New Larger TVs Favor LCD Over Plasma

Information Week is carrying a Reuters story examining the shift towards LCD technology in recent large-screen television models. Though some analysts acknowledge that plasma displays have faster response times over large surfaces, the industry seems to be betting that consumers will prefer higher resolution images over time. From the article: "CPT's Wu agrees that plasma panels, especially 50-inch and larger ones, do excel LCDs in some aspects of picture quality, but he says the sheer size of the LCD camp will help LCD panels overcome whatever drawbacks they have in a timely manner ...With the 40-inch-class market gradually taken over by LCD TVs, plasma models need to migrate to the market for 50-inch TVs and above, but demand is not as well developed there, analysts say. 'The United States accounts for more than 70 percent of demand for 50-inch plasma TVs and larger. In other words, there is virtually no 50-inch-class plasma TV market outside the United States,' DisplaySearch director Hisakazu Torii said."

Comments

Energy efficiency

[pe1chl]

It may not be a factor in the US market, but here in Europe plasma's have a bad reputation because of their energy consumption.
Household equipment is rated in the shops on an energy efficiency scale, and LCD screens score much better than plasma.

Furthermore, plasma has a tendency to burn in. Of course every manufacturer and salesman will tell you that "this is no longer true", but once the problem has happened they are not so firm in their statements anymore.
This causes trouble when watching 4:3 transmissions in true 4:3 format (rather than stretched to 16:9).
It also sometimes causes station logos or newstickers to burn in.

Re:Energy efficiency

[tsa]

Can you point me to a website to back your claim? I've never heard of LCD's burning in.

Re:Energy efficiency

[ImaNihilist]

Walk into any school computer lab with LCDs and put in a Ubuntu disk. You'll notice when the GUI starts to load that you can see the Start Menu faintly though the maroon colored wallpaper.

Hell, top menu bar on my 6-month old iMac has burned in.

It's not NEARLY as bad on LCDs as it is on most plasmas, but it's still there on almost every single LCD.

Re:Energy efficiency

[CentraSpike]

I own a Samsung 26" LCD that burnt in on the left edge of the 4:3 picture after around a year of use. This means that when i now watch 16:9 content, particularly with a predominantly light picture, i get a gray line where the left edge of the 4:3 resolution would be.

Re:Energy efficiency

[Duncan3]

Other way around. Plasma screens burn and burn in bad. Don't use them with any game console, you're just asking for trouble.

.

Re:Energy efficiency

[tripppy]

I work in A TV DEPARTMENT. We have two LCD's with BURN IN. No website. My word.

Re:Energy efficiency

[Osty]

LCDs also burn in.

No they don't. Plasmas suffer burn-in because they emit colors in the same way as a CRT -- using red, green, and blue phosphors. "Burn-in" happens when the phosphors age non-uniformly, such as when a static image is held in place too long. You can combat this by properly setting your contrast (TVs are set to torch mode in the stores because it looks better under the flourescents; at home you should have your contrast set to a much lower level) and by pixel-shifting, but you can't eliminate it so long as the technology uses a consumable resource for emitting colored light (phosphors).

LCDs and DLPs don't burn in because they use filters over white light to emit colors. DLP does this with a color wheel rotating anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 times per second, with the DMD adjusting for each window of the wheel to emit the correct amount of the base color of light (basic wheels contain red, green, and blue filters. Better wheels double up on the colors and often add several different shades of blue and green since our eyes are more attuned to those colors than red. Non-consumer high-end models have individual DMDs and filters for each color). LCDs have discrete filters for red, green, and blue, and the liquid crystal is set to a state to allow just the right amount of each through (thus you can do sub-pixel rendering, such as Cleartype font-smoothing). But it's still all about emitting filtered light, not emitting colored light from a phosphor. Your backlight may go out, but that's replaceable. Good luck replacing individual phosphors when they burn out.

Re:Energy efficiency

[Angostura]

As I understand it, the problem with comparing plasma and LCD energy ratings is that LCD's power consumption is independent on the image displayed, whereas plasma's consumption varies with the brightness of the image.

Manufacturers such as Panasonic claim that under normal conditions consumption is about the same. I simply don't know. But I suppose plasma's figures could look unfairly bad if consumption figures are calculated while the TVs are displaying a bright standard test pattern or set of colour bars

Re:Energy efficiency

[oh_bugger]

I saw an episode of CSI yesterday and they were using a plasma screen as a display for a computer, big no-no!

Re:Energy efficiency

[ghyd]

New LCDs, with overdrive, can burn-in: http://www.behardware.com/articles/615-1/lcds-with -persistent-images.html I hope that my beloved Diamontron still has a long life ahead, I don't want no lag (LCD are 20 to 60ms late on a CRT, if you add a radio mouse you'll quickly be at +120ms lag which is very very noticable and make any PC feel slugish), ghosting (yurk, overdrive helps, but then it burns in... great), weak refresh rates (which should hopefully be improved next year with the 100mHZ LCD), greyish blacks, etc...

Re:Energy efficiency

[Bertie]

Possibly the most utterly stupid application of plasma screens I've ever seen is at Waterloo Station, here in London. A few years back they stopped using the old departure and arrival boards (you know, the ones where the train stations and numbers flip round like a Rolodex) in favour of HUNDREDS of plasma screens. At the time they were still retailing for thousands of pounds a pop. Needless to say, years of showing nothing but train schedules has left them pretty severely burnt in. And in my view, they were less readable than the old boards in the first place.

Another fine example of money being pissed up the wall in Britain.

Re:Energy efficiency

[RMH101]

Yes. They do. During a recent rollout of some electronic data capture systems in a hospital, we put in Microtouch M150 15" LCD touchscreens. These were left displaying a fixed graphic combo box for 5 days mid rollout, and 5 of 30 suffered very noticeable burn in. This isn't typical - we've used the same screens for 4 years at other sites without issue - but it does happen. First time I've seen it..

Re:Energy efficiency

[larryj]

I'm on my second plasma and I've yet to see ANY sign of burn-in. I even play a lot of games (Xbox, 360, PS2, Wii).

Re:Energy efficiency

[CaxDot]

The reason LCDs are outselling plasma displays is mainly that they are sold in brightly lit stores, where you won't easily see the enormous difference in contrast ratio. On the contrary, LCDs are fabricated to look black in direct lighting, while plasmas sometimes tend to look greyish.

Good stores should have dampened lighting in the TV dept. Plasmas are like projectors, you don't really see what they are capable of in bright light. Turn the lights down on an LCD, and you will see the disastrously poor contrast of LCD technology manifesting itself as glaring, grey areas that are supposed to represent black.

The other reason is that LCD are preadjusted to do a lot of clipping in white and black areas (which people don't always easily react to) to make the picture look less washed-out. If you correctly calibrate an LCD you will see this limitation quickly.

To further fool the customers, LCD vendors have a fantast-number called "dynamic contrast", which represents total contrast after frame-by-frame contrast distribution. It would be OK giving ut this specification, had they not omitted the real number. After all, "dynamic contrast 8000:1!" doesn't sound less cool than "contrast 5000:1". It's dynamic, like Batman & Robin. Too bad the real contrast is 1200:1.

So sure, LCDs may be better for use with a computer, but that is not the reason why they are winning the battles in the elecronics stores.

Re:Energy efficiency

[@madeus]

LCDs and DLPs don't burn in because they use filters over white light to emit colors.

Certainly DLP's don't suffer from burn in (though they have a lot of other issues of course, the infamous rainbow effect being the biggest problem - though things seem to be improving on that front) but the same can't be said for LCD TV's. Although Plasma screens seem to burn in more easily, LCD displays do suffer too, however mostly it seems to only be an issue with larger displays (e.g. 30" or larger - the sort of size used in LCD TV's). I am not sure why that is though.

Your backlight may go out, but that's replaceable. Good luck replacing individual phosphors when they burn out.

That's a bit of a red herring to be fair. As with the back lights on an LCD display, Plasma screen will indeed burn out eventually (mine is rated for something like 8 years continuous usage - i.e. so even if I watch 12 hours a day (which obviously I'm not going to) it should be good for 14 years, which I'm comfortable with. Good luck getting either replaced though!

The depressing reality is, unless you have a good 3rd party repair shop in your area that are comfortable with this sort of thing, or you are willing to take your TV apart yourself you are SOL. Vendors like Sony, Phillips (etc.) just don't want to know and that ones that will talk to you invariably give you a price that is equal to or more than the cost of a brand new unit (especially on smaller screens), and of course new sets of better quality will almost certainly be available for 1/4 of the price by then.

Example: I bought a brand new model 32" Sony CRT 8 years ago for 1,500 UKP (the most expensive set in the store as it happened). I'm going to give it to someone in the office who can use a better TV as there is almost no point in trying to sell it - you can get a better set for about 250 UKP now. It has a long-standing problem with powering up from being completely off (it's okay if you leave it on standby, but otherwise you might need to flick it on and off a couple of times), but it would cost about the same as a new set just to get that issue resolved.

Re:Energy efficiency

[jacksonj04]

Leeds spent many thousands on replacing old CRTs with LCDs, which worked roughly alright (Except for the fact that they were ran by Win2K and sometimes got interesting errors) except for, like you said, burn in after a year or two.

They have now been replaced with huge banks of LED displays, similar to those in airports (I believe London KX has done this as well), which are amazingly bright, incredibly readable, and 100x more reliable.

Re:Energy efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

> 1,500 UKP

Ukrainian whats? HTH

Re:Energy efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

UKP == STG == ISO abbreviation GBP

[ Text to get around lameness filter. ]

Re:Energy efficiency

[monsted]

"Thousands of pounds"... How much do you think it costs to build the rolodex-style board? I'm willing to bet that you can buy many plasmas for the same price.

Other than that, i would probably pick a nice consumer item like a 30" Dell LCD for the application, if i were to make something similar now.

Re:Energy efficiency

[GTMoogle]

If it happens to 5 of 30, it's a manufacturing defect, although one possibly deemed acceptable (or went unnoticed). So a poorly made LCD can have issues with pixel response - it can probably even be fixed by massaging the screen while having it flicker through the color spectrum. YMMV. It works for dead pixels, at any rate. "L" stands for liquid, so gooshing it around may very well have restorative properties. I've never seen a burned in LCD, so I can't say from experience.

The point was phosphors have a lifespan directly related to their average intensity, and for plasmas it's measurable in a matter of years if not months (for the difference between neighboring pixels).

Re:Energy efficiency

[plugholeUK]

It's all about being "hi-tech". No matter if existing solutions work, you're a luddite if you stand still too long. I bet the old style boards only drew power when updating, i.e. flipping over. The plasma screens require continuous power all day long.

Re:Energy efficiency

[bbrack]

DLP does this with a color wheel rotating anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 times per second

FYI, it's more on the order of 100 rotations/sec

The reason the DMD does not suffer burn-in is the fact that the hinges that the mirrors are mounted on do not suffer from the same type of repetitive stress wearout that a larger hinge would, not anything due to the color wheel - top end LCDs and DLPs actually have one light source per primary color

Re:Energy efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in Britain several weeks ago, and was struck by how well tax dollars seemed to be spent. Yes, the powers that be might make some mistakes, but be happy you don't live here in Canada, where tax dollars intended for any infrastructure seem to dissappear in nothing. I would rather have my goverments make the odd mistake with my money while at least trying to do *something*, than piss it away into someone's pocket, never to be seen again.

Re:Energy efficiency

[Wrath0fb0b]

My buddy worked at the Portland airport on installing banks of digital displays and asked about how the airport could afford hundreds of screens @ $2000 ea. Apparently, LG practically gave them all away to the airport as a way to get people (especially businesspeople) thinking about the utility of large displays and the reliability of their brand (after all, they use them in airports!).

I see this as a win-win situation. The public gets much better airport displays than we used to and the company gets nearly free advertising in a format that suits them.

I will admit that the rolodex-y thing is (was) pretty cool though.

Re:Energy efficiency

[sootman]

>> LCDs also burn in.

> No they don't.

Yes they do. Want to come to my office and look at some nice 20" LCDs with Apple menus burned into them?

Re:Energy efficiency

[walt-sjc]

I even play a lot of games (Xbox, 360, PS2, Wii)

I would be VERY surprised if anyone already has burn-in from playing games on a Wii.

Lots of different games wouldn't cause any burn-in. Playing the SAME game on a dedicated "gaming" plasma for many months on end would be a whole different story.

Re:Energy efficiency

[The-Bus]

Wouldn't it make sense for consumers to buy LCDs which will be in environments mimicking their own? I like watching movies in a dark room but it doesn't make sense to have all the lights out if you're just watching sports or news. Or the kids are just watching a video and playing at the same time. If I were to take a guess as to what kind of rooms these TVs would be in: brightly lit rooms or pitch black rooms, I'd take the former.

It doesn't mean that's the best environment to replicate the movie theatre experience but that's not everyone's main concern all of the time.

Re:Energy efficiency

[Ritchie70]

Exactly. We're not all videophiles. Some of us just want a giant Oprah.

Re:Energy efficiency

[Bertie]

Hmm, you might be onto something there, given that Waterloo station serves the "stockbroker belt". I doubt anybody's impressed now, though - they look terrible. And they were never branded, so I can't see why any commercial outfit would have subsidised them if nobody was going to associate the screens with them, rather than their competitors.

I dunno, I just think they were a step backwards when they were installed, and now they look absolutely terrible and will be in need of replacement, whereas the old flipping board ticked away merrily for many a year without a hitch.

Re:Energy efficiency

[Bertie]

Thousands of pounds per screen (at the time), and I'm not kidding, there's several hundred of them. Also, if you look at them closely, you can see that each one's made of two separate panels, so double that again. Four or five years on and they're almost due for replacement already.

Re:Energy efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

Once this technology http://www.brightsidetech.com/ becomes prevalent, the LCD will match the dynamic range of plasma with the reduced energy consumption of LCD. This along with the latest improved LCD refresh rates with yield amazing improvement in LCD picture quality.

Re:Energy efficiency

[Trixter]

DLP does this with a color wheel rotating anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 times per second

No sir, my hard drive doesn't even spin that fast. You're off by orders of magnitude.

Considering that a DLP projector updates the screen 60 times a second, most color wheels spin at 60 or 120Hz. The early projectors had wheels that spun at only 60Hz leading to the unpopular color "shimmering" effect that prevents some people from buying it if they can notice the effect. Later wheels spin faster, reducing the effect greatly, but even these don't exceed 3x the display rate.

High-end DLP projectors use three emitters (RGB), eliminating the need for a wheel entirely.

Re:Energy efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

From your article, "The good news is that it isnt an irremediable burn in which happens in some plasmas."

Re:Energy efficiency

[Venner]

I always assumed LCDs wouldn't suffer from burn in, but I have two (older) LCD displays that indicate otherwise. Both are 19" LCDs from 1999*, made by two different manufacturers. Both have a native 1280x1024 resolution, but they were only run at 1024x768 (not using full area of the display). After years of that, the 1024x768 area in the center looks quite washed-out compared to the outer band when I run them at 1280x1024. So something is going on. Pixel fatigue? :-p

* yeah, they were probably very expensive.

Re:Energy efficiency

[LeavenOfMalice]

It is worth mentioning that very soon we will be able to buy DLPs with LED light source, eliminating the color wheel and it's biggest drawback, the rainbow effect. http://www.hwhpr.com/pr/samsung/CES06/led_dlp.html

Re:Energy efficiency

[kimvette]

LCDs don't "burn in" like CRTs do. What can happen is that the after-image of a stationary image is retained in the LCD for up to several hours after the display changes. To "fix" it simply power cycle a few times (it will immediately fade but possibly not totally disappear for a few hours), or to simply cycle screen colors or play a video file for a few minutes.

It's not like CRT burn-in in several ways:

  - it is in no way permanent
  - it is not quite as noticeable
  - is user-correctable

Re:Energy efficiency

[kimvette]

Cycle solid colors on it, leaving it on each color for a few minutes. E.g., a slideshow of solid red, solid black, solid blue, solid green, and just keep cycling through. The "burn in" will go away.

Re:Energy efficiency

[kimvette]

Set up a slideshow to run overnight, full brightness, cycling through solid full-screen black, white, red, green, and blue. Hold each color for a minute or two, then cycle to the next. Let it just repeat overnight (so you don't interrupt productivity). That so-called "burn in" will go away overnight, if not within the first few minutes.

Re:Energy efficiency

[kimvette]

I can't keep track; is she fat or thin now? Either way, just tune to her show. Sooner or later she'll give you a giant Oprah all on her own. /couldn't resist

Re:Energy efficiency

[sangmin]

1) LCD's power consumption is constant because of the backlight.
2) PDP's power consumption is variable because it has no backlight, instead it depends on the images it is displaying. darker images consume very little power, brighter images consume more power.

just keep these two facts in mind.

as far as how the rating is done, i'm told that it is a white screen test, hence very advantageous to LCDs. for PDPs, a white screen test is the WORST possible scenario since that would represent maximum (or close to it) possible power consumption.

a more representative method would be to track power consumption during viewing, but even studies along those lines are controversial.
there have been several studies with conflicting results, some show LCDs consume less power, some show PDPs consume more power, and others show there isn't that much of a difference. if you dug deeper into the studies, the difference would probably come from the movie or show selected while the study was carried out. if you pick a movie with a lot of bright scenes, LCDs will come up ahead, and vice versa. my personal opinion is that the difference is probably not as large as marketing makes it out to be.

and for interest of full disclosure, i work for Samsung SDI, a company that makes PDP panels.

Re:Energy efficiency

[CaxDot]

That sounds sensible, but these stores are lit like operating rooms with rows of little spotlights above the TV racks. Atleast the ones where I live. After all, a lot of people need their women's blessing to invest in something like this, and they like their merch brightly lit, like jewelry. Most of the time, people will be using their sets in darker conditions than that, even when there is daylight outside. And it's not like plasmas are unusable in bright conditions to the degree that LCDs are unusable in dark conditions either.

You can say it doesn't matter though, a lot of people didn't realise that direct lighting ruined the image on their CRTs either. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. A lot of people don't care about quality at all, but one shouldn't state the case that LCDs are outselling Plasmas due to image quality. LCD contrast is far from real-world.

Re:Energy efficiency

[Osty]

No sir, my hard drive doesn't even spin that fast. You're off by orders of magnitude.

What does that have to do with DLP color wheels?

Considering that a DLP projector updates the screen 60 times a second, most color wheels spin at 60 or 120Hz. The early projectors had wheels that spun at only 60Hz leading to the unpopular color "shimmering" effect that prevents some people from buying it if they can notice the effect. Later wheels spin faster, reducing the effect greatly, but even these don't exceed 3x the display rate.

If the color wheel only spun 60 times per second, the picture wouldn't even be recognizeable. Assuming a 3-section color wheel, that means you'd only get green, red, or blue every third frame. Our eyes work much faster than that when determining color (motion can be synthesized with very few frames per second, creating colors out of sequential individual base colors requires much more than that).

I may be a little off with my upper-end range (30,000RPM), but 10,000RPM and above is actually quite common. For example:

• A randomly chosen current-model 1080p Samsung DLP: color wheel speed is 14,400RPM
• My year-old 720p Samsung DLP: 10,800RPM

I couldn't find RPM ratings for Mitsubishi or Toshiba TVs for comparison (they don't list that on their spec sheets like Samsung does), but it's a safe bet that if Samsung color wheels are running at 10-14K RPMs then so are other DLP sets.

High-end DLP projectors use three emitters (RGB), eliminating the need for a wheel entirely.

High-end DLP projectors, like those used in movie theaters, use three DMDs from a single light source that's been split into component colors via a prism. At least that's how it used to be. They'll probably move to three individual LED-based light sources emitting pure red, green, and blue. Of course they'll still need individual DMDs, which is where the expense comes in (and why consumer-grade sets don't use individual DMDs and thus need color wheels).

Re:Energy efficiency

[Trixter]

It was your 30,000 statement I was objecting to. You are correct when it comes to 180Hz and 240Hz wheels (10,800 RPM and 14,400 RPM).

Sadly, that's still too slow -- I see color shimmering on any horizontal panning, which greatly ruins DLP for me (although I've only seen 180Hz wheels, I haven't seen a 240Hz wheel yet).

Why would anyone buy either?

[Onan]

I'm not very much of a television watcher, but I do sometimes have friends over to watch movies and such. I recently picked up a projector, and now have a 100ish" display that becomes a blank wall when I'm not using it.

I'm pretty happy with it, projectors are hardly a specialty item any more, and I doubt it was significantly more expensive than a 50" plasma or lcd television. So I'm having a hard time seeing why anyone who wants a big display would ever purchase anything other than a projector.

Is there something here I'm missing?

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a projector you need a large room with a suitable layout to project the image without people being and walking inbetween.
I think a flat screen without projection is more attractive in many cases.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[tsa]

Most people don't have a spare wall to use as a TV screen. Besides, many people don't have the space for a projector. You need to have nothing between the projector and the wall, which is difficult to realize in a small room.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect you also need quite a lot of room for a 50 inch tv.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought about buying a projector but I realized that I'm picky about image quality. With a projector, you really need to have a room where you can control the darkness of the room, particularly in the daytime, otherwise contrast and shadow detail suffers. Some projectors also make more noise than a TV due to the fan.

Furthermore, the cost of a projector is not merely the cost of the projector. A wall of paint does not provide an optimum viewing experience. When I was pricing projectors I was also pricing a proper screen, whether standalone or something mounted on the ceiling. And then there is the question of bulbs. Projector bulbs are not inexpensive, and they don't last anywhere near as long as an LCD backlight.

When I put the real costs together with the noise and image quality issues I decided that if I was going to spend the kind of money required for a projector or TV then in terms of quality and use experience an LCD TV was going to be the way to go.

Please feel free to correct me if the bulb cost and noise situations have improved.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[colinramsay]

And to get the best out of a projector you need a screen (which means the "blank wall" thing goes out of the window) and lower light levels than an LCD or flatscreen - which means curtains during the day or watching at night.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[kisielk]

I find your comment puzzling. I live in Japan and many of my friends have projectors because their apartments are too small to be able to fit even a modest sized television. With a projector they can have a large screen while taking up very little space. Newer LCD projectors are no bigger than a regular sized laptop and fit easily on a shelf or projector mount. Add to this a screen that you can hang from the ceiling on some hooks, and you can get a 50" TV in a tiny space.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're missing is 2-fold.

First you have contrast ratio. Unless you keep the display compleately dark, a black screen isn't really black. Normal lighting sources boost the dark areas and destroy contrast and to a lesser extent color balance. You can get around this by keeping the room compleately dark, but thats not really practical. It might be workable for movie night, but I'd hate to be forced to do all my TV watching in a dark room. Not to mention windows and other possible light sources that might not be under your control.

This issue could be resolved soon with a new screen that only reflects very specific wavelengths of light (namely the same exact RGB hues used in the projector). Since normal ambient light is somewhat evenly distributed amoung a broad spectrum of colors, only a very small percentage will be reflected from most sources and the screen looks very dark grey when the projector is off. However, since all of the light from the projector is in the wavelengths reflected by the screen its just as bright as on a normal white screen. This boosts the contrast ratio and eliminates most ambient light interference problems. Eventually, this will be the way to go for projector viewing, but currently, its still in the "is that a price tag or a model number?" stage and needs more development before being practical. (And I can't seem to find a link to a description of this screen, anyone else have better luck?)

Second you have space constraints. My walls aren't smooth and white. The rooms in this house are a bit odd, and I don't think I could easily find a large flat space thats unobtrusive, especially one that could have furnature arranged around it with room to put the projector far enough away. If you have such a space, then thats great for you, but it doesn't work for everyone.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[BenjyD]

Not many people have room for a projector, hence the success of flat screen TVs. Also, what does a projector look like with the lights on?

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Osty]

I'm not very much of a television watcher, but I do sometimes have friends over to watch movies and such. I recently picked up a projector, and now have a 100ish" display that becomes a blank wall when I'm not using it.

Is there something here I'm missing?

There are a number of reasons why people don't want or can't use front projection.

• Not enough room. You need to have a sizeable room for front projection if you really want to get to that 100" size. Being able to project the image is only part of the equation. Optimal viewing distance for a 50" set is between 6 and 10 feet (depending on HD or SD content). Do you really have a room big enough to accomodate a 20ft viewing distance for your 100" image?
• Not enough control over ambient lighting. Front projection needs a relatively dark room, much moreso than a rear-projection TV (CRT, LCoS, DLP, LCD) or direct-view (CRT, LCD, Plasma).
• Wife-acceptance factor. Try telling your wife that she has to make sure the blackout shades are down if she wants to watch her soaps or Oprah in the middle of the day.
• You realize that size isn't everything. Sure, you can get a 100" display, but depending on the technology in your projector you'll likely suffer screen-dooring or pixelization (especially for low-end consumer-grade projectors). 1280x720 (16x9 720p) at 100" diagonal is 14 pixels per inch.
• You realize that the price of the projector isn't everything. For proper viewing, you really need a good screen. A flat, white wall is merely "okay". A flat wall with special paint is better. A proper screen is best. Bear in mind that most people don't have truly flat walls, since drywall is usually somewhat textured. It might look flat, but project an image on it and you've suddenly got a bunch of little bumps causing little shadows all throughout the picture. A screen is really the way to go, and that's not cheap, especially if you want a roll-up model so it hides easily.

When all of the variables are right, front-projection is nice. Getting everything to come together for a proper viewing experience either requires extreme luck or large amounts of money. You can certainly go overboard, like a friend of mine who just put in a $15,000 theater, but even a modest projector + screen + blackout curtains will run you more than the $2000 I spent on a 50" rear-projection DLP.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't have a spare wall to use as a TV screen. Besides, many people don't have the space for a projector. You need to have nothing between the projector and the wall, which is difficult to realize in a small room.

Unless your wall is uniformly white, you need a "screen" in front of the wall anyway. These can be rolled up, and only pulled down when in use, so putting it in front of a window would work fine. You can't mount a flat screen TV on the window.

A projector takes much less space than a TV set, so I don't see how you can have room for a TV but not a projector. And the TV needs to have nothing between the couch and the TV anyway, otherwise you can't see it. By hanging the projector over the couch, you'll be using the same "nothingness".

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[pubjames]

I have both a projector and a big TV. The projector is great for movies, however, who wants to watch the news, for instance, on a big screen in a darkened room? Also, I get motion sickness if I play video games on the projector, but not with the TV.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[SirSmiley]

Projectors do have the drawbacks of being noisy (big fans to cool those bulbs!) and can cause distractions if youre sitting at certain angles from the light escaping the projector on the sides..blinding you...minor things however and we have been happy ...at work we run about 30-40 projectors of mainly infocus and proximas and the new ones are quite slick...however you do have to turn up the volume because the bulbs are extremely hot and the fans kick on often a cheap way to go though for HD (make sure to get an XGA or higher one)

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Technician]

There are a number of reasons why people don't want or can't use front projection.

I'm suprised nobody has mentioned lamp life yet. It's a pricy part and has a short life.

2. Video projectors have a very limited bulb life. In other words, if you are watching TV on your video projector about 3-4 hours every night, you would have to replace the light source bulb about once a year at 200-400 dollars a pop.

snipped from

http://hometheater.about.com/od/hometheaterbasicsf aq/f/htbasicfaq5.htm

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Osty]

I'm suprised nobody has mentioned lamp life yet. It's a pricy part and has a short life.

Because you have the exact same problem with DLP sets, and a similar issue with LCD (backlight). DLP bulbs are replaceable, though they usually last 2-3 years before replacement. Buy yourself a good store warranty for $100 and you'll get a free lamp replacement out of it (the only time store warrantees are worth anything). By the time you need a second lamp replacement (around the 5-6 year mark), you may as well buy a new TV.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[nmg196]

> I'm having a hard time seeing why anyone who wants a
> big display would ever purchase anything other than a projector.

Because most people also use their TVs in the DAY or with lights on and projectors are absolutely crap in the daytime. The contrast ratio falls to next to nothing if there's any light in the room whatsoever.

The darkest black a projector can display is the black that you see when you look at a WHITE wall. Look at a nearby white wall NOW and decide for yourself if that's an acceptable BLACK level. If LCDs or Plasmas had a black level that bad, NOBODY would buy them and we'd all still be using CRT screens. The ONLY advantage of a projector is it's picture size, but the vast majority of people aren't prepared to cope with all the drawbacks just to get a bigger (washed out) picture.

Also, projectors are very difficult to site in the average living room. They need to go at the opposite end of the room to all your AV kit and preferably high up on a wall or ceiling. You either have to move all your AV kit to the back of the room and fire your remote controls backwards, or run a signal cable the whole distance of your living room to feed the projector.

They're great if all you want is a big picture in cinema-like blackout conditions, but they're hardly practical for the average family who needs to install it in a room with windows.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Anonymous Coward]

it is about contrast. if you putting 2000lm to white wall, your eye adapts and grades the white wall as close to black. you obviously never seen a projector

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Technician]

Because you have the exact same problem with DLP sets, and a similar issue with LCD (backlight).

It is true that DLP projectors have the same issue with lamp life. The article was comparing plasma and LCD which is why I didn't mention DLP sets. Both my laptops are older than 3 years old and get more than 3 hours of use per day. Neither has required a lamp replacement. The 1500 to 3K hour life of a high intensity projector bulb is considerably shorter than a typical cold cathode lamp in an LCD set.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[nmg196]

If you shine a 2000lm light through an LCD, 1-2% of the light goes through the BLACK areas. Assuming your eye somehow PERFECTLY adapts so you can see NOTHING in the room other than the image itself, the black levels are STILL crap. Even in a cinema the contrast ratio is still pretty bad. You can easily see light in the black areas very easily. You're obviously not very observant.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Flaming Babies]

For a 100" projection, you'd need about 7.5 ft x 4.5 ft of blank wall space and a wide enough room to put the projecter 12+ ft away with no obstructions between.
For a 50" plasma, you'd need about 4 ft x 2.5 ft of blank wall space.
I'd say there's a significant difference in the required space.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Anonymous Coward]

bulbs...

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[pubjames]

Video projectors have a very limited bulb life.

I would hardly call it "very limited". I've been using my Sony projector to watch films about every other day for about three or four years and I haven't had to change the bulb yet.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[iainl]

In short, because the darkest colour a projector can do is to shine no additional light onto your white screen.

So they're fine in a dark room, but a bit rubbish if your wife refuses to watch films at home with the lights off. Otherwise I'd have bought a projector, yes.

Mind you, my 32" Sony Bravia LCD is a bit gorgeous, and no more expensive than the fairly low-end projector I would have bought, anyway.

Finally, the problem with projectors is that they need to be at the opposite end of the room from the screen, and running the cables would have been a nightmare.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[tompatman]

The bulb factor is not really an issue anymore. I have a Sony Wega rear projection HDTV with an 8000 hr. bulb life. Assuming 5 hrs./day of tv watching this is 8000/5 = 1600 days which is 1600/365 = 4.38 years. The replacement bulb currently cost $150 on ebay. Guess how much it will cost in 4 yrs. Plus, getting a replacement bulb will be like getting a brand new TV.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Mad Dog Manley]

100"? ppssssh. I front project onto the side of my barn at the farm, and I get a ~100 foot screen (~1200 inches).

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Anonymous Coward]

LCD's are rated for 60,000 hours. This is 7 years of 24/24 viewing!

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[TheSHAD0W]

http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/better-picture-of- sonys-black-backed-projection-screen-016964.php

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Yvan256]

Please feel free to correct me if the bulb cost and noise situations have improved.

What I'd like to know is, since the major problems of projectors are bulb longevity/cost and noise (from the fan to dissipate heat), couldn't the bulbs be made with those ultra-bright LEDs? We're now at a point where you can almost light up streets with (many of) these things, why can't they be used in a projector? Imagine a silent projector that basically never require new bulbs?

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[hey!]

I think he's thinking of the old front projection systems from the 1980s. They had a coffee table sized console that was placed maybe 2m from a large, rigid screen. The screen had to be rigid because it was curved to compensate for off axis optical distortion. Placing the system far enough away from the screen to avoid optical problems would have defeated the purpose of the large screen: you can't sit in front of the projector without blocking the picture.

Modern projection systems are much more compact, and are readily ceiling mounted and can project over your head. This allows them to be placed farther from the screen, avoiding off-axis optical distortion. because there is no visible optical distortion, a flat surface can be used as a screen.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[walt-sjc]

For a 100" projection, you'd need about 7.5 ft x 4.5 ft of blank wall space and a wide enough room to put the projecter 12+ ft away with no obstructions between.

This really depends on the projector. Mine has adjustable zoom and can easily create a larger image being only 8' away. The projector is mounted on the ceiling... I don't know about your room, but I generally don't have many obstructions hanging from the ceiling between the seating area and projection wall. Due to limited bulb life (and the expense of replacements) however, I use a pull down screen with a normal TV behind it and only use the projector for movies.

Also, there is nothing saying that you need to project a 100" image. Most consumer projectors are not 1080p either, being the lower 1280x720. Many modern high-end LCD flat panel TV's are full 1080p. Personally, 1280x720 is quite enough for me anyway.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[chenjeru]

Speaking of, does anyone know what happened to Sony's black projection screen (http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06 /23/1236235)?

Ya, I said Sony...sorry 'bout that...

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Mattintosh]

My projector (Viewsonic PJ501, el-cheapo) has a lamp rated for 2000 hours of lamp life in "normal" mode or 4000 hours in "whisper" mode (it runs the lamp at half brightness and slows the fan down). 4 hours a night is not going to burn that bulb out for 2.74 years (2 years, 270 days). And you get the benefit of being able to see the front-projected image in any light (because it's at half brightness, rather than the overpowering "normal" brightness that makes everything look like glare). I'm watching it right now, and there's a window open with light shining in about 8 feet (2 meters and a little more) to the right of the screen.

I've had my projector for 18 months and the current "lamp time" is 731 hours. I've run it in whisper mode for all but about the first 10 hours. And I watch TV on it all the time (it's my primary TV). By the time the bulb burns out on it, it'll be time to upgrade it anyway. It's 800x600 resolution natively, though it can "fake it" for 1024x768. When the lamp burns out in another 3-4 years, I'll buy a new projector with higher resolution for the same price (or less) than this one cost me.

The downside to a projector is that you constantly have to step over wires laying across the floor or ceiling-mount the thing and have wires running across your ceiling. I just went to an office supply store and bought one of those rubber "speed-bump" wire traps. Problem solved.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[smoker2]

Not enough room. You need to have a sizeable room for front projection if you really want to get to that 100" size. Being able to project the image is only part of the equation. Optimal viewing distance for a 50" set is between 6 and 10 feet (depending on HD or SD content). Do you really have a room big enough to accomodate a 20ft viewing distance for your 100" image?

My projector is about 13 feet from the screen and I get a nice 84" diagonal. I view it from my bed, so my head is underneath and in front of the projector.

Not enough control over ambient lighting. Front projection needs a relatively dark room, much moreso than a rear-projection TV (CRT, LCoS, DLP, LCD) or direct-view (CRT, LCD, Plasma).

Relatively dark room, not completely blacked out. I'm lucky enough to work for a living, so I don't get to view daytime tv really, even if there were something worth watching.

Wife-acceptance factor. Try telling your wife that she has to make sure the blackout shades are down if she wants to watch her soaps or Oprah in the middle of the day.

Not married, don't care. Besides which, how many people here live in a one TV household ?

You realize that size isn't everything. Sure, you can get a 100" display, but depending on the technology in your projector you'll likely suffer screen-dooring or pixelization (especially for low-end consumer-grade projectors). 1280x720 (16x9 720p) at 100" diagonal is 14 pixels per inch.

I'm running mine at 800x600 as I don't have DVI on my current graphics card. I don't see pixels and the image is as sharp as I need it to be for watching TV or DVDs.

You realize that the price of the projector isn't everything. For proper viewing, you really need a good screen. A flat, white wall is merely "okay". A flat wall with special paint is better. A proper screen is best. Bear in mind that most people don't have truly flat walls, since drywall is usually somewhat textured. It might look flat, but project an image on it and you've suddenly got a bunch of little bumps causing little shadows all throughout the picture. A screen is really the way to go, and that's not cheap, especially if you want a roll-up model so it hides easily.

A flat white wall is actually crap. A grey wall is better, but as for the lumps being visible, that's just not true. I also have a Da-Lite screen and it rolls up and it cost me a huge £89 !

You can certainly go overboard, like a friend of mine who just put in a $15,000 theater, but even a modest projector + screen + blackout curtains will run you more than the $2000 I spent on a 50" rear-projection DLP.

The biggest ongoing cost is the lamp, but mine has lasted over a year since the last change. My projector was around £600, I don't need blackout curtains, and the screen was £89, so say £700 all told for a maximum projection size of 21 feet diagonal !

Also, how long do plasmas and lcds last. It's a lot of cash for a limited lifespan and a lot of cash to replace. At least I just get a new bulb. Of course you need a tuner as well, but I'm using the pc for that.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Abcd1234]

All of which is why you have a reasonable sized TV (27" or 32" come to mind) for regular daytime watching, and have the big-screen in a nice home theatre setup, where you can watch your favorite HD content, movies, and so forth.

Frankly, the idea of have a 50"+ screen in my living room is simply laughable. A living room is for more than just watching TV. A gargantuan TV dominating the space is just ugly, IMHO.

Which is why I plan to build a separate A/V room in my basement. Then I can have the big screen down there with a projector and a nice surround-sound system without having to sacrifice my living space.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Mattintosh]

Not true. You just aren't doing it right.

1) Turn the brightness down. Many projectors have a half-brightness mode, usually named after one of the other benefits of not running full-blast (long-life, whisper-quiet, etc.). Use that mode and you'll have no problem seeing the picture during the daytime.

2) Don't use a white wall. Get a screen. White walls reflect all sorts of light (depending on the paint finish). Screens (even cheap ones) diffuse light just the right amount to give a good black level while allowing the non-black parts to be clearly visible. They also tend to diffuse ambient light evenly, making it much less of a problem.

3) You're supposed to buy a projector with a spread angle right for the size of your room. If I put my projector on the opposite wall of my living room, it fills the wall completely (8 feet tall, 20 feet long) and the pixels are about 1/8 of an inch square (800x600 resolution). Mine sits on the coffee table, the wires are run across the floor in a rubber "speed-bump" wire tray, and it's no more than 8 feet away from the screen. All of the other gear is right where you'd expect it to be (under the screen). Only the coffee table obstructs the remotes (and it would do that anyway).

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[karnal]

Very bright LEDs still require some way to diffuse heat - I have several 1 watt, and a 3 watt Lumiled based flashlight(s). Each one of them has a heatsink attached to the LED in question - so I would guess if you have a bank of these, you'd still need some form of active cooling.

In addition, these LEDs don't give a uniform light output over the surface area of the chip, so there would have to be additional items in the light path to ensure uniformity over the area of light output. (I'm just guessing based on my experience with consumer-grade flashlights, BTw)

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[smoker2]

Forgot to add the link :

The screen in action 31MB file but you can stream it in VLC or Xine.

Clockwise from top left = DVB broadcast tv, VLC player streaming the X Files from my media server, WinDVD playing chronicles of Riddick, and RealPlayer streaming NasaTV live. The resolution looks crap, but bear in mind that it is only 800x600 and the video has been run through DrDivx ! Also it's hard to focus the camera on a live screen. The monitor is a 19" CRT at 1600x1200.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Anonymous Coward]

While projectors aren't perfect, as you point out, these complaints seem rather minor -- I don't see how any of them would be a dealbreaker.

- Not enough room? If you don't have 20ft for "optimal viewing distance" for a 100" image, then move the projector closer. With projectors, you can change the size of the image; not so with any other technology.

- Not enough control over lighting? Close the window. Or watch at night. Or both. (Who watches TV during the day, apart from 1950's stay-at-home housewives?)

- Wife-acceptance? If you're married to somebody who watches soaps obsessively ... well, you've got bigger problems. Buy her a $100 CRT TV. Or Tivo them. Or ... (Really, how many people on slashdot suffer from this problem?)

- Size isn't everything? True, but it's still 720p which is nothing to sneeze at, and much better than the TV I bought just a couple years ago.

- Need a screen? True, it will look a lot better with a screen, but even including that it won't be *that* expensive.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.screeninnovations.com/mirage_press.html

Another kind of projection screen, your projector has to be in a certain angle in order for it's light to be drawn.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[cain]

Wife-acceptance factor. Try telling your wife that she has to make sure the blackout shades are down if she wants to watch her soaps or Oprah in the middle of the day.

Also make sure to tell her to hop in that time-machine and hustle up to 2006 where she doesn't have to sit home and watch TV all day.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[paranode]

Also you usually have to have a pretty dark room to use it in. What would cause a bit of glare on a normal TV screen can wash out and render a projector image almost unwatchable.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[paranode]

"Try telling your wife that she has to make sure the blackout shades are down if she wants to watch her soaps or Oprah in the middle of the day."

Or you could tell her to go get a fucking job.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[drasfr]

I would have to completely agree with that... I have a Sanyo PLV70. The image quality is amazing. I love it. 120" as well, when I have people, friends over, especially I live in Manhattan they are always amazed. The one drawback is that I have to change the bulb about every 6 months, and it is $400 everytime. I have this projector for 5 years already! Costed me over $4000 in bulbs. Also the bulbs are very bright when first purchased, then quickly dim. That is another drawback...

Now because of the ongoing cost, everytime I go to buy a new bulb I swear to myself I will switch and buy a new TV... Every weekends I look at LCDs and Plasma and drool over them in some ways... but then, when I look at the size... I have been spoiled! The size of my display at home is just too big for me to switch yet. Size does matter for me!

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[k31bang]

I'm suprised nobody has mentioned lamp life yet. It's a pricy part and has a short life.

2. Video projectors have a very limited bulb life. In other words, if you are watching TV on your video projector about 3-4 hours every night, you would have to replace the light source bulb about once a year at 200-400 dollars a pop.

This is slashdot. We build our own projectors with bulbs that cost around $30 a piece and can last thousands of hours. Or we drop $500 on a projector that is prebuilt and does the the same thing with the same bulbs.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Flaming Babies]

Many of the rooms in my house have a light hanging in the middle of the ceiling...
I'm guessing that the projection would still work as long as they aren't chandeliers, but they do extend down off the ceiling quite a bit.
I know you don't need to project a 100" image, but my reply was made in response to comments about space requirements of 100" projection vs 50" plasma.
I've been looking into buying a new TV, and a projecter is something I'm still considering...so I wasn't trying to come off sounding like one was better than the other.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[not-enough-info]

You don't need blackout curtains for acceptable black levels.

Spend a little on a Sony ChromaVue "black" projection screen.
Throw in a cheap $600 projector and you have yourself a decent 80" image for $2000.
Beats paying $150,000 for a Samsung HPR8082.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Bob-taro]

A few things you might not have realized/thought about:

Not enough room. You need to have a sizeable room for front projection if you really want to get to that 100" size. Being able to project the image is only part of the equation. Optimal viewing distance for a 50" set is between 6 and 10 feet (depending on HD or SD content). Do you really have a room big enough to accomodate a 20ft viewing distance for your 100" image?

OTOH, if you want a 50" projected image, you just move the projector closer to the wall. The 4x brightness boost you get from that will help with ambient light problems, etc.

Also, I've had a good experience projecting onto a wall. I painted a "screen" in off-white, flat finish paint, and I don't see any texture or roughness in the image. It's not high-def, but I use it mostly for DVDs.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could tell her to go get a fucking job.

Reason #532 why some Slashdotters will never touch naked human female flesh.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Baki]

I have been watching a move at a friend once, using a projector. I found it horrible.
At home I do not want to feel like I'm in a cinema, sitting in the dark.
Also the noise of the coolers is very irritating (I'm allergic to humming noises of any kind).

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Raenex]

Then again why would you want a 50" TV in a tiny space? They're good for large rooms and not sitting too close.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[Raenex]

I see you're one of THOSE people that NEED to emphasize LOTS of words.

Re:Why would anyone buy either?

[kisielk]

Well, it doesn't *have* to be 50", you can change the size by adjusting the projector and find what works best for your viewing distance. I just pulled some arbitrarily large screen size out of thin air... you can of course go larger or smaller.

Not first post

[killa62]

But I would have had 1st post if I had a faster response time plasma tv!

Re:Not first post

[Anonymous Coward]

But I would have had 1st post if I had a faster response time plasma tv!And what would you do if you had a brain?

Hmm...

[iamdrscience]

I understand the arguement for LCDs, but "Plasma" just sounds so much cooler. In order to make sure that LCDs are the winnning technology, I propose that companies who make LCDs start referring to their displays as "Liquivision" TVs and high-def LCDs as "Extreme Liquivision Plus".

Also, they should put racing stripes on them.

Re:Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get why people think making TVs out of the liquid component of blood is a good idea anyway.

/off to get my Xtreem LiquivizN+

Re:Hmm...

[PhunkySchtuff]

I think you've hit the nail right on the head there.
A mate of mine just knows that Plasma is the one to get, not this LDC (sic) or whatever...
I work with his partner, and have been educating her as to the benefits of LCD.
Recently they were out shopping and passed by an A/V store, so they went in for a look - he wanted to prove that LCDs were crap and Plasmas were without a doubt the one to get.

He walked purposefully into the store, had a good look over the various screens on display and then walked over to one, pointed it out and said "There, told you so, look at the picture. this is the one we're getting"

"Uh, dear... That's an LCD"

Power consumption!

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

Plasma power consumption BAD
LCD power consumption GOOD

Re:Power consumption!

[@madeus]

Yeah, but with a 50" Plasma, on the plus side I don't have to have the heating on in the living room - though I do have to turn on the aircon on if I'm staying in watching the TV during the summer (sadly, I'm not kidding).

Re:Power consumption!

[wximagery95]

Power consumption is a big issue. A 50"+ plasma will gobble up about 650 watts/120 volts = 5.4 amps. So, if you just go and buy a 50"+ plasma screen not taking into consideration the other electrical devices on the same circuit as the Plasma screen (Amplifier = 1.5A, TiVo = 0.5A, Reciever = 0.25A, DVD = 0.25A, overhead lights = 3A, lamps = 1.5 amps, computer equipment = A lot ...), you may find yourself within about 10% of the 15 amp breaker. That's when the little breaker outside gets a little twitchy. Power surges could easily blow the breaker ... not to mention the wife plugging the vaccuum cleaner into a spare outlet in the same room.

Sorry!

[Maddog787]

Can't fool me - LCD definitely better picture than PLASMA. Try selling Plasma someplace else!

Re:Sorry!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree with this statement. I saw a 40" Sony Bravia at the store a few weeks ago and it was absolutely stunning. The picture was crisp and clear and the reds and yellows were so realistic it honestly seemed like I was looking out of a window.

I then went over to look at the plasma TVs, and they seemed blurry in comparison. I don't care what the "pros" say, that TV blew away all other LCD/Plasma TVs in the store.

SED anyone?

[PsyQo]

Personally I'm very interested in SED screens, but there don't seem any products using it on the market yet. Does anyone know when we can expect such screens?

Re:SED anyone?

[Silver Sloth]

From the Wikipedia article you referenced

In October 2006, Toshiba's president announced the company plans to begin full production of 55" SED TVs in July 2007.

So the answer to your question is July 2007.

Re:SED anyone?

[bmo]

SED? What an unfortunate acronym for a display technology.

SED: /SED/, n.
  [TMRC, from Light-Emitting Diode] Smoke-emitting diode. A friode that lost the war. See also LER. [Not to be confused with sed(1), the Unix stream editor. ESR]

http://catb.org/jargon/html/S/SED.html

--
BMO

Re:SED anyone?

[Stooshie]

Personally, my choice would be OLEDs. Nut there a bit further off.

Re:SED anyone?

[Paradise Pete]

SED? What an unfortunate acronym for a display technology.

And in Spanish, sed means "won't go."

Wait, that's not right. It means thirst.

Re:SED anyone?

[Raenex]

And from the very same Wikipedia article under History:

In 2004 Toshiba and Canon announced a joint development agreement originally targeting commercial production of SEDs by the end of 2005. The 2005 target was not met, and several new targets since then have also slipped by. This failure to meet mass-production deadlines goes as far back as 1999, when Canon first told investors of its intentions to immediately begin mass-producing the technology.

So the answer to the original poster's question is: "read the damn page you link to" and "don't hold your breath".

To hell with plasma and LCD

[eebra82]

I'm waiting for one of those VR sets they promised us back in the 90s.

Re:To hell with plasma and LCD

[am 2k]

Like this?

(I'm not affiliated with them, just used tried one of them)

Memory

[MichaelSmith]

LCD monitors do get imprinted but the image is lost when power is cycled. Perhaps you should switch the monitor off when booting into ubuntu.

Re:Memory

[ImaNihilist]

Really? Neat. I'll have to look into that. I usually just throw the disk in, then hit restart.

Re:Memory

[glittalogik]

LCD burn is fixable. Make a screen-sized white image and a screen-sized black image and run a slideshow of them alternating for a few hours. This basically 'flexes' the light-blocking bits in each subpixel and gets them unstuck. I used to work at Philips and that's how we fixed it on any of the monitors in the office.

Re:Memory

[@madeus]

I can attest to this actually being true for Plasma screens as well (though it works for slightly different technical reasons obviously). I came across this solution when I found this article on Apple.com when searching Google for more information on what to do about "burn in". It's not quite the as same burn in as on CRT monitors in that it seems to be readily reversible, the trend seems to be to refer to it as 'persistence', though that may be in part because 'persistence' doesn't sound as scary to consumers.

I get burn in on my Plasma (a 50") after watching BBC News 24 (which has a large bright red box with the news logo and time on it in one corner) or when leaving my PVR menu on screen for a few minutes or leaving it outputting my Mac Mini desktop for some time (the bright icons in the Dock tend to burn in). As per the manual, if I watch another channel - particularly something bright - it goes away quickly. How quickly it goes away depends how long it was displaying the image (I think that's actually stated in my manual too).

Plasma does seem much more susceptible to "burn in"/persistence than LCD, but for the moment Plasma displays are the only way to go if you are looking for a large set (because you simply can't by very large LCD's). Plasma sets are also typically quite a bit cheaper, which makes them attractive. Lastly, they are also brighter than both back projection displays and LCD displays - my Pioneer Plasma is brighter than my old 1,500 UKP Sony CRT! Plasma sets seem to be the only ones that are able to deliver a bright picture, even with bright direct sunlight bouncing right off them (not a major selling point perhaps, but I was impressed).

I completely expect LCD displays to ultimately take over from Plasma's though. They are (potentially) a fair bit sharper, and they don't generate nearly as much heat - having the Plasma TV on is quite literally like having a radiator on in the room - particularly if it's a bright image, it gets as hot as the bottom of my PowerBook G4. It's just a matter of time before they can be made cost effectively at large sizes with little to no defects. If I was looking for a second (smaller) display I would definitely consider an LCD as it is. That said, I still expect Plasma TV's will be around and selling well for another 5 years yet (not least because it's much better than back projection and it's still kicking around).

I'm not surprised the US is the only real market for large displays. Not only do people have larger houses in the US (than say in Europe or in Asia) - you shouldn't really go bigger than about 42" unless you have a decent sized room -, and have more disposable income (due to lower taxation) but things like electronic goods are just so much cheaper (down to due to a combination of low taxation and economy of scale, I assume).

e.g. The cheapest price for my 50" Pioneer Plasma on Froogle (or indeed anywhere else) in the UK was ~3,500 UKP (with near identical pricing in stores on the continent). It a bit more expensive than most, as it's noticeably above average in terms of picture quality. At current exchange rates, that's over 6600 USD. When searching US stores in Froogle it was not only less than 3,500 US Dollars it was more like 2,000-2,800 (just under 1,500 UKP). Definitely worth a weekend trip to NYC if you are looking for something similarly expensive (but more portable ;), like a new high end laptop.

Re:Memory

[ZorbaTHut]

I actually just picked up a 60" LCD TV for a mere $2800. Note that this wasn't a low-end one - this was the high-end Sony XBR2 SXRD model. (You can tell it's good because it has a lot of X's and R's.) Full 1080p and all. Cheaper models could easily hit $2k USD or less.

I suspect one of the reasons plasma screens still do well is that they're wall-mountable - the unit is something like two or three feet deep, so obviously that's not very practical unless you can knock a hole in your wall. But unless you need that, I'm not sure why I'd bother with a plasma now. LCD's kind of dominating.

Re:Memory

[molarmass192]

picked up a 60" LCD TV for a mere $2800. Note that this wasn't a low-end one - this was the high-end Sony XBR2 SXRD model.

That's not really comparable to a plasma TV since you're talking about an LCD projection TV, not an LCD flat panel. A fair comparison is that a 60" plasma is about $7K while a 65" flat panel LCD (couldn't find any 60") is about $8.5K. Back on the greater topic, personally, I prefer the image of plasma's to LCDs right now simply because of the image blurring. I watch mostly hockey and the bright colors on a white background makes for a lot of blur on the LCDs I've watched games on. On that note, I think LCDs will win out over plasma's if they get ghosting issues figured out -or- if they present such a price advantage that ghosting becomes tolerable.

Re:Memory

[glittalogik]

For plasma sets, even heavy burn-in/persistance can be minimised by leaving a full-screen white image with the brightness turned up for a while. It'll reduce the total lifespan/half-life of the panel but when you've already got upwards of 60 000 hours to play with, that's not a huge drama. Some sets are already including this as a built-in feature. You don't need to alternate black and white as what you're attempting is to accelerate the aging of the panel so that the relative age and therefore loss of brightness between individual pixels is less significant.

For LCD's that are better than equivalent-sized plasmas, I will happily plug the Philips 42PF9831 (Although I prefer the smaller 37PF9731). The Ambilight backing thing makes it a bit unwieldy, but thanks to the scanning backlight, response times are down to 3ms (grey-to-grey, but still), and it's equal to any plasma I've seen for brightness and contrast. Apparently the new Sony Bravias are full of awesome as well, but I haven't checked them out yet.

I'm curious to see if anything comes of the laser TV thing that got posted on here a few weeks ago, but until then, the new generation LCD sets are the win AFAIC.

Unfortunately this stuff all still pretty pricey in Australia, so I'm sticking to my cheap ol' 68cm CRT set and dodgy 2nd hand InFocus DLP projector for movies.

Re:Memory

[bryan_chow]

This discussion is about flat panels, not projection TVs. You bought a projection TV.

Re:Memory

[walt-sjc]

Um, your TV is a rear projection type. Non-projection LCD's are the same thickness as plasma. Totally different. An example of a sony flat panel is the KDL-52XBR3 which runs around $6500 for a 52".

Re:Memory

[karnal]

It sounds like you're referring to a projection LCD display, which is somewhat different from the displays people here are talking about; what with burn in conversations and all.

I'd imagine the smaller chips used in projection equipment don't have the same issues that a large flat LCD screen has.

Re:Memory

[pe1chl]

For LCD's that are better than equivalent-sized plasmas, I will happily plug the Philips 42PF9831 (Although I prefer the smaller 37PF9731).

That line of Philips TVs is awesome. I have a 32PF9986. This is the predecessor of the 9831 line (with a little less connectivity). I have it for about two years now, and at the time it was in a league of its own compared to all other LCD sets. It still it better than most of them.

Re:Memory

[drinkypoo]

I'm curious to see if anything comes of the laser TV thing that got posted on here a few weeks ago, but until then, the new generation LCD sets are the win AFAIC. Unfortunately this stuff all still pretty pricey in Australia, so I'm sticking to my cheap ol' 68cm CRT set and dodgy 2nd hand InFocus DLP projector for movies.

It's all pretty pricy everywhere. So far I've stuck with my cheap ol' 25 inch (63.5cm) Sony studio monitor I got for $35 at the flea market and my ancient VGA-res sharp projector that I got for $5 at a school surplus sale. The former is dying (problems with full-white screens and overheating) and the latter's S-Video connector is broken, leaving only composite, but I'm only $40 in total. Costco has some XGA-resolution projectors with 2000 lumens that are about the size of a mac mini except thicker for $900, so I think we'll get one of those next to hold us until the price on wall-mountable displays drops dramatically.

Re:Memory

[Canadian_Daemon]

Well, the SXRD is not really considered an LCD rear projection TV. The display is LCOS, liquid crystal on silicon. SXRD stands for Silixon cryXtal Reflective Display. The main point is that the image is reflective (similar to a DLP) rather than transmissive (LCD rear projection).

Re:Memory

[Saikik]

How long should the screen stay before alternating?

5s...10s... ?

Re:Memory

[MBGMorden]

Not true. I've had a Hyundai ImageQuest L70A monitor personally that had a burnt in Start menu that would never go away (even after unplugging the monitor to move it to another location). No idea how such a thing happened, but even booted into Linux I could see the start menu, as well as min/max/close buttons in the upper right corner. The screen died about 4-5 months after this phenomenon started, but it was definitely there.

Re:Memory

[walt-sjc]

It uses a bright bulb to project an image onto the back of the screen. It matters not that the image gets there by reflecting off of the actual display circuit, or by passing though a translucent mini-panel. Quibble all you want, but it's even listed on Sony's web site as a rear-projection unit.

Re:Memory

[__aapspi39]

Clearly you were harbouring deep feelings of guilt about abandoning Bill Gates and consequently you imagined the whole thing.

What is more likely, that a technical impossibility occurs or that you react badly to the loss of a classic father figure.

That'll be $50 (towards my new plasma.)

Re:Memory

[kimvette]

Is it direct view, or is the image projected on the screen by means of reflection?

Oh, it's NOT direct view, but projected onto the screen?

Well, then, is it a projection TV?

Re:Memory

[SP33doh]

ghosting issues are of the past.

if you get a good new LCD there is none.

Re:Memory

[MichaelSmith]

I've had a Hyundai ImageQuest L70A monitor personally that had a burnt in Start menu that would never go away

That is strange. My experience is with large barco and NTT monitors intended for ATC applications. I haven't previously heard of monitors permanently burning in.

Why does nobody ever mention DLP?

[Robotech_Master]

Why is it that every comparison of HDTV technology is always plasma vs LCD, with never any discussion of DLP? I know there are DLP sets, and some of my friends say that DLP provides a much better picture than either LCD or plasma. Why aren't these sets part of the comparison?

Re:Why does nobody ever mention DLP?

[eebra82]

It could have something to do with the fact that LCD screens are directly competing with plasma screens and not so related to DLP technology, which is only used in projectors. How would such a comparison look anyway?

Re:Why does nobody ever mention DLP?

[PhunkySchtuff]

You're not comparing apples to apples - please correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't have a flat-panel DLP screen hanging on your wall... a DLP is more like a rear-projection set (or used in a projector for a front-projector system)

Re:Why does nobody ever mention DLP?

[DrXym]

DLP implies having a honking great big set in the room or an overhead projector of some kind. I suspect LCD is most often compared to plasma because the form factor is more comparable.

Re:Why does nobody ever mention DLP?

[Professor_UNIX]

You're not comparing apples to apples - please correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't have a flat-panel DLP screen hanging on your wall

I'm not sure why anyone would find this appealing though. Where do you put your cable box, DVR, home theater receiver, DVD player, etc.? All that shit goes in the stand under my 32" CRT TV now. I don't know where the hell I'd put them if my TV just hung on the wall. I guess you could go crazy and build it all into shelves on the wall, but you'd still have the ugly cables hanging down from the back of the TV going over to your components unless you went nuts and cut holes in your wall and ran them down between the wall somehow.

Re:Why does nobody ever mention DLP?

[jonnythan]

In the corner, out of the way. :)

Re:Why does nobody ever mention DLP?

[afidel]

In my setup it will go in a low profile credenza. Setup the speakers next to the credenza and the LCD handing on the wall overhead and it looks MUCH better than my current hutch. Some people even go with cube type speaker setups to get a really clean look, but I'm a geek so the floorstanding tower speakers fit my aesthetic =) As to the cables, yes you run them through the wall or install channeling to hide them. Not a big deal if you own, can be a hassle if you rent though a friend got permission for channeling from his landlord.

Re:Why does nobody ever mention DLP?

[walt-sjc]

Um, why is it nuts to want to put all that extra equipment, which is fairly ugly, out of sight? It doesn't take THAT much effort to put wires in the walls. I just made a wiring chase from the area behind the TV down to the basement. All my equipment is in the basement below the living room, and all you see in the living room is the tiny little Xantech IR receiver. A myth box and a 400 disk DVD changer eliminate the need to ever physically touch the equipment for normal usage. If I rent a movie (which is rare,) I rip it via a laptop (which is upstairs) first, sending the output to the myth box in the basement. A typical movie only takes 20 mins to rip... I usually delete the copy anyway, as most modern movies are not worth watching twice. If I really like it, I'll buy it.

Other bonus is that I can use noisy fans and hard disks and I don't hear them. They don't take up any space in the living room, which means the wife gets more room for her decor (she was Very happy to get a 36U rack's worth of equiment out of the living room.)

Re:Why does nobody ever mention DLP?

[pete6677]

DLP better than LCD or Plasma? Not any that I've seen. I have seen numerous DLP screens in stores and the picture looks wierd on every one of them. The only advantage that DLP has is lower cost, and that's rapidly disappearing as LCDs and Plasmas get cheaper. When watching a football game on DLP, you can see the pixellation on the black colors and the motion really lags. Colors in general just don't appear correctly.

This is why HDTV discussions ignore DLP. The marketplace will ignore it too within about a year.

Re:Why does nobody ever mention DLP?

[Avatar8]

I agree. Why is DLP always left out?

I understand DLP TVs are not considered wall hanging capable, but other than that, they are very comparable to LCD and Plasma. I spent a year researching all three technologies before choosing a DLP set. I'm still very pleased with my purchase.

DLP isn't as sharp as LCD, but I definitely enjoy my HD hockey games seeing the puck fly at full speed across a scratched ice surface as players get into a fight and I can see the stitching around their numbers. My DLP is generation one, too. I'd love to upgrade to a gen 3. I can't imagine how much sharper it could get.

DLP doesn't fade as plasma does after 2-3 years of use.

DLP doesn't have dead pixels (though this has decreased dramatically over the past two years).

DLP definitely has no lighting issues. We have two skylights in our living room where the TV is used. Even during high noon, the picture is still bright and clear. I think it's 10,000 lumens is plenty to compensate. Often when there's a blank white screen, we have to squint or turn away because it's so bright. :-)

The only complaint I hear/read about DLP is the price of the bulb. I've had my set since April of 2004, so I guess I'm getting close to a replacement soon. Since that is the only maintenance I have (no recharging, no re-alignment), I'm pretty happy with spending $400 every three years for a maintenance cost.

My only complaint is that because it is projector technology, I have to wait a few seconds before the picture comes up and you cannot simply turn the screen off and back on due to cool down.

LCD projection is the only comparable technology I've seen that could pull me away from DLP.

I use LCD panels for my computer, but from everything I've read, there is quite a difference between a LCD monitor and a LCD TV. Plasma and LCD still are not an attractive choice for me as a TV.

Correction to submission

[sethstorm]

In other words, there is virtually no 50-inch-class plasma TV market outside the United States

In other words, there are virtually no television sets manufactured inside the United States.

Fixed that for you.

DLP HDTVs

[Kadin2048]

I think because they're not flatscreens, and this is off-putting to a lot of people who want something they can mount on their wall.

I'm not entirely sure of this, but my understanding is that DLP "televisions" are really rear-projection TVs: they have basically a DLP projector in the back, shining on the screen. That means you also need to factor in bulb replacement costs.

I think those two factors, plus general unfamiliarity in the marketplace, has led to them being less popular. And then there's the issue of the key component only being available from one supplier (TI)...that may keep a lot of the low-cost TV manufacturers from getting involved, or keep prices artificially high, depending on how TI markets them.

Re:DLP HDTVs

[iainl]

Also, single-chip DLP gives me an almighty headache, and I can't be the only one.

Re:DLP HDTVs

[walt-sjc]

From what I have seen, the viewing angles of rear projection is much worse than either LCD flat panel or plasma. Plasma generally has much better viewing angles than any type of LCD (other than front-projection.)

THE TRUTH

[tripppy]

in a dark room PDP's are awesome.
in a light room LCD's are awesome.

Running TV on them both for a year will use the same amount of power.
I work in a TV store and they both are pretty hot at 5!

LCD power VS. PLASMA
http://aus.hitachi.com.au/hitachi/content/assets/2 005-12%20Plasma%20vs%20LCD%20White%20Paper%20FINAL .pdf

Re:THE TRUTH

[iainl]

Except that the pdf is clearly incorrect when it comes to LCD power levels in the hands of anyone who knows how to set up a TV correctly. My Sony Bravia has the backlight turned most of the way down, because you get much better dark shades that way. At that, it's genuinely using around a third of the power of my friend's Plasma.

50 inches, not surprised

[OneSmartFellow]

there is virtually no 50-inch-class plasma TV market outside the United States,

OK, but how much 50-inch-class LCD market is there outside of the United States.
My guess is it's pretty limited as well, after all, 50 inches is huge. I have a large house by English standards, and a 50 inch screen would simply look idiotic in my lounge. Anything larger than about 32-35 inches is simply too big for most houses.

Re:50 inches, not surprised

[BenjyD]

I was thinking that too. My front room is 11'x11' and there are tens of thousands of identical Victorian terraces around here. My 32" looks big in that room, a 50" would be ridiculous.

Re:50 inches, not surprised

[clickclickdrone]

Indeed. American houses and rooms tend to be much bigger than the norm elsewhere. That was part of the reason behind the initially slow takeup of home cinema in general in the UK. An average lounge (12x18 feet or less) looks pretty full when you stuff in a big AV amp, 5 speakers, sub, DVD/laserdisk player and a 40inch TV. My old lounge was I think 10x12 and the home cinema gear took the entire width and 4 feet of that space leaving just 10x8 to stuff in a sofa, my PC, bookshelves and a gas fire.

Re:50 inches, not surprised

[vidarh]

Comparing UK lounges to American ones and pronouncing American rooms tend to be much bigger than elsewhere is rather silly - my first impression when I moved to the UK (from Norway) was that I'd never before seen such cramped, narrow lounges anywhere.... The UK suffer from high population density coupled with a legal system and regulatory system that have made it unattractive to build in height (London for hundreds of years even had a regulation preventing building higher than four floors).

As a result you get those ridiculous long rows of narrow terraced houses. You will find some of that elsewhere in Europe too, but a lot of countries does also have traditions for far larger rooms than the UK (often making up for it by fewer rooms - a house that would have two reception rooms in the UK would often be considered barely large enough for one in many other countries in Europe).

Re:50 inches, not surprised

[BenjyD]

Indeed. I would blame it on the antiquated nature of Britain's housing, but it seems that a lot of the new houses being built have equally small rooms.

Personally, I'd like to knock through my two ~12' square reception rooms into one, but I think my landlord might have something to say if I did.

Re:50 inches, not surprised

[MemoryDragon]

Actually rooms in central Europe tend to be bigger than in the UK as well, overall I have seen average houses in the US and central europe and they are pretty up to bar roomsizewise. I am not talking about mansions here, just general average middle class houses. Actually the roomsize even tends to be bigger here than in many suburb s in the US, but Plasma did not take off here, due to energy reasons.

Re:50 inches, not surprised

[clickclickdrone]

>elsewhere is rather silly
Well pardon me for not visiting lounges in every country in the world for research purposes. Just going by what I've been told. I'm very happy you have a big one though.

Re:50 inches, not surprised

[Greyfox]

That's true to a degree but the suckitude reverses when the screen size approaches that if your actual wall. If your entire wall is a screen you don't look like jackass anymore. Plus, you can have it display an image of Big Brother watching you when you're not using it to watch TV. Plus if it has picture in picture you can have the picture of Big Brother watching you even when you ARE watching TV...

Re:50 inches, not surprised

[im_dan]

I can't believe no-one has pointed out you comment is 17,000,000. I guess it's not as exciting as 16777215 was.

Re:50 inches, not surprised

[SamSim]

Is it that time already? Comment #17,000,000 is a little early, having been predicted to occur on 31st January 2007. The rate of posting has clearly accelerated. Based on this I expect comment #18,000,000 on 25th February 2007. See you then! More here.

eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

'The United States accounts for more than 70 percent of demand for 50-inch plasma TVs and larger. In other words, there is virtually no 50-inch-class plasma TV market outside the United States,'

Funny how 30% becomes virtually nothing when analysts work their magic.

Re:eh?

[thona]

Not really, it makes sense.

Note that he talks of MARKET, not sales.

Yes, there are 30% sold outside the US, but this in MANY countries. That means in many markets, which would have to get distinct marketing. in each country, sales are possbily to small individually to talk of a "market". Together, they are nice - but then, this is not ONE market.

Re:eh?

[drsquare]

The rest of the world has 20 times as many people as America, yet only 40% of the 50" plasma TV demand. This means America has over 46 times the demand than outside America. I'd say that counts as virtually nothing.

Re:eh?

[RasputinAXP]

The important thing is that you gave 110%.

Sport...

[Siener]

I use my plasma TV for two things: Watching DVDs and watching sport. It is while watching sport that the faster response time comes into play. Although I love the higher res of LCD I've yet to see an LCD TV where you can watch cricket on without the ball becoming streak.

I'm sure there are some US Slashdotters who have the same experience with sports like baseball.

Re:Sport...

[iainl]

Hmmmph. I'll let you know how my lovely new LCD works with cricket, just as soon as Sky lose the rights again.

I'm convinced one of the problems is that they can't be bothered to play well if no-one is watching them live...

Say what you want

[Khyber]

I'll be standing over here, with either a highly compacted form of the DIY LCD projector (I'm working on making it near laptop-sized and dealing with heat issues) from Tom's Hardware, or I'm gonna be standing next to that Laser television with a big grin on my face as I pull resolutions higher than the meager 1366x768 most LCD screens come with, far better color gamut, and with no burn-in like a plasma.

Re:Say what you want

[afidel]

There are quite a few 42" LCD's with 1920*1080 resolution on the market today. They generally have ~8ms response times and can be had as cheap as $1,300 for monitor only models or ~$1,600 for ones with integrated tuners. Other than a PC you aren't going to currently find any source material with more resolution than 1080p so there's little point to having more. Heck even the digital cinema projectors are only 2048x1080 and they project onto a >20m wide screen!

Americans just need life

[Anonymous Coward]

there is nothing on TV besides commercials and for movies projector is best.
Small 20-30" LCD powered by PC to display some news tickers, mails and family pictures is enough for daily tasks

Can't stand LCD

[vidarh]

The problem is sharpness rather than slow updates.

I just bought a 42" HDTV capable plasma, and had to turn the sharpness down to 50%, as otherwise all non-HDTV contents, including DVD's looked extremely blocky and I could see the MPEG artifacts everywhere - the default image was far too clear. I shudder at the thought of how horrendous it would have looked on an LCD screen, as I usually notice the pixelation far easier on LCD screens than I do on plasmas.

Maybe I'll consider an LCD screen when I'm using all HD content, or if they start supporting adaptively blurring lower resolution content sufficiently.

Sharp images only works for me when the DPI of the source is high enough that you can't see individual pixels at normal viewing distances.

Yes, I realize that means that I've on purpose chosen a screen with a "lower" picture quality, but the end result is far better with 90%+ of the content available to me. And it was cheap enough to replace in a couple of years if a usable LCD screen (or other tech) comes along.

Re:Can't stand LCD

[Anonymous Coward]

I've found that most TVs tend to give the most accurate image with the sharpness level either set really low or completely off. If you had to turn it down to 50%, then you were getting a whole ton of artificial edge enhancement, which can ruin the picture quality. Chances are you're still getting far too much even at 50%. I'd try knocking it down to 10 or 15% and see how that is for a while.

Re:Can't stand LCD

[Aceticon]

Maybe the problem is that you're sitting too close to your television?

I believe the ideal distance to sit from a TV was between 6 and 8 times the diagonal. For your 42" set that's roughly 6 to 8m.

If, for example, you're sitting 4m from the TV (a common distance in a living room in an appartment), it's not that surprising that you see the pixels on the image.

Re:Can't stand LCD

[iainl]

That sharpness is not a nice, crisp, clear image, but artificial edge enhancement. The fact that it looks hideous with the sharpness up is not a fault of your plasma; it's the case with LCD and even CRT as well.

If anything, I've got too much softness by default on my LCD; I've been using the upscaler in the XBox 360 for DVDs instead, to avoid it.

Re:Can't stand LCD

[vidarh]

The issue isn't that it's "surprising" that I see pixels, but that LCD's look significantly worse to me at any reasonable distance. I typically sit less than 4m from the TV, and with my plasma with the sharpness turned down to a reasonable level the picture is great. No LCD's I've seen has an image I could tolerate at even twice that distance for non-HD content.

Re:Can't stand LCD

[vidarh]

Possibly, but in any case, the plasma with sharpness set to 100% still looked far better to me than any LCD I've seen demo'ed.

I've never seen anything remotely like the blocky, pixelized images of LCD's with either CRTs or plasmas, and close up it's very obvious that the reason is that the LCD image is far crisper (i.e. it'll typically be almost completely steady, for instance, which a plasma image isn't). The problem is that a crisp image requires a lot higher resolution than a blurry one to look ok. Once most of the content I'm watching is HD the situation might be different (and that's why I chose a low end plasma I can afford to replace in a year or two), but for now an LCD would be pure torture for me.

It's like the good old days when I used to use a C-64 on a TV, and then at one point hooked it up to a proper monitor - the image was undoubtably far clearer and crisper, but all my games looked like shit because the low resolution was suddenly very obvious.

Re:Can't stand LCD

[not-enough-info]

Maybe I'll consider an LCD screen when I'm using all HD content, or if they start supporting adaptively blurring lower resolution content sufficiently.Does anyone know how Apple does this with lower screen resolutions in Mac OS X?

Re:Can't stand LCD

[iainl]

Fair enough, if that's your experience of LCDs. In practice, it's all down to the quality of the scaler in the machine. Which is why I stumped up the extra for this year's Sony; the Bravia Engine is one of the best out there, wheras cheaper TVs usually have fairly poor ones that do just exactly that. They need a fair bit of setup, too; in order to make them look bright and attractive on the shop floor, the 'vivid' colour config is just horrid.

DLP moving parts fail...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen DLP TVs 'flickering' looking really bad on display in the stores after the TV stopped working properly...

I am wondering if LCDs outlast DLPs because LCDs have no moving parts?

As long as the back light - light bulb keeps working, LCDs seem to last a long time.

I am waiting for the LED backlit LCD panels - no light bulbs to worry about, faster response times,
more flexible brightness, and a sharper picture.

Plasma better

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who have seen the high resolution Panasonic and Pioneer plasma TVs would never want to have LCD.

Just looking at the prices..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sharp LC-65D90U 65-IN. Native HDTV 1920 X 1080 LCD TV has gone from 15,000 to 7,499 in one year.
Panasonic TH-65PX600U 65-Inch HD Plasma Television has gone from 15,000 to 7,149 in one year.

$300 bucks to virtually avoid burn-in? I'm sold. Plasmas just can't compete anymore.

ref: http://www.nextag.com/Sharp-LC-65D90U-65-83796107/ price-history-html
ref: http://www.nextag.com/Panasonic-TH-65PX600U-65-510 580514/price-history-html

I wonder how much the LCD will be in the next 6 months?

You mean these...

[thrill12]

made by data display, a UK based company. I used to work on these displays. They also specifically mention the short lifespan of the plasma displays.

Smooth Moves

[Explodicle]

I think you're missing why we Slashdotters buy them. I've got one, and it DEFINITELY helps this awkward geek to be in the middle of a darkened, vacant movie theater with a woman. I even invested in a special darkening device for use during the day!

Compare apples to apples

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never seen a LCD that matched an equivalant (same size, resolution, generation, and from a good manufacturer) quality plasma screen in sharpness. What you probably saw was a WGA or lower resolution plasma screen, or a piece of crap from an inferior manufacturer. I've seen some crappy plasmas that really suck as well as crappy LCDs. All are not created equal... you have to compare a good LCD to a good plasma.

A good plasma dispaly has 1) better black levels, 2) better contrast, 3) faster response to motion, 4) much wider viewing angle; and a 5) wider color gammut. A good plasma display will last longer than the backlight bulb in an LCD (although both will last several years with normal viewing times).

LCD is less expensive and lighter... those are their main selling points. Power consumption is lower, but not by an outrageous amount. My 65" Panny costs about $25 more a year in electricity than an equal sized LCD. I can make that up by replacing 10 light bulbs in the house with florescents. [yawn]

As for burn-in, that problem is practically eliminated for most uses in the newer good plasmas, which can detect a static image and pixel shift or vary brightness. For some uses, like commercial message displays and FNN all day long with crawlers, burn in is more of an issue, but that isn't the usual home viewer.

Finally, the large 1080p market is pwned by plasma... if you want to blow LCD out of the water, take a look at the newer 65 inch Panny 1920x1088 plasma, like the TH65PX600U.

plasma vs lcd

[scharkalvin]

OK, when WILL plasma tv's offer 1920i resolution? (LCD's have it now)

When will LCD's offer 10000:1 contrast ratio (IE: good blacks). Plasma has it now.
When will LCD's be made in 50" screen sizes at prices under $2000-$2500 (can get a plasma in this size
and price now).

I currently have a 40" direct view tube tv and will be looking to replace it with a HiDef in the
near future. Translating the 4:3 aspect ratio to 16:9 means that to get a screen with the same height
I want at least a 46" display. (42" would be a smaller screen). So today, I would buy a 50" plasma.

Plasma's only disadvantage today is lower resolution (720-768 vs 1020) and some reflective glare off the
tube face (but this is no worse than my direct view tube tv). Burn-in is an over-rated problem today.
LCD displays will fade over time too, and suffer bulb burn-out. You can burn-in picture tube displays too, and
this is not a major problem. Until LCD's grow in size, shrink in price, and over-come the gap in contrast
ratio there will be a market for plasma.

Re:plasma vs lcd

[Anonymous Coward]

BestBuy has a 50" Sony Grand Wega for $1900 in 1080p format. The SXRD format is superior to DLP and promotes a 10000:1 contrast ratio using a dynamic iris. The time you speak about is now

Re:plasma vs lcd

[jonnythan]

That's an LCD rear projection TV, which competes more directly with DLP and CRT than plasma or LCD panel.

We're talking about getting large, affordable direct-view LCD panels to compete with plasma televisions.

Article in IEEE Spectrum

[necro81]

This discussion mirrors an article that appears in the current issue of the IEEE Spectrum magazine. They review the pros and cons of LCD and Plasma technologies, with a brief look at DLP, SED, LCOS.

Their take on it? It won't be settled for another couple of years, and there will be two distinct categories: screens below 50" (or 42"), and screens larger. LCD will dominate the smaller screen size market, though SED may replace that when the cost comes down (after 2010?). For larger screens, don't discount projection technology, particularly in terms of cost.

Incidentally, the cover article for this issue is on Blake Ross, whom they call the Firefox Kid.

I have seen it

[KenSeymour]

I was working on a project where we had large LCD overhead displays in a facility that operates 7/24. They got "image persistance" as a result. The manual for the monitors recommended having them turned off for a few hours a day to prevent this. This was not an option for our application so we made a change to the application to periodically swap the displays around. I do wonder how the LCD displays they use at the airport avoid this. The good news with LCD "burn-in" is that it is generally reversable.

You can do a google search for "LCD image persistence" to read about it. Or you can just go here.

Re:I have seen it

[GTMoogle]

*nod*
The about.com article didn't go into it but from what I've heard, most LCDs with a memory problem are either being forced into extremely fast color change times, or are extremely large (>24"). The former means the pixels are *very* sensitive, the latter meaning the traces per pixel are larger. In both cases, the persistance problem is simply that the capacitance voltage of the wires is approaching the lower threshold of the sensitivity of the pixels. To properly ground the traces to eliminate the problem would mean orders of magnitude more time and/or energy to turn the pixel on, which is unacceptable (ghosting, etc.)

In the end though, it's not a burn in problem, because simply powering off the system for a little bit will discharge all the capacitance. It won't be any worse 5 or 10 years down the road.

Large always-on displays can simply be much less sensitive if the content doesn't move around much.

Re:I have seen it

[KenSeymour]

That would explain it. I think these were 42" displays.

As far as TV sets go, most people don't leave them on 24 hours a day.

The LCD displays were much more readable than CRTs would be in this application. It was in a control tower with lots of ambient light.

Samsung says they do

[CaxDot]

They warn you about watching 4:3-aspect images with black borders on the sides, or 2.35:1-movies with black borders on top and bottom for too long, right there in the manual. First thing you see when you open it up.

Ambient light "problem" silver lining.

[Zamslam]

All the posts about ambient light in front projectors are, of course, true. But that has a silver lining for my family. It discourages daytime TV watching :) In addition, on my 96" screen, regualar SD, with less than DVD quality, looks AWFUL, hence one more reason to limit viewing. Of course, we've compromised this "advantage" with a 32" CRT in the family room, and more recently blackout shades in the living room :( Despite these latests of example of my lack of discipline, we're holding true to the original notion to a limited extent - we only have about 300 hours of bulb use in the 2+ years we've had it ( 3 hours / week ) I'm not trying to say "feature" is a net positive for consumers at large. I'd also add (sorry if someone else said this and I missed it) that viewing something on a screen That Big sets an immersion bit that you don't get on smaller screens. Theoretically, I understand that viewing FOV (distance / screen size) allows for this with a smaller screen, but that has not been my (albeit limited) experience.

Because DLP has inherent limitations LCD doesn't

[StandardCell]

DLP has the following limitations:

1. It is inherently a projector technology, which means:

a. For a front projection situation, DLP image quality is directly dependent upon the illumination within the room and the screen.

b. For a rear projection situation (i.e. the one that looks like a stand-alone TV), DLP requires a screen that has inherently poor viewing angles, particularly when viewed above or below the vertical screen limits. Even older LCDs without the "180 degree" viewing angle are far better than any DLP RPTV screen.

2. It is a technology dependent upon light sources that (currently) have inherently poor lifetimes. Lamps are expensive replacements. When LEDs and lasers come more into the fold, this should alleviate this problem.

(Note: this could also be construed as an advantage since you'd have all new luminance and you can't replace the CCFL backlight in an LCD which has a tendency to degrade unevenly over time).

3. It is a technology that, unless you use three separate DLP chips for the primary colors, will be prone to rainbow effects. Even in the 3DLP setups, convergence can also become an issue.

DLP is good for certain applications but will never be the primary volume driver of the market. Two years ago, it was the only way to get a decent screen size for HD, but not any more. The whole industry has dogpiled onto LCD direct-view, and it'll only get cheaper from here.

265 watts

[Anonymous Coward]

is what my panasonic 42" plasma uses.

Can an LCD of that size do much better?

Re:265 watts

[JebusIsLord]

I'll check when i get home... just bought a sharp 1080p 42" LCD on Saturday.

LCD's energy efficiency is a myth!

[egghat]

German magazine Video tested LCD vs. Plasma under real world conditions (OK, Sin City and Ice Age in a loop). The result: Plasma consume a bit more energy, but not much more.

While LCDs use nearly the same amount of energy regardless of the picture, the plasmas energy uses climbs with the brightness of the content. LCD uses background lighting and the LC filter out light/colours. 200 watts if the picture is white, 200 watts if the picture is black. Plasmas "create" light and a plasma uses much more energy when the picture is white (all plasma cells on full power) than with a black picture. And most content isn't pure white.

This is very dependent on the model of your TV. Modern Panasonic plasmas seem to fair rather well.

There's an article on German magazin Spiegel (of course in German), but the table of energy usage on the last page is pretty self explanatory I think.

I'm kind of astonished that the urban myth of much higher energy usage of plasmas is still alive.

Bye egghat

Re: 50" Plasmas in UK stock

[UKRevenant]

Dont know which model you were looking for but a 30 second search of the internet gave a few hits of around £2150 for Pioneer PDP507XD-T1BU Plasma 50" that were in stock and available for next day delivery.

Plasma's tiny bubbles...

[Namlak]

Does anyone else here absolutely *hate* the look of plasma? Maybe my vision is too good but all I see are little bright dots with black spaces around them. The "texture" of the picture drives me nuts.

In contrast, I bought a Westinghouse 42" LCD (1080p, 1920x1080 native) from Best Buy for about $1500 about two months ago and I have absolutely zero complaints with the picture quality. I can get a foot away and it's almost continuous tone and almost zero screen-door effect. Even my DLP-owning friend was quite impressed and is considering one for his bedroom.

IEEE

[wikinerd]

As a member of IEEE, I have read about plasma and LCD in a recent article appeared on Spectrum (I read it on the print edition, but I think the online version is similar if not the same). The article confirmed what we all know: Plasma is impractical; Long live LCD! The winning technology must be cheap, reliable, with a long lifespan. LCD has all of these characteristics, but Plasma has none of them.

Re:IEEE

[tilandal]

LCD's are not cheap. They are generally more expensive then Plasma displays for the same sized screen. They are also not more reliable then plasma displays. LCD's have a single point of failure in the backlight. LCD's also do not have a longer life span then current plasma displays, although, you can change the backlight when it burns out. The Spectrum article concludes that LCD's will win over plasma, not because of any of the reasons you mention, but because of scale of manufacture.

I am waiting for...

[Brad1138]

OLED, Actually I have a 61"DLP, but it sounds really cool. I have been hearing for years(since about 2001) that we should see OLED tvs soon, though.

Re:Because DLP has inherent limitations LCD doesn'

[karnal]

DLP in my opinion (well, any front projection scheme) is the only way to get an inexpensive theater set-up running.

I've just "rebuilt" my set-up, with all new home theater equipment (sans speakers) and I've spent 1600$. This includes:
1. Harmon Kardon AVR-240
2. Infocus IN72 (yup, 480p, I only watch DVDs on it...)
3. Cables to hook everything up
4. DVD player
5. Custom built 76" screen
6. Audio Rack

And I'm waiting for my 300$ rebate from Infocus, which will take the total even lower.

Now, I know people will say "Well, it's not HD". There are projectors out there that could take your total to 2500$ for a FULL setup (720p), larger screen than any LCD or plasma available at reasonable cost. And yes, I have to keep the room light controlled, but in a movie situation, that doesn't irk me one bit.

I agree with it never being the primary market, because people want large screens for daily viewing. I just don't see the point right now in spending a whole lot of money for a TV, especially when HD really hasn't taken hold yet in the US for me yet.

Re: 50" Plasmas in UK stock

[@madeus]

Mine is from the PDP 506 range, purchased getting on for a year ago now.

Re: 50" Plasmas in UK stock

[@madeus]

Oh and that includes a standard mount and side panel speakers (though I have since had it mounted on the wall). About a week or two after I'd bought it, you could get the same deal from Richer Sounds for about 200 UKP less, that was the cheapest you could get them for back then. I expect prices will fall quite a bit again by this time next year too (making 1080p sets much more affordable).

Lots of misleading marketing in LCDs also

[paranode]

So many LCDs are advertised as being 1080p HDTVs as well. In fact they are fixed-pixel displays, often 1366x768. They can display 720p natively and while they may accept 1080i and 1080p signals, they are merely scaling them down to 720p. I laugh when I see people talk about their new awesome 1080p TVs that are really only giving them a 720p picture. They'd probably get a better picture leaving it on 720p mode.

LCD has the same severe viewing angle limitations

[Anonymous Coward]

as DLP. They are virtually indistinguishable for viewing. Brightness falls off by half 30 degrees off axis. Plasma is spectacular in comparison and is the reason I prefer it, but LCD and DLP will probably displace it for cost reasons.

We're talking wide screen here

[Anonymous Coward]

A wide screen picture the same height as a standard screen is 1.22x as large, so a 32 inch standard screen needs to be 39 inches just to seem the size with additional width. For that reason, I wouldn't even buy one less than 30 inches for the bedroom or one less than 50 inches for the living room. A 42 inch wide screen would only seem as large as a 34 inch standard screen, not much of an improvement.

Plasma is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Plasma is dead, Netcraft proves it! ;-)

Re:Because DLP has inherent limitations LCD doesn'

[not-enough-info]

4. Because it's not flat. In the consumer mind, not-flat = technologically inferior.

Re:Mods On Crack, Was:Correction to submission

[edgedmurasame]

In other words, there is virtually no 50-inch-class plasma TV market outside the United States

In other words, there are virtually no television sets manufactured inside the United States.

Fixed that for you.

Apparently some people dont get sarcasm or humor but definitely dont mind modbombing.

The point in question appears to be poking fun at the apparent lack of consumer goods made in the US , versus the brands that have US branding but are just CKD's of Far East noname brands.