2. home-theater
  3. 1193615323

Why are LCDs more popular than plasma?

I have a rough time seeing differences in picture quality between brands and models, but the difference between plasma and LCD are overt even to me. When I go to bestbuy, fry's, etc. and gaze at their displays of flatpannels, plasma televisions just look beautiful, despite the reflections, while LCDs just remind me of working on my laptop. Is there more merit to the quality of LCD than I observe or is there some other reason LCDs outnumber plasmas?
ohlala

Showing 2 responses by soix

soix
8,765 posts
 
I keep my TVs on a lot and keep them for a long time. The fact that plasmas will eventually burn out without the option to replace a bulb keeps me from going with that technology despite my general preference for the picture quality.
soix
8,765 posts
 
Here's an exerpt from a site that also refers to 60,000 hours of life for a plasma TV:

"Now, there are varying degrees of phosphor ignition along the way (the same way a CRT fades). Dissipation begins the moment you turn the set on. After 1000 hours of usage a plasma monitor should measure around 96% of its original brightness, which is barely noticeable to the naked eye. At 15,000 to 20,000 hours the monitor should measure around 80% brightness, or to state is technically, 80% of the original phosphors (gases) are being ignited".

My TV is on about 10 hours/day (mainly CNBC with the ticker constantly flowing along the bottom of the screen, so I'm concerned about burn-in too despite the improvements in this area). At this rate my plasma would be at 80% of brightness/phosphors somewhere around 4 to 5 years. I'm skeptical of the 60,000 hours figure in the real world as well, but it really doesn't matter if the TV has already lost 20% of its output after the first 5 years.

For many (and probably most) this might not be a problem, but for me it is enough to keep me out of the plasma realm (for now) despite the fact that I find the picture superior to LCD.
More to discover