Home Phone and Internet $60/mo- Related Stories
-
Panasonic's plasma pusher
January 18, 2006 -
Tech tunes into TV at CES
January 3, 2006 -
Digital TVs: More screen for less green
September 1, 2005 -
Flat-panel TVs reaching sales mark
December 22, 2004 -
Flat-panel TVs can't topple tubes--just yet
December 2, 2004
Flat-panel televisions are taking over the world, according to executives speaking here at the DisplaySearch U.S. FPD Conference on Wednesday. Old CRT (cathode-ray tube) televisions are quickly becoming obsolete as high-definition LCD (liquid crystal display) and plasma televisions turn heads with high-definition images.
Plasma TVs dominate the market for flat-panel televisions larger than 40 inches, while LCD televisions reign among smaller sets. The line is starting to blur, however, as LCD TVs grow larger and reduce the cost advantage of plasma displays.
LCD televisions are making inroads because the cost of manufacturing LCD screens larger than 30 inches has fallen, said Tim Alessi, director of product development and advertising for LG Electronics. LG, as the world's leading LCD company through its joint venture with Philips, and the second-largest plasma TV company behind Panasonic, is in a unique position to evaluate the competing technologies, he said.
Potential customers who are thinking about purchasing a large television will note the quality of moving images on a plasma screen as well as the wider viewing angle, said Yoshi Yamada, chief executive officer of Panasonic North America. High-definition plasma displays also tend to cost half as much as comparably sized HD LCD displays.
However, LCD panels are lighter, and the cost advantages could disappear in the coming years as technology improves, as it did in the market for LCD monitors and notebook screens.
Plasma should continue to be the choice for sets that are larger than 45 inches or so, while LCD TVs are quickly replacing CRT sets smaller than around 35 inches, Alessi said. The battle lines have been drawn in that middle ground, which coincidentally is expected to be the average TV size toward the end of the decade.
See more CNET content tagged:
plasma,
LCD TV,
LCD,
flat panel,
TV
Industry hyperbole. Just a couple days ago I was reading how CRTs are still 82% of TV shipments. Why? Cheaper. Better picture.
http://news.com.com/LG+regains+worldwide+TV+crown/2100-1041_3-6050080.html
mark d.
LCD looks like crap. They are better than they used to be -- they've largely licked the ghosting problem -- but when I'm watching a movie the last thing I want to see is pixelation, and I've yet to see an LCD TV that didn't look grainy/pixelated. Also, LCD simply can't produce true black well enough to due justice to film. This is where CRT kicks LCD to the curb IMO, besides providing a better balance between sharpness and softness.
When I bought a new TV a couple of years ago the choice was obvious: CRT widescreen. The only drawback compared to plasma and LCD is that the cabinet is deep compared to the flat panels. I'll take that over pixelation (LCD) or leaks (plasma) any day. And if I was buying today it would still be CRT for me.
Another reader mentioned DLP. Don't like 'em. It has the opposite problem from LCD -- picture is to soft.
When I can buy a 35" flat panel (of any variety) for less than I can currently buy a 35" CRT, I'll start shopping.
And can someone tell me why it is that on a regular CRT television, the HD commercials look better than anything else on TV? If they can do that for commercials, why not just do that for everything? Besides, a highly compressed cable channel is going to look every bit as pixelated in HD (if not moreso) than it does on a CRT.
It's like that with most electronics, they never push the limit of what a device can do until it's just about to be replaced. Unless you just have gobs of cash to throw at it, it's just not worth the upgrade.
As for LCD vs. plasma, when I did my serious shopping last fall I noticed that plasmas were heavier and ran much hotter than equivalent LCD's and decided those problems would pretty much kill the hang-on-a-wall option. I suspect these issues, along with the burn-in question and energy cost problem, will slowly turn the tide in favor of LCD in the long run.
Industry hyperbole. Just a couple days ago I was reading how CRTs are still 82% of TV shipments. Why? Cheaper. Better picture.
http://news.com.com/LG+regains+worldwide+TV+crown/2100-1041_3-6050080.html
mark d.
LCD looks like crap. They are better than they used to be -- they've largely licked the ghosting problem -- but when I'm watching a movie the last thing I want to see is pixelation, and I've yet to see an LCD TV that didn't look grainy/pixelated. Also, LCD simply can't produce true black well enough to due justice to film. This is where CRT kicks LCD to the curb IMO, besides providing a better balance between sharpness and softness.
When I bought a new TV a couple of years ago the choice was obvious: CRT widescreen. The only drawback compared to plasma and LCD is that the cabinet is deep compared to the flat panels. I'll take that over pixelation (LCD) or leaks (plasma) any day. And if I was buying today it would still be CRT for me.
Another reader mentioned DLP. Don't like 'em. It has the opposite problem from LCD -- picture is to soft.
When I can buy a 35" flat panel (of any variety) for less than I can currently buy a 35" CRT, I'll start shopping.
And can someone tell me why it is that on a regular CRT television, the HD commercials look better than anything else on TV? If they can do that for commercials, why not just do that for everything? Besides, a highly compressed cable channel is going to look every bit as pixelated in HD (if not moreso) than it does on a CRT.
It's like that with most electronics, they never push the limit of what a device can do until it's just about to be replaced. Unless you just have gobs of cash to throw at it, it's just not worth the upgrade.
As for LCD vs. plasma, when I did my serious shopping last fall I noticed that plasmas were heavier and ran much hotter than equivalent LCD's and decided those problems would pretty much kill the hang-on-a-wall option. I suspect these issues, along with the burn-in question and energy cost problem, will slowly turn the tide in favor of LCD in the long run.
better answer than either Plasma or LCD.
better answer than either Plasma or LCD.
HP, Smasung, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, RCA and others all make DLP screens.
DLP technology is superior to LCD and Plasma, period.
Second, yes the picture quality and technology is superior, but DLP loses in dimensions.
All depends on what you want.
DLP is not true 1080p. The content is about as available as Vista. And wobbilation? Please, check the facts.
We are currently the R&D for HDTV manufacturers.
There is no ONE-BUY solution for us. The content is mostly SD (standard definition). The HD movies (still bickering over BluRay (beta) vs HDDVD (VHS) ) are what, 5 titles available, and in May?
Aspect ratios, picture quality, signal, cables, copy-protection, ...
Wake me when I'm virtual. And in Super Hi Def!
DLP does offer more screen for less green,
But I will take a LCD or plasma over DLP anyday...
HP, Smasung, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, RCA and others all make DLP screens.
DLP technology is superior to LCD and Plasma, period.
Second, yes the picture quality and technology is superior, but DLP loses in dimensions.
All depends on what you want.
DLP is not true 1080p. The content is about as available as Vista. And wobbilation? Please, check the facts.
We are currently the R&D for HDTV manufacturers.
There is no ONE-BUY solution for us. The content is mostly SD (standard definition). The HD movies (still bickering over BluRay (beta) vs HDDVD (VHS) ) are what, 5 titles available, and in May?
Aspect ratios, picture quality, signal, cables, copy-protection, ...
Wake me when I'm virtual. And in Super Hi Def!
DLP does offer more screen for less green,
But I will take a LCD or plasma over DLP anyday...
i will agree in the price regions most of us hover around, DLP is better looking than the bargain plasmas.
but go to a ritzy high-end store and get to know better plasmas and you will see.
much of a contest.
i will agree in the price regions most of us hover around, DLP is better looking than the bargain plasmas.
but go to a ritzy high-end store and get to know better plasmas and you will see.
much of a contest.
whites were whiter than any of the other plasma displays in the
store, but still with incredible detail. The plasma whites were a
bit warm and almost yellow tinted. Ask your TV sales person to
put in Disney's Bambi (the snow sequences) or any other live
action DVD with shots of snow and you'll see what I mean. I've
been a loyal Sony CRT customer for years and was also
impressed with their 40" Bravia LCD - arguably a notch better
color than the Philips (especially in the blue areas). As LCDs get
as large and as cost competitive as plasmas, then there will be a
consumer shift. The two HDMI ports on the Philips are also
handy for watching either hi-def programs from my Cox DVR
(the NCAA tourney is phenomenal...you can see all the detail on
the players' tatoos, the sheen of the hair gel on the coaches
heads, or the wood grain on the court) or newer DVDs (Lord of
the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Fifth Element, etc.). For older
(digitally restored) films like Gone With The Wind, Robin Hood,
Bambi, Fantasia, an S-Video connection is best for color and
detail - and for purists - to watch in the original 4:3 format that
the films were made in - not stretched wide. CRTs have been a
very reliable technology...but now destined for obsolesence. It
doesn't make sense to watch Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago
or Ryan's Daughter in letterbox on a CRT with ambient room
glare, when for a little bit more money you can upgrade to
plasma or LCD and see detail in the image that the David Lean
originally intended to have you see.
whites were whiter than any of the other plasma displays in the
store, but still with incredible detail. The plasma whites were a
bit warm and almost yellow tinted. Ask your TV sales person to
put in Disney's Bambi (the snow sequences) or any other live
action DVD with shots of snow and you'll see what I mean. I've
been a loyal Sony CRT customer for years and was also
impressed with their 40" Bravia LCD - arguably a notch better
color than the Philips (especially in the blue areas). As LCDs get
as large and as cost competitive as plasmas, then there will be a
consumer shift. The two HDMI ports on the Philips are also
handy for watching either hi-def programs from my Cox DVR
(the NCAA tourney is phenomenal...you can see all the detail on
the players' tatoos, the sheen of the hair gel on the coaches
heads, or the wood grain on the court) or newer DVDs (Lord of
the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Fifth Element, etc.). For older
(digitally restored) films like Gone With The Wind, Robin Hood,
Bambi, Fantasia, an S-Video connection is best for color and
detail - and for purists - to watch in the original 4:3 format that
the films were made in - not stretched wide. CRTs have been a
very reliable technology...but now destined for obsolesence. It
doesn't make sense to watch Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago
or Ryan's Daughter in letterbox on a CRT with ambient room
glare, when for a little bit more money you can upgrade to
plasma or LCD and see detail in the image that the David Lean
originally intended to have you see.
Yes, the contrast and blacks are better, but not for long.
You can't pickup a 40" CRT and place it on a table. You can pick up a 42" LCD and place it on a table.
It's nothing about "cool". It's about cost and waste.
With SED production starting 1st QTR of 2007, the consumer will see the death bell of the CRT once SED is real.
Plasma has limits (burn in, screen door and inoperable at elevation). And LCD is catching up (faster refresh, better contrast, better gamut with LED backlighting).
I welcome the format competition. I just wish the CRTs don't end up as pollution.
RECYCLE!
Yes, the contrast and blacks are better, but not for long.
You can't pickup a 40" CRT and place it on a table. You can pick up a 42" LCD and place it on a table.
It's nothing about "cool". It's about cost and waste.
With SED production starting 1st QTR of 2007, the consumer will see the death bell of the CRT once SED is real.
Plasma has limits (burn in, screen door and inoperable at elevation). And LCD is catching up (faster refresh, better contrast, better gamut with LED backlighting).
I welcome the format competition. I just wish the CRTs don't end up as pollution.
RECYCLE!
Very few if any of the mfg's list power consumption in thier online specs. Now ask yourself why this is?
Very few if any of the mfg's list power consumption in thier online specs. Now ask yourself why this is?
- SIgh
-
by Dellidiotresponseteam
October 13, 2006 1:00 AM PDT
- Your retired and you have money. Is it neccessary to feed your ego upon that? To bad you retired at 50, I sold my company when I was 30 something but I'd never sit and say I can afford anything. Who cares Mr. Ego! Your insecure and brazen. Your next review leave out what you can buy/spend because no one cares about your net worth except you. It makes your comments worthless. Just review. Leave out your personal details. Because we don't care about what year and if you can afford(I'm sure you'd tell us) about your newest Bentley. Please has more class.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 54 Comments >>