Plasma TV lovers, the end is nigh! :(

[RareGMFan]

Since I have had very little free time for the past year, I haven't kept up to date with the latest and greatest in tech, so I didn't hear about the disturbing news that Panasonic stopped making plasmas. This would have been a major enough shock, but it was compounded by HOW I stumble upon this fact last week: While reading about SAMSUNG'S announcement that they, TOO, will stop making plasma TVs after November of this year!

Samsung to end plasma TV production this year - CNET

Talk about a major judo chop to the balls. This is the most devastating event since Andre Agassi shaved his mullet. It's a videophiliacs nightmare.

I'm really not ready financially to be splurging on a nice plasma, but with the top 2 brands calling it quits, I might have to. As I've discovered this week, Panasonics are already gone (save for some resellers that are marking up prices beyond MSRP), and Samsung doesn't have a ton of options right now. I'd like a 60", possibly bigger if I can get one at a good price, but it looks like this years Sammy 60" 1080p plasmas use PenTile displays, so they're not "full 1080p". Most people won't notice from viewing distance, but if this is going to be the last plasma I'll have the option of purchasing new, I'd rather not go with makeshift manufacturer cost-cutting workarounds.

What I'd really like to go with is the 64" PNF8500, but considering they're sitting at $2400 just about everywhere, that's not a realistic possibility right now. Think I might shoot for the 64" version of the PNH5000, which is actually a new model for 2014.

64" Class Plasma H5000 Series TV PN64H5000AFXZA | TVs

They're at $1300 now, and I'm hoping they come down a bit more in the next couple months, but at the same time, I don't want to risk what happened to a lot of people waiting on Panasonic plasmas to drop (ran out of stock instead). We shall wait a bit and see. But this is a sad day indeed.

Click to read more...

 

[wolfe]

I haven't really kept up with all the latest and greatest tv stuff, hell or really any of it, but I would think if the top two are getting out of the game that makes me think its because there are better options out there or no market for them (because people want something else).

 

[ChiLAX]

Isn't 4K supposed to be the new "best thing"?

 

[RareGMFan]

I haven't really kept up with all the latest and greatest tv stuff, hell or really any of it, but I would think if the top two are getting out of the game that makes me think its because there are better options out there or no market for them (because people want something else).

There's no doubt the demand has declined, but that doesn't mean there are better options out there. Lots of tech has lost out to hype, propaganda and just flat out weight/power of one brand over another. Beta was technically better than VHS, but JVC (VHS) won the war over Sony, and beta disappeared. Laserdisc is better quality than DVDs, but again, the better technology lost out. HDDVD vs. Blu-ray was a lot closer of a call tech-wise, but to illustrate a company's weight/power, Sony won out the war because they were able to make deals with companies like Blockbusters to only carry Blu-ray for HD movies.

Likewise, plasma provides superior picture quality to LCD. Every "improvement" we've seen thrown at LCDs is an attempt to cover up issues they have that are not inherent to plasmas. 60/120/240hz refresh rates to try to stop the motion blur, which leaves the content you're watching with that horrible home camera/soap opera/behind the scenes footage type look, which I can't stand. LED back lighting in an attempt to try to match plasmas superior contrast, etc. Still, unless you buy a really high end LCD, they can't match even a low end plasma from Sam or Pan.

But once again, people bought into hype. And when that is peddled towards a public that is too lazy to do any research or homework before they buy something, it easily leads towards ignorant misconceptions. Case in point; how many people realize LED and LCD are the same thing? It's just a different form of back-lighting for an LCD TV (LED bulbs vs. CCFL bulbs).

Isn't 4K supposed to be the new "best thing"?

See above comments about hype and propaganda.

 

[FrenchLicker]

Likewise, plasma provides superior picture quality to LCD. Every "improvement" we've seen thrown at LCDs is an attempt to cover up issues they have that are not inherent to plasmas. 60/120/240hz refresh rates to try to stop the motion blur, which leaves the content you're watching with that horrible home camera/soap opera/behind the scenes footage type look, which I can't stand.

Case in point; how many people realize LED and LCD are the same thing? It's just a different form of back-lighting for an LCD TV (LED bulbs vs. CCFL bulbs).

False. LCD screens and LED screens (oled?) can provide a much better resolution than that of a plasma, therefore your argument is bust.

Sure you can get a ballin 600hz refresh rate out of a plasma, but rarely will someone recognize the difference of 480 over 240....

As far as led and LCD being different, yes this is the biggest fucking hype up since sliced bread... You get the same product with a different presentation. "Is my tv led or LCD?" " ma'am it's an LCD screen with led backlighting" " that fucking salesman lied to me...."

 

[Gav'sPurpleZ]

I enjoy the picture quality on my two plasma TVs..... This news sucks

 

[Ti28]

Plasma's are the cats ass for picture! If my Samsung shits, I'll just have it fixed.

 

[blck10th]

I haven't really kept up with all the latest and greatest tv stuff, hell or really any of it, but I would think if the top two are getting out of the game that makes me think its because there are better options out there or no market for them (because people want something else).

You know how I buy a tv? Walk in look at the wall and say boom that looks good.

 

[Lord Tin Foilhat]

There's no doubt the demand has declined, but that doesn't mean there are better options out there. Lots of tech has lost out to hype, propaganda and just flat out weight/power of one brand over another. Beta was technically better than VHS, but JVC (VHS) won the war over Sony, and beta disappeared. Laserdisc is better quality than DVDs, but again, the better technology lost out. HDDVD vs. Blu-ray was a lot closer of a call tech-wise, but to illustrate a company's weight/power, Sony won out the war because they were able to make deals with companies like Blockbusters to only carry Blu-ray for HD movies.

Likewise, plasma provides superior picture quality to LCD. Every "improvement" we've seen thrown at LCDs is an attempt to cover up issues they have that are not inherent to plasmas. 60/120/240hz refresh rates to try to stop the motion blur, which leaves the content you're watching with that horrible home camera/soap opera/behind the scenes footage type look, which I can't stand. LED back lighting in an attempt to try to match plasmas superior contrast, etc. Still, unless you buy a really high end LCD, they can't match even a low end plasma from Sam or Pan.

But once again, people bought into hype. And when that is peddled towards a public that is too lazy to do any research or homework before they buy something, it easily leads towards ignorant misconceptions. Case in point; how many people realize LED and LCD are the same thing? It's just a different form of back-lighting for an LCD TV (LED bulbs vs. CCFL bulbs).





See above comments about hype and propaganda.

The soap opera look is a setting within the TV. It can be turned off. It has nothing to do with lcd vs plasma

 

[RareGMFan]

False. LCD screens and LED screens (oled?) can provide a much better resolution than that of a plasma, therefore your argument is bust.

Ummm...exactly what argument is bust? Nothing you quoted mentioned anything about resolution. Regardless, if you know what display resolution means, then you understand it is YOUR argument that is bust. The resolution is a measurement of how many individual pixels a TV/monitor is capable of displaying. The only possibilities for resolution up until VERY recently were 720p, 1080i (obsolete) and 1080p, all of which are available on LCDs AND plasmas.

Sure you can get a ballin 600hz refresh rate out of a plasma, but rarely will someone recognize the difference of 480 over 240....

Again, irrelevant to anything I said. I intentionally didn't bring up a refresh rate comparison between the 2 because the 600hz figure is a marketing partial/"technical" truth. Since plasmas don't have the motion blur issue, there wasn't a need to up the 60hz refresh rate on them. But once again, consumer ignorance rears its ugly head. They didn't know or understand this fact. All they knew was plasmas seemed to be stuck at 60hz while LCDs were putting out 120hz, 240hz, etc, which led them to think, "wow, this old POS technology is falling way behind". There was never going to be an actual refresh rate increase, so how could they combat the false impression? Plasmas are displayed on 10 subfields each at 60hz, so they decided to take the 60hz x 10 subfields, and advertise it as 600hz. Technically, it is accurate, but since the 2 technologies don't work in the same fashion, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

You know how I buy a tv? Walk in look at the wall and say boom that looks good.

Blck, that's the worst thing you can do. Most of those TVs are just pulled out of the box, thrown on the display and turned on. No one messes with the settings to get the best picture possible out of the display. The only time they're messed with is if they want to crank up the settings to get a super saturated look (since that is what most people like to see) on the TVs they want to sell the most of. Plus there are lighting issues involved due to product placement, viewing angles, source material quality, etc. Judging a TVs picture quality just by walking into a store and looking at it is like walking into the lobby of a dealership, and buying the shiniest car you see.

The soap opera look is a setting within the TV. It can be turned off. It has nothing to do with lcd vs plasma

It's all intertwined, tin. As I said earlier, LCDs use 120hz & up refresh rates to try to eliminate the motion blur inherent to them. This creates problems of its own, e.g. "judder motion". To combat these undesired effects, LCDs use frame interpolation (the TV creates false/non-existent frames to fill in between real frames), which then creates problems of ITS own, i.e. "soap opera effect". Each "fix" seems to be accompanied by a problem. Sure, you can turn it all off, but you'd be turning off the "fixes", so you're right back to square one again with problems inherent to LCDs.

Plasmas do not require such tactics because they don't suffer from motion blur to begin with. They don't need a "fix". So yes, it has everything to do with LCD vs. plasma.

What is refresh rate? - CNET

 

[Marko]

Led has the best pic IMO

 

[cacicgtp7]

Sounds like the resale value on my 58" Samsung plasma just went up!


YAHTZEE.

 

[FrenchLicker]

Ummm...exactly what argument is bust? Nothing you quoted mentioned anything about resolution. Regardless, if you know what display resolution means, then you understand it is YOUR argument that is bust. The resolution is a measurement of how many individual pixels a TV/monitor is capable of displaying. The only possibilities for resolution up until VERY recently were 720p, 1080i (obsolete) and 1080p, all of which are available on LCDs AND plasmas.





Again, irrelevant to anything I said. I intentionally didn't bring up a refresh rate comparison between the 2 because the 600hz figure is a marketing partial/"technical" truth. Since plasmas don't have the motion blur issue, there wasn't a need to up the 60hz refresh rate on them. But once again, consumer ignorance rears its ugly head. They didn't know or understand this fact. All they knew was plasmas seemed to be stuck at 60hz while LCDs were putting out 120hz, 240hz, etc, which led them to think, "wow, this old POS technology is falling way behind". There was never going to be an actual refresh rate increase, so how could they combat the false impression? Plasmas are displayed on 10 subfields each at 60hz, so they decided to take the 60hz x 10 subfields, and advertise it as 600hz. Technically, it is accurate, but since the 2 technologies don't work in the same fashion, it's not an apples to apples comparison.





Blck, that's the worst thing you can do. Most of those TVs are just pulled out of the box, thrown on the display and turned on. No one messes with the settings to get the best picture possible out of the display. The only time they're messed with is if they want to crank up the settings to get a super saturated look (since that is what most people like to see) on the TVs they want to sell the most of. Plus there are lighting issues involved due to product placement, viewing angles, source material quality, etc. Judging a TVs picture quality just by walking into a store and looking at it is like walking into the lobby of a dealership, and buying the shiniest car you see.





It's all intertwined, tin. As I said earlier, LCDs use 120hz & up refresh rates to try to eliminate the motion blur inherent to them. This creates problems of its own, e.g. "judder motion". To combat these undesired effects, LCDs use frame interpolation (the TV creates false/non-existent frames to fill in between real frames), which then creates problems of ITS own, i.e. "soap opera effect". Each "fix" seems to be accompanied by a problem. Sure, you can turn it all off, but you'd be turning off the "fixes", so you're right back to square one again with problems inherent to LCDs.

Plasmas do not require such tactics because they don't suffer from motion blur to begin with. They don't need a "fix". So yes, it has everything to do with LCD vs. plasma.

What is refresh rate? - CNET

You can't say best picture and ignore resolution....

And aren't most movies filmed at 24 fps? So anything over that is excessive

The only thing plasmas do well are black levels, and with newer tech in the LCD panels and use of multiple led back lights it's narrowing that gap

 

[Lord Tin Foilhat]

Especially with 4k tvs. The newer tvs will make both current gens, lcd and plasma, obsolete.

Plasma may have darker blacks and fast refresh rates but newer tvs are matching, if not beating, plasmas at higher resolutions. Plasmas are also way less efficient, take up more room, have a shorter lifespan and generate more heat.

There's a reason manufacturers are not making them.

 

[blck10th]

Ummm...exactly what argument is bust? Nothing you quoted mentioned anything about resolution. Regardless, if you know what display resolution means, then you understand it is YOUR argument that is bust. The resolution is a measurement of how many individual pixels a TV/monitor is capable of displaying. The only possibilities for resolution up until VERY recently were 720p, 1080i (obsolete) and 1080p, all of which are available on LCDs AND plasmas.











Again, irrelevant to anything I said. I intentionally didn't bring up a refresh rate comparison between the 2 because the 600hz figure is a marketing partial/"technical" truth. Since plasmas don't have the motion blur issue, there wasn't a need to up the 60hz refresh rate on them. But once again, consumer ignorance rears its ugly head. They didn't know or understand this fact. All they knew was plasmas seemed to be stuck at 60hz while LCDs were putting out 120hz, 240hz, etc, which led them to think, "wow, this old POS technology is falling way behind". There was never going to be an actual refresh rate increase, so how could they combat the false impression? Plasmas are displayed on 10 subfields each at 60hz, so they decided to take the 60hz x 10 subfields, and advertise it as 600hz. Technically, it is accurate, but since the 2 technologies don't work in the same fashion, it's not an apples to apples comparison.











Blck, that's the worst thing you can do. Most of those TVs are just pulled out of the box, thrown on the display and turned on. No one messes with the settings to get the best picture possible out of the display. The only time they're messed with is if they want to crank up the settings to get a super saturated look (since that is what most people like to see) on the TVs they want to sell the most of. Plus there are lighting issues involved due to product placement, viewing angles, source material quality, etc. Judging a TVs picture quality just by walking into a store and looking at it is like walking into the lobby of a dealership, and buying the shiniest car you see.











It's all intertwined, tin. As I said earlier, LCDs use 120hz & up refresh rates to try to eliminate the motion blur inherent to them. This creates problems of its own, e.g. "judder motion". To combat these undesired effects, LCDs use frame interpolation (the TV creates false/non-existent frames to fill in between real frames), which then creates problems of ITS own, i.e. "soap opera effect". Each "fix" seems to be accompanied by a problem. Sure, you can turn it all off, but you'd be turning off the "fixes", so you're right back to square one again with problems inherent to LCDs.



Plasmas do not require such tactics because they don't suffer from motion blur to begin with. They don't need a "fix". So yes, it has everything to do with LCD vs. plasma.



What is refresh rate? - CNET

It's a tv! I don't spend that much time on my ass in front of it to notice that the picture is not perfect or amazing. I'm not going to mess with the settings or anything. So it's no big deal.

A car on the other hand well that's quite a purchase. Not really comparable examples. And since I do spend a lot of time driving I guess I know where my efforts are placed

 

[RareGMFan]

....I'm going to assume lorton and tin are just trolling at this point. Even if you're not, for your own sakes, just go along with it and say you are. Otherwise, your comments epitomize everything I mentioned about the average consumer.

Blk, that's fine. Obviously, the average consumer isn't going to be a super picky videophiliac. But while it may not be equivalent to a car, it's still a decent sized purchase (even for a "low end" one). A buyer should still look into which tech is going to work the best for their needs (a plasma won't be as ideal in a brightly lit room due to the reflective glass, etc). At the very least, the model numbers should be researched to see if there's any common problems or dislikes with them, etc.

Sounds like the resale value on my 58" Samsung plasma just went up!

It very well may. I don't know about some of the older models, but these last few made by Panny already have, and the last of the Sammys will do so as well after they sell out. It will basically be like the Kuro and Elite series all over again when Pioneer decided to get out of the TV business altogether several years back.

 

[SinisterSHO]

Which, oddly enough, when it comes to TVs, most of us ARE average consumers.

 

[FrenchLicker]

....I'm going to assume lorton and tin are just trolling at this point. Even if you're not, for your own sakes, just go along with it and say you are. Otherwise, your comments epitomize everything I mentioned about the average consumer.

Blk, that's fine. Obviously, the average consumer isn't going to be a super picky videophiliac. But while it may not be equivalent to a car, it's still a decent sized purchase (even for a "low end" one). A buyer should still look into which tech is going to work the best for their needs (a plasma won't be as ideal in a brightly lit room due to the reflective glass, etc). At the very least, the model numbers should be researched to see if there's any common problems or dislikes with them, etc.

And you don't address an argument?

Plasma is at its peak. LCD was behind, and now is ahead and still advancing.

Hey brah, see that new movie theatre with a plasma screen? Nah ya didn't....

 

[RareGMFan]

Address what argument, sir? The ones I already explained the insignificance of, and/or why you 2 are wrong? Or your vague, unsubstantiated ones like "LCD is now ahead, and still advancing"?

You can't say best picture and ignore resolution....

Already addressed.

The only possibilities for resolution up until VERY recently were 720p, 1080i (obsolete) and 1080p, all of which are available on LCDs AND plasmas.

NEXT.

And aren't most movies filmed at 24 fps? So anything over that is excessive

Again, already addressed.

What is refresh rate? - CNET

Read the article to understand how even tube TVs work when it comes to fps, let alone 60hz vs 120hz vs 240hz+ on HDTVs work. The explanation will also help you understand (in greater detail than how I previously explained it) why the higher refresh rates, judder motion, motion smoothing and soap opera effect are all related on LCDs.



NEXT

The only thing plasmas do well are black levels, and with newer tech in the LCD panels and use of multiple led back lights it's narrowing that gap

Again, this is not an argument. Just a random statement based on a complete lack of knowledge on how the 2 technologies work. An LCD is lit from behind or side by fluorescent or LED bulbs, where as in a plasma, each individual pixel is self-illuminated by charged gases. This gives it complete control over lighting, and is why plasmas not only still have truer blacks, but also have better over all contrast ratio (darkest blacks to the brightest whites ratio), superior video motion, better viewing angles, more uniform lighting, etc. When looking at comparably priced models, LCDs will never be better in these aspects simply due to the nature of how the 2 technologies work.

The pros and cons of LED-LCD and plasma - LED-LCD vs. Plasma

The only real downsides to plasma is that the lighting doesn't get quite as bright on the cheaper models as LED-LCDs, and the glass is reflective, so since lower end models don't get a nice filter on them, they'll be reflective enough to bug some people in brightly lit rooms. Even the energy consumption argument is erroneous this day and age. Yes, plasmas are still less efficient in these respects, but the disparity is miniscule. The 64" plasma I'm looking at right now is estimated to run $44 per YEAR in energy costs based on "out of the box" settings at 5 hours of use per day. By comparison, the most efficient TV in this range (60" - 64") runs $31 per year. That's an entire $13 savings per YEAR. Hardly something for an LED-LCD to brag about, especially considering plasmas are significantly cheaper to buy.

You see, there IS a reason why manufacturers have stopped making plasmas, but it's not what you guys keep trying to elude to with erroneous arguments. It's called CONSUMER IGNORANCE, which you guys so beautifully have displayed in 1080p on this thread. Statement after statement based on buying into unresearched hype. And even after I debunk these ill-informed statements created by what I call a "Best Buy education", you guys still repeat the same debunked statements. And you wonder why I thought you were trolling?

The truth of the matter is the only real tech that surpasses plasma is OLED because it uses a similar concept to lighting (the pixels are lit from within, not by back-lighting), but can get much brighter. Only problem is we are quite a few years away from them become affordable (a 55" is in the $10k range right now) because they're expensive to produce since there isn't enough demand yet to ramp up production and spread out the cost. We're probably looking at a good 5 years before they drop down to higher end LCD prices unless a breakthrough happens in production to bring down costs.

Look, I couldn't care less which tech you prefer. I understand that not everyone is into home theater equipment, or wants to devote time to researching all the nuances, etc. That's fine. But if that's the case, why enter into a debate about it with people who HAVE done their homework armed only with the same misinformation that led to the demise of the technology?

 

[SinisterSHO]

You're so butt hurt about people's opinions about TVs.

 

[FrenchLicker]

Address what argument, sir? The ones I already explained the insignificance of, and/or why you 2 are wrong? Or your vague, unsubstantiated ones like "LCD is now ahead, and still advancing"?

Already addressed.


​

NEXT.

Again, already addressed.

​

Read the article to understand how even tube TVs work when it comes to fps, let alone 60hz vs 120hz vs 240hz+ on HDTVs work. The explanation will also help you understand (in greater detail than how I previously explained it) why the higher refresh rates, judder motion, motion smoothing and soap opera effect are all related on LCDs.



NEXT

​

Again, this is not an argument. Just a random statement based on a complete lack of knowledge on how the 2 technologies work. An LCD is lit from behind or side by fluorescent or LED bulbs, where as in a plasma, each individual pixel is self-illuminated by charged gases. This gives it complete control over lighting, and is why plasmas not only still have truer blacks, but also have better over all contrast ratio (darkest blacks to the brightest whites ratio), superior video motion, better viewing angles, more uniform lighting, etc. When looking at comparably priced models, LCDs will never be better in these aspects simply due to the nature of how the 2 technologies work.

The pros and cons of LED-LCD and plasma - LED-LCD vs. Plasma

The only real downsides to plasma is that the lighting doesn't get quite as bright on the cheaper models as LED-LCDs, and the glass is reflective, so since lower end models don't get a nice filter on them, they'll be reflective enough to bug some people in brightly lit rooms. Even the energy consumption argument is erroneous this day and age. Yes, plasmas are still less efficient in these respects, but the disparity is miniscule. The 64" plasma I'm looking at right now is estimated to run $44 per YEAR in energy costs based on "out of the box" settings at 5 hours of use per day. By comparison, the most efficient TV in this range (60" - 64") runs $31 per year. That's an entire $13 savings per YEAR. Hardly something for an LED-LCD to brag about, especially considering plasmas are significantly cheaper to buy.

You see, there IS a reason why manufacturers have stopped making plasmas, but it's not what you guys keep trying to elude to with erroneous arguments. It's called CONSUMER IGNORANCE, which you guys so beautifully have displayed in 1080p on this thread. Statement after statement based on buying into unresearched hype. And even after I debunk these ill-informed statements created by what I call a "Best Buy education", you guys still repeat the same debunked statements. And you wonder why I thought you were trolling?

The truth of the matter is the only real tech that surpasses plasma is OLED because it uses a similar concept to lighting (the pixels are lit from within, not by back-lighting), but can get much brighter. Only problem is we are quite a few years away from them become affordable (a 55" is in the $10k range right now) because they're expensive to produce since there isn't enough demand yet to ramp up production and spread out the cost. We're probably looking at a good 5 years before they drop down to higher end LCD prices unless a breakthrough happens in production to bring down costs.

Look, I couldn't care less which tech you prefer. I understand that not everyone is into home theater equipment, or wants to devote time to researching all the nuances, etc. That's fine. But if that's the case, why enter into a debate about it with people who HAVE done their homework armed only with the same misinformation that led to the demise of the technology?

I mentioned OLED and resolutions greater than 1080p have existed for awhile. I don't wanna keep you getting your panties twisted but if plasma is the greatest tech, why oh why is it not used in the home computing segment? Plasma televisions lagged behind

Your argument stems on two items, motion blur and contrast ratio.
Motion blur depends on content and the units capabilities. I have zero issues with motion blur on any LCD I've owned, with the exception of some sports broadcasts. Most of the gimmicky 240 and 480 refresh rates can be turned off and the television will perform fine.
Contrast ratio is the only thing plasmas do better.


I'm sorry my "best buy home theatre education" angers you, but unless you are formerly educated on the subject your "google inspired doctorate in douchebaggery" is equivalent.

 

[ChiLAX]

What happened to this thread? I can't fap to this.

 

[Marko]

And opinions are like assholes.......

 

[RareGMFan]

Hey, guys. Sorry I didn't have much internet time the last couple weeks, but I'm back. I know you guys missed me.

You're so butt hurt about people's opinions about TVs.

It's not about TVs, or people having opinions. It's about how most Americans LOVE to hold strong opinions on ANY subject matter despite not having a clue about most of them. It would be no different than someone spouting off unsubstantiated BS about the SHOs as if it's "fact" based off what they've "heard", and when you correct them with your years of experience, having the ignorant people who made the original comments say "OMG don't get butt hurt LoLzzz!!!!1111".

I mentioned OLED and resolutions greater than 1080p have existed for awhile.

The only mention I saw from you was "(OLED?)" in reference to plasma vs. LEDs, which is obviously not what is meant by LED in that debate. You even acknowledged this when you agreed most people are oblivious to the fact that LEDs ARE LCDs.

OLEDs are a ways away from being mainstream in the consumer market due to the ridiculous price tags they're at right now (close to what the first readily available consumer flat panel TVs cost). As I had acknowledged earlier, OLED TVs look promising, and may be the next big thing in the future, but for now, they are a niche product that only a handful of very well off people are going to be able to afford. There's quite a ways to go before it becomes a viable display option for the masses, much less takes over plasma OR LCD in the market place. Therefore, they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand of plasma vs. LCD.

4K is also going to take a while to become mainstream, but for different reasons. Obviously the costs aren't nearly as bad as OLED, but there is next to nothing for 4k quality source material at this time (just "enhancing" of 1080p content), which means next to nothing to show off your "brilliant picture" with. Not to mention you have to make the initial investment of a higher (than 1080p) priced TV, PLUS buying a 4k Blu-ray player for whatever media is coming out in the future in 4K, not to mention the price that studios are going to slap on 4K movie releases. Even setting all that aside, plasmas is capable of doing 4K, but as Samsung acknowledged, it would be a lot more costly to do so vs. 1080p, which would negate the only advantage it had over LCDs in the mass public's eyes; price.

why oh why is it not used in the home computing segment?

As in for 17", or 20", or 24" etc. monitors? If so, the answer is simple. Making plasma TVs in anything under about 40" is rather costly.

I'm sorry my "best buy home theatre education" angers you, but unless you are formerly educated on the subject your "google inspired doctorate in douchebaggery" is equivalent.

I presume you meant formally. And no, not equivalent at all. It's a bit more involved than reading a couple articles that pop up at the top of a Google search. Believe it or not, there are people who study and learn about tech from sites and forums with the nerdiest, geekiest people on the planet. People who spend hours testing and experimenting through several procedures to give precise breakdowns on what settings are best to get the best PQ out of your specif model of TV, or create frequency/system response map out charts to compare pros and cons of HT speakers, etc.

By comparison, a Best Buy education means your understanding and knowledge of how tech works comes from people who are either as clueless about the subject as the members of the mass public they're talking to, and/or spew BS because they are trying to move certain products over others. Case in point; the same Sunday as my last post, I ran over to Nicky's in Aurora off of 59 to grab lunch. There's a BB in the same lot, so I thought I'd stop in on the off chance that they still have a higher end Panny plasma sitting around (I'd prefer one over the new Samsungs). After looking around a bit, an employee comes up to me and asks me if I'm finding everything OK. I asked him if he had any Pannys left. He said no, and that they stopped making plasmas. I told him I knew, and that I had read about Sammy stopping them by the end of this year, too, thus why I was looking around, hoping to snag one before they're all gone. At this point, you would think he'd realize I'm obviously into tech if I'm READING about what the companies are doing, and am specifically looking for a Panny plasma. Instead, he proceeds to tell me "the reason plasma is going away is because it's not safe". Insert WTF stare at employee. "By that, I mean it's not technology safe. You can't make Smart TVs or 4K with plasma". Insert 'are you fucking serious, dude?!' stare at employee. The only thing I said to him was ".....you DO realize you have Smart TV plasmas on display in your store as we speak, right?" Insert 'oops' stare by employee.

And that's why I say...

And opinions are like assholes.......

Yes, but they're not all equal. Some people practice proper hygiene, and some don't even wipe their ass thoroughly. Likewise, everyone is free to have an opinion, but not all opinions are created equal.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Don't forget, the average consumer doesn't want a 150lb pane of glass with a tv attached to lug around.

Isn't that right [MENTION=239]Turk[/MENTION]?