Interesting little HDTV article

[Heckalaska]

Found this on Gizmodo today and thought it was a good little read for people like me, who are having trouble shelling out money for a monster plasma/lcd tv.

"I am an HDTV curmudgeon. It’s not that I don’t want one. I even know where I’d put it. Rather, it’s that I don’t want to pay for one. In fact, the very idea of spending upwards of $3,000 for a big-screen flat panel TV kind of pisses me off. Besides, I have two young boys who like to play football in the basement next to my perfect spot. Coming home to find my brand new flat panel TV face down like a drunk at CES—I’m not sure I could take it without hurtin’ someone.

But it’s not just the cost. I also don’t believe the quality of flat panel HDTVs is up to snuff. Admittedly, I don’t have the facilities to test every single one on the market—my wife would kill me. So I rely on three things: my eyes, word of mouth and Consumer Reports. I don’t know if you’ve seen the latest issue dedicated to HDTV, but the results aren’t very impressive.


Let’s look at Plasma first. Plasma is the top choice of flat-panel buyers. It offers the largest screen size—42 inches on up—and is generally cheaper per inch than larger LCDs. Well, according to CR’s rating system, the highest scoring plasma, a 50-inch model from Panasonic, scored only a 70 out of 100. Virtually every other model was well below that number. And the off brands, well, there’s no need to even discuss them. Aside from the quality issue—and the potential for burn-in, no matter what manufacturers say—these things also weigh a ton. I damn near threw my back out trying to help move one at a trade show last year.

Not surprisingly, LCDs scored even worse in the CR testing. The highest score among the larger models—in this case, 37 inches—was a pathetic 52, scored by an LG TV. There is absolutely no way I’m going to spend $3,500 on a TV that’s only half as good as it should be.

Now I can already hear some of you early adopters out there justifying your purchase. “Yeah, but my set looks great.” Or “How can you be influenced so much by a magazine?” Well, I’m also influenced by my eyes, and what I’ve seen has not been great. Colors vary, blacks are blackish, response times can be slow and viewing angles—let’s just say you’d better have a lot of room directly in front of the set.

But what about the new 1080p sets, you ask? Surely they will close the quality gap. Frankly, if I’m not willing to pay $3500 for a 1080i LCD, I’m sure as hell not going to pay $1,000 to $2,000 more for 1080p.

You see my dilemma.

Meanwhile, America’s insatiable desire to have its HDTV seems unlikely to let up any time soon—and manufacturers are gearing up to meet demand. Matsushita, Panasonic’s parent company and the world’s top plasma seller, recently announced it would build a $1.6 billion plant dedicated solely to plasmas. LG, Samsung and a joint venture known as Fujitsu Hitachi Display have also announced they intend to step up plasma production to meet demand, which is expected to exceed 25 million panels by 2010.

Japanese giant Sony, on the other hand, announced last year it was phasing out plasmas in 2007 to focus on LCDs. The company has already teamed with Samsung to open a joint LCD manufacturing plant in Korea. One of the fist bi-products of that venture was Sony’s Bravia line, a big seller in Costco that helped the company regain the number one position in LCD TV sales, according to DisplaySearch. To give some idea where the company thinks the market’s headed—Stan Glasgow, Sony’s guru of glass, has said the company was actively exploring OLED (organic light emitting diodes) as its preferred technology for larger flat panels. OLEDs are brighter and offer better contrast than LCDs, and do not require a backlight. Alas, Glasgow did not specify when those products would make it to market.

On the less-than-bright side, while the aforementioned companies continue their drive to dominate the flat panel market, there’s a good chance there will be a glut of product, says analyst Koichi Hariya of Mizuho Securities in Japan. And that’s when prices could reach a point where even a curmudgeon considers buying in. The price where I can justify a purchase: $1,000 for a 42-inch TV. Until then, I’ll remain content to sit in my not-quite-ivory tower, watching letter-boxed movies on my 20-year-old, 27-inch Trinitron or my $250, 27-inch Toshiba, and checking out this week’s electronics circulars."

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast’s Network, and writes for Money,Men’s Health, and Laptop.

[Iguana Man]

Plasma is the top choice of flat-panel buyers. It offers the largest screen size—42 inches on up—and is generally cheaper per inch than larger LCDs.

I stopped reading at that point. :flush:

Brian L. Clark is a douche.

[SilentBob]

Well i will just say i am happy right now thank you with my 50 Inch RPLCD HDTV. Now go back and enjoy your 27 inch Trinitron

[elwood731]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

I stopped reading at that point. :flush:

Brian L. Clark is a douche.

What's wrong with that statement? Maybe someone has stats to counter it, but I would imagine the average person buying is buying a plasma because they're the "sexiest" and the one retail stores seem to push. I know most enthusiasts are going other routes, but that doesn't seem too far off to me.

[littlebib]

Until then, I’ll remain content to sit in my not-quite-ivory tower, watching letter-boxed movies on my 20-year-old, 27-inch Trinitron or my $250, 27-inch Toshiba, and checking out this week’s electronics circulars."

Well, for double his $250, I picked up an Olevia 26" LCD HDTV. DVDs and my Xbox360 look fantastic on it. I read the consumer reports about some of the LCD/Plama TVs. I think this one rated somewhere around 60-70. Do I care? Not really. It looks great to me.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by elwood731

What's wrong with that statement? Maybe someone has stats to counter it, but I would imagine the average person buying is buying a plasma because they're the "sexiest" and the one retail stores seem to push. I know most enthusiasts are going other routes, but that doesn't seem too far off to me.

I don't have a problem with the first sentence I quoted, in fact I should have left that out. My problem is the next two sentences. Since when does plasma offer 'the largest screen size' and at a lower price 'per inch' than LCD?

Hey, maybe I'm wrong (and I don't think the dude is a douche by the way), but I've always thought plasmas were still mucho expensive when getting above the 50" mark compared to *anything* else.

Damn you Elwood, now I gotta go google around and recheck prices!

[PunkMunkey]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

My problem is the next two sentences. Since when does plasma offer 'the largest screen size' and at a lower price 'per inch' than LCD'?

The article only addresses flat panels...it doesn't take into account RPTVs...so he's right, Plasmas are the largest flat panels available to the public.

There are some larger sizes in the works, but nothing available to buy just yet...

[elwood731]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

I don't have a problem with the first sentence I quoted, in fact I should have left that out. My problem is the next two sentences. Since when does plasma offer 'the largest screen size' and at a lower price 'per inch' than LCD?

Hey, maybe I'm wrong (and I don't think the dude is a douche by the way), but I've always thought plasmas were still mucho expensive when getting above the 50" mark compared to *anything* else.

Damn you Elwood, now I gotta go google around and recheck prices!

Yes, damn me. But yeah, your post makes more sense to me now. I do agree with Punk Monkey's explanation, though. I don't think he's really that far off. I would say, probably, he is most off on the cost per inch issue, but I suppose that depends on how you look at it.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by elwood731

Yes, damn me. But yeah, your post makes more sense to me now. I do agree with Punk Monkey's explanation, though. I don't think he's really that far off. I would say, probably, he is most off on the cost per inch issue, but I suppose that depends on how you look at it.

Look at it this way then. Try and find a 60" plus plasma and a 60" plus LCD. After you're done, compare the price and then compare the depth. What's 'Flat Panel' suddenly mean to you?

Hey guys, I ain't ranting on this dude, I was playing around with the douche comment, but honestly...

[elwood731]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Look at it this way then. Try and find a 60" plus plasma and a 60" plus LCD. After you're done, compare the price and then compare the depth. What's 'Flat Panel' suddenly mean to you?

Ok, I am confused again. Do you mean you can't find a 60" plasma? Therefore his argument is invalid unless in itcludes DLP and other formats? Again, just asking, because right now I am a ltitle confused.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by elwood731

Ok, I am confused again. Do you mean you can't find a 60" plasma? Therefore his argument is invalid unless in itcludes DLP and other formats? Again, just asking, because right now I am a ltitle confused.

You aren't confused, I am simply hammered.

If we go back to the original quote I quoted, he appears to indicate Plasmas are cheaper per inch than LCD. I say that is WAY off. Look at the 60+ inch plasmas and 60+ inch LCD's. Prices favor LCD by a long shot.

I think we agree elwood....but like I said..I'm in a happy mood.

[tomdkat]

Three letters for you all:

C R T



Peace...

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Three letters for you all:

C R T



Peace...

excellent black levels

[chlngr1970]

For example:

JVC 40" LCD is $3300 Right below that is a 42" Plasma by LG that is $500 cheaper. That tends to support his argument. It seems that as LCDs get in the relm of Plasmas in regards to size, they get exponentaly ( SP? ) more expensive.

j

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by chlngr1970

For example:

JVC 40" LCD is $3300 Right below that is a 42" Plasma by LG that is $500 cheaper. That tends to support his argument. It seems that as LCDs get in the relm of Plasmas in regards to size, they get exponentaly ( SP? ) more expensive.

j

Actually buddy, it's the opposite. As Plasmas reach 50+ inches, they are hugely more expensive than the same size LCD's.

(your just mad I switched to a Pontiac aren't you? )

I guess my beef is, he eludes that the largest screen sizes are Plasma yet the largest Plasmas (50+ inches) are oodles more per square inch than LCD's of the same size.

[Wirehed]

Large plasmas are cheaper than large LCDs. Small LCDs are cheaper than small plasmas now. It's simply a matter of supply. As more LCD factories come on line LCD will become cheaper, and probably replace plasma entirely. We're starting to see this now, thusly the confusion.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by Seamonkey

Large plasmas are cheaper than large LCDs. Small LCDs are cheaper than small plasmas now. It's simply a matter of supply. As more LCD factories come on line LCD will become cheaper, and probably replace plasma entirely. We're starting to see this now, thusly the confusion.

That is not what I saw browsing the web the other day when I blamed Elwood for making me 'google'.

I still have the prices written down to my left....Granted, 50" is similar. But try and find a name brand 55" plasma that isn't close to 7K. Then look for an LCD of the same size. WAYYYY less.

Don't make me skip dinner for this man, I did look, and I stand by the numbers I saw but wouldn't mind being wrong either since a plasma can find a space in my home if you dudes are right.

LCD's

Plasma

Edited: I linked the above. I love you all. And I am going to EAT.

[chipmac]

Originally Posted by chlngr1970

For example:

JVC 40" LCD is $3300 Right below that is a 42" Plasma by LG that is $500 cheaper. That tends to support his argument. It seems that as LCDs get in the relm of Plasmas in regards to size, they get exponentaly ( SP? ) more expensive.

j

I just thought I'd point out that the JVC has as a slightly higher resolution than the Zenith and is a much better brand which could account for the price discrepancy.

[deepfry]

I think when he said "flat panel" he was referring to lcds that are not rear-projection. Rear projectcion units still have flat screens, yes, but they are not flat panels. Maybe they should be using a different moniker - perhaps they should use "direct view" instead of "flat panel"? At any rate, I believe that he is talking about tvs you can hang on the wall (thus flat-panel).

So try to find an lcd that is not a rear-projection unit that is 55" or larger - I don't think you will at this point. However that may change as the facilities for manufacturing lcds improve.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by deepfry

I think when he said "flat panel" he was referring to lcds that are not rear-projection. Rear projectcion units still have flat screens, yes, but they are not flat panels. Maybe they should be using a different moniker - perhaps they should use "direct view" instead of "flat panel"? At any rate, I believe that he is talking about tvs you can hang on the wall (thus flat-panel).

I know, I was just gloating.

Peace...

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by deepfry

I think when he said "flat panel" he was referring to lcds that are not rear-projection.

Ahhhh...well if that's the case, then my case was just shot down. But since Tom thinks your comments were directed at him...well...then he was wrong.

[med]

Originally Posted by deepfry

So try to find an lcd that is not a rear-projection unit that is 55" or larger - I don't think you will at this point. However that may change as the facilities for manufacturing lcds improve.

Sorry... Sharp has done it.

For some reason I also thought that in general, in the 30-50 " range that LCD was more expensive per inch than plasmas. Maybe I was wrong. But I guess the only fair comparison would be to discount ALL EDTV Plasmas, and only pit 720p native LCDs and Plasmas together. In that case, I'm guessing they would be roughly the same price, and if anything the LCDs a little bit cheaper.

[Iguana Man]

That Sharp is 17 F&@KING THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!!

[deepfry]

Well I stand corrected. Still, the fact that the sharp is $17k would seem to support the argument that plasmas are less expensive than "flat panel" or "direct view" lcds....

And if you are going to spend $17k on a 65" lcd tv why wouldn't you just get the Sony SXRD front projector, save yourself about $6k (after getting a good screen for the SXRD), and enjoy an even better picture?