Hello there! With your TV purchase on the horizon, I imagine both excitement and some uncertainty stir within. Today‘s dizzying display technologies shine with potential, yet each contains compromises leaving its suitability quite personal. My goal is to provide you the insightful background needed to decide which innovations best align with your needs and expectations.
If plasma televisions attracted your interest thanks to alluring characteristics like deep contrast or superior motion clarity, I must regrettably steer your final selection elsewhere. Allow me to elaborate on the technology and why 8 factors decisively position plasma‘s glory days as history best left undisturbed.
The Rise and Fall of Plasma Display Panels
For over 20 years plasma constituted the pinnacle of display engineering. What began as a glimmer of potential borne from computer monitors quickly transitioned into an HDTV screen technology boasting once-unimaginable performance at practical sizes and budgets.
Plasma displays utilize tiny individual cells positioned between thin glass panels less than half an inch thick. Each microscopic gas cell contains a mixture of neon and xenon gases. Electrodes then apply voltages triggering the gases to reach a plasma state where elections become stripped from nuclei.
As this ionized plasma decays back to stability, it generates ultraviolet photons striking colored phosphor pixels lining the cells which convert light into visible colors composing the screen image. Billions of energetic calculations occur many times per second across millions of individual subpixels to render every scene.
Fujitsu‘s breakthrough consumer plasma television featuring a 47-inch screen debuted in 1997. Early adopters rejoiced at the realization of a flat-panel future replacing bulky CRT televisions. Superior contrast and viewing angles drove demand steadily higher over the decade. Screen sizes blew past 100-inches as production scaled successfully.
But behind the scenes, troubling signs of plasma‘s rapid decline took shape against threats from LCD and later OLED innovation. By the mid-2000s mass-market viability of large LCD panels crushed cost margins while injecting once-absent features like LED backlights capable of high peak brightness plasma could not match.
The final plasma televisions for the North American rolled off the line in 2014 amidst meager protests. Global TV juggernaut LG formally announced its exit the same year after attempts at one last plasma hurrah fell devastatingly short on profits. Panasonic, the leading plasma brand for over a decade, left the industry entirely before 2015 arrived.
Yet before discarding plasma as obsolete history, we should examine what compelling strengths it possessed over primitive early LCD efforts. After all, it‘s quite telling that display titans invested so heavily in Plasma R&D programs lasting 30 years if the technology lacked any credible merit…
Let‘s explore plasma‘s capabilities a bit deeper before exposing the regrettable flaws which sentenced its downfall.
Plasma Display Report Card
Despite serving a tragically short tenure reigning over the display industry, plasma televisions excel in contrast, color reproduction accuracy, and motion resolution even by today‘s elevated standards.
Black level depth and pixel response times inarguably outclassed early LCD efforts which relied on primitive white-LED backlights and sluggish pixel transitions. These civilian plasma merits trickled down from professional display advancements demanded by rigorous commercial, scientific, and government agency applications.
Reviewing plasma‘s operational thresholds reveals why early adopters obsessed over their vibrancy and realism:
Plasma Display Key Specifications
| Specification | Capability |
|---|---|
| Native Contrast Ratio | Up to 100,000:1 |
| Available Sizes | 32" – 150"+ |
| Viewing Angle | 160+ degrees |
| Refresh Rate | Up to 1080p @ 600Hz |
| Peak Luminance | 500 cd/m2 |
| Display Colors | 1.07 Billion+ |
| Weight (50") | 50-90 lbs |
| Avg. Power Consumption | 400+ watts |
Indeed, plasmas deliver deep contrast thanks to perfectly black pixels. Rapid refresh rates produce clear motion reproduction with minimal blurring. Plus excellent off-angle viewing allows flexible room placement and seating arrangements.
If specifications alone determined a technology‘s success, how could plasma‘s reign end so abruptly? The answer is less glowing…
8 Compelling Reasons to Avoid Plasma Televisions
Plasma televisions sound fantastic on paper. Peer closer at real-world performance and pesky compromises erode its leadership claims. After analyzing plasma‘s engineering vulnerabilities, the rationale for avoidance solidifies firmly.
1. Severe Screen Glare and Reflectivity
Plasma utilized coated front glass panels bonded atop the gas cell arrays which functioned adequately indoors under controlled conditions. Unfortunately, these glossy screens behave akin to mirrors as ambient light sources shine upon them.
Contrast suffers greatly as glare washes out image details. Your own reflection may greet you more vividly than film characters! Without effective light rejection layers, plasma produces intense shine and reflections from lamps, windows and room objects. Dark room viewing remains mandatory.
Anti-glare films can help subdue front-surface sheen. But these removable accessories must cover the entire display and still scatter some light. Clarity and sharpness take minor hits even with anti-glare protection. For plasma adherents, heavy curtains also provide some relief.
But it is unreasonable to expect buyers to accommodate around such a glaring plasma flaw in typical living spaces. Modern LCD and OLED displays utilize advanced polarizing filters and optical bonding achieving MATTE screens far less reflective by design.
2. Phosphor Lag Artifacts and Motion Blur
Plasma cells depend on phosphor coatings inside each subpixel to generate colored light. These compounds have lifespan limitations and gradual efficiency losses. With age, struggling phosphors display momentary "afterglow" trails following movement across the screen.
This phenomenon produces distracting blurs predominantly along edges of high-contrast content like white text on black backdrops. Phosphor lag grows more noticeable over time as cells lose vibrancy. But even gently-used panels exhibit hints of lag to keen eyes.
While modern sets have greatly minimized lag thanks to improved gas mixes and driving algorithms, its random nature remains an undesirable artifact. LCD/OLED technologies do not utilize primitive phosphors, and thus avoid lag.
3. Image Retention and Ghosting
Ever notice a faint remnant image sticking around after display content changes on a plasma screen? This phenomenon is known as image retention and relates closely to plasma‘s number one flaw – burn in.
Retention occurs thanks to voltage leakage across the cells when static images display for extended periods. Bright logos and HUD elements allow noticeable charge build-up. Switch the channel and a transparent afterimage sticks around temporarily even as new content plays which masks the retention based on image brightness and contrast.
In most cases image retention proves self-correcting over minutes to hours once dynamic imagery returns. However, chronic retention accelerates plasma‘s permanent destruction…
4. High Risk of Permanent Screen Burn-In
Allow static content to remain on a plasma display for consecutive hours and the threat of catastrophic screen burn emerges. Uneven electrical wear and gradual voltage leakage through cells creates visible discoloration matching stationary on-screen elements.
Game interfaces, news channel tickers, desktop shortcuts, and network logos imprint more aggressively thanks to high-contrast and repetitive high-voltage cycling required to form their structures.
Attempts at reducing burn-in like screen wipers and pixel orbiters cannot wholly eliminate risk. Plasma panels develop non-uniform aging leaving once bright areas looking dimmer permanently.
Manufacturers clearly struggled containing burn-in – most plasma warranties exempt burn-in entirely since it proved so prevalent! Avoiding static content proves one‘s only recourse. Even with heavy precautions, cumulative retention still accelates burn-in over the long-term.
OLED panels also risk burn-in, albeit modern sets are far more resistant thanks to screen savers, pixel shifting and advanced driving algorithms – advantages plasma technology lacked.
5. Operation Ceases at High Altitudes
This may shock those residing at low elevations, but operating plasma displays at high altitude locations above 5000 feet cripples functionality and accelerates failure!
The mismatch between internal gas pressure and lower external atmospheric pressure causes voltage instabilities within the cells as altitude increases. Eventual arcing and breakdown generate audible buzzing and humming noises as their compositions destabilize.
Operational limits vary slightly between manufacturers but all plasma sets share acute altitude sensitivity compared to the resilience of LCD technologies. Plasma electronics simply lacked adequate engineering to adapt to thin air use cases.
So those living a mile above sea level have no choice but avoid plasma or purchase an extended warranty!
6. Heavy and Cumbersome Design
Early manufacturing constraints necessitated bulky and heavy enclosure materials to facilitate plasma display assembly. Thick, heavy glass layers bonded front and back through a rigid metal chassis to enable safe neon and xenon gas filling during production.
This design results in a heavier, deeper physical footprint versus slim LED-backlit LCD televisions. Large plasma displays often weigh over 100 lbs and measure several inches thick. Coupled with fragile glass used in early models, transportation and mounting prove challenging.
New TV technologies shifted towards lightweight plastics and metal alloys allowing thin, lightweight designs safer to handle during shipping and placement while looking sleeker in modern living spaces.
7. Excessive Energy Consumption
Driving millions of independant discharge cells comprised of ionized gases unsurprisingly consumes serious electricity. The proprietary waveforms and voltages required easily justify classifying plasma operation as power-hungry.
Compared against LCD/LED televisions, plasma models require 2-4X more power overall based on screen size and content brightness. Hundreds of watts flow through transformers at all times just to maintain basic function. Display a white screen at max brightness and power climbs even higher.
Watching movies or shows for just a few hours daily adds over $100 in electricity costs yearly according to a plasma display consuming 400 watts. Considering newer TV options sip under 150 watts by comparison, plasma‘s thirst cannot justify itself any longer.
8. Short Supply of Replacement Parts
Diagnosing and repairing finicky plasma issues requires considerable skill and experience since few technicians specialize in quickly obsolete display technologies. Locating authentic OEM replacement parts has also become far more difficult and expensive over time.
Once renowned manufacturers Sharp, Hitachi, Samsung, and Panasonic no longer carry plasma inventory nor supply chain sources. As NOS supply diminishes while demand trickles, inflated pricing typically follows on proprietary PCBs, drivers, and compatible glass panels.
Repair costs can easily meet or exceed used display value on aging plasma sets. Newer televisions with sparse part varieties and modular construction better facilitate repairs through third-parties and self-servicing. These practical factors contribute heavily against plasma lifespan.
Final Thoughts – Letting Go of Plasma Dreams
I still view plasma displays as an important milestone – a gateway enabling widescreen flat panels to transcend early technological limits through pure entrepreneurial spirit and brilliant engineering minds.
Had key innovations like LED backlights, reliable panel sealing, and revised phosphor doping extended plasma‘s run just a while longer, their exquisite image presentation might still entrance home theaters today.
But given the reasonable shortcomings above, I encourage you to consider where display technologies now stand across each weakness. OLED and LCD have evolved notably since plasma‘s glory days. For around $1000, that same stunning contrast and smooth motion which made plasma so renowned now shines from far more well-rounded and dependable modern architectures less vulnerable to user error or environmental factors.
The allure of plasma comes bundled in compromise. Yet alternatives no longer demand such sacrifice. Rest assured, progress marches forward benefiting buyers with better products boasting the advantages of cumulative growth.
Your contentment and confidence around whatever display succeeds your old, trusty plasma is what matters most. May that replacement serve spectacularly for years ahead!
