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

...to be minimally cognizant of power consumption? Did I really need the Plasma TV over my LED? No, is the answer. You might as well be arguing about Betamax.

Did it save me a lot of money not to get a Plasma? Not at all. But of course it is the cumulative effect of all the consumption from all the people that finally makes a difference. And it is making a difference, which the consensus of scientific evidence points to accelerating. Your point about electricity generation misses the mark as of today: In a number of nations, including the U.S., cleaner generation isn't online to a significant enough degree. It is coming, but we are talking about today. I have seen with my own eyes the effects of acid rain and climate change. One of these days you may also (I don't know how old you are or what your health situation is).

Based on your use of the tree-hugger term, I'll guess you consider yourself a "conservative". In my state, the term conservative used to have a very different meaning. One of the pioneers of Chesapeake Bay environmental advocacy was the Republican Representative and Senator Mac Mathias. Following in his footsteps was the Republican Representative Wayne Gilchrest. Fine men, both of them. Even Republican Representative Roscoe Bartlett, part of the Tea Party Caucus, has spoken publicly about environmental concerns and the need for greener thinking.

So, yes, I think it's sane to consider the green aspects of products we purchase---and it's not like it is especially heavy lifting! More of a "clean as you go" mentality in the kitchen. I think it's insane to behave like there is no tomorrow and that there are no consequences to our actions. Also, childish, in a literal sense, as children have trouble thinking about consequences and the future beyond today.

Richard said:

Reilly Diefenbach said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Richard said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Richard said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

Yes, and 2MP is all you'll ever need in your camera, CDs are perfect sound forever, food additives are all within safe limits, nothing is any different from anything else.

Seriously, if you really can't see the difference between .4MP and 2.1 on a 1080p screen, there is something wrong somewhere.

Richard said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is a very visible difference at normal viewing distance, depending on what is on screen at any given moment. No different than comparing cameras with different MP counts, digital technology is pretty cut and dried. As always, large closeup shots look similar, it's the finer details that separate 2MP from8. 4K video footage shows it even better than movies. Check the soccer game on the Sony demo loop. As you look up into the stands in the background, individual fans which are an indistinct mush on a 1080p set are clearly identifiable. The players' uniforms are far more brilliant than 1080p can manage, the whole color technology has been completely redone to excellent effect. There is far less edge acceleration and other crunchy artifacts. 1080p res can't do this, not even close. More to the point of this forum, jpgs look a lot better at 8MP than they ever did at 2.

Movie processing looks very similar to the 4K digital cinema down the street, so if you have a complaint regarding any video parameters, take it up with the movie studios or better yet simply tweak some of the myriad of adjustments provided. If you don't trust your own eyes, you can always bring in a professional with his various gizmos to adjust it for you.

The best demo I've seen is the Samsung 65". They've really hit it out of the park with this thing. It's a mix of 4K video and jpg slideshow which will put to rest once and for all any question you might have regarding the visibility of improvement over the old stuff. Black level, the sine qua non of the video nuts is just ducky. The picture is stunning, and I don't pass that term out like candy. It looks like the best Architectural Digest large format cover you've ever seen come to life, only with about twenty times as much slam. Trust me, in a few years you'll all be changing your tune and owning something 4K.

Reilly Diefenbach said:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Click to expand...

Reilly Diefenbach said:

Your paradigm shifts and the new must come in and the old must go out!

Click to expand...

Only if your paradigm revolves around aquisition of the new. Most people, however, have to temper things with some consideration of practicality.

Speaking only for myself, though I'm sure I'm not alone, I don't have $3-5k to drop on a new TV every couple of years. And even if I did, I still wouldn't spend it on one, but likely put it into my photography instead, or some other worthwhile pursuit like a family vacation, etc. Especially, considering the fact that even with the current generation of TVs there are still tons of IQ issues visible due to content delivery system limitations that likely aren't going to be alleviated any time soon. Truly fast internet is wonderful, but with limited availability still a fact for many, plus more and more pushes toward data caps and usage based metering from providers and now the FCC top idiot, all that supposed wonderful IQ potential of 4k is somewhat moot. That's not to say things won't/can't change for the better at some point and the value proposition will become more favorable, which is the general progression of most tech, but paying to stay balanced on the cutting edge for minimal, and sometimes even sub-standard, gains is a losing proposition and often just a game of fools. Been there, done that myself enough times to realize there's better tails to chase elsewhere. YMMV

Reilly Diefenbach said:

Richard said:

Reilly Diefenbach said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Reilly Diefenbach said:

highly reflective faceplate, burn in, energy hog (the reason Pana is discontinuing.) Blacks that 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).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, and 2MP is all you'll ever need in your camera, CDs are perfect sound forever, food additives are all within safe limits, nothing is any different from anything else.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I said there is a point of diminishing returns and we are/have approched it with Digital cameras. Can you see much difference between a 5d3 and a D800 yet they are 21 and 38mp. We have reached a point of diminishing returns here.

Reilly Diefenbach said:

Seriously, if you really can't see the difference between .4MP and 2.1 on a 1080p screen, there is something wrong somewhere.

Click to expand...

I can tell the difference, but it is small. Most of the people that come over and watch can't tell much difference or any. At normal distances these things are harder to see.

Reilly Diefenbach said:

Reilly Diefenbach said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is a very visible difference at normal viewing distance, depending on what is on screen at any given moment.

Click to expand...

Again you are talking very precise things. When people are watching a movie they don't see these things. When people are in the regular theater do they say, wow, I can see the difference between the 4k and the theater next to it. Then notice things like, the screen is bigger in the other theater, not how much resolution.

I remember when DTS (death through sound) came out. They turned the volume up and people complained it was too loud.

Reilly Diefenbach said:

No different than comparing cameras with different MP counts, digital technology is pretty cut and dried.

Click to expand...

People pixel peeping sure, they are discriminating users and are doing everything possible to find differences. But the average user does not do that. What they see is things like the out of camera colors look nicer on this camera over that camer

Reilly Diefenbach said:

As always, large closeup shots look similar, it's the finer details that separate 2MP from8.

Click to expand...

People don't notice those details. When someone looks at your picture they don't say that was taken on a D800, I can tell. They say, oh what a nice composition.

Reilly Diefenbach said:

4K video footage shows it even better than movies. Check the soccer game on the Sony demo loop. As you look up into the stands in the background, individual fans which are an indistinct mush on a 1080p set are clearly identifiable.

Click to expand...

If you are looking for that, you might be able to tell, but when people watch a football game, they are looking at the player, not the croud.

Reilly Diefenbach said:

The players' uniforms are far more brilliant than 1080p can manage,

Click to expand...

Now you are proving my point. Brilliance does not come from resolution, but it is something you notice, but to me those images look over processed.

If you are lookng for overproccessed, those demos is what you want to see but it has nothing to do with 4k resolution.

Reilly Diefenbach said:

the whole color technology has been completely redone to excellent effect. There is far less edge acceleration and other crunchy artifacts.

Click to expand...

Again, you prove my point, edge acceleration and crunchy artifacts have nothing to do with resolution, they have to do with processing. When I watch a high def streamed youtubevideo on a computer, compared to direct tv, there is a difference in artifacts (there is more compression on youtube video) when I compare that to a bluray disk that is using a 36mb transfer speed there is a difference, but again this has nothing to do with resolution and even in these comparisions unless people are looking for it they generally don't see it (in the Directtv vs blue ray because there is a point of diminishing returns.

Reilly Diefenbach said:

1080p res can't do this, not even close. More to the point of this forum, jpgs look a lot better at 8MP than they ever did at 2.

If you don't trust your own eyes, you can always bring in a professional with his various gizmos to adjust it for you.

Click to expand...

If you need to do that, then I would say you don't need a 4k tv. Again, this would only prove that you are concerned about specs and not real world.

Reilly Diefenbach said:

The best demo I've seen is the Samsung 65". They've really hit it out of the park with this thing. It's a mix of 4K video and jpg slideshow which will put to rest once and for all any question you might have regarding the visibility of improvement over the old stuff.

Click to expand...

I have seen it at several stores. Looks over processed to me.

Reilly Diefenbach said:

Black level, the sine qua non of the video nuts is just ducky. The picture is stunning, and I don't pass that term out like candy. It looks like the best Architectural Digest large format cover you've ever seen come to life, only with about twenty times as much slam. Trust me, in a few years you'll all be changing your tune and owning something 4K.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I will own 4k. When I seen the difference between 720p and 1080p projectors. I did not run out and buy a new projector but when the old one broke. I got the higher resolution one. It is nice but not nice enough to cause me to dump the old to get the new.

My old 10mp camera works fine and resolution is not the reason to upgrade it. ISO noise and features are but I am still waiting for something better.

My Samsung Note 3 records in 4k. So I am not adverse to new technology BUT I did not buy the phone because it recorded 4k video, I bought because the bigger and nicer display.

I can see the deeper blacks and the stunning colors of a plasma tv. Personally I still have some old tube tvs and I prefer the colors and look of that tv over my newer LED tvs. The look is more important to me than the resolution. You may not understand that concept. I look at specs and resolution but the experience in what I see an perceive makes makes more of an impact on me.

If a 1080p plasma looks better to me than a 4k LCD. I get the plasma. If they are both the same and the same price I would get the 4k. If both look the same and the 4k is $1000 more, I don't get the 4k. Point of diminishing returns. The returns have to be there before I will lay down the cash. That was my only point. And that the 4k demos look overprocessed (like most demos do) when showing real life tv or blurays, I bet the difference will be a lot less.

The R-MAX.

It's a huge RC helicopter, 12 foot rotor span, powered by a 125cc dirt bike engine, can carry a 50 pound payload. Is used in Japan for agriculture, spraying crops.

tex said:

...to be minimally cognizant of power consumption?

Click to expand...

Set up the PST60 upon delivery today. Energy Guide annual power consumption? $28 a year, or $2.33 a month. A cup of coffee. Let's get serious here, this is nominal, especially compared to the $200+ a month I'm spending on gas for my Mazda 6.

And that $2.33 a month is the total estimated cost, not the difference between it and a current LCD of the same size. It's also less than my 4 year old 40" LCD, which I bought in part for its lower power consumption than plasmas of its day. This time, power consumption having been brought way down, I went for picture quality in a plasma.

CNET, arguably the DPR of flatscreens having performed detailed reviews on literally hundreds over the past 5 years, rated the PST60 #1 given its combination of outstanding picture quality and reasonable cost (now under$1000 for the 50" model), with other Panasonic plasmas filling out the remaining top four. And for good reason.

My wife and I were both stunned tonight at the natural appearance of skin tones in close-ups of people and the natural color and detail in landscapes once calibrated per David Katzmaier's (CNET Senior Editor) recommended settings, which of course include turning the default "Vivid" setting shown in brightly lit store displays off.

I'm now looking forward to a long winter weekend of Blu-Ray movies while it rains outside, get out the popcorn!

--
Sailin' Steve

TV technology changes very fast, but I think this Sharp IGZO screen will be the standard of the near future. What is so attractive is not just its resolution, but its low power consumption. Still expensive now, but the coming mobile phones, including Iphone 6, may be using IGZO screen.

limlh said:

TV technology changes very fast, but I think this Sharp IGZO screen will be the standard of the near future. What is so attractive is not just its resolution, but its low power consumption. Still expensive now, but the coming mobile phones, including Iphone 6, may be using IGZO screen.

Click to expand...

The human eye has a point where cramming more pixels into a small phone screen won't be noticed. And just about all modern HD TVs are energy efficient. My plasma costs only 58 cents a month, only a measureabator would get chose a TV because it costs only 20 cents a month. People "waste" $10s on food/drink they really don't need every month!

Reilly Diefenbach said:

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.

Click to expand...

Projector? LOL!

Aberaeron said:

Lanidrac said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Thanks. ;-)

TrapperJohn said:

The R-MAX.

It's a huge RC helicopter, 12 foot rotor span, powered by a 125cc dirt bike engine, can carry a 50 pound payload. Is used in Japan for agriculture, spraying crops.

Click to expand...

Yamaha grand pianos too.

sderdiarian said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm still amazed how quickly thin monitors (LCDs) displaced CRTs. CRTs had rich blacks, great viewing angles and no visible ghosting (no poor LCD response rates)...so they are still better than the stuff nearly all of us are using now when it comes to colour accuracy and viewing angles. A good-quality Trinitron display would also have good sharpness compared to shadowmask CRTs. There are probably some parallels can be seen with the plasma market for those users that appreciate their benefits, though admittedly I don't have any experience with plasma to discuss it.Panasonic & Sony and others are focusing on profitability and apparently the TV market now isn't the cash cow it once was, so this news doesn't surprise me.
On the plus side, LCDs apparently have far less power consumption, so the running costs and heat should be lower, all things being equal.