This about sums it up. Really image burn was the most important one for the longest time. Now it is all about weight and thickness, which is really to the detriment of LCD image quality as well if you ask me. Nothing has hurt image quality more than LED edge lit LCD panels. The uniformity of the backlight is horrible, the color spectrum took a hit as white LEDs are not actually white, but more on the blue side, and the edge lit doesn't allow you to perform localized dimming (which was the biggest image quality advantage of using LEDs in the first place).
the panel isn't the problem. the cheap shitty circuitry in the tv will die far before anything else.
I looked at plasma before recently purchasing an 55" LCD (not LED) and I found the plasma picture quite unpleasant to look at, mostly due to the screen door effect. I found it very noticeable, even from a normal watching distance.
Mmmmmmmmkayand if you don't factor in picture quality there is no reason plasma is better.
Mmmmmmmmkay
Maybe it isn't to you. I'm sure there is a large portion of consumers who believe that it is.what? picture quality isn't everything, and there is no advantage to plasma hardware wise...
Maybe it isn't to you. I'm sure there is a large portion of consumers who believe that it is.
what? obviously not, because most people are choosing lower power, weight, and size over a better picture.
I know everything has a limited life. What I can't stand is things which are unnecessarily designed with a hard limit to their life. I avoid SSDs, memory sticks, CDRW DVDRW, et cetra for the same reason when I can.
the panel will likely outlast the back lighting used in an LCD panel. Longevity is more than acceptable in both technologies.
Um... OK.what? obviously not, because most people are choosing lower power, weight, and size over a better picture.
Power consumption = Absolutely minimal difference, certainly not enough influence a decision.
Weight = What, are you in the market for a portable TV?
Size = Yes, if you want a crappy little TV, an LCD is a good choice. I wouldn't consider anything smaller than 50". Now if you want a larger TV than say a 65", yes, plasma may not be a good option given that the next size (85") is pretty pricey. But then again you mentioned weight, and even an 80" LCD isn't light.
And yes, most people are morons too, so popular opinion isn't really a good argument point.
um... wow dude... I don't even know what to say. youre being delusional
um... wow dude... I don't even know what to say. youre being delusional
Yay for more unfounded rumor and speculation...
This word - I do not think it means what you think it means. Speculation? certainly. Unfounded? Hardly given that they halted development of new plasmas and have, apparently, planned to end manufacturing in their main production plant in 2014 and have already written off the equipment there.
backlighting, off axis, clay face, among other issues are less distracting than the screen door effect? you do know that the screen door effect was due to mainly due to matte overlays, and really only affected a few displays?
After looking at a lot of TVs, I found plasmas to have a pretty poor picture. I found low to mid level LED TVs to be pretty crappy too. And before you make any comments about how you get what you pay for, there's your answer to this thread. You can get an adequate LCD set for under $1,000. If the plasmas in that range suck, that's why they're going away. Not everybody wants to spend $2,000 on a TV so they can be picture snobs on the internet.
You can get an adequate LCD set for under $1,000. If the plasmas in that range suck, that's why they're going away.
Not everybody wants to spend $2,000 on a TV so they can be picture snobs on the internet.
After looking at a lot of TVs, I found plasmas to have a pretty poor picture. I found low to mid level LED TVs to be pretty crappy too. And before you make any comments about how you get what you pay for, there's your answer to this thread. You can get an adequate LCD set for under $1,000. If the plasmas in that range suck, that's why they're going away. Not everybody wants to spend $2,000 on a TV so they can be picture snobs on the internet.
Then you must live a rather dull life. Nothing lasts forever. Your spinning hard drive is more prone to failure than an SSD, and an SSD will predictably degrade and can easily be tracked to see when the failure is likely to occur. I've had spinning disks just go; I've watched my SSDs life drain in a simple way I can match to my usage and predict when I should replace it to avoid data loss.And why is it a limited life? Because you can only write to NAND blocks so often. It's a tech limitation, and one I am MORE than willing to accept given the practical upshots of the technology.
Plasmas have a halflife of 100,000 hours, and that's the degredation of the phosphors used to create the image. You run current through the gas in the panel, which gives off UV light; the UV light is absorbed by phosphors emitting visible light. Those phosphors just degrade over usage. Black levels get "bad" (but are still better than the best LCDs) around 1000-2000 hours, then get a little better and level off. It's a proven tech. If the back light in your LCD goes out, you might as well throw it out. And that can happen in less than 100,000 hours.
These aren't things being designed with limits, these are things being created that have inherent limits. They try to engineer them out - heaven forbid you go buy an OLED, they degrade too. Plasmas USED to have major burn in issues. So did CRTs (with the image being etched onto the glass. CRTs never really fixed it.) You name the thing, I'll name a way in which it's lifetime is limited.
This. Absolutely this.
How do you do this? What software do you use?
until you can get a 50 inch OLED TV for 1500$ they are not going to squash anything
and they wont hit that price anytime soon, considering you cant really even but the 10000$ 55inch ones yet
OLEDs still have shitty color reproduction.