Not sure I agree with Scott saying “........part of the reason for the technology’s demise.” While I agree with LCDs essentially getting the lion’s share of the market, plasma still has a large following and it still the technology to beat in ultra high end flat panel displays.

Scott Varn may have forgotten more about designing home theaters than I will ever know…but it is painfully obvious that he is NOT an expert of plasma technology. First of all, it is generally accepted that “image retention” (temporary) and “burn-in” (permanent) are two different things. Actual burn-in is so rare with modern plasmas that it isn’t even worth worrying about….and image retention is temporary and will lessen as the set ages.

It’s clear that Scott doesn’t own a plasma, doesn’t recommend them through his installation business…and hasn’t really thought about them much or kept up with the technology since he decided to dismiss them altogether years ago. “Demise of the technology” (they are still very much available) hasn’t happened, and plasma still produces the best picture quality of any of the current non-crt technologies.

I have to agree with Todd and Joemama127. I think Scott may be biased against Plasmas and I think he is way early on calling Plasmas a dead technology.

On Older Plasmas and lesser expensive ones, if the contrast is turned all the way up or is high it can cause ghosting from the previous Sean. Check your settings and turn them down.

In my opinion Plasma still has the best picture quality and side angle viewing of any on the market. We sell both in our stores but we can’t put plasmas and LCDs side by side on display. The plasma will win out 8 out of 10 times.

Scott saying that Plasma technology is a ‘dead’ technology is correct to a point, but he doesn’t explain the reasons why.  Here’s my 2 cents on why he’s correct:

While I don’t think anyone who reads EH on a regular basis needs to be educated on why high end plasma’s dominate picture quality tests, sales of plasma’s have been declining steadily over the last couple of years (both as a % and $), due to any number of factors. 

Old information and perceptions on plasma’s are still being passed off as current.  There are artificially inflated contrast ratio’s on LCD’s with dynamic contrast, and no reporting standards for contrast ratio’s.  Which tv do I choose as an uneducated consumer?  The one with a 2000:1 contrast ratio, or the one with 1,000,000:1? More money is spent advertising LCD’s, since there more LCD manufacturers, and more competition, so advertising is needed to differentiate brand x from brand y.

Plasma is a dead technology for business profitability reasons.  R&D;is expensive, and as Pioneer proved yesterday, it’s very expensive and difficult to educate customers to buy premium displays no matter much better they are.

The fact is, most of us do not/can not buy ‘the best’ anything!  We tend to buy ‘good enough’ or ‘best bang for the buck’.  This is where the volume and the profit margins are.

If plasma is a dead technology it’s due to the fact that it’s easier to make money on LCD than it is on plasma, not because plasma is inferior.

Paul, those are all fair things to say and I would have to agree with you. I actually used to have a bias against plasma for many of the reasons the average consumer shuns them…...old information. Which is basically disinformation. A lot of people have their TVs in brightly lit rooms or where there is tons of ambient light coming in through windows. LCD makes sense for them. But if these same people were to view a properly set-up plasma in a darkened room they would be blown away. Well maybe not, there are a lot of people who don’t even care about HD, but thats another story. ;)

OK, relax folks.

I was answering the person’s question about screen burn-in, which is indeed common on some plasmas. It seems many are focusing on my comment that the plasma’s demise has happened or is eminent. I was focused on the question NOT the history of plasma technology.  I am not opposed to plasma technology and I have no agenda (as implied) or desire to see it’s demise as a technology. In fact, I find the rich blacks and smooth picture preferable to many modern LCD sets. In my opinion the Panasonic plasma line is still among the best products available. However, there are several factors that are hastening the technologies path to extinction. Some of them are manufacturing costs and market perception - but mostly the natural electronics evolution and the appetite for something “new.”

But the fact is that most companies have already or are getting out of the plasma business. Vizio (Vizio Gets Out of Plasma Game) is out and even the great Pioneer Elite (Pioneer to Leave TV Market) is disappearing.

My question applies to you and all other flamers on the net. Who do your insults serve? The Internet has created an interesting phenomenon - give some people relative anonymity and an audience and they will say things they would never say in public, much less to someone’s face.

If you have intelligent informative comments to share, they are welcome. If you are just looking for someone to insult, free of consequence in order to satisfy your ego, please go elsewhere.

Scott, I’m sorry if you took offense to the comments here on this website. I have read back over them and I don’t think anyone has said something that they meant to offend you by but if so please accept our apologies.

I agree with you that the Panasonic is one of the best out there. As for Pioneer and Vizio they aren’t even in the same class.

Pioneer has had a limited line of Plasmas for some time. In my opinion and the opinion of many of my customers they made one of the best Plasmas on the market. We were one of the first 50 stores in the nation to have on display one of there first plasmas at $25,000.00 many years ago. In the current market where price may be the primary concern over picture quality or reliability it is hard for someone like Pioneer to compete. I’m sure that’s why they are bowing out of video.

Vizio on the other hand is a cheaply made set that is not manufactured to ever be repaired. It’s a disposable set. I get calls all the time from people with 18 month old sets that the company they bought it from can’t fix and Vizeo want help them. Luckily our customers aren’t looking for that kind of product.

No one knows where this market will go next. It very well could be LCD technology. I have seen some new LCD sets that have a great side angle view and contrast levels approaching that of the plasma. All I can say is that in a side by side comparison, a large percentage of people that come to our stores buy Plasmas and we have a lot of both on the floors.

You and I have the luxury of having customers that can afford and want better products.

The big box stores can only follow the trends without expertise or advise, leaving customers confused.

You are correct that it is hard to read the crystal ball. Now many consumers are choosing the more economical TVs.  “Better” does not always win the day.

As for the comments, the real offensive- direct insults are no longer posted.

In spite of the fact that it’s the superior flat panel technology at the present time…is it any wonder that plasma is losing market share when even industry professionals don’t understand the terminology commonly used? Image retention and burn-in are separate things. Image retention is temporary and lessens as the set ages. Burn-in is permanent and can’t be “wiped” away by changing the content. Actual burn-in is rare with modern plasmas…but hearing sales people and your coworkers talk about it you would think it’s an inevitable part of owning plasma. I have owned 3 different plasmas dating back to 2003 so I feel that I know what I’m talking about when i say that people who are afraid of plasma are just cheating themselves out of the best PQ you can get with a modern tv.