I tend to pay more for higher quality. If I can’t afford a specific item, I do one of two things: I go without, or I buy the highest-quality item I can afford. (Usually the former, since a lot of things are ‘wants’ and not ‘needs’.)
I’d heard about the burn-in issue with plasma TVs, and I remember reading about a guy who lived near a beach whose plasma TV failed every couple of months because of the salt air. (I live near the beach, but there’s no surf to stir things up.) But the reason I didn’t even look at plasma TVs was the price. Heck, I was fine with my 26" LCD flat screen TV. I didn’t ‘need’ a new TV. I bought a 46" Sony, Internet-ready, HD LCD, and it’s fine. (So, as I said, was the 26". Of course now, I’m thinking I should have looked for a TV that covered the entire wall. ) So now I have a ‘large’-screen TV with a nice picture. Watching things I used to watch on the 26" LCD or 20" CRT TV is amazing. And the new Sony cost three digits.
I agree with RealityChuck and RedFury (who said Plasma will go the way of Betamax).
And this, right here, is why I never wanted a plasma screen. They’re beautiful in the right conditions - but I don’t like watching television in a darkened room. If there’s daylight, I prefer my windows and blinds open. With LCDs, you can get away with this; with plasma, you can’t. It doesn’t matter how great the screen is, if I can’t use it in the way that I prefer.
I hear this a lot and wonder where this myth ever started. I worked for BBY for 12 years and knew people who worked at Circuit City. No one ever touched the picture settings of the display TVs. They came out of the box directly from stock, got plugged into the power strip, tapped into the video feed, and that was that.
I’m the exact opposite. I’ve always preferred to watch TV in a dark room, so I was a natural plasma customer when I finally went HD ;). I’ll tolerate lights on only if I’m being a couch potato and am eating at the same time as the tube is on.
Yeah, I don’t think it is big box stores adjusting them, so much as the brightness on a lot of TVs being set too high by default, probably for that very scenario. It was certainly the case with my TV straight out of the box.
The truth is that people who are trying to get deep blacks on their sets to “match the blacks of a movie screen” obviously are not that familiar with the black levels in an actual movie theater. I am. I see plenty of movies in theaters, and neither digital projection or 35mm film projection produces deep blacks. Just two days ago, I watched Preston Sturgess’ The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek via a 35mm print at the excellent Gene Siskel Film Center. Blacks on film are just not that black. Possibly an IB print might be blacker, but the people obsessing over the blackest blacks have an unreal standard.
I’ve seen 10 films this week, at very good theaters with excellent projection, and none of them had pitch-black blacks.
That statement doesn’t make sense. What good is a deep black if it can only be achieved with the power off??
An LCD display has a backlight, i.e. an extended light source behind the whole screen. When the TV is powered on, the whole backlight is on. The LCD works by selectively blocking this light. But even when set to “black”, it doesn’t block 100% of the backlight. That’s why there is a limit to how dark a “black” it can produce.
A plasma TV doesn’t have a backlight. Each pixel is a light source that can be turned on or off (or in between). Because each pixel can be turned off completely, they can produce a deeper black than LCD.
The “contrast range” is the ratio between the brigthest white and the darkest black that can be displayed at the same time, without adjusting the brightness setting of the TV (or turning it on/off). And plasma TV has a higher contrast ratio than LCD not because it can produce a brighter white, but because it can produce a darker black.
It’s been 6 or 7 years now this January when I bought my Plasma. I agonized and went store to store like a zombie for weeks looking at different pictures. I took a DVD with me and insisted to watch the same scene back and forth on different models of all types. I decided on the plasma because it looked the best to my taste. The black of the backgound in the scene was a consideration. The crispness of the picture was the clincher.
At the time most of the same size LED’s were cheaper, but the plasma looked better to me. Like choosing speakers or a mattress, I really thing taste is the best choice over price/size alone.
Back to the OP, IMHO most people chose price and size over quality. Hense the demise of plasma.
Being in General Questions, I’ll forgo any further comments or smilies.
From what I’ve read LED TVs, or being pedantic LCD TVs with LED back-lighting, have better contrast than CCFL backlit LCDs. (Along with being slimmer, cooler, less power hungry, etc).
Presumably the ones with local LED dimming would be even better again, but I don’t know how common those are yet.
You are a manufacturer.
You want to build plants that make TVs.
You can build a wider range of LCD sizes than you can plasma sizes with the same fundamental technology for each TV, driving costs down to make LCD TVs. Your default choice is gonna be an LCD plant.
Consumers walk into a store with various TVs and get some sort of spiel by someone who can give them technical specs, but ultimately they want a decent picture and they cannot tell a significant difference when the sets are side by side. So they get the biggest screen they can afford for a particular space. Maybe 32 inches for a monitor and 70 inches for the living room. Those can be made in the same LCD plant.
It doesn’t take long for development to be put into LCDs until they are just as good and less expensive to boot. It doesn’t matter what yesterday’s specs and differences were.
Betamax it is for plasma.
FWIW, for me the deciding factor has always been the glare. I can’t stand a mirror finish that has been on most plasma, and many LCD, TVs of the past. But ultimately it’s the manufacturing advantage that has driven LCD success, b/c the manufacturing technology scales to both ends of the size spectrum more readily than does plasma. And once you get that leg up, development switches to LCD so limitations of plasma become a downward spiral.
The** manufacturers **set them to levels that look good in big box stores out of the box. And yes, it happens. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a TV where choosing “factory default” in the menu doesn’t make the picture look like crap at home. Even back in the CRT days.
When I bought my first HDTV many years ago, it was a 40 inch, and both plasma and LCD were comparable in price. The LCD TVs had a sharper picture. At the time, I was comparing 720p TVs. For whatever reason, the LCDs were something like 1368 by 768 (which matches pretty well the 16x9 aspect ratio) but the plasma TVs were all 1024 by 768.
My Sony LCD seems to try to compensate by dimming the backlight when the image on the screen is mostly dark. I suppose in some circumstances that might work fine, but it’s pretty noticeable when, say, the end credits of a movie start. The first few lines scrolling up the screen are noticeably dimmer, then they brighten as enough words appear on screen to raise the overall “not-black” ratio of the picture. I wish I knew how to adjust or turn off the effect, because I find it kind of annoying.
True contrast (i.e. ratio between the brightest bright vs. darkest black that can be displayed at the same time) shouldn’t depend on the type of backlight. It’s the ratio between how transparent the “white” pixel of the LCD is, vs. how opaque the “black” pixel is. It doesn’t matter what kind of light source you put behind it.
If manufacturers are claiming better contrast for LED LCD TVs than CCFL LCD TVs, they’re probably cheating through dynamic dimming of the backlight (as Max Torque described).
Not yet mentioned is that some of the early plasma displays had issues at high altitude. Don’t recall hearing that in recent years, so maybe it got solved. It was something I heard coworkers discussing, so I know it was a factor on consumer radar in mountain areas.
That’s static contrast. There’s also dynamic contrast, the ratio between brightest and darkest over time, which LED-lit LCDs are better at because LEDs can be switched on and off more quickly than CFLs.
You could call it cheating, or you could accept that it really is a different stat/feature that’s reasonable to consider for some people, though it does maybe confuse the discussion of “contrast”.
Given that we’re watching films that tend to have natural gradients of brightness and not test patterns, I don’t think it’s totally unreasonable to consider dynamic contrast.
) So now I have a ‘large’-screen TV with a nice picture. Watching things I used to watch on the 26" LCD or 20" CRT TV is amazing. And the new Sony cost three digits.