No, the problem is as big of a problem as ever. The manufacturers have introduced various bad “solutions” that are basically burning the rest of the screen to match.
Plasmas are cheaper because it is an older technology nearing the end of it’s life, and the factories that produce plasma panels have paid for themselves and will be decommissioned soon.
Have LCDs caught up with plasmas in picture quality? Especially in blacks and color reproduction? It’s odd to think of it as an obsolete technology if it has a superior picture to the other ones, and at a cheaper price.
Where’s the proof that they’re cheaper? If you compare apples to apples, they’re about the same price.
At Best Buy, in 50" 1080p televisions, the most expensive one is a Panasonic Viera Plasma, followed by a couple of LCDs, and then a plasma, a LCD, another plasma, and another LCD, with a price span of about 400 bucks from highest to lowest over 7 models.
That would indicate to me that there’s no real pattern to the pricing based on LCD/Plasma.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but where are you getting the info to come to this conclusion?
The Consumer Electronics Show and talking to various manufacturers. Some manufactures will continue making plasma sets, but remember that the last DLP rear projection screen was shipped last year - if you have the ability to make a thing, it makes sense to keep doing so until people no longer buy it, but there is a point of diminishing returns.
Thanks. I was curious if this was something you had heard, or your own theory.
If by “as big of a problem as ever” you really mean not really a problem, then yeah, I guess you’re right. Cite.
You want a deal on some used plasma set with the ESPN logo burned into the lower right hand corner? I have some right here…
This is evidence of the type of extreme TV use that can result in burn-in, not evidence to support your earlier assertion.
watching ESPN is “extreme use?”
and I take issue with your link to CNet. #1, I automatically distrust what sites like that say about these kinds of issues because they are reticent to piss off advertisers lest they lose revenue or access to press events. #2, he says “Image persistence is caused by the phosphors that make the image in a plasma TV continuing to glow after being overly excited.” which is fine and all, but what we’re talking about is pixels becoming dimmer than others after being lit for extended periods of time. And- sorry to say- that’s going to happen on a phosphor-based display no matter what you do. The burn-in “prevention” in plasma sets is there to try to make sure the entire screen fades as evenly as possible as it ages.
I can see that being a genuine problem in sports bars and the like. But I watch a fair bit of ESPN and in seven ( ? ) years I have zero apparent burn-in on a plasma set ( i.e. if there is any, I can’t see it ). No problems with brightness, either.
My own biggest bugbear with TV is the “soap opera effect” which is why I tend to be less fond of LCDs. Thankfully that can be avoided on many ( but not all ) of them via changing the settings. But I’d be damned sure when researching my TV to make sure that option was available for any LCD set I planned to buy.
Sorry, ~ five, I was miscounting.
If your TV viewing includes a static image on the screen for hours or days at a time then burn-in is something you will need to expect as it can happen with any TV, including LCD. I would consider that extreme use and not something a normal home TV viewer needs to worry too much about.
I thought CNet was a pretty respected site, but whatever. Do you have a site the supports the notion that burn-in is still a significant problem with plasma tvs for the everyday consumer? Here are a few more that lead me to believe that burn-in isn’t as big a deal as it once was and can be easily avoided.
HD Guru: “Burn in is for all practical purposes a non-issue with current plasma HDTVs.” In this review they left a static image on screen for 11 hours with no burn-in.
Plasma TV Buying Guide: “Plasma TV burn-in is not an issue that should cause undue concern in the average user.”
What Consumer Reports says about burn-in:
And by the way, for sizes 46" and up the CR top models are plasma.
Life Hacker: “In general, burn-in isn’t nearly the problem it once was. However, you should still be aware of what it is and how to prevent it.”
Sorry, but that is like saying “I smoked one pack of cigarettes and didn’t develop lung cancer, therefore cigarettes don’t cause cancer”. 11 hours is a light weekend’s viewing for a sports fan. And 11 hours of ESPN viewing is 11 hours with a white ESPN logo in the lower right corner.
Plasma is OK is you use it for movies and viewing a wide variety of channels. But if you view a lot of the same channel - like a news or financial channel with a stock ticker. But claiming that they are all better now is just bullshit. It’s in the nature of the technology. Phosphors darken with use.
“Blasting the screen with white” is trying to wear the rest of the screen to match.
So you leave the TV on ESPN, and ESPN only, for 11 hours straight? Even if there’s another game on another channel you want to watch? I’d still say leaving the TV on the same channel for 11 hours straight is not typical household use.
In a row? No it’s not.
Weekend. 11 hours over two days is five and a half hours a day, or roughly two games a day, which doesn’t sound excessive for a sports fan.
I’ve watched 4 or 5 games in a day. I don’t do it every weekend but there seem to be college games on all day long during certain times of the year.
And you got burn-in from that?
And yet, 11 hours over a weekend isn’t even remotely like 11 hours straight, which is what the test was (which still didn’t produce burn-in).