Hitachi dials back plasma production, looks to buy from Panasonic
By Steven Kim 
posted Sep 21st 2008 10:09AM
posted Sep 21st 2008 10:09AM
posted Sep 21st 2008 10:09AM
The percentage of returned gadgets that have nothing wrong with them.
Of the $13.8 billion worth of returned products in 2007, only 5 percent were because gadgets were actually broken, according to a 2008 study.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
So now would be the time to buy my first plasma. It can sit next to my 2 HDDVD players! Generally my displays are 4-5 year investments. OLED/SED should be mainstream by the time I'm looking for another replacement :)
If Panasonic is the last man standing then can we assume that Samsung is no longer going to be a plasma player?
Can someone tell me why plasma is not as popular as LCD and it's dying down? As far as I can remember they always had the sharper picture and darker blacks and never had the motion problem. So why is it the least popular of the two technologies?
That would be because of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt spread around by LCD manufacturers. Plasma certainly wasn't a very robust technology when it launched... it was very susceptible to burn-in, and the picture faded over a relatively short period of time as gases escaped. Decent 1080p plasmas also tended to be much more expensive than their LCD rivals.
I was a victim of this fear-mongering where plasma tech is concerned, but I looked for myself, did a LOT of research over several months, and decided to buy a Panasonic Viera Plasma (the new 50" PZ85). I've been absolutely blown away by the set, and I've made some observations about the two technologies.
- Never judge a set by its appearance in the store. Find an independent, high-end A/V shop near you and make sure the set is calibrated. Do a lot of research and figure out what's best for you.
- The big spec with LCD TVs is "response time". This is how long it takes to turn a pixel on and off. I think good (reasonably affordable) LCD panels have this down to 5 miliseconds or so. Plasma technology is completely different, and "response time" becomes meaningless. Fast motion looks amazing, and any "phosphor lag" is barely ever visible.
- Another big spec is "Contrast Ratio". No company is telling the truth with these numbers, but there is one statement I can make that is virtually always true: Plasma TVs offer MUCH higher contrast. Next to a plasma, an LCD's "black" looks like "charcoal grey". Again, the best LCDs may beat some plasma models, but I'm talking about those in the same price range as my Panasonic PZ85.
- While 1080p LCDs tend to be less expensive than 1080p Plasmas, only the newer 120Hz LCD sets compare to Plasma when fast motion is shown on the screen. 120Hz LCDs are much more expensive, negating that advantage.
- Visually, most LCD TVs are a lot like looking at your computer monitor... very, very bright, with a slightly bluish cast. Plasma isn't as bright, but it's certainly not dim. It's more like looking through a window at an actual scene; the colors (especially skin tones) seem much more natural.
- Standard definition programming tends to look much better on the plasma sets I've tried. I'm sure there are LCDs that do SD scaling and smoothing very well, but Plasma TV has the edge here. Granted, if you're lucky enough to watch HD content exclusively, this isn't a big deal, but most of us watch some SD shows or DVDs once in a while.
- The better technology choice also depends heavily on the size of the panel you're buying. In my own research, I have found that LCD looks wonderful at small and medium panel sizes, and is almost always the best value all the way up to 42", especially if you don't watch a whole lot of sports or other content with fast motion. The benefits of plasma really kick in at 46" and larger, and the difference becomes much more visible.
- Now onto the big fears. First, display life. If you leave a modern plasma TV on 24 hours a day 7 days a week, it will take about 5 or 6 years before it loses half its brightness. Most people don't leave their sets on that much, but its still good to know that it'll last.
- Finally, a word on image retention and burn in. During the first 100-200 hours of a plasma TV's life, you should turn the brightness down a bit, and avoid watching content with any black bars on the top/bottom or sides. Many people use a "break-in" DVD that loops continuously through full-screen color patterns. This process wears the TV evenly while it is most susceptible to image retention or burn in, and helps to prevent it later.
Let me talk a bit about my own experiences with my plasma. I've been told that, even after break-in, if I leave a bright logo or dark bar on the screen, I might see a "shadow" of the bars or logo when I switch channels. This is called "image retention" and it goes away after watching full-screen programming for a while. Indeed, there have been quite a few occasions where I've watched movies with bars, shows/games with logos, or left a video game menu paused for an hour or so. I find it amazing that I've never seen the slightest bit of retention, and I've looked really closely. I've definitely seen it many times on older plasmas, so I have to conclude that newer panels are better about this, and that it's not something I have to worry about that much anymore.
My bottom line: Until OLED is large and affordable) plasma has proven to be the closest thing to the reliable, high-contrast, natural, film-like image that my old Trinitron offered. Several months ago, I would never have considered a plasma. Now, looking at the image this set produces, I'm just sorry I didn't do it sooner.
Generally I'd agree with your points macserv but the really big problem plasma has is that the great majority of the CE manufacturers have obviously decided to throw their considerable weight behind LCD.
Largely because it's cheaper, I guess.
I can't find the link but I know I've recently read about the manufacturing of faster LCD panels (120MHz & 240MHz tech) requires a cheaper substrate yet these are currently being sold as a premium feature, despite the manufacturing costs for these panels are actually cheaper compared to previous panel costs!
My big concern would be the energy efficiency problem plasmas have.
I know they are trying all sorts of fancy switching arrangements (like the LEDs switching on & off on the new LCD panels) to try and combat this but it seems the technology is inherently less energy efficient.
It seems as if this gen of LCD have finally caught up anyways (as far as contrast and motion is concerned) which leaves little for plasma to capitalise upon.
The current expensive high-end high spec LCD will just be tomorrows mainstream affordable spec TVs (and by tomorrow we mean next years at the latest).
@ macserv
Wow, someone who actually knows what they're talking about. These are the very points and advantages of Plasma over LCD I've been preaching for the past 2 years ever since I bought my 50" 60 series VIERA (your TV's granddaddy). Plasma is unmatched for viewing angle, contrast, color reproduction, and making motion look natural. An LCD's picture almost looks fake to me. A good LCD will make you go WOW, but a good Plasma will make you go HOLY $H!T!! I've had my VIERA for 2 years with NO burn in. Burn in (permanent image retention) is a thing of the past, it just doesn't happen anymore, and I game on my Plasma literally every single day.
I also find that LCD is more popular than Plasma just due to advertising. Samsung LCDs are the official HDTV of the NFL after all. Lots of people see those commercials which makes them want one even if they don't know anything about them. Plus LCD manufacturers like to play the "numbers game" in their advertisements. 120Hz is a bigger number than 60Hz so it must be better right? I just saw a KURO commercial yesterday and from the commercial there was no way to tell that KURO are literally the absolute best TV you can buy today. It was just a normal rather boring commercial and to the average person it was much less informative and exciting than a typically Samsung commercial. If Plasma is going to ever take the lead they're going to have to change their way of communicating to consumers. They need to explain why 120Hz means nothing to a Plasma and why contrast ration on a Plasma will always be better. They need to explain why burn-in is a thing of the past. They need to explain, in plain english, why the technology is superior to LCD on a fundamental level. A Plasma can produce a much better picture than LCD without having to resort to all the smoke and mirror tricks that LCDs do nowadways (120Hz, edge enhancement, noise filtering, smart color, etc. etc.). You can literally just turn on a Plasma, leave off all the bullcrap DSP features and it will still look better.
There's a reason why, in the most recent 2008 HDTV face off in Home Theater Magazon, the top two spots were taken by Plasma. #1 was a Pioneer KURO (the only 720p set in the group) and #2 was a Panasonic VIERA.
Ahh, I completely forgot about viewing angle. This is the other area where plasma blows LCD out of the water. My PZ85 looks just as amazing from nearly 180° as it does from dead on. It really is sad... the better mass-market technology seldom wins. Normally, the differences between frontrunner and underdog aren't as significant as those I've seen between LCD and plasma.
The hoops LCD makers jump through to improve the picture (120/240 Hz, variable LED backlighting, etc.) are used as sales tools to make for more impressive looking specs, but really they're absolutely necessary to produce an image comparable to the simpler plasma panel. I could justify LCD's dominance if plasma were that much more expensive, but it isn't anymore. I got my 50" PZ85 for (USD $)1,620 at Sears of all places.
It's definitely a risky move; putting the Kuro name on an LCD panel. Anyone expecting an LCD Kuro to measure up to its plasma predecessors is in for a metric assload of disappointment.
I too am a LCD fan, not bashing Plasma or anything but in general people tend to get LCD as oppose to Plasma because of Plasma's "burnt out" on the screen. It does provide great contrast though, but now with OLED on the rise, it will be tough or even tougher for Plasma TVs to survive.
http://www.thewebtechreviews.com
Again, with modern panels, burn-in just doesn't happen anymore unless you leave a high-contrast image in place for a really long time (many, many hours). If it wasn't a problem for you with CRT, it's probably not going to be an issue on a new plasma.
A more common condition is known as "image retention," which can occur after less time, but goes away quickly when viewing a full-screen moving image again. However, as I mentioned above, I have yet to see it on my plasma, and I've been watching for it like a hawk.
I totally agree with you, though, that once a 46-or-50-inch OLED set is available for around (USD $)2,500, plasma will be dead, and LCD will be buried right next to it. It's amazing. That little Sony XEL-1, with its mere 11 inches, truly knocked me backwards a step. That perfect image is within our grasp, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. I bought my plasma now because I believe it is going to take at least three years before such an OLED is available. Not that long at all in the grand scheme, but I was tired of waiting to replace my 27" Trinitron with an HD set, and the deal was too good.
Only educated HDTV buyers who want the best picture will opt for a Plasma. I can't stand LCD's as well... I work at an electronics store and when I got there nobody knew anything. They all assumed that LCD's were better. I quickly changed their minds and now our store is up 4000% in plasma sales.