My sister has a Panasonic plasma, I have a Sony BRAVIA, the Panasonic is 50 times better, viewing angle, black levels/contrast, color etc. There's no competition.
What? Most LCDs either weigh more than or around the same as a similar sized plasma.
Not true. It is difficult to compare LCD to plasma flat panels because a single manufacturer may not produce equal sized panels in using the two technologies. Having said that, the LG 42PC5D (1024x768) plasma from LG comes in at 54.2 lbs. LG's LG 42LB5D (1920x1080) LCD comes in at 50.7 lbs, some 3.5 lbs less than its plasma sibling. I don't see an LCD offering from Pioneer. But, to the point, I have seen LCD TVs as much as 20 lbs lighter than comparable-sized plasma models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL
But I was referring to the new Pioneer plasmas and image quality (the most important part).
Most flatpanel TVs on the market today look pretty darned good. People make purchasing decisions based on numerous factors in addition to image quality. These include size, weight, power consumption, connectivity options, display lifetime, pixel density, etc. Over the last several years, I have been blown-away once by a new flatpanel. That was the first time I saw Sharp's new 1080p models.
Most flatpanel TVs on the market today look pretty darned good. People make purchasing decisions based on numerous factors in addition to image quality. These include size, weight, power consumption, connectivity options, display lifetime, pixel density, etc. Over the last several years, I have been blown-away once by a new flatpanel. That was the first time I saw Sharp's new 1080p models.
My father has the 45" 1080P Sharp Aquos...and I have to agree the thing looks sweet. It even makes SD look better IMO.
Not true. It is difficult to compare LCD to plasma flat panels because a single manufacturer may not produce equal sized panels in using the two technologies. Having said that, the LG 42PC5D (1024x768) plasma from LG comes in at 54.2 lbs. LG's LG 42LB5D (1920x1080) LCD comes in at 50.7 lbs, some 3.5 lbs less than its plasma sibling.
A 3.5lbs difference isn't around the same weight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
But, to the point, I have seen LCD TVs as much as 20 lbs lighter than comparable-sized plasma models.
And I've seen the exact opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
Most flatpanel TVs on the market today look pretty darned good. People make purchasing decisions based on numerous factors in addition to image quality. These include size, weight, power consumption, connectivity options, display lifetime, pixel density, etc. Over the last several years, I have been blown-away once by a new flatpanel. That was the first time I saw Sharp's new 1080p models.
I haven't seen an LCD that I liked. And as long as they have to have several buzzword technologies to "remove" the disadvantages from the LCD technolgy it's perhaps the wrong technology to use in the first place.
After 20+ years LCDs still have problems with viewing angle, response time and more.
Perhaps LED will help a lot and it actually changes the way the basic display works - Pixel Plus and other technologies are stuff applied to the image before it reaches the display to counter the flaws in the current technology.
PS: Using display lifetime as a factor is kind of stupid since most displays have a lifetime of 20-40 years with normal use. Other components in a tv will probably give up before the display itself.
Surely your arguement is not just about weight guys, IMO Plasma's with built-in speakers are in general heavier, but IMO I couldn't give a shit. If I could afford one, I'd get one. I have a relatively new Sony LCD, and the black levels are something aweful.
Give an example of an LCD flat panel TV-plasma display TV pair of the same size and from the same manufacturer.
Since there aren't many that make both LCDs and plasma at the same size (or both at all) there aren't many comparisons.
That also means that if customers base their purchases on weight they have to look at different manufacturers anyway, and there are many "heavy" LCD displays on the market (Sony and Philips are some).
But then again, it's a stupid argument. Do you carry it around all the time?
Lets hope SED ships. It's enticing technically but they delays and failure to move the product forward reduce it's relevance as a future technology that will be anything but a niche.
...offered that drawn-out legal wrangling with Nano-Proprietary Inc. concerning a patent dispute...
Ah yes, the largest hurdle for advancement in the 21st century will not be the lack of knowledge but the lack of affording expensive lawyers needed to get your product to market.
Yea I know that in this particular case that might not hold true but I certainly pity todays inventive mind that can't afford a crack shot legal staff to defend and document his or her every move.
Since there aren't many that make both LCDs and plasma at the same size (or both at all) there aren't many comparisons.
Excuses, excuses. You don't have to find many examples. One will do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL
That also means that if customers base their purchases on weight they have to look at different manufacturers anyway, and there are many "heavy" LCD displays on the market (Sony and Philips are some).
...
You have gotten somewhat far afield here. This started when I countered Ireland's assertion that a new Pioneer plasma was the best TV, 100%. The fact is that nothing is better than the competition in every instance. We each base our purchasing decisions on multiple criteria. Weight is by no means my only criteria for buying a new TV, but it is most certainly one of them. Large weight absolutely eliminates CRTs for new TV and computer monitor purchases. It is also one of the deal breakers for most rear projection sets. Having the least weight of currently available technologies is a major advantage for LCD displays, but it is certainly not their only advantage. Screen size for screen size, LCDs have higher resolution. Some LCD panels as small as 32" now feature full 1080p. Virtually every LCD HD panel 23" or larger features square pixels. The LG 42" plasma display in my previous post does not. Plasmas with full 1080p won't be available to most buyers until next month. Among the manufacturers who produce plasma display TVs, Pioneer is one of the best. However, its products are not better than the competition in every instance.
Excuses, excuses. You don't have to find many examples. One will do.
Jeez, do you really think that customers look at a plasma and an LCD from the same company (perhaps LG as you mentioned) and say: "Hey that one is 3.5lbs lighter - we'll take that"
You're not making any sense. You're argumenting that customers look at weight, but only if the two displays are from the same company.
LG and Samsung should've been world leaders by now then since they are the only ones (AFAIK) that have both at the same sizes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
This started when I countered Ireland's assertion that a new Pioneer plasma was the best TV, 100%.
No he said that my statement was 100% true - not that Pioneers were best, 100%.
And if weight is so important to you, Pioneers 50" is 20lbs lighter than a Sony 50" LCD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
Having the least weight of currently available technologies is a major advantage for LCD displays
Why is that an advantage? All you could come up with is a 3.5lbs difference - who chooses because of that?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
Screen size for screen size, LCDs have higher resolution. Some LCD panels as small as 32" now feature full 1080p. Virtually every LCD HD panel 23" or larger features square pixels.
You have a lot to learn. Tech specs aren't all in this world. How good is a 1080p 32" LCD panel if you:
1. Can't see the detail on such a small display anyway
2. There are almost no shadow details
3. The blacks are - well, grey
4. The viewing angle is bad
5. The colors are off and the gamma curve is far from the correct gamma curve that a tv broadcast use
6. The response time is bad
Furthermore the problem about many 1080p displays are that since thay have to handle more data they aren't that good at it, and in many cases a 1366x768 display is better than a 1080p display from the same manufacturer.
Square pixels? Who gives a *bleep* unless they are using the tv as a monitor (HTPC or other use).
There are several tests where a 1024x768 had a better HD image than a 1920x1080.
Pixels aren't all and did you care about the vertical resolution on your CRT?
To me you sound like one who makes a choice based on the tech specs alone. Numbers aren't all. Actually they don't mean a thing here - you're eyes do. Go for the tv that has the best image to you and don't go for "this has more pixels so it has to be better".
To me you sound like one who makes a choice based on the tech specs alone. Numbers aren't all. Actually they don't mean a thing here - you're eyes do. Go for the tv that has the best image to you and don't go for "this has more pixels so it has to be better".
My good man, my primary concern is what looks best. CRT-based HDTVs are no larger than 36". Even at that, I have never seen one that didn't have visible line structure even while displaying HD content. For this and other reasons, the CRT is a dying technology. Plasmas have no visible line structure, but are not competitive at screen sizes smaller than 42". With LCD displays as large as 70" soon to hit the stores, this issue is quickly becoming moot. If you surfed the websites of the various name brand TV manufacturers and consumer electronics stores, then you know that plasma displays are following CRTs into oblivion. Of the flat panel models available at Circuit City, LCDs outnumber plasmas 81 to 20. At Best Buy, the numbers are even more dramatic. There, LCD models outnumber plasmas 87 to 21. At Crutchfield, plasma's situation is not quite as dire, losing to LCD by the closer margin of 68 to 19. Manufacturers such as Mitsubishi and Sony have abandoned the technology. Others are likely to follow.
You may continue to promote this dying technology. This is my last post in this thread.
If you surfed the websites of the various name brand TV manufacturers and consumer electronics stores, then you know that plasma displays are following CRTs into oblivion.
Don't tell that to plasma manufacturers. They are selling more plasmas than ever.
The brands that have dumped plasma are the ones who didn't make them themselves and had to buy the panels from others.
And even though LCDs are getting larger and larger, they are still more expensive (here anyway) and have the same problems as any other LCD, and I certainly don't hope that LCD is the technology for the future. Plasma might not be either, but to me it's the best technology right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
You may continue to promote this dying technology.
You may continue to promote this dying technology. This is my last post in this thread.
Good because you were just spewing a bunch of nonsense about how much heavier a plasma is. Who gives a shit. Its sitting on a wall or the floor. Newer plasmas are much better in every category that matters except price. Just because everyone and their mother are producing budget LCD's for the mass market doesnt make them a better product.
THE launch of the device which was supposed to sweep the plasma television off the shelves this Christmas, the Laser TV, has been delayed.
Mitsubishi Digital Electronics, has told the television industry to expect a major laser TV announcement at a US trade show in January. However it will not say how long it will take before the technology goes on sale afterwards.
Either way the first laser TV was supposed to be in the shops in time for this Christmas.
Laser TVs can produce twice the range of colours of current flat panel models while being thinner, lighter and use less juice.
It was believed that the technology would take over from plasma at the 40 inch screen size and above leaving the smaller screens to LCDs.
The delay appears to be at the production side of the release rather than anything to do with the television technology.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, a couple of other key component manufacturers haven't quite ramped up as fast as was expected," Wilkie said.
Too bad...I was really hoping I could see one in person this Christmas. Well, I'm hoping they have some good info coming out of Sony and Mitsubishi at CES in regards to Laser TVs.
SYLMAR, Ca. -- In the latest sign that laser television is developing into a commercial product, QPC Lasers Inc. said it signed a nearly four-year contract to develop and supply lasers that may end up being assembled in televisions marketed under Sony, Pioneer and other well-known consumer-electronics brands.
The company said that under the deal, initially valued at $12 million, it will develop and ship up to 100,000 sets of color lasers to an Asian electronics manufacture it didn't identify. If options are exercised, the company said the deal eventually could be valued at up to $230 million over 10 years.
For QPC Laser, a high-tech startup that already sells lasers for defense and medical uses, the move marks a potential breakthrough into a burgeoning commercial market. Lasers are designed to provide improved light sources for rear-projection television sets, which now use a version of conventional bulbs. QPC Laser has "the potential to be the lowest cost solution," said George Lintz, the company's chief operating officer and chief financial officer.
Industry analysts who have been assessing the potential growth of the market for laser televisions said the contract won't impact near-term sales. The greatest uncertainty n the long run is "whether consumers will care about the improved color" available using lasers as light sources in such television sets, said Matthew Brennesholtz, a senior analyst at the research firm Insight Media.
So far, Japan's Mitsubishi Electric is the only company that has announced firm plans to roll out laser television sets, expected to be unveiled in early 2008. But according to Mr. Brennesholtz and other analysts, a number of other well-known consumer electronics firms also have been looking at jumping into the segment.
Such devices probably won't become mainstream products "without a technological boost" that can significantly lower production costs, according to Paul Semenza, a vice president of iSuppli Corp., a market-research firm that follows the electronics industry. Even if lasers do everything their proponents project, Mr. Semenza said, plasma televisions may continue to take market share from rear-projection TV devices.
But for QPC Laser, which provides products to Lockheed Martin Corp. and other defense contractors, the latest move offers an opportunity to show that its chip-based lasers are less expensive, more powerful and more flexible than those manufactured by competitors.
My good man, my primary concern is what looks best. CRT-based HDTVs are no larger than 36". Even at that, I have never seen one that didn't have visible line structure even while displaying HD content. For this and other reasons, the CRT is a dying technology. Plasmas have no visible line structure, but are not competitive at screen sizes smaller than 42". With LCD displays as large as 70" soon to hit the stores, this issue is quickly becoming moot. If you surfed the websites of the various name brand TV manufacturers and consumer electronics stores, then you know that plasma displays are following CRTs into oblivion. Of the flat panel models available at Circuit City, LCDs outnumber plasmas 81 to 20. At Best Buy, the numbers are even more dramatic. There, LCD models outnumber plasmas 87 to 21. At Crutchfield, plasma's situation is not quite as dire, losing to LCD by the closer margin of 68 to 19. Manufacturers such as Mitsubishi and Sony have abandoned the technology. Others are likely to follow.
You may continue to promote this dying technology. This is my last post in this thread.
Some clarification to some of what you wrote. 1080p plasmas are in the stores now. I don't know where you got the idea you have to wait for one.
The reason that there are more LCDs than plasmas in the stores you mentioned is that many of the LCDs are in the 27", 32" and 37" sizes which aren't typical plasma sizes. Plasmas dominate the 42" and up market primarily because of price.
As someone else has pointed out the companies that have bailed out of plasmas are those that don't make their own screens. The companies that do have pretty much locked up the plasma market.
Comments
What? Most LCDs either weigh more than or around the same as a similar sized plasma.
Not true. It is difficult to compare LCD to plasma flat panels because a single manufacturer may not produce equal sized panels in using the two technologies. Having said that, the LG 42PC5D (1024x768) plasma from LG comes in at 54.2 lbs. LG's LG 42LB5D (1920x1080) LCD comes in at 50.7 lbs, some 3.5 lbs less than its plasma sibling. I don't see an LCD offering from Pioneer. But, to the point, I have seen LCD TVs as much as 20 lbs lighter than comparable-sized plasma models.
But I was referring to the new Pioneer plasmas and image quality (the most important part).
Most flatpanel TVs on the market today look pretty darned good. People make purchasing decisions based on numerous factors in addition to image quality. These include size, weight, power consumption, connectivity options, display lifetime, pixel density, etc. Over the last several years, I have been blown-away once by a new flatpanel. That was the first time I saw Sharp's new 1080p models.
Most flatpanel TVs on the market today look pretty darned good. People make purchasing decisions based on numerous factors in addition to image quality. These include size, weight, power consumption, connectivity options, display lifetime, pixel density, etc. Over the last several years, I have been blown-away once by a new flatpanel. That was the first time I saw Sharp's new 1080p models.
My father has the 45" 1080P Sharp Aquos...and I have to agree the thing looks sweet. It even makes SD look better IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS6wsJRGqnQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbKMKeRzfA
I think I'm liking "Laser" TVs more and more...especially if their ill tempered. Hehehe.
Not true. It is difficult to compare LCD to plasma flat panels because a single manufacturer may not produce equal sized panels in using the two technologies. Having said that, the LG 42PC5D (1024x768) plasma from LG comes in at 54.2 lbs. LG's LG 42LB5D (1920x1080) LCD comes in at 50.7 lbs, some 3.5 lbs less than its plasma sibling.
A 3.5lbs difference isn't around the same weight?
But, to the point, I have seen LCD TVs as much as 20 lbs lighter than comparable-sized plasma models.
And I've seen the exact opposite.
Most flatpanel TVs on the market today look pretty darned good. People make purchasing decisions based on numerous factors in addition to image quality. These include size, weight, power consumption, connectivity options, display lifetime, pixel density, etc. Over the last several years, I have been blown-away once by a new flatpanel. That was the first time I saw Sharp's new 1080p models.
I haven't seen an LCD that I liked. And as long as they have to have several buzzword technologies to "remove" the disadvantages from the LCD technolgy it's perhaps the wrong technology to use in the first place.
After 20+ years LCDs still have problems with viewing angle, response time and more.
Perhaps LED will help a lot and it actually changes the way the basic display works - Pixel Plus and other technologies are stuff applied to the image before it reaches the display to counter the flaws in the current technology.
PS: Using display lifetime as a factor is kind of stupid since most displays have a lifetime of 20-40 years with normal use. Other components in a tv will probably give up before the display itself.
...
And I've seen the exact opposite.
....
Give an example of an LCD flat panel TV-plasma display TV pair of the same size and from the same manufacturer.
Give an example of an LCD flat panel TV-plasma display TV pair of the same size and from the same manufacturer.
Since there aren't many that make both LCDs and plasma at the same size (or both at all) there aren't many comparisons.
That also means that if customers base their purchases on weight they have to look at different manufacturers anyway, and there are many "heavy" LCD displays on the market (Sony and Philips are some).
But then again, it's a stupid argument. Do you carry it around all the time?
SED delayed again
Lets hope SED ships. It's enticing technically but they delays and failure to move the product forward reduce it's relevance as a future technology that will be anything but a niche.
...offered that drawn-out legal wrangling with Nano-Proprietary Inc. concerning a patent dispute...
Ah yes, the largest hurdle for advancement in the 21st century will not be the lack of knowledge but the lack of affording expensive lawyers needed to get your product to market.
Yea I know that in this particular case that might not hold true but I certainly pity todays inventive mind that can't afford a crack shot legal staff to defend and document his or her every move.
Dave
Since there aren't many that make both LCDs and plasma at the same size (or both at all) there aren't many comparisons.
Excuses, excuses. You don't have to find many examples. One will do.
That also means that if customers base their purchases on weight they have to look at different manufacturers anyway, and there are many "heavy" LCD displays on the market (Sony and Philips are some).
...
You have gotten somewhat far afield here. This started when I countered Ireland's assertion that a new Pioneer plasma was the best TV, 100%. The fact is that nothing is better than the competition in every instance. We each base our purchasing decisions on multiple criteria. Weight is by no means my only criteria for buying a new TV, but it is most certainly one of them. Large weight absolutely eliminates CRTs for new TV and computer monitor purchases. It is also one of the deal breakers for most rear projection sets. Having the least weight of currently available technologies is a major advantage for LCD displays, but it is certainly not their only advantage. Screen size for screen size, LCDs have higher resolution. Some LCD panels as small as 32" now feature full 1080p. Virtually every LCD HD panel 23" or larger features square pixels. The LG 42" plasma display in my previous post does not. Plasmas with full 1080p won't be available to most buyers until next month. Among the manufacturers who produce plasma display TVs, Pioneer is one of the best. However, its products are not better than the competition in every instance.
Excuses, excuses. You don't have to find many examples. One will do.
Jeez, do you really think that customers look at a plasma and an LCD from the same company (perhaps LG as you mentioned) and say: "Hey that one is 3.5lbs lighter - we'll take that"
You're not making any sense. You're argumenting that customers look at weight, but only if the two displays are from the same company.
LG and Samsung should've been world leaders by now then since they are the only ones (AFAIK) that have both at the same sizes.
This started when I countered Ireland's assertion that a new Pioneer plasma was the best TV, 100%.
No he said that my statement was 100% true - not that Pioneers were best, 100%.
And if weight is so important to you, Pioneers 50" is 20lbs lighter than a Sony 50" LCD.
Having the least weight of currently available technologies is a major advantage for LCD displays
Why is that an advantage? All you could come up with is a 3.5lbs difference - who chooses because of that?!?
Screen size for screen size, LCDs have higher resolution. Some LCD panels as small as 32" now feature full 1080p. Virtually every LCD HD panel 23" or larger features square pixels.
You have a lot to learn. Tech specs aren't all in this world. How good is a 1080p 32" LCD panel if you:
1. Can't see the detail on such a small display anyway
2. There are almost no shadow details
3. The blacks are - well, grey
4. The viewing angle is bad
5. The colors are off and the gamma curve is far from the correct gamma curve that a tv broadcast use
6. The response time is bad
Furthermore the problem about many 1080p displays are that since thay have to handle more data they aren't that good at it, and in many cases a 1366x768 display is better than a 1080p display from the same manufacturer.
Square pixels? Who gives a *bleep* unless they are using the tv as a monitor (HTPC or other use).
There are several tests where a 1024x768 had a better HD image than a 1920x1080.
Pixels aren't all and did you care about the vertical resolution on your CRT?
To me you sound like one who makes a choice based on the tech specs alone. Numbers aren't all. Actually they don't mean a thing here - you're eyes do. Go for the tv that has the best image to you and don't go for "this has more pixels so it has to be better".
....
To me you sound like one who makes a choice based on the tech specs alone. Numbers aren't all. Actually they don't mean a thing here - you're eyes do. Go for the tv that has the best image to you and don't go for "this has more pixels so it has to be better".
My good man, my primary concern is what looks best. CRT-based HDTVs are no larger than 36". Even at that, I have never seen one that didn't have visible line structure even while displaying HD content. For this and other reasons, the CRT is a dying technology. Plasmas have no visible line structure, but are not competitive at screen sizes smaller than 42". With LCD displays as large as 70" soon to hit the stores, this issue is quickly becoming moot. If you surfed the websites of the various name brand TV manufacturers and consumer electronics stores, then you know that plasma displays are following CRTs into oblivion. Of the flat panel models available at Circuit City, LCDs outnumber plasmas 81 to 20. At Best Buy, the numbers are even more dramatic. There, LCD models outnumber plasmas 87 to 21. At Crutchfield, plasma's situation is not quite as dire, losing to LCD by the closer margin of 68 to 19. Manufacturers such as Mitsubishi and Sony have abandoned the technology. Others are likely to follow.
You may continue to promote this dying technology. This is my last post in this thread.
If you surfed the websites of the various name brand TV manufacturers and consumer electronics stores, then you know that plasma displays are following CRTs into oblivion.
Don't tell that to plasma manufacturers. They are selling more plasmas than ever.
The brands that have dumped plasma are the ones who didn't make them themselves and had to buy the panels from others.
And even though LCDs are getting larger and larger, they are still more expensive (here anyway) and have the same problems as any other LCD, and I certainly don't hope that LCD is the technology for the future. Plasma might not be either, but to me it's the best technology right now.
You may continue to promote this dying technology.
Thank you.
You may continue to promote this dying technology. This is my last post in this thread.
Good because you were just spewing a bunch of nonsense about how much heavier a plasma is. Who gives a shit. Its sitting on a wall or the floor. Newer plasmas are much better in every category that matters except price. Just because everyone and their mother are producing budget LCD's for the mass market doesnt make them a better product.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/10..._display_tech/
Anyone else find anyting pertinent to Laser TVs?
The technology was limited by the material science limitations of its original development.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/busin...ath=1473/10276
It doesn't surprise me that KODAK is really focusing on this to get it into the world markets.
OLED Paper, Consumer Monitors, TVs, Medical Imaging. The sky is the limit for them.
Laser TV 'plasma killer' delayed
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...killer-delayed
THE launch of the device which was supposed to sweep the plasma television off the shelves this Christmas, the Laser TV, has been delayed.
Mitsubishi Digital Electronics, has told the television industry to expect a major laser TV announcement at a US trade show in January. However it will not say how long it will take before the technology goes on sale afterwards.
Either way the first laser TV was supposed to be in the shops in time for this Christmas.
Laser TVs can produce twice the range of colours of current flat panel models while being thinner, lighter and use less juice.
It was believed that the technology would take over from plasma at the 40 inch screen size and above leaving the smaller screens to LCDs.
The delay appears to be at the production side of the release rather than anything to do with the television technology.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, a couple of other key component manufacturers haven't quite ramped up as fast as was expected," Wilkie said.
Too bad...I was really hoping I could see one in person this Christmas. Well, I'm hoping they have some good info coming out of Sony and Mitsubishi at CES in regards to Laser TVs.
QPC Laser to Supply Parts For Rear-Projection TVs
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1196...googlenews_wsj
SYLMAR, Ca. -- In the latest sign that laser television is developing into a commercial product, QPC Lasers Inc. said it signed a nearly four-year contract to develop and supply lasers that may end up being assembled in televisions marketed under Sony, Pioneer and other well-known consumer-electronics brands.
The company said that under the deal, initially valued at $12 million, it will develop and ship up to 100,000 sets of color lasers to an Asian electronics manufacture it didn't identify. If options are exercised, the company said the deal eventually could be valued at up to $230 million over 10 years.
For QPC Laser, a high-tech startup that already sells lasers for defense and medical uses, the move marks a potential breakthrough into a burgeoning commercial market. Lasers are designed to provide improved light sources for rear-projection television sets, which now use a version of conventional bulbs. QPC Laser has "the potential to be the lowest cost solution," said George Lintz, the company's chief operating officer and chief financial officer.
Industry analysts who have been assessing the potential growth of the market for laser televisions said the contract won't impact near-term sales. The greatest uncertainty n the long run is "whether consumers will care about the improved color" available using lasers as light sources in such television sets, said Matthew Brennesholtz, a senior analyst at the research firm Insight Media.
So far, Japan's Mitsubishi Electric is the only company that has announced firm plans to roll out laser television sets, expected to be unveiled in early 2008. But according to Mr. Brennesholtz and other analysts, a number of other well-known consumer electronics firms also have been looking at jumping into the segment.
Such devices probably won't become mainstream products "without a technological boost" that can significantly lower production costs, according to Paul Semenza, a vice president of iSuppli Corp., a market-research firm that follows the electronics industry. Even if lasers do everything their proponents project, Mr. Semenza said, plasma televisions may continue to take market share from rear-projection TV devices.
But for QPC Laser, which provides products to Lockheed Martin Corp. and other defense contractors, the latest move offers an opportunity to show that its chip-based lasers are less expensive, more powerful and more flexible than those manufactured by competitors.
C'mon let's see 'em early '08!
My good man, my primary concern is what looks best. CRT-based HDTVs are no larger than 36". Even at that, I have never seen one that didn't have visible line structure even while displaying HD content. For this and other reasons, the CRT is a dying technology. Plasmas have no visible line structure, but are not competitive at screen sizes smaller than 42". With LCD displays as large as 70" soon to hit the stores, this issue is quickly becoming moot. If you surfed the websites of the various name brand TV manufacturers and consumer electronics stores, then you know that plasma displays are following CRTs into oblivion. Of the flat panel models available at Circuit City, LCDs outnumber plasmas 81 to 20. At Best Buy, the numbers are even more dramatic. There, LCD models outnumber plasmas 87 to 21. At Crutchfield, plasma's situation is not quite as dire, losing to LCD by the closer margin of 68 to 19. Manufacturers such as Mitsubishi and Sony have abandoned the technology. Others are likely to follow.
You may continue to promote this dying technology. This is my last post in this thread.
Some clarification to some of what you wrote. 1080p plasmas are in the stores now. I don't know where you got the idea you have to wait for one.
The reason that there are more LCDs than plasmas in the stores you mentioned is that many of the LCDs are in the 27", 32" and 37" sizes which aren't typical plasma sizes. Plasmas dominate the 42" and up market primarily because of price.
As someone else has pointed out the companies that have bailed out of plasmas are those that don't make their own screens. The companies that do have pretty much locked up the plasma market.