Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/4/2006 8:42:52 AM EDT
Thinking about buying a 42" flat screen TV. It will probably be on a lot with the kids. I heard Plasma has limited life. What kind of resolution should I be looking for? Good brands? Any advice appreciated. Thanks!
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:48:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 8:49:38 AM EDT by James23]
There's alot of bullshit information on plasma TV's. If you watch 8 hours of TV a day, yeah it has more limited life than other types (but then again so do you if you watch 8 hours of TV a day). A little research will reveal that with normal viewing, it's life span is virtually a non issue.

There was a huge thread not long ago with loads of info. A couple guys here seemed to really have alot of good info. Try a search and see what pops up.

Whatever you do, spring for one that's HD. It's awsome.

(btw, I bought a Panasonic 42" HD plasma and the picture is great).
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:50:39 AM EDT
LCD is limited in size to around 40 inches. Plasma is OK but you have a host of problems that are inherent to Plasma.

I would go with a SONY DLP. You they now come in 1080i or is that 1080p. But nice picture and avoids the plasma problems and the LCD size limit.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:51:34 AM EDT
Found this thread, but it's not the one I was talking about:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=136&t=430008
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:52:33 AM EDT
I have a 55" LCD HDTV from Sony, and I absolutely love it.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:52:38 AM EDT
cnet.com usually has some good info, and highdefforum.com has a ton of info also.

If hdforum's address is not allowed on here, please feel free to delete it! I'm assuming since it's no competition to arfcom that it's ok, but what do I know?? :P
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:58:37 AM EDT
It really depends on the use of it. How many hours will it be used a day. I am using a 27" LCD for my computer and gaming stuff. I have a 42" Plasma for strickly movies.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:59:20 AM EDT
Samsung DLP. Buy a spare lightbulb or two. Bulb lasts about 2 years and then dies. Put a new one in and you have a brand new TV.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:05:57 AM EDT
I have a Panisonic 52" LCD and love it. It is the ealier version than the one linked. It has been a good TV.

Had a pixel go out in it a little after a year. I had bought it from Best Buy and bought the warranty. Good thing too. They had to replace the light engine which I am told would have had cost me 800 bucks w/o the warranty! I am usually very anti-extended warranty, but am glad I got it.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:08:09 AM EDT
I have heard that both plasma and lcd don't have the lifespan of a tube TV.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:09:13 AM EDT
There are lcd and lcd projection. I think he was talking about the flat lcd and they are limited to around the 40" mark as of now. I think there are one or 2 that are just bigger. I also have a projection lcd 52" and love it as well. But the new DLP is the way to go if you do not mind having something that sticks out about 14" from the wall.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:13:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ARDOC:
I would go with a SONY DLP. You they now come in 1080i or is that 1080p. But nice picture and avoids the plasma problems and the LCD size limit.



Sony does not use DLP technology but developed something similar -liquid crystal on silicon or (LCOS). I had a problem seeing what they called the "screen door" affect on many of the plasma and LCD set already out there. I just bought a 50" Sony projection LCD w/ LCOS - and absolutely love it - no screen door, vivid colors and very sharp picture. Only maintenance thing to worry about is a $350 projection bulb that could burn out.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:18:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 9:19:10 AM EDT by SC_00_05]
Here's a very boring portion of a paper my group and I had to write on the TV industry in business school. It's a couple years old though, some of our analysis was off, and it's pretty long.

Industry Analysis of the Flat Panel TV Market

In 2004, the global television market reached sales of approximately 170 millions units, generating revenues of US$70 billion. According to industry consultants, the market is expected to reach 200 million units and $110 billion of revenues in 2008, equating to a 12% compound annual growth rate (in terms of revenue). This market growth is fueled, in part, by the on-going replacement demand of CRT televisions and the upcoming switch from analog to digital broadcasts in a number of countries around the world. The table below highlights the scheduled “switch-off” dates for analog broadcasts in a number of countries, which, collectively, account for 35% of global television demand in terms of units and a higher percentage in terms of revenue .
Analog Switch Off Schedule
Country Year
Finland 2006
France 2010-2015
Germany 2010
Portugal 2008
Spain 2012
Sweden 2008-2012
UK 2006-2010
US 2006
Source: HSBC (Source: IDate)

The best devices to display digital broadcasts are digital televisions, consisting primarily of flat panel televisions, such as LCDs, PDPs, and DLPs (either HD capable or ready ). With the analog “switch-off” dates a couple years away and the average life of a television approximately 13 years, consumers are increasingly replacing their CRT-based analog televisions with flat panel televisions, which are expected to account for 75% of replacement demand in 2007 versus ~3% in 2003 . As a result, the flat panel television market is expected to be by the far the fastest growing segment of the global television market, as set forth by the table below:
HSBC Forecasts for TV Shipments (in '000 of units)
TV Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005E 2006E 2007E 2008E CAGR 05-08
LCD 600 1,500 4,000 8,000 18,000 26,000 33,000 40,000 30%
PDP 300 800 1,700 3,500 6,500 9,000 11,000 13,000 26%
Projection 2,500 3,750 4,500 5,000 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8%
CRT Direct View 150,000 154,000 154,000 155,000 152,000 147,000 144,000 140,000 -3%
Total TV 153,400 160,050 164,200 171,500 182,500 188,500 195,000 200,500 3%
Source: HSBC

In fact, in terms of revenues, flat panel televisions are expected to account for approximately 80% of the global television market by 2008 . Thus, the flat panel television market represents a very attractive opportunity from which to generate substantial revenue growth and, hopefully, profits for market participants that can develop and execute a sound strategy.
One of the first questions a potential entrant must ponder is which segment of the flat panel television market is which segment to enter: LCD; PDP; or DLP. In order for management to answer this question, they must have sufficient knowledge of these segments. An analysis of the LCD, PDP, and DLP markets, consisting primarily of a direct comparison of the LCD and PDP markets, are set forth in the text below:

Detailed Comparison of the LCD and PDP Markets

The LCD and PDP panel television markets are currently the two primary flat panel television segments, accounting for an estimated 85% (59% LCD and 26% PDP) of flat panel television shipments in 2004. With an average screen size of 20”, LCD TVs address more of the global television market (85% of the market by size) compared to PDP televisions, which have an average screen size of 42” and only address 15% of the total television market . Thus, in terms of units, LCD TVs are expected to account for 20% of global television shipments in 2008, versus 6.5% for PDP TVs, although both are expected to grow at similar rates (30% CAGR for LCD TVs vs. 26% for PDP TVs from 2003-2008). The average screen size of LCD and PDP televisions are primarily a function of the cost structure of each display technology (the manufacturing economics of each technology are discussed in more detail later in this section), as set forth in the chart below:

Source: Morgan Stanley
In terms of market structure, the PDP market seems to offer more attractive long-term economics, with higher barriers to entry due to technology and customer acceptance, as well as less risk of market fragmentation and the related intense price competition from irrational or market share driven competitors. A brief synopsis of the structural factors of these markets is set forth in the table below:
Structural Factors PDP LCD
Concentration Top 3 account for Top 3 account for
70% of the market 53% of the market
Entry Barriers High due to scale, High requirement for scale
technology, and scale but easy to win
customer acceptance customer acceptance
Fragmentation Risk Low High due to China
Source: Morgan Stanley

In terms of performance, each display technology offers unique advantages, with LCD televisions currently offering higher resolution, lower power consumption, and a longer life. However, as set forth in the table below, advances in technologies and capabilities of next generation PDP panels are expected to minimize and/or negate LCD’s advantage in a number of performance metrics:
PDP vs. LCD TV Performance PDP (42" HD) LCD (40" HD)
Performance Metric Now 2006 Now 2006
Brightness 1000 1500 500 750
Contrast 3000:1 3000:1 700:1 1500:1
Viewing Angle 170 degrees 170 degrees 120 degrees 120 degrees
Color Redemption 90% 96% 72% 90%
Power Consumption 330W 200W 180W 130W
Lifetime (hours) 30000 50000 60000 60000
Resolution 1024 X 768 1366 X 768 1280 X 768 1280 X 768
Source: UBS (Source: DisplaySearch)

Furthermore, due to a much higher refresh rate, PDPs are more suited for displaying sports events or movies compared to LCDs, which often display trails or fuzzy pictures with moving pictures (although advances in LCD technology are diminishing this negative product attribute). One performance metric that LCDs are expected to sustain an advantage in is power consumption; however, at a 70W difference (200 watts for PDPs in 2006 versus 130 watts for LCD), and assuming eight hours of viewing per day at a price of $0.10 kilowatts, the annual cost savings equates to only $40 . Although meaningful over the life of the unit, the lower power consumption of LCDs are unlikely to weigh heavily in a consumer’s purchasing decision.
One of the most important purchasing decisions is price and this factor is determined largely by the manufacturing economics of the display technology. As shown by the table below,
LCD televisions have a price advantage at 30” (actually below 37”) while PDP televisions have a price advantage at sizes larger than 40”:
PDP vs. LCD TVs - A Cost Comparison
TV Type and Size 2001 2002 2003E 2004E 2005E 2006E 2007E
LCD: 30-32" $ 1,916 $ 1,312 $ 996 $ 698 $ 534 $ 454 $ 427
LCD: 40" Wide $ 2,314 $ 2,132 $ 1,379 $ 973 $ 792 $ 738
PDP: 30" $ 1,393 $ 1,123 $ 992 $ 867 $ 751 $ 634 $ 536
PDP: 40" $ 1,754 $ 1,456 $ 1,252 $ 1,070 $ 903 $ 760 $ 643
Source: Goldman Sachs (Source: Display Search)


PDP TVs greater than 40” are expected to sustain a price gap with similar sized LCD TVs in the coming years; however, that price gap is narrowing. This is mainly due the greater economies scale present in LCD panel production. As shown by the table below, subsequent generation LCD fabrication facilities are able to produce larger substrates (otherwise known as “mother glass”), from which a larger number of panels (32”, 40”, etc.) can be produced per fixed cost of substrate (costs spread over a larger number of panels, reducing cost per panel/unit).
Fabrication Facility Generation
2G 3G 4G 5G 6G 7G
Size of Substrate/Mother Glass (in sq. m) 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.4 2.7 3.8
Source: Merrill Lynch

Although economies of scale can also be achieved through the use of next generation PDP fabrication facilities (refer to Appendix 1), LCD panels accounts for 44% of the total manufacturing cost of a LCD television versus 29% for PDP televisions, as set forth in the table below:
Manufacturing Costs
Cost Component 40" LCD 42" PDP
Panels 44% 29%
Image Processing and Driving Circuits 35% 50%
Accessory Components 21% 21%
Source: HSBC

Thus, the continual transition to next generation LCD panel fabrication facilities should result in a consistent reduction in LCD panel prices and LCD television prices. However, as shown in Appendix 1, next generation LCD panel fabrication facilities are extremely expensive ($2.7 billion for current seventh generation facility) compared to current generation PDP facilities ($550 million for current generation). This capital intensity gap is highlighted in the table below:
Capital Intensity (Capex/Revenues) 2000 2001 2002 2003
PDP 6% 5% 4% 6%
LCD 64% 71% 30% 35%
Source: Morgan Stanley

As a result, LCD production has higher fixed costs than PDP production, thus requiring greater higher capacity utilization to generate profits. Over the long run, this requirement does not bode well for industry participants, which are likely to price aggressively during market downturns in attempt to maintain asset utilizations at desired levels. With the emergence of well-financed Chinese players (quasi government financed), a lower technological know-how requirement, and an inability to differentiate products (relative to PDP), the manufacturing economics of LCD production (high fixed costs) are likely to result in a cyclical, quasi commodity market (similar to the DRAM industry) and poor long-term returns on capital (questionable if market participants will cover their cost of capital over a business cycle).
In contrast, with some economies of scale present in panel production, an ability to reduce component/driver circuit costs (71% of the manufacturing costs), much lower capital intensity (resulting in lower fixed costs and more rational long-term pricing), lower lead times (reduces working capital requirements), and a greater need for technological skills/experience (creates some barriers to entry), the PDP market seems to offer more attractive long-term economics compared to LCDs. However, with the emergence of DLP based televisions that offer attractive product performance at prices below similar sized PDP televisions, PDP market participants must develop a strategy to effectively compete against another, potentially disruptive, competitor.

Digital Light Processing (DLP) Television Market

Like the LCD and PDP market, the DLP based television market is expected to grow substantially (30%+ per annum) in the coming years. DLP based televisions are either front or rear projection televisions that utilize Texas Instrument’s DLP semiconductors to display digital imaging at prices well below similar sized PDP televisions (best suited for 50”+ televisions); however, as shown by the graph below, this price gap has declined substantially over the past few years:

Source: Morgan Stanley

As of December 2004, Texas Instruments has sold roughly five million DLP units, which are sold to various consumer electronics companies and designed into their respective DLP televisions (50+ models currently sold globally). As shown by the table below, the South Korean based Samsung Electronics dominates the U.S. DLP market:
DLP US Market Share
Company Market Share
Samsung 72%
RCA 8%
LGE 6%
Mitsubishi 5%
Panasonic 4%
Toshiba 3%
Opoma 1%
Other 1%
Source: UBS (Source: DisplaySearch)

Already accounting for 40% of the U.S. projector television market, DLP based televisions, due to their relatively inexpensive price considering the screen size ($50 per diagonal inch versus $40 for PDP) and decreasing width/depth (current 16” to a projected 7”) represent an attractive alternative to PDP televisions and, in terms of market share, have already overtaken PDP televisions in the 40”+ U.S. television market, accounting for 17% of that market versus 14% for PDPs. Unfortunately, we were unable to locate information pertaining to the manufacturing economics (cost structure, scalability, etc.) or the potential future performance of DLPs and are thus unable to determine if its current price advantage (relative to performance) is sustainable. However, we are concerned about the market’s reliance on Texas Instrument as the sole provider of the DLP image processing unit/semiconductor.

Note: For a detailed comparison of the various display technologies (LCD, PDP, and DLP), please refer Appendix 2 (Source: HSBC)
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:28:12 AM EDT
samsung plasma here 42", 3 years, used constantly, no problems
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:29:35 AM EDT
Practical pricing limits flat panel LCD sets to about 46". My dad just bought one a couple weeks ago. Sharp has a 65" and is coming out with a 55 or a 57" set as well. The 65"er is 19,999$.

Of the flat panels, I prefer LCD. Higher resolution (1920x1080) and the slightly longer life.

When I buy a set it will probably be a RP DLP.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:35:31 AM EDT
JVC 50" plasma here, I have yet to see any other TV come even close.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:02:54 AM EDT
Just bought a Panasonic 50" Plasma (50u) and a Pioneer 42" Plasma (can't remember the model #). LOVE them both. Great pictures on both. They are rated at 26 years for a lifespan... estimating 6 hrs of tv a day, 365 days a year. I don't watch nearly that much tv and do not plan on it. My personal opinion is if your tv is going to be larger than 42", go with a plasma, under that go with a LCD.

-d
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:07:01 AM EDT
The plasmas that I've seen always looked better than the LCD's, but plasmas cost more.
....
Also if you are wanting to keep up with the latest tech, be aware that blu-ray DVD will not support anything but digital output--so HDTV's that only have analog inputs will not be able to get HD signals from blu-ray disk players. Blu-Ray is set to come out later this year, and many of the HDTV's already sold only came with analog High-Definition signal inputs.....

blog.scifi.com/tech/archives/early_hdtv_adopters_screwed_by_hddisc_rules.html#more
~
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 3:40:52 PM EDT
Thanks for all the info. It's a lot to digest, but, then again, I'm look at spending upwards of 3k on a TV. I don't even like TV. I do like movies. It'll probably be on 6 hours a day with the kids. MOre in the summer probably. Prices seemed to have dropped a bunch since the last time I looked. I'm just getting tired of watching cropped wide screen movies on a 27" TV.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 3:48:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 3:48:43 PM EDT
I got a 21.5 inch CRT from 1991
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:56:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 8:57:59 PM EDT by MissouriBob]

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
www.lepow.com/tag/tag.jpg



Where's that damn bunny with the pancake when you need him.


Tagged. Duh, I'm slow.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:00:33 PM EDT
..
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:02:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 9:04:17 PM EDT by macman37]
Tag, I'm interested too.

Edit: And the Sony Grand Wega LCD projection TVs show well compared to others I've seen... But I won't be in the market 'til later this year so I'm not locked into anything right now.

And, don't you want the 1080p rather than the "i"? "i" means Interlaced IIRC, and "p" means progressive (scan) which is what you want... Right?
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:05:09 PM EDT
I just read something explaining what you need to know about HDTVs. The original plazmas would burn in really easily and LCD was the best choice. LCD has problems with alot of movement and the picture won't be as good with all the motion on the screen(what good is a TV if it looks like crap when shit moves) The newer plasmas have fixed the burn in problem and now are said to have the same lifespan as LCD or CRT HDTVs. The article I read, I wish i could find it sorry, said that the newer plasmas can run 8 hours a day everyday for 20 years. I always recommended the LCD but I have changed what I think and now I want a plasma.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:21:46 PM EDT

The newer plasmas have fixed the burn in problem and now are said to have the same lifespan as LCD or CRT HDTVs.

Unless something has changed drastically in the past few months, they're not fixed at all. They have a very limited lifespan. We have three plasma displays at work. The one we use about every other week for a short time, is bright enough to use in a dim office (lights on but blinds closed to keep-out the sunlight). The other requires the lights to be off. The eight month old one we got from a customer for free that was run 24/7 for six months with the default brightness settings is burned in badly with the CNN headline news screen, and it is too dim to use even with the lights off (with light leakage from an open door and through the closed blinds). You have to be very careful with those plasma displays. It's better to buy a real CRT, but some people want trendy rather than good.z
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:35:19 PM EDT
Yeah, the burn problem on plasmas isn't fixed at all. If it's going to be used for video games, plasma is a bad choice because of the static information displayed on the screen in most games.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:40:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zoom:

The newer plasmas have fixed the burn in problem and now are said to have the same lifespan as LCD or CRT HDTVs.

Unless something has changed drastically in the past few months, they're not fixed at all. They have a very limited lifespan. We have three plasma displays at work. The one we use about every other week for a short time, is bright enough to use in a dim office (lights on but blinds closed to keep-out the sunlight). The other requires the lights to be off. The eight month old one we got from a customer for free that was run 24/7 for six months with the default brightness settings is burned in badly with the CNN headline news screen, and it is too dim to use even with the lights off (with light leakage from an open door and through the closed blinds). You have to be very careful with those plasma displays. It's better to buy a real CRT, but some people want trendy rather than good.z


this is not true of plasmas manufactured in the last year or two if not longer. burn in is possible if the set is abused, but unlikely. image retention is more of a possibility, but this clears up very quickly and isnt a problem at all. as far as your saying plasmas have a "very limited" lifespan, that is dead wrong. you can expect about 18 yrs or so to half luminance, most people will have replaced the plasmas replacement in that time span. all these statements are assuming one is using one of the name brand units, not the half price models. bottom line is this, there is a WHOLE lot of bad info floating around on plasmas. from what i have read, most independant tests conclude that the best technology for HD movies and cable and gaming is plasma. but SED will blow all of this out of the H20 by years end. later.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:54:44 PM EDT
Toshiba @ CES - SED TV

Posted Jan 5th 2005 3:12PM by Dan Wu
Filed under: CES, HDTV, Home Entertainment
SED panel

Being the number two TV manufacturer, Toshiba has to make a big move in televisions, and their push this year will be into SED (surface-conduction electron-emitter display) TVs, something that number one Sony doesn't have. The lineup will start with 50-inch screen sizes, featuring 1080 progressive support, 8600:1 contrast ratio, 1ms response speed, and one-third the power consumption of plasmas. It sounds sweet, but it'll be exclusive - 'Ferrari-priced' (we hope that doesn't mean 150 large for one) with limited distribution in 2005, then production ramping up next year. There will be a private showing at CES along with their partner Canon, which we look forward to peeping.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:03:58 PM EDT
i was watching the Consumer Electronics Show on HDnet today and they interviewed a Toshiba rep about SED. his claim was something along the lines of- SED will be priced competitive with plasma/LCd prices at their respective launches. i have read/heard this elsewhere as well. as always, you will have to pay a premium to be an early user of cutting edge technology.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 10:16:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 10:25:10 AM EDT by dizza]

Originally Posted By zoom:

The newer plasmas have fixed the burn in problem and now are said to have the same lifespan as LCD or CRT HDTVs.

Unless something has changed drastically in the past few months, they're not fixed at all. They have a very limited lifespan. We have three plasma displays at work. The one we use about every other week for a short time, is bright enough to use in a dim office (lights on but blinds closed to keep-out the sunlight). The other requires the lights to be off. The eight month old one we got from a customer for free that was run 24/7 for six months with the default brightness settings is burned in badly with the CNN headline news screen, and it is too dim to use even with the lights off (with light leakage from an open door and through the closed blinds). You have to be very careful with those plasma displays. It's better to buy a real CRT, but some people want trendy rather than good.z



If they knew they were going to run a tv for 24/7, why the hell did they choose a plasma? It was bad planning on their part, not a bad product. I install plasma's and LCD's for business and homes... I know of atleast 2 clients that have their Plasma's running a slideshow for atleast 10 hours a day and nothing has impacted the performance of the tv's.

Not everyone wants a huge CRT to take up space in their living room, lobby of their business, or their office. Plasma's and LCD's are great choices to save space.

-d
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 10:17:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheSneak:
Yeah, the burn problem on plasmas isn't fixed at all. If it's going to be used for video games, plasma is a bad choice because of the static information displayed on the screen in most games.



Not true... unless you will be playing the same game for hours on end, it won't be a factor.

-d
Top Top