Plasma

[Tannin]

I saw a fax-out from a supplier today and it caught my eye. Mitsubishi 42 inch plasma screen, not much over $2000 ex tax.

"Wow!" I said, "that sounds fantastic!" I'd thought plasma screens were mega-expensive. But I could just about spring for one of those. It's just about time I replaced my faithful old Hitachi CM753 19 inch CRT, after all.

Then I looked at the fine print: resolution eight hundred and something by 480.

Huh?

I thought I was dreaming.

Who would pay that sort of money for a screen, no matter how large, that can't even do 800 x 600? Hell, I wouldn't pay $2 for it, never mind $2000.

But somebody must buy them. I have no idea why. How long till we get something in this sort of size wih, oh ... say about 1600 res?

 

[ddrueding]

I don't think you'll see plasmas with that kind of res. They're designed to replace televisions, remember, not monitors. That's a decent resolution for TV (I guess, I don't watch it). If you're looking for a better resolution, you're probably looking for Samsung's 24" 1920x1280 or their 57" 1920x1080 due out later this year.

 

[Mercutio]

Those medium definition TVs are made to make DVDs look nice. Lots and lots of idiots buy them, since lots and lots of idiots don't know that DVDs aren't "high definition".

Plasma is NOT a worthwhile display technology in my opinion. It does a very poor job of reproducing color correctly and it can burn-in in minutes.

Unfortunately, we all know about the drawbacks of LCDs, and other nice-looking display types aren't hang-on-a-wall flat.

 

[Pradeep]

Then I looked at the fine print: resolution eight hundred and something by 480.

That's enhanced definition (EDTV). An improvement over SD, but not much. Also, given that PAL is 576 lines, I'm wondering what kind of abortion they are doing to get that to fit in 480 lines (which is what NTSC uses).

The true HD plasmas tend to use 1024*768 or similar (which works out because they use non-square pixels or somesuch). I guess next step would be 1280*1024.

 

[Tannin]

So, what you are saying, guys, is wait till I can afford a 42 inch TFT?

(Mind you, by the time that happens, I'll probably be more interested in buying an electric wheelchair.)

Still, TFT screens have dropped a hell of a lot lately, so maybe really big ones will be here sooner than I think.

 

[Buck]

From what I've heard lately through different a/v certifcation programs, Plasma is a short-lived technology -- something not worth investing your hard earned money.

 

[time]

What do you mean by short-lived, exactly?

 

[Mercutio]

Well, the drawbacks to Plasma are pretty extreme, especially the burn-in problem. LCD and OLED are undoubtedly better and cheaper in the long term.

That, and the fact that the lifetime of the displays themselves is supposed to be limited by how fast the gas inside the display leaks out.

 

[Buck]

What do you mean by short-lived, exactly?

Short-lived as in the technology is only being used in the interim as other technologies such as LCD improve, because allegedly their potential is much greater.