[sheedoe]

Originally Posted by wafi

So black bars are a NO NO when breaking in say a Pioneer 5020 huh? And we would be talking about 100-150 hours or so? That kinda puts a monkey wrench in my plans. I watch regular HD channels during the week but make it a point to watch blu-rays and a lot of them during the weekend.

Since Plasmas are most susceptible to IR/BI in their first 100-150 hrs, I would limit the black bars to full screen movie watching ratio to about 1:4. After the break in period, its less of an issue so you can go ahead and watch them 50/50.

[Santeria]

Originally Posted by SellmeyourDVD

pioneer does. LCDs are cheaper so people think "wow that tv is cheaper and looks better."

Most consumers arn't rational, they buy what catches their eye. Which is why i have an lcd, and i don't doubt my purchase 1 bit.

when i last looked for 46" lcd and 46" plasma the lcds were all at least $300 more expensive.


and i live in cali and watch ESPN like all day and i never see a pany/pio commercial i only see samsung/sony commercials all day.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by SellmeyourDVD

LCDs are cheaper so people think "wow that tv is cheaper and looks better."

Ah, no they're not. Plasma's are cheaper.

[DavePS3]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Ah, no they're not. Plasma's are cheaper.

Dobe's right. Retailers here in Toronto are telling me it's the movie buffs that are still going for plasma. That LCD still looks it has edge enhancement etc for films plus the issue with the blacks. However, they say LCD is selling more over all despite the higher cost.