Why Is Plasma So Much Cheaper Than LCD?

[SmellMyWort]

@Munch

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).

And I assume that ESPN goes to commercial once in a while so even if it’s left on for hours at a time there are going to be times when the logo isn’t on screen. Maybe Gaffa would like to share the exact circumstances that resulted in his burned-in plasma sets.

[Munch]

@SmellMyWort

And I assume that ESPN goes to commercial once in a while so even if it’s left on for hours at a time there are going to be times when the logo isn’t on screen. Maybe Gaffa would like to share the exact circumstances that resulted in his burned-in plasma sets.

From this thread:

@gaffa

LCDs are definitely longer lasting than plasmas. I install TVs in sports bars where they are used 18 hours a day, 7 days a week.

I personally don’t think that’s a valid data point to compare normal use to.

[gaffa]

I have sports bar clients, but I also do a lot of home theaters. The worst burn-in I have seen on a plasma was on a TV in a home that was used to watch some financial news network, and it had a huge burn-in on the bottom from the stock ticker.

Also, people seem to be claiming that if you don’t watch a plasma for X number of hours, burn-in is not a problem. Bullshit. It’s cumulative. The phosphors wear out in the same way that the ends of a florescent tube darken - it doesn’t matter of that tube is only use two hours a day, after enough hours, it darkens.

Get a copy of Video Essentials or some other test disk and put full color screens up on your plasma. I think you’ll be able to see evidence of burn-in.

[muldoonthief]

I don’t have a test disk, but I do have a DVD player that goes to a solid blue screen if you leave it on for more than a few minutes with no disk. I did that on my 9 year old plasma, which I’m sure has averaged 6+ hours/day since we got it, and examined it carefully. No signs of burn-in whatsoever to the naked eye. I’d also claim that burn-in that requires a test disk to find isn’t an issue that when shopping for TVs - if it’s not noticeable when watching normal TV, it isn’t an issue to the consumer.

[Munch]

@gaffa

Get a copy of Video Essentials or some other test disk and put full color screens up on your plasma. I think you’ll be able to see evidence of burn-in.

No, you’re more likely to see evidence of image retention, not burn-in. If you refrain from watch the same channel for hours on end, you’re going to be fine with a plasma. If your viewing habits usually include extremely long periods of time on any channel with persistent images, get an LCD.

Some useful discussions.

[gaffa]

@muldoonthief

I don’t have a test disk, but I do have a DVD player that goes to a solid blue screen if you leave it on for more than a few minutes with no disk. I did that on my 9 year old plasma, which I’m sure has averaged 6+ hours/day since we got it, and examined it carefully. No signs of burn-in whatsoever to the naked eye. I’d also claim that burn-in that requires a test disk to find isn’t an issue that when shopping for TVs - if it’s not noticeable when watching normal TV, it isn’t an issue to the consumer.

Try it with a green screen. Blue is least likely to show the effects of burn in.

[Saraya]

@Saraya

Reasons Plasma sell for less :

-Manufacturing cost is lower as it’s an older technology
-A lot of plasma are not 1080p, some not even 720p
-The older generation models that were heavy, high power consuming and low quality have left that imprint on the market. Vendors use that to their advantage when touting the benefits of LCD/LED over plasma.
-Bells and whistles such as advanced DLNA, LAN support, film streaming and SD/PVRecording are more common as standard features on LCD/LED.
If you’re looking for something to put into a theater type room or a darkened environment for proper viewing, then plasma is the way to go.
If you want something for everyday tv in a well lit room that might even have direct sunlight on the screen, then use a LED/OLED.

Should you need a specific feature, such as a USB input that natively reads .mp4 format files, then you will want to check all screens individually regardless of the panel technology.
As for weight and power consumption of modern plasmas versus LED, here’s an example of two popular competing televisions:

LG 50" Plasma 50PA650T weighs around 47lbs, with 130 watt typical consumption
Samsung 50" LED UE50ES6300 weighs around 33lbs, with 80 watt typical consumption

@SmellMyWort

This is true of both plasma and LCD technologies so I doubt it has any measurable impact on the cost difference between the two. In fact, out of hundreds of flat panel TVs Best Buy sells one 480i model and it’s an LCD.

This maybe true, though there is certainly no shortage of plasma TVs with smart options. Again, these options don’t really account for the price difference in plasma vs LCD/LED technology. The OP is asking why two TVs with the same options, resolution, size, etc. will not cost the same, with the only difference being one is plasma and the other LCD.

Considering that his post says :

@zoid

I’m looking at TVs online and the price for plasma seems to be way cheaper all other things considered.
Am I getting an inferior product if I buy plasma or is it just that LCD is a hot item?

I will stick by all that I said.