End of an era: Panasonic stops production of plasma TV's

[Aberaeron]

I won't miss plasma a bit. Screen door effect, highly reflective faceplate, burn in, energy hog (the reason Pana is discontinuing.) Blacks that are black, true enough, but way too black for my taste. LED does very good black these days with a lot less grid.

Energy hog? Plasma uses 58 cents more a month than LED. LED is too high contrast, unnatural looking.

***I'm telling you guys that this is why Panasonic is bailing, and that is in fact the reason. Check the trades.



Never mind movies, which look every bit as good on a good LED. Have a look at the 75" Samsung next time you're near an electronics store and know that LED rules. Every discrete adjustment known to man is included in the menus.

Back on topic. For photographic display, LED kills plasma just on the lack of visible pixellation and glare, which are plain awful on plasma.

At any rate, the whole ball game is moving to UHDTV, which soundly blows away any 1080p set. 1080p was never very good in all reality. Have a look at the Samsung 65" UHDTV at your local Bestbuy, it's the real jawdropper. Reds, greens, blues, all from another universe compared to the old stuff.

Super expensive and years away from TV or movie content enough to see buying a 4k TV in even the upcoming future.

The loaded early adopter sets are expensive, boo hoo. I firmly predict the fastest price crash in electronics retailing history. There's already a 39" UHDTV for $499.

Netflix is 4K ready right now. Programming starts in 2014. You've heard of Netflix?

In 5 years major networks "may" offer a 4k channel. Again it's like buying a HD TV 6 or 7 years ago: pay a lot then in 18 months the type of TV you got costs half the price and has a bit more features.

I must say, I am completely baffled as to why some people who call themselves photographers would have such distaste for a technology which utterly demolishes every previously available display device. Is it turf defense of an aging technology? Bitterness that you can't afford one? Why? You should all be welcoming it with open arms. You cannot touch 8MP with 2, it's not physically possible any more than VGA could ever hold a candle to 1080p. The 4K detail we know, but the color reproduction also has been totally reworked and is on another planet compared to 1080p. Take some of your jpgs down to the shop and see.

*** The reason they are closing the factory and getting out of plasma is partly as you and they say. The major reason is that they are making massive financial losses on each and every one sold. If they don't stem the losses, Panasonic and Matsushita will go the way of the Dodo. They are not the only Japanese companies to be in dire financial straights. Sanyo and Sony are also in the danger zone.

Just look at stores everywhere, stacked high and wide with flat screen televisions. The market is totally over saturated and competition and price-cutting is savage. They just can't keep overproducing to this extent for long. They need to rationalise production AND create a new demand. They have already tried hard with large screens and, notably, 3D, but the competition is such and the demand so weak that they are unable to command a sufficient premium from the market to stem their losses. Indeed it may be that they will never recover the development cost of 3D sets.

The manufacturers are in such a dangerous and vulnerable position that if they all pile in to 4K sets and compete as aggressively as they have done, that they will soon flood the market with 4K sets, resulting in a rapid reduction in prices once again to below the cost of production.

This rabid competition and overproduction is, of course, good for the consumer in the short to medium term. It spurs rapid development of improved technology and ensure real consumer value.

 

[String]

Really... obviously someone who doesn't live with snow/ice 6 months of the year/have kids/dogs. Go figure, someone else to tell us how we live our lives all wrong.

 

[Aberaeron]

I won't miss plasma a bit. Screen door effect, highly reflective faceplate, burn in, energy hog (the reason Pana is discontinuing.) Blacks that are black, true enough, but way too black for my taste. LED does very good black these days with a lot less grid.

At any rate, the whole ball game is moving to UHDTV, which soundly blows away any 1080p set. 1080p was never very good in all reality. Have a look at the Samsung 65" UHDTV at your local Bestbuy, it's the real jawdropper. Reds, greens, blues, all from another universe compared to the old stuff. Blacks like jet, but realistic. 8 million pixels simply stomp 2, especially moved in to impact distance. Prices are coming down fast, such that anyone serious about photography will have to have one within the next couple of years.

There are only 2 scenarios where UHDTV will benefit you. 1) if you currently sit so close to your HDTV that you can actually see individual pixels, or 2) If you plan on buying a tv set so big that if it were 1080p, you could see the pixels from wherever you normally sit. Resolution only matters if your vision can resolve individual pixels, if not, the picture actually looks identical. A 480p screen looks HD when you sit far enough away to not be able to distinguish it's pixels, it will just be real small from that distance.

This is where UHDTV comes in. Smaller pixels allow the tv screen to be made huge, gigantic, without pixelation in our vision. But, who is going to pay for that? You? me? We are talking 100", have you ever bought a 100" tv? I can assure you, they will not be cheaper than this generations 100". So, more rez helps with making a tv larger, or if you are sitting too close.

For a computer monitor, yea, that helps bc im about 1.5' from my monitor, i have a 32" 1080p monitor and i can barely see the pixels (20/20 vision). UHD would help here, but not when im sitting on my couch. UHDTV will be wasted by the majority of people because they don't understand simple physics. Now if we are talking about colors or DR, there is room for improvement, but that has nothing to do with screen size.

Hey, spend that cash be my guest, but i will instead be buying a UHD projector instead, since i can pay 70" tv prices and still get a 200" picture. That UHD won't be wasted.

This is a massive problem for both camera and tv manufacturers. The majority of consumers are now quite happy with the performance of equipment they already own. To spur these consumers to re-equip, the manufacturers need to innovate to make equipment desirable in that they substantially improve or add to the current user experience. I'm afraid that huge screens only have a limited appeal due to the size of house rooms and the fact that most families do not want a TV to dominate their living space.

As you say, there comes a point where improvement becomes irrelevant to the satisfied consumer. If the manufacturers cannot create a demand in this way, they may decide to build in a shorter working life in order to shorten the replacement cycle. They are now valiantly trying to create a demand for 4k, and to an extent they will succeed better then they have with 3D, which is an irrelevance to most consumers who just couldn't care less about it.

 

[String]

Beside photography, I am a movie fan. My old panny plasma telly box is still in my livingroom, and in other rooms of my family members are lcd an leds from cheaper ones to higher ends. Buck for buck plasma should always win, thats for sure but 700 usd pricier leds are also lacking. There are two reasons plasma will extinct - it is not green enough nor it can be, and the market doesn't care about tv iq.

The market actually cares a lot, at least most of it does. If you go into any electronics store and watch the customers, you will certainly find the bottom feeders who just want the cheapest set per inch they can get regardless of brand. But since the quality has risen so much over the last few years, even they will get a decent set. On the other hand, most people will go back and forth looking at each set in their size range and comparing picture quality. This is caring about "tv iq" by definition.

No actually the market doesn't care; if they did they would actually calibrate the TV's instead of giving you a suntan when turned on. Red's that burn your eye's and LCD's that make every movie look like you are watching a cheap soap opera.

Years ago, LCD TVs with fluorescent backlight did a poor job on contrast, to go with juddery 60hz motion. That's all changed now, because the manufacturers cared to make it a lot better. If you have a look at Samsung's latest big 8000 series panels, you will see why they are sweeping away plasma and most of the competition. Who needs glowing gas pockets when you can have a durable 75" computer grade LED panel with 240hz? There's also a 65" Toshiba UHDTV for $3699 which will show your movies and photos (remember photos?) better than any of the old 1080p technology. We never had it so good.

4K for still shots, sure. For movies, at this time, a complete and utter waste of money. First, there isn't any material out there to support it and it ain't coming any time soon. Second, If you think (1080p) bluray looks better on any of the current 4K sets, then you simply haven't seen a good calibrated video display. The money in those sets is not going into the scalingt, its going to the screen. A good (high end) scaler is going to cost several $K by itself. There are a lot of really good FP's out currently that will blow you away; of course they are not cheap (3-5K) but they are very very good.

Broadcast TV certainly is not going to start sending out 4K DTS HD sound anytime soon.

 

[Aberaeron]

Yamaha makes snowmobiles. Honda makes generators. So does Kawasaki. What does Suzuki make?

Hitachi makes everything from consumer electronics and components to large ocean ships and tracked excavators and loading shovels. They make power tools to trains. Their finance division is massive and they have financed several items of industrial equipment and a couple of cars for me over the years. They are also into nuclear power plants and the financing of that plant.

Suzuki makes small cars and rough terrain jeep-type vehicles and a broad range of motorbikes. They are also big in boat outboard motors. Not sure if they also make jet skis. I'm sure that they are in the top ten of motorcar manufacturers by volume worldwide. Or thereabouts.

Honda have car factories all over the world. Huge in bikes, generators, pumps, industrial and consumer quad bikes, aerospace. Probably one of the biggest engine manufacturers in the world. At a guess I would say they were way ahead of anyone else in engines by volume. They also build their own transmission. Again they make marine outboard motors of all sizes. Just checked and they make 14 million engines every year and have been the world leader in motorbikes since the 1950's.

These are all massive diversified companies, as are the Korean Samsung and [Japanese] Hitachi.

 

[ecube]

It is a matter of opinion.

There are pros and cons on Plasma screen. In summer I am against the heat generated but like theat extra heat during winter. My 42 inch Panasonic is plasma screen I purchased in in June 2003. My three other TV scattered around the house are combination of TFT, LCD and only God knows.

I don't know which is easier and cheaper to manufacture and I am not going to waste my time worrying about it either. When my 42 inch Panasonic Plasma kick the dust, I'll buy a replacement that looks good in the showroom. Most likely, I'll get another Panasonic, Sharp or Samsung. Hopefully, made in the USA.

--

ecube

 

[RedFox88]

I won't miss plasma a bit. Screen door effect, highly reflective faceplate, burn in, energy hog (the reason Pana is discontinuing.) Blacks that are black, true enough, but way too black for my taste. LED does very good black these days with a lot less grid.

Energy hog? Plasma uses 58 cents more a month than LED. LED is too high contrast, unnatural looking.

I'm telling you guys that this is why Panasonic is bailing, and that is in fact the reason. Check the trades.

Never mind movies, which look every bit as good on a good LED. Have a look at the 75" Samsung next time you're near an electronics store and know that LED rules. Every discrete adjustment known to man is included in the menus.

Back on topic. For photographic display, LED kills plasma just on the lack of visible pixellation and glare, which are plain awful on plasma.

At any rate, the whole ball game is moving to UHDTV, which soundly blows away any 1080p set. 1080p was never very good in all reality. Have a look at the Samsung 65" UHDTV at your local Bestbuy, it's the real jawdropper. Reds, greens, blues, all from another universe compared to the old stuff.

Super expensive and years away from TV or movie content enough to see buying a 4k TV in even the upcoming future.

The loaded early adopter sets are expensive, boo hoo. I firmly predict the fastest price crash in electronics retailing history. There's already a 39" UHDTV for $499.

Hmm, Coby brand?!

Netflix is 4K ready right now. Programming starts in 2014. You've heard of Netflix?

That gets into bandwith, bandwidth limits. You can't go faster or wider than the infrastructure. BTW netflix is soon to be the next Blockbuster. Amazon is growing and you can watch just about any TV show or movie ever made. With Amazon you can buy/rent programs that are not included in Amazon Prime.

In 5 years major networks "may" offer a 4k channel. Again it's like buying a HD TV 6 or 7 years ago: pay a lot then in 18 months the type of TV you got costs half the price and has a bit more features.

I must say, I am completely baffled as to why some people who call themselves photographers would have such distaste for a technology which utterly demolishes every previously available display device. Is it turf defense of an aging technology? Bitterness that you can't afford one?

Just look at DVD, Blu-Ray when they were new: mega expensive and foolish to jump into unless ou have money to burn. HD programming is really good even in comparison to 4k whereas SD is poor compared to HD.

Just like buying 35mm digital when it was $8000. Sure it was great, but greatly expensive unless you make your living from it.

 

[RedFox88]

CRT is still much much better IQ, Colours, motion, in such measures, nothing has surpassed it (or even come close).

VGA? You've got to be kidding. LED does 240HZ motion. Or more.

For TVs? Sure but for double the price of 120 Hz while Plasma is 600 Hz.

 

[Tom Hoots]

It's because Plasma is "wearing out the minute you turn it on." It's a bag of gas that will burn through its gas over time.

It's because, in this age of "Smart TV" sets and all kinds of "media" playing on the TV, you must worry about "burn in" if anything remains static on the screen for any amount of time. You must worry about ever-present "bugs" in the lower corners of every TV show. You can't play games. You can't use Internet apps.

Then it's about the power consumption. How many people have that thing playing very nearly every minute that someone is in the house? It's not about "green" -- it's about actual "green money."

Meanwhile, LCD has been improving with technological advancements, every single year. And the picture is still absolutely astonishingly impressive to almost everyone -- except for the veritable handful of Plasma people. The LCD people don't even consider any picture quality advantage for Plasma -- they've dismissed it long before they've decided not to even have a look at one. And then they go home with their reliable, efficient LCD panels that they are 100% satisfied with.

That's how it goes, from what I've seen....

Tom Hoots

Galleries by thoots

www.pbase.com

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4330317199/albums

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Beside photography, I am a movie fan. My old panny plasma telly box is still in my livingroom, and in other rooms of my family members are lcd an leds from cheaper ones to higher ends. Buck for buck plasma should always win, thats for sure but 700 usd pricier leds are also lacking. There are two reasons plasma will extinct - it is not green enough nor it can be, and the market doesn't care about tv iq.

The market actually cares a lot, at least most of it does. If you go into any electronics store and watch the customers, you will certainly find the bottom feeders who just want the cheapest set per inch they can get regardless of brand. But since the quality has risen so much over the last few years, even they will get a decent set. On the other hand, most people will go back and forth looking at each set in their size range and comparing picture quality. This is caring about "tv iq" by definition.

No actually the market doesn't care; if they did they would actually calibrate the TV's instead of giving you a suntan when turned on. Red's that burn your eye's and LCD's that make every movie look like you are watching a cheap soap opera.

Man, you really are off the deep end with the elitism. We're not talking about anything but consumer video here, not ultra critical studio work. The faster refresh rate is the future, like it or not. We've just gotten used to choppy motion over the years, which is far from natural. I have no doubt we can actually get used to realistic motion given time.

As a card-carrying perfectionist, I have every adjustment I need right now on my Sony 60" LED to make it mimic my computer monitor closely, and it looks very good indeed with my jpgs. 4K is a good notch better, as I have seen many times. That is my near future commitment to excellence in photography, along with all my other gear.

Years ago, LCD TVs with fluorescent backlight did a poor job on contrast, to go with juddery 60hz motion. That's all changed now, because the manufacturers cared to msatisfied that my ake it a lot better. If you have a look at Samsung's latest big 8000 series panels, you will see why they are sweeping away plasma and most of the competition. Who needs glowing gas pockets when you can have a durable 75" computer grade LED panel with 240hz? There's also a 65" Toshiba UHDTV for $3699 which will show your movies and photos (remember photos?) better than any of the old 1080p technology. We never had it so good.

4K for still shots, sure. For movies, at this time, a complete and utter waste of money.

4K Netflix. Coming soon to a good internet connection near you next year :^)

First, there isn't any material out there to support it and it ain't coming any time soon.

Everyone and their brother is working on it, only a matter of time. No matter, as I keep saying. I want it for my stuff now.

Second, If you think (1080p) bluray looks better on any of the current 4K sets, then you simply haven't seen a good calibrated video display.

Nobody cares about a calibrated display of a Bluray or what it would look like on a UHDTV any more than we cared about DVD upsampled to 1080p via HDMI. And while I'm on the subject, I can calibrate what I want to see just fine, and it ain't the washed out whites and generally dim picture in a pitch black room so beloved of videophiles, that most cursed of the species.

The money in those sets is not going into the scalingt, its going to the screen. A good (high end) scaler is going to cost several $K by itself. There are a lot of really good FP's out currently that will blow you away;

I'm sure it looks fine, for 1080. Still only two million pixels, not eight, though.

of course they are not cheap (3-5K) but they are very very good.

For that money, I'll definitely buy a 65" 4K TV, thanks. For us commoners, we'll have everything we need to show much improved video right on the set.

Guys (it's always guys,) I know it's tough to push off from the computer and go all the way down to the store. If some of you were to take a few moments and actually look at the 4K movie demos and maybe some of your very own jpg masterpieces on a stick, you'd then own the clue so many of you simply don't have. Can't get it debating the number of angels able to fit on the head of a pin in here, that's for sure. Got to get out of the house and try it. You might have to talk to a sales clerk, but I promise it won't harm you to get near an actual human. Provided they aren't carrying a disease, of course.

Broadcast TV certainly is not going to start sending out 4K DTS HD sound anytime soon.

4K for me is mostly about my content, not someone else's. As long as I'm not stuck watching a plasma TV, I'll be just fine.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

I won't miss plasma a bit. Screen door effect, highly reflective faceplate, burn in, energy hog (the reason Pana is discontinuing.) Blacks that are black, true enough, but way too black for my taste. LED does very good black these days with a lot less grid.

Energy hog? Plasma uses 58 cents more a month than LED. LED is too high contrast, unnatural looking.

***I'm telling you guys that this is why Panasonic is bailing, and that is in fact the reason. Check the trades.

Never mind movies, which look every bit as good on a good LED. Have a look at the 75" Samsung next time you're near an electronics store and know that LED rules. Every discrete adjustment known to man is included in the menus.

Back on topic. For photographic display, LED kills plasma just on the lack of visible pixellation and glare, which are plain awful on plasma.

At any rate, the whole ball game is moving to UHDTV, which soundly blows away any 1080p set. 1080p was never very good in all reality. Have a look at the Samsung 65" UHDTV at your local Bestbuy, it's the real jawdropper. Reds, greens, blues, all from another universe compared to the old stuff.

Super expensive and years away from TV or movie content enough to see buying a 4k TV in even the upcoming future.

The loaded early adopter sets are expensive, boo hoo. I firmly predict the fastest price crash in electronics retailing history. There's already a 39" UHDTV for $499.

Netflix is 4K ready right now. Programming starts in 2014. You've heard of Netflix?

In 5 years major networks "may" offer a 4k channel. Again it's like buying a HD TV 6 or 7 years ago: pay a lot then in 18 months the type of TV you got costs half the price and has a bit more features.

I must say, I am completely baffled as to why some people who call themselves photographers would have such distaste for a technology which utterly demolishes every previously available display device. Is it turf defense of an aging technology? Bitterness that you can't afford one? Why? You should all be welcoming it with open arms. You cannot touch 8MP with 2, it's not physically possible any more than VGA could ever hold a candle to 1080p. The 4K detail we know, but the color reproduction also has been totally reworked and is on another planet compared to 1080p. Take some of your jpgs down to the shop and see.

*** The reason they are closing the factory and getting out of plasma is partly as you and they say. The major reason is that they are making massive financial losses on each and every one sold. If they don't stem the losses, Panasonic and Matsushita will go the way of the Dodo. They are not the only Japanese companies to be in dire financial straights. Sanyo and Sony are also in the danger zone.

Just look at stores everywhere, stacked high and wide with flat screen televisions. The market is totally over saturated and competition and price-cutting is savage. They just can't keep overproducing to this extent for long. They need to rationalise production AND create a new demand. They have already tried hard with large screens and, notably, 3D, but the competition is such and the demand so weak that they are unable to command a sufficient premium from the market to stem their losses. Indeed it may be that they will never recover the development cost of 3D sets.

The manufacturers are in such a dangerous and vulnerable position that if they all pile in to 4K sets and compete as aggressively as they have done, that they will soon flood the market with 4K sets, resulting in a rapid reduction in prices once again to below the cost of production.

This is a good post, what's it doing in this thread, hah hah?

Anyway, that's the way the cookie crumbles. One company runs another out of business all the time. Zenith, RCA, a host of others, all a fading memory. What the manufacturers (Sony, Toshiba, LG, Samsung, etc.) have done which the general public might not be fully aware of is to institute UMRP pricing on the higher end sets, such that they can make some money somewhere. UMRP (SURE, UPP, etc.) has held firm for about a year and should continue indefinitely.

This rabid competition and overproduction is, of course, good for the consumer in the short to medium term. It spurs rapid development of improved technology and ensure real consumer value.

Bring it on!

 

[vepar]

Beside photography, I am a movie fan. My old panny plasma telly box is still in my livingroom, and in other rooms of my family members are lcd an leds from cheaper ones to higher ends. Buck for buck plasma should always win, thats for sure but 700 usd pricier leds are also lacking. There are two reasons plasma will extinct - it is not green enough nor it can be, and the market doesn't care about tv iq.

The market actually cares a lot, at least most of it does. If you go into any electronics store and watch the customers, you will certainly find the bottom feeders who just want the cheapest set per inch they can get regardless of brand. But since the quality has risen so much over the last few years, even they will get a decent set. On the other hand, most people will go back and forth looking at each set in their size range and comparing picture quality. This is caring about "tv iq" by definition.

These bottom feeders are unfortunately wast majority of market, and they are big source of income for manufacturers. This is what I meant market doesn't care. On other side manufacturers as part of market care about profit and quality is just possible side effect, but not the goal.

No actually the market doesn't care; if they did they would actually calibrate the TV's instead of giving you a suntan when turned on. Red's that burn your eye's and LCD's that make every movie look like you are watching a cheap soap opera.

TV market is just like stock photography market, there is inflation of contrast, red color is not red anymore but turbo-saturated red, green is turbo saturated green etc. People buy tv because it looks good in tv store and this should not be the reference.

Man, you really are off the deep end with the elitism. We're not talking about anything but consumer video here, not ultra critical studio work. The faster refresh rate is the future, like it or not. We've just gotten used to choppy motion over the years, which is far from natural. I have no doubt we can actually get used to realistic motion given time.

It is not elitism, but you're on something here... For example, luckily, camera industry is closely related to working professional business which does not tolerate unreasonable compromises and as side effect hobbist, enthusiast photographers get nice cameras. If this is not the case we would all be using 500 megapixel tiny cheaper than CMOS sensor f/5.6 cameras This is not the case with tv. TV industry is all about consumerism... We here on this community, as photographers are little bit more sophisticated about these issues and this is why we discuss. Try disuss this topic in your local coffee bar... there you will receive "average" market response, they don't care.

Agree on refresh rate.

As a card-carrying perfectionist, I have every adjustment I need right now on my Sony 60" LED to make it mimic my computer monitor closely, and it looks very good indeed with my jpgs. 4K is a good notch better, as I have seen many times. That is my near future commitment to excellence in photography, along with all my other gear.

Years ago, LCD TVs with fluorescent backlight did a poor job on contrast, to go with juddery 60hz motion. That's all changed now, because the manufacturers cared to msatisfied that my ake it a lot better. If you have a look at Samsung's latest big 8000 series panels, you will see why they are sweeping away plasma and most of the competition. Who needs glowing gas pockets when you can have a durable 75" computer grade LED panel with 240hz? There's also a 65" Toshiba UHDTV for $3699 which will show your movies and photos (remember photos?) better than any of the old 1080p technology. We never had it so good.

You could be right, I didn't compare newest and best of non-plasma offerings, but "best bang for the buck" I still believe plasma wins.

4K for still shots, sure. For movies, at this time, a complete and utter waste of money.

Agree.

4K Netflix. Coming soon to a good internet connection near you next year :^)

Let us hope so...

First, there isn't any material out there to support it and it ain't coming any time soon.

Everyone and their brother is working on it, only a matter of time. No matter, as I keep saying. I want it for my stuff now.

Second, If you think (1080p) bluray looks better on any of the current 4K sets, then you simply haven't seen a good calibrated video display.

Nobody cares about a calibrated display of a Bluray or what it would look like on a UHDTV any more than we cared about DVD upsampled to 1080p via HDMI. And while I'm on the subject, I can calibrate what I want to see just fine, and it ain't the washed out whites and generally dim picture in a pitch black room so beloved of videophiles, that most cursed of the species.

The money in those sets is not going into the scalingt, its going to the screen. A good (high end) scaler is going to cost several $K by itself. There are a lot of really good FP's out currently that will blow you away;

I'm sure it looks fine, for 1080. Still only two million pixels, not eight, though.

of course they are not cheap (3-5K) but they are very very good.

For that money, I'll definitely buy a 65" 4K TV, thanks. For us commoners, we'll have everything we need to show much improved video right on the set.

Guys (it's always guys,) I know it's tough to push off from the computer and go all the way down to the store. If some of you were to take a few moments and actually look at the 4K movie demos and maybe some of your very own jpg masterpieces on a stick, you'd then own the clue so many of you simply don't have. Can't get it debating the number of angels able to fit on the head of a pin in here, that's for sure. Got to get out of the house and try it. You might have to talk to a sales clerk, but I promise it won't harm you to get near an actual human. Provided they aren't carrying a disease, of course.

Broadcast TV certainly is not going to start sending out 4K DTS HD sound anytime soon.

I think you nailed it on this one. As I said, the market doesn't care. I think it is sad what is happening with audio broadcasting. Market in my country is saturated with IPTV providers with on demand video stores which wiped out cable tv providers and good old videoclubs where you could rent VHS, DVD or Blu ray. As result, I'm having ugly trouble to get decent audio quality content. Audio quality is silly and sad. What they do is recoding to stereo already recoded DTS or Dolby 5.1 from satellite uplink, and then my device should recode it back to 5.1??? It is silly and sad. Five or even ten years ago it was easier to get decent audio content, you could rent it in videoclub, but those do not exist any more. IPTV on demand video stores destroyed quality AV content market supply.

4K for me is mostly about my content, not someone else's. As long as I'm not stuck watching a plasma TV, I'll be just fine.

For your purpose, of course, you are right.

Just to finish my thought. Quality projector is the best solution without the doubt. I used to have one at home, while working in one company where I was in charge for company projector

I would not recommend it if you plan to watch in ambient room light. Properly dimmed light is a must for projector.

But... watching Dances with wolves... buffalo hunt scene... on blu ray... 5.1... on nice projector... unforgettable, and best possible home cinema experience without the doubt.

Sorry guys for this, I'm frustrated with current market situation regarding AV content. For me it is just as sad as it would be end announcement of dslr production.

BRG

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

LED blacks are just fine, in proper balance and far more refined than the muddy, overpowering "graphic novel" blacks emitted by a plasma. They look like someone yanked the Black slider to plus 80 and called it good. What is this video nut obsession with black, anyway? Far more important is apparent sharpness. The plasma grid is just too coarse, which is why you'll never see a "retina" plasma. The granular screen door effect is plainly visible at normal viewing distance.

 

[String]

LED blacks are just fine, in proper balance and far more refined than the muddy, overpowering "graphic novel" blacks emitted by a plasma. They look like someone yanked the Black slider to plus 80 and called it good. What is this video nut obsession with black, anyway? Far more important is apparent sharpness. The plasma grid is just too coarse, which is why you'll never see a "retina" plasma. The granular screen door effect is plainly visible at normal viewing distance.

To argue so vehemently that "blacks that are too black" and screens that are "too glossy" is simply ludicrous. Unless of course you watch movies in the brightly lit family room in the middle of the day with all the drapes open.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

LED blacks are just fine, in proper balance and far more refined than the muddy, overpowering "graphic novel" blacks emitted by a plasma. They look like someone yanked the Black slider to plus 80 and called it good. What is this video nut obsession with black, anyway? Far more important is apparent sharpness. The plasma grid is just too coarse, which is why you'll never see a "retina" plasma. The granular screen door effect is plainly visible at normal viewing distance.

To argue so vehemently that "blacks that are too black" and screens that are "too glossy" is simply ludicrous. Unless of course you watch movies in the brightly lit family room in the middle of the day with all the drapes open.

There's nothing "ludicrous" about keeping a light on in the media room so you can see where the heck you're going without having your entire room reflected back at you by the faceplate, which plasma will do short of complete darkness in the room. This is just one of several reasons people didn't buy plasma...normal living arrangement, no bat cave. I mostly use a Panasonic front projector (no screen door effect at all) anyway (one light on) which is of course far better than any panel and has no reflections. Watching a movie on any panel TV is a bit of a chore. A 4K projector will be the thing to have. I predict sub $2000 within two years.

 

[String]

There's nothing "ludicrous" about keeping a light on in the media room so you can see where the heck you're going without having your entire room reflected back at you by the faceplate, which plasma will do short of complete darkness in the room. This is just one of several reasons people didn't buy plasma...normal living arrangement, no bat cave. I mostly use a Panasonic front projector (no screen door effect at all) anyway (one light on) which is of course far better than any panel and has no reflections. Watching a movie on any panel TV is a bit of a chore. A 4K projector will be the thing to have. I predict sub $2000 within two years.

Then you are dreaming... you can barely get an acceptable 1080p FP for under $2K now and a good one will cost you at least double that. Then you still need a screen (not cheap) and a sound system.

Now you have a Panny FP? I thought you were "quite happy with your 65" LCD"?

--
http://stringfellow.smugmug.com

 

[Richard]

These findings suggest that kids who watch too much TV are "learning to be just a passive receptacle."

Source here .

It depends on what they are watching. There is educational tv, the tv can be used as a monitor and you can take online classes. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tv does not make you a passive recepticle, it is what type of tv you watch.

"Watching too much television can make you feel a bit brain-dead. According to a new study, it might also take years off your life.

Too much of anything is bad for you and could take years off your life. I live the wording of the quote above. Lacks the words, will, and uses can or might, because they really are not sure. I remember when eating eggs was bad and that you should not eat butter but now you should eat butter and not transfats.

The more time you spend watching TV, the great your risk of dying at an earlier age—especially from heart disease, researchers found."

Source here.

Well, if you smoke cigaretts while watching tv, or eat too much food or ride a stationary bike. Those things would have a much greater effect than just watching tv.

The key here is don't tell me what to do. I do what I want, but liberals want to control your life so they try to tell you what to do and when they can't tell you, they tell you doing this may or might have this affect on you, or try to tell you too much of something is bad for you, we know that.

 

[Richard]

If prices drop more than they are now to get rid of stock I will probably get one. The only downside I see is they use a lot more electricity.

Not camera related unless you view your videos or photos on your TV, or unless you're a movie buff. We're all into images in any case, so this relates in that way I guess.

I was shocked to see the announcement on CNET that Panasonic will not manufacture plasma TV's after 2013 and there will be no 2014 models. This is a shame, as those who follow flatscreens understand that plasma is far superior to LCD and LED panels for deep blacks with high levels of detail in shadows, lack of motion blur and rich yet natural colors.

Panasonic's death knell may have been the scandal over blacks fading over time, but they solved that, as they did the issue of screens looking faded in bright rooms and image burn-in. It's now a product of proven reliability and superior image quality.

This appears to be one of those mass market driven cases where a lesser product has driven the superior product out of production.

Upon reading of this I immediately purchased an ST60 50" plasma while they're still available (won't last long), and at a bargain price of $978. Should provide years of highest quality viewing pleasure.

Here's a link to CNET's review for those interested:

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/panasonic-tc-p50st60/4505-6482_7-35566949.html

From CNET:

I'll be extremely surprised if any 2013 TV surpasses the ST60's combination of jaw-dropping performance and practical affordability.

Editors' Note, November 15, 2013: Panasonic has announced that it will no longer manufacture plasma televisions after 2013, making these TVs the last of their kind. That fact doesn't negatively affect our buying advice; in fact, just the opposite. We have confidence Panasonic will remain a viable company, and continue to support its plasma TVs, for years.

--
Sailin' Steve

 

[Richard]

I won't miss plasma a bit. Screen door effect,

Which to most people and a normal viewing distance is percieved as sharper image

highly reflective faceplate, burn in, energy hog (the reason Pana is discontinuing.) Blacks that are black, true enough, but way too black for my taste. LED does very good black these days with a lot less grid.

At any rate, the whole ball game is moving to UHDTV, which soundly blows away any 1080p set. 1080p was never very good in all reality. Have a look at the Samsung 65" UHDTV at your local Bestbuy, it's the real jawdropper. Reds, greens, blues, all from another universe compared to the old stuff.

Talk about fake looking. These demos have been oversaturated and look like they have made by a mad photoshopper who overdid everything.

Blacks like jet, but realistic. 8 million pixels simply stomp 2, especially moved in to impact distance. Prices are coming down fast, such that anyone serious about photography will have to have one within the next couple of years.

I have a projector on an 144 inch screen, when I went from 720p projector to 1080p, people did not notice the difference. Even the difference between dvd at 480p and bluray are only noticibabe to discriminating viewers looking for a difference (on a normal sized tv, on the 144" it is more noticable).

As we move up the ladder to 4k, we continue down the path to diminishing returns. Put a 1080p movie and screen up against a 4k movie of the exact same and a normal viewing distance on even a 60" tv, I would bet that only the most discrimating view looking for differences MIGHT be able to tell the difference.

I would like to see a test done like this one, though not scientific, shows that most people guess.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

There's nothing "ludicrous" about keeping a light on in the media room so you can see where the heck you're going without having your entire room reflected back at you by the faceplate, which plasma will do short of complete darkness in the room. This is just one of several reasons people didn't buy plasma...normal living arrangement, no bat cave. I mostly use a Panasonic front projector (no screen door effect at all) anyway (one light on) which is of course far better than any panel and has no reflections. Watching a movie on any panel TV is a bit of a chore. A 4K projector will be the thing to have. I predict sub $2000 within two years.

Then you are dreaming... you can barely get an acceptable 1080p FP for under $2K now and a good one will cost you at least double that. Then you still need a screen (not cheap) and a sound system.

Now you have a Panny FP? I thought you were "quite happy with your 65" LCD"?

What do you mean now? I've had three of them over the last ten years. They don't last very long, but they do a great job for a reasonable price. Far better than any panel. Doesn't need any overpriced outboard box, it looks damn good all on its own. Easy on the eyes. A real home theater, complete with 9 speaker 7.1 audio. I also have a 60" Sony LED which handles my jpgs just like a giant version of my computer monitor using a USB stick or HDMI in from my 1080p laptop. It's all very nice, but 4K will be better, just as 16MP was left in the dust by 24 and 36. Your paradigm shifts and the new must come in and the old must go out!