Samsung to end plasma TV production this year

[Dashel]

Personally I've never liked plasma displays, ...they handle motion poorly .

 

Um, wut?  As Hawk mentioned, you have to spend significantly more money on an LCD for IQ that's even in the ballpark of plasma.

 

Sad news that plasma can't make the jump to 4K and larger screens.

 

"Unfortunately plasma is going away with nothing close to good enough to replace them. But people don't care, they buy Samsung LEDs with edge bleed, ghosting and uneven backlight. They don't care about quality."

 

QFT

[theyarecomingforyou]

Err... what?   plasmas have always handled motion better than LCDs. Its lcds with their early slow switching that had motion issues.

Um, wut?

When you see a LEDs and plasmas togethers you can always tell the plasmas apart because the motion doesn't look right. I think it's to do with the high refresh rates and it's the same with some LEDs as well, like LG's TruMotion (I have to disable it and I know other people who feel the same way). I know that conventional wisdom is that plasmas have better motion but I simply don't like it.

 

In all the side-by-side comparisons I always prefer LEDs. The better technology has won out.

[Dashel]

No, the synthetic nature of LCD motion doesn't look right.  What you are seeing is processing which should NOT be there from a reference perspective.  You are not seeing a film as it was meant to be seen.   Higher refresh?  Again, lolwut?  600Hz vs 240Hz...hmmm.  One of the fundamental limiations of LCD is its switching speed.  Plasma has near instantaneous pixel response times that LCD can only dream of.

 

If you think that it looks better, you are simply in the same group that thinks the artificiality of Bose/Sonos sounds 'good'.  Its only better because for all its weaknesses, it can scale to the higher resolutions and formats we need down the road.  That's the point of the article.  As their reference is plasma, its a little more than conventional wisdom...

[Order_66]

I bought a very expensive Sony 62" plasma approx 2 years ago, I did a lot of research and read a lot of the plasma zealot forums before making the purchase, it was the most expensive and most highly polished turd I have ever owned, took it back for a much cheaper Samsung led 2 days later, completely happy.

[_dandy_]

I bought a very expensive Sony 62" plasma approx 2 years ago, I did a lot of research and read a lot of the plasma zealot forums before making the purchase, it was the most expensive and most highly polished turd I have ever owned, took it back for a much cheaper Samsung led 2 days later, completely happy.

 

Well?  Name and shame.  What's the model?  In that range, I thought Sony only had 60 and 65 inchers?

[HawkMan]

Not sure how much research you did if you bought a Sony plasma. they make some decent LED's if you buy the higher end with backlit led though. 

 

honestly Samsungs Plasma's where pretty crap as well comparatively, but, outside of LG they where the only ones left after Panasonic. But then, that's the usual story for Samsung, their stuff is never that good comparatively. 

[kawasabi]

Pioneer KURO is the tv i always wanted but could not afford at that time.

Settled with 42 inch LCD from LG which was not as good but it was 2x cheaper.

[Order_66]

Well?  Name and shame.  What's the model?  In that range, I thought Sony only had 60 and 65 inchers?

 

I really can't remember since it's been 2 years and I only had it 2 days but I asked the wife about it and she corrected me on the 62" it was a 65".

 

Crazy how women always want to correct a man when he's talking about inches   :rofl:

[TDT]

I never knew much about these plasma TVs. One thing I've heard, a few years ago, was that a plasma TV doesn't work at high altitude. No idea if it's true.

 

Anyway, one thing I do know about them is that they are really expensive, it's no wonder that people avoid them and buy cheaper LED or LCD TVs...

[AndyMutz]

sad to hear, but it was unavoidable. most people are simply not willing to spend more money on quality TVs.

i still have a panasonic p50v10, which will be replaced next month by a panasonic p65vtw60, just because the old one is too small in my new home.

 

 -andy-

[Jim K Global Moderator]

When you see a LEDs and plasmas togethers you can always tell the plasmas apart because the motion doesn't look right. I think it's to do with the high refresh rates and it's the same with some LEDs as well, like LG's TruMotion (I have to disable it and I know other people who feel the same way). I know that conventional wisdom is that plasmas have better motion but I simply don't like it.

 

In all the side-by-side comparisons I always prefer LEDs. The better technology has won out.

 

The cheaper technology won out.  Not the better.

 

My Pioneer Elite Pro-111FD is better than just about anything out there on the market and it is 6 years old.

 

Motion blur...what the heck is that?  Next you are going to say that I need to refill the plasma.

[watkinsx2]

There's a reason 3 out of 5 of cnets best screens of 2013 are PDP's

 

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/best-tvs-of-2013-top-deals-in-the-uk/

 

I paid almost ?2000 for my VT65B when Panasonic announced their withdrawal and its the best screen I've ever seen. 

 

Sadly most people don't care about PQ only about how slim the bezel is and price.

[wrack]

hagjohn, on 07 Jul 2014 - 19:50, said:hagjohn, on 07 Jul 2014 - 19:50, said:

I still do not know anyone who owns a plasma tv.

Panasonic  Viera ST60

 

Now you know one more  :p

[theyarecomingforyou]

The cheaper technology won out.  Not the better.

Cheaper? When I bought my LED HDTV it was more expensive than the plasma alternatives. As far as I'm aware plasma has always been cheaper. If that's changed it's only because plasma displays are being discontinued.

[TDT]

Cheaper? When I bought my LED HDTV it was more expensive than the plasma alternatives. As far as I'm aware plasma has always been cheaper. If that's changed it's only because plasma displays are being discontinued.

You're kidding, right? Plasma TVs were always much more expensive than the alternative. When I bought my first LCD TV it was more than half the price of a plasma TV at the same size.

 

EDIT: I just realized something. Maybe you're not comparing same things, like FULL HD plasma TV vs. FULL HD LCD TV.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Cheaper? When I bought my LED HDTV it was more expensive than the plasma alternatives. As far as I'm aware plasma has always been cheaper. If that's changed it's only because plasma displays are being discontinued.

 

No, I'm sorry you are incorrect.  Plasmas were, all things being "equal", more expensive.

[compl3x]

 

How so? A good plasma costs the same as a decent LED, and the power consumption in reality isn't that big usual, one or two 60 watts bulbs depending on size. And OLED has a whole host of issues that they aren't even close to fixing yet.

 

I thought plasmas cost more to produce, therefore smaller profit margins. Manufacturers sure seem motivated to make LCD/LED tvs so I assume production cost is motivating factor.

 

You are certain correct about some of the hurdles that still exist for OLED, though. In a few years they might be overcome.

[HawkMan]

You're kidding, right? Plasma TVs were always much more expensive than the alternative. When I bought my first LCD TV it was more than half the price of a plasma TV at the same size.

 

EDIT: I just realized something. Maybe you're not comparing same things, like FULL HD plasma TV vs. FULL HD LCD TV.

 

No I think you're simply comparing cheap low end LCD's to plasma's.

 

Plasma's have always been cheaper if you compare equal quality, (though that's impossible), but LCD's have had the cheap low end market with really bad PQ often with orange ting and noisy darks. But to get a LCD tv that compares even slightly to a mid end Plasma(Full HD) you need to go well beyond the plasma in price) to compare to a high end plasma, well besides the fact it's still cheaper than a 7000-8000 series Samsung, even their ultimate 9000 series don't come close in PQ.

[_dandy_]

I really can't remember since it's been 2 years and I only had it 2 days but I asked the wife about it and she corrected me on the 62" it was a 65".

 

Crazy how women always want to correct a man when he's talking about inches   :rofl:

 

At least she's saying it was actually bigger than claimed, and not smaller.  :-p

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Incidentally, its the other way around, in a bright showroom you can't tell a difference. Go home turn down the lights and set them to movie mode and the light bleed and uneven backlight of the LED will be obvious as will the lack of details in dark and blacks. If you're only using it for TV in a well lit room though...

 

How so? A good plasma costs the same as a decent LED, and the power consumption in reality isn't that big usual, one or two 60 watts bulbs depending on size. And OLED has a whole host of issues that they aren't even close to fixing yet.

 

You're kidding, right?   Wow, you certainly like to think you know what's right for everyone.  My opinion and experience may not match yours, but it certainly doesn't mean I am wrong, you ever hear of to each their own?  Probably not with your know-it-all attitude.  :no:

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

I have one (Samsung 43"), they come a long way in reducing heat and power consumption.

 

However, I have a partial burn in of the Cartoon Network Logo on mine... despite pixel shifting being on the entire time ><

Which is not covered by Samsung Warranty.

[HawkMan]

You're kidding, right?   Wow, you certainly like to think you know what's right for everyone.  My opinion and experience may not match yours, but it certainly doesn't mean I am wrong, you ever hear of to each their own?  Probably not with your know-it-all attitude.  :no:

 

I'm talking about actual FACTS though. it's a bit different from talking about personal opinions about whether you like that movie or not. 

 

PQ, motion, real contrast, refresh rate. even backlight(seeing as the Plasma has no backlight, and the LED's use a crappy diffusor plate) are all objectively, provably better on a plasma than on a LCD/LED. incidentally, old style CFM backlit LCD's had better and more even back lights than modern LED's a well. 

 

You can say you like the thin bezel of a LED better, you can say you like their superbright eye burning picture and dynamic contrast(well you get dynamic picture ruining contrast on plasma to). But you can't claim the picture is better, and then get upset when someone points out that objectively you're wrong and your making claims a facts when they're wrong. 

I have one (Samsung 43"), they come a long way in reducing heat an power consumption.

 

However, I have a partial burn in of the Cartoon Network Logo on mine... despite pixel shifting being on the entire time ><

Which is not covered by Samsung Warranty.

 

Samsung, at least here in Europe, is supposed to cover ALL occurrences of burn in a a panel fault.

 

that being said. This is one of the reasons I don't like Samsung plasma, besides not being near the same PQ quality a Panasonic and LG on their plasma's, they have suffered ar more, far easier and far longer with burn in, even after burn in was a thing of the past on the competition, they still suffer with it. 

[compl3x]

^ It looks like it is your birthday today, HawkMan. Happy B'Day. :)

 

 

(Unless you didn't enter your actual birthday in your profile, like me.  :rofl: - IN that case, nevermind.)

[jerzdawg]

I'd put my vt50 up against almost any LCD/led and pq will be superior or equal everytime. There is a reason the pioneer plasma was the most sought after tv when it was in production.

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

I'm talking about actual FACTS though. it's a bit different from talking about personal opinions about whether you like that movie or not. 

 

PQ, motion, real contrast, refresh rate. even backlight(seeing as the Plasma has no backlight, and the LED's use a crappy diffusor plate) are all objectively, provably better on a plasma than on a LCD/LED. incidentally, old style CFM backlit LCD's had better and more even back lights than modern LED's a well. 

 

You can say you like the thin bezel of a LED better, you can say you like their superbright eye burning picture and dynamic contrast(well you get dynamic picture ruining contrast on plasma to). But you can't claim the picture is better, and then get upset when someone points out that objectively you're wrong and your making claims a facts when they're wrong. 

 

Samsung, at least here in Europe, is supposed to cover ALL occurrences of burn in a a panel fault.

 

that being said. This is one of the reasons I don't like Samsung plasma, besides not being near the same PQ quality a Panasonic and LG on their plasma's, they have suffered ar more, far easier and far longer with burn in, even after burn in was a thing of the past on the competition, they still suffer with it. 

 

Us warranty doesn't :(

 

I do regret not spending a little more at the time and going with the Panasonic. 

I do like the color / blacks on my Plasma.