More recently, plasma televisions were very expensive because of its uniqueness and originality. They let all the leading companies engaged in the production of household appliances, especially TV. image and sound quality was just the breakthrough that has hit those who previously enjoyed only by old "analog" devices. But recently in the stores are almost no plasma models. Why did this happen? What caused manufacturers to stop issuing such TV receivers?
History and features plasma TV receivers
The content of the article
- History and features plasma TV receivers
- Why plasma TV ceased to produce
To begin with we recall the history of the appearance of the TV and what distinguishes them from the rest. This will help to understand the reasons why their popularity is now diminished.
Oddly enough, the first plasma technology appeared in the early XX century. In 1911, the first patent for a special neon tube engineer Georges Claude, was issued. Later, after almost half a century for the first time talking about how to use the technology in the production of TV receivers - compilers image. Already in the Soviet Union there were several special panels that are used to display a variety of data, but in a broad sell them, of course, it was not.
This was due to the fact that the technology that existed at that time, did not provide the possibility to create a cheap device.
REFERENCE! A feature of such devices is the high quality and bright picture, which pleases the eye. That is why a large number of users is still the fans watching movies or other content precisely on plasma TVs. They are no longer for sale, but many families there were such TV receivers and they are not going to change them.
Why plasma TV ceased to produce
So, why is the plasma disappeared with modern household appliances market?
The answer is simple: it was replaced by a new, more advanced technology called OLED. The first time although very short, they exist together, but in this case, very few people are going to spend substantially more money for the purchase of new technology confusing rather than the usual purchase plasma. That is why manufacturers have decided that such a situation it is not profitable. They preferred to leave in production exclusively OLED.
We can not say that it's not fair. The new technology is undoubtedly better than the old. It provides the ability to view the image in the highest quality and excellent sound. Yet plasma was its only competitor, the most approximate to the level of OLED. The remaining alternative, LCD TVs, which are much cheaper, much as losing.
IMPORTANT! Plasma has "outlived" its life - it can not in any way significantly improve. The maximum level, which could reach the manufacturers to use plasma technology, has already been achieved.
Therefore it is necessary to give way to new possibilities offered OLED. Despite the fact that this is not yet the most popular type of TV. The price of such devices does not allow them to become leaders in this part of the market. But very soon it will happen.
Thus, plasma TVs have been removed from sale on the grounds that they had to "clean up" the shelves for more advanced units that have not been successful, going on a par with the plasma. The quality of these devices allows their owners for a long time to use the TV in comfort and yet not even think about buying a new, so do not worry. Those who did not buy a plasma, it makes sense to pay attention to the newer models.
Complicated comments tend -lozhny. Here, an elementary reason - the cost of plasma above.
Plasma works for decades, reliability as a Kalashnikov rifle. No problem is activated when the red cottage. Scary to think QLED include frost. What are you trying to make out in 4k eyes in a pile after 5 minutes from the field and pile of parts is harmful to the eyes. I found the cottage boo, ashamed that I can not buy a new one. A 4k plasma stands like a machine. Very sorry.
The answer or not, *** ball.
I have plasma 2000 of century OLED and 4K... Preference plasma.. for 19 years, nor any loss of any brightness or contrast of the image + from her eyes do not get tired, both from the OLED ...
This article was written about plasma TV complete nonsense!
Plasma TV does not give way to OLED / OLED TVs and LCD liquid crystal. All because a HUGE plasma TV power consumption. In Europe, the plasma TV, for example, simply forbidden to sell! Here producers and curtailed their production.
Now, about the breakthrough OLED technology - the world's only one manufacturer of such panels for TVs - a Korean firm LG. And OLED TVs have problems with burnout pixels, although the situation is improving slowly. Therefore, to say that the company Panasonic and Pioneer have ceased the production of competitors for this nonsense.
In addition to energy, plasma best in everything, so far !!!
Only Samsung do not buy most of ***, and the plasma so it does not spoil the eye luchshshaya
1. From Plasma refused because of energy conservation. 65 "on average 300 W ate. Since the country-bottom market has never been a priority - equal to at Europa and AsaShay
2. 4K format. How else hamsters in credit push through a dying segment of TV in general? Plasma could, but currently the price is even higher, the power consumption even more.
3. Balsam has long ruled marketoluhi, not engineers. Dance around the plasma for $ 1000 at the part of the competition with LED gognomatritsey for $ 100 in the same diagonal - but who cares.
4. For those who think that the margins in the TV segment 100500% - 10% if you do - it's a great happiness in the mass-market, as well - 5-7%. Pressed on the manufacturer kastomer pockets in the premium segment - here and 100% margin - not uncommon, but this piece sale.
Its pioneer is very happy, (2007) all good, except for the consumption 345vt eating for crying out loud
"The technology allows you to watch TV in the highest quality and excellent sound." How is this plasma panel production technology can affect the sound?
That's right. The plasma provides the best quality picture, but not enough quality to pay for the monthly view tele extra 2-3 thousand rubles. On the telly capacious power consumption equivalent to a washing machine, which also eats a lot of kilowatts. But you watch telly more often than do laundry. Conclusion: Plasma - a lot of special applications, where the need for quality, for example, in the studios of telecentres. Power consumption there does not matter. At home, it will come down in the flat-screen LCD and Samsung, but it weighs a bit, and consumes too. All of these new-fangled the OLED, Curved screens, stereo image, glasses, etc. - mura, designed to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the wallets Russian zombanutyh advertising fools.
In plasma, except for energy (my Panasonic 65 inch eats 700 watts), there is another drawback is the problem with the transmission completely black (here LED technology wins). I have both plasma and OLED TV, I prefer to watch the plasma, but it works like a radiator.
Igor, right. With that sound then? About themselves plasma. The above cons: a lot of "eat", wrote the above 65 "345Vt - at least three times more 1kW; resolution - proposed 1360 x 768 pixel (even 50 ") in the main course after a 640 x 480 with a tube that was progress, and even the latest models went to 1920 x 1080, but the price just three times higher. But on the brightness and other "charms" - a place alongside plasma and LCD (eg Sony models are 10 years old) and you will not see this in brightness, saturation and contrast. According to the nature of the service I have seen a lot of both - and so faced with the fact that most were simply not set up (as brought out of the store with the regime, "Store", and plowed over the years). Another - the weight as the average time between CRT and LCD. And finally - the screen surface - glass, like all glossy screens are much glare.
"So, to say that the company Panasonic and Pioneer have ceased the production of competitors for this nonsense." No it is not nonsense. Get me that idiot, who will produce a product at a loss. Sony at the time refused to release monitors and plasma because of the higher cost compared to the same Korea. A LCD produced and released to the LG and SAMSUNG matrices, but puts his electronics, so the picture is better than the "owners" of the matrix. Pioneer and Panasonic Matsushita something did not want to translate on the LCD. Apparently the Japanese defense industry busy now other more profitable products.
Misha which 2-3 thousand rubles to pay for the electricity consumed by the plasma?! You know how to count something? How old are you? Even if we assume that the TV consumes 1 kW / h and take that on the day you look at it 8 hours for a month get a 240kv / h. 2,56rub at today's rate. for 1 kW / h we get a little more than 600 rubles. But this, I took a 1kW / h plasma actually consumes, on average, no more than 500W / h, so you make a mistake in the calculations 10 times !!!
Andrew, again - I criticized the position of the author, which ceased to produce the plasma, as other manufacturers began to produce the LCD. I remember 2013, when the 40 "plasma cheaper cost 40" LCD and plasma showed better. So because of what no longer produce plasma - again due to the fact that in Europe (and possibly in the United States) simply prohibit selling plasma. A European and US markets - are the main markets. And I'm sure that a sufficient number of evropeytsnv, Japanese and Americans could afford to buy now! plasma TV and contain (a penny to pay for electricity) it, but they are simply forbidden to sell, as well as lamps incandescent.
In addition, Sony is about 2010 mastered the breakthrough technology of plasma type (instead of the plasma discharge at each pixel was a separate cathode from which electrons excite phosphor glow), only much more economical and even released a trial TVs for the exhibition. But then I drew some American company which has proved to be right on this technology, and Sony turned the project.
Japanese firms have organized a joint project of Japan Display, but could not compete with the Koreans. At one time, Sharp butted and publishes its own LCD panels for TV, they even had a feature - to the RGB pixels was an extra yellow. But she could not stand the competition.
By the way Sony first released a small OLED TV, but anyway lost LG.
Andrew, of your text, I did not understand, in what type of TV with the brightness problem. In plasma accurately with a brightness was no problem. What about the black in a plasma - it is worse in daylight due to an external source of illumination, but the light from the bulbs, and even more so in the twilight, and particularly in the darkness, plasma out of the competition.
Who plasma praises - but a very high energy consumption and, as a consequence, high heat and high cost, they have a burn-pixel screen.
The only advantage of plasma - a higher color gamut and dynamic range
Something no one recalls another significant shortage of plasma. This dynamic contrast ratio. Unlike LCD technology, where power consumption is independent of the plot, in the plasma, the brighter the picture, the more bar eats. So much so that in the control circuit of the screen parameters in any plasma has an automatic lowering the brightness level of the system. Otherwise consumption when playing vivid scenes to exceed 400-600 watts. This eventually leads to the fact that the contrast is always "plays" in the plasma (!) - the brighter the story, the more intense it is lowered. The most difficult signal for the plasma - "white box". In tests with feeding white field signal observed decrease in its luminance by 25-30 percent compared to the white squares in the signal "chessboard" (where the power supply has enough resources). We even called the signal "pale field." So be careful about the "naturalness" of the image in the plasma, zombies gentlemen.
And another technical feature - the plasma is always used by switching the screen halves, in other words, at each moment of time shows only one half of the image (upper or lower). The switching frequency is reached at some models 600 Hz. And the eyes are already forming a coherent picture. And all this to deal with power, and as a result, overheating of the screens. Someone then led the role of consumption of 345 watts - this average value. In fact, consumption of plasma greatly walks depending on the plot and may reach at the peak of the most 600 watts with screens between 40 inches and 50-dyuymovka and more.
plasma century ended a long time, so do not drool on it 🙂
I Panasonik HD plasma already 10 years, even to the country do not want to take back home like, there is also an LCD Sony 3D. In color plasma nicer and more lively it is simply a must see and do not argue. I regret that the pioneer ful HD plasma did not have time to buy.
Leonid
The greatest advantage of plasma - the maximum clarity in fast scenes, the LCD even come close to this can not be. OLED kind must show without blurring, since the switching time of the pixel is 1 ms, but what I saw in the store is considerably inferior to the plasma.
Alex, the dynamic contrast ratio is almost negligible and does not go to any comparison with the blurring of the image, which is present in LCD TVs.
if a huge plasma power consumption, because of which it was banned in Europe, this is how it should be heated during operation!
I have a normal CRT TV, not yet completely flat. I do not notice that it is much ate and warmed (to throw a pity, works fine)
but highlighting it well need - from Samsung, which I bought for my mother, she worked unevenly last time, but now generally the lower half is not highlighted, only 5 years he worked, and of why such progress?
I sit watching old Samsung CRT, the more I do not. when it was bought in 1995 I still have the seller said that a great choice, and did not disappoint 🙂
I recently changed my Panasonic plasma, and not because he has broken down and he actually began to lose the image is now my 4k shows so it seems better and more impossible. Buy plasma in 2006 appeared on the screen what the dusty spots like the inside does not have to remove them. Plasma TV is really very hard though and made a fairly reliable way when the spots are not visible. But especially the contrast in an LCD TV is much better and the color conveys perfectly. The only thing is superior in my opinion it is more natural image in the plasma. And I tried to sell his plasma nobody wants too is already obsolete even connectors have become the new TV the other.
Denis,
Plasma TVs are heated so that they are built up to 4 fans! Therefore, plasma can be regarded as a heating device)))) Although, seriously, imagine that you have in the room is always on 500W heater. But shows plasma (top model) great.
mrshapinessmurphy @ gmail com
Yes, CRT TVs still have to work a lot, I have too. But, unfortunately, they flicker, as the vast majority of the sweep frequency 50Hz.
In the last 29 "-32" models even have a real resolution FullHD (but at the time they were fabulously expensive) and 100Hz scanning. But unfortunately I was not able to buy this.
a significant drawback of plasma panels is the memory of still images, for example from the first channel logo, furious to see the logo on TV is turned off, this disadvantage outweighs all his dignity, hung the iron coffin on the wall, a pioneer, thrown in the closet hung LCD, happy.
I liked the article, but it is advertising, of course. OLED screens produces only LG. Other manufacturers use the LG screens.
The main advantages of plasma:
Infinitely deep black color - the basis of volume and natural perception.
Direct free films and demonstration of image filters. All except plasma OLED displays through muddy film of different types.
Possibility insane frame rate. This is an opportunity conversion and emulation sets clear full intermediate frames. The picture becomes incredibly realistic.
Ability to save high resolution in scenes with any dynamism.
plasma disadvantages:
low brightness
Inability to increase the resolution up to 4K and higher level, that is the most important trend.
Electricity consumption - funny. Especially in view of reducing almost to zero in dark scenes.
OLED combines advantages almost all of the plasma, but the frame rate to 20 times slower.
Vyacheslav,
Your Plasma old, in 2006, plasma technology is at an early stage, only to the 2013-2014 plasma technology blossomed - began to consume less, almost do not burn out, there was a FullHD. Of course, your old plasma with a low resolution is inferior (but only with the permission) modern LCD TV, but the depth of black (Compare in the dark) and smear (compare to fast running line, such as the bottom channel RBC), the plasma is still out competition. For example, looking at the plasma screen on a separate letter on the running line, you see it Razka, as if she did not move, and static. A letter on the LCD on the move will be smeared and the faster the movement, the more blur and loss of resolution, to which you seem to have switched to the LCD TV. You will say that I do not watch the letters, but you lose the sharpness on all the dynamic moments - instead of flying soccer ball, the ball flies smeared (almost like rugby)))), instead of a puck in hockey - smeared line (assuming that the puck crosses the screen quickly, and it does not hold the camera in the center of the frame. In short, the difference is significant, and in direct comparison you spit on the LCD TV. Of course the plasma should be considered the latest generation with FullHD resolution.
Sergey,
What the model year of your Pioneer plasma screen?
What is it good? Black - NO. Dirty - gray. White - NO. Light gray. Well winter is good - in place of the heater. And in the summer it is already annoying. What about the smeared image LCD - utter nonsense. Each (rogue CRT does not count) monitor - LCD. Where it lubricate??? Properly assembled and customized LCD TV system of regular (not necessarily expensive) components will handicap plasma of 1000%.
LCD brightness is the only plus in front of the plasma. But the brightness is not necessary when viewing movies. But the absence of black, miserable rendition, blurred the boundaries of objects, dynamic blurred scenes, sharp artifacts instead lubricated scenes, for example, 10 balls in football and hockey pucks, no stars in the sky gray spots or gray on a gray... Because of this, I jump miserable shit LCD, LED, QLED and other murky filtering with plastic flowers. OLED is the right choice.
Yuri,
Do not write stuff, just do not know about blurring, just personally, you is not seen as a plasma TV can display.
Find the YouTube video with the title - "Japanese woman on a rope." Look at it at least on a smartphone with an LCD screen, although the LCD TV. So, this Japanese striped blouse, in moments of Japanese movement on one side of the screen to the other side of these strips merge into porridge. To understand how the LCD defiles the image, it is best to take a screenshot on your phone - look at the screenshot - this is a clear image Blouse (ideal each strip can be seen on it) sends a card to the LCD matrix, but in the dynamics of the matrix LCD CAN NOT WITHOUT LOSS OF FIELD convey the real picture that is contained in the video. And during a screenshot of recordable pictures with the video and you see a clear image (with clarity on an LCD static pictures is certainly not inferior to plasma)))). A plasma TV and old CRT monitor - MAY clearly show a picture in the dynamics !!!
What does the plasma or OLED and sound? The author does not bother me all in one pot. Separate image, sound - separately. The more that the normal sound from a good home theater system can be obtained. And about the plasma completely agree - the most in the country plasma TV 51 inches - not Narada!
I have a Samsung Plasma 2008 50 inches. Contrast claimed 1000000 to 1 mu Million! and you do not think that fib is very bright and sharp image. No LCD can not be compared with it. OLED technology is so great and the LCD into the garbage every price category
I have the Pioneer Kuro plasma and OLED LG 2013 2018 visually plasma in no way inferior, but the energy consumption is much higher, but it does not bother, even fun to read about complaints about high electricity consumption... it's like to buy an expensive supercar and cry out for consumption fuel
The sound is of course a separate issue, but, remember, plasma panels came with a pretty serious sound systems, not integrated, and tacked on the sides of the screen. Speakers, built-in the present-day flat TV, can hardly compete with the columns that it was possible to carry in hand. Here the author has developed and stable association of plasma and sound quality.
And I threw out my TV three years ago, and do not regret, do not wish to be a zombie on TV Goebel #
Plasmapõletid paneneli initially showed better LCD, there is already structurally black level has always been much better, but the main disadvantage of increased energy consumption, and in addition, if a much long to leave static (still) image of the matrix could otpechatat- burned. But I am sure that with time all the shortcomings could be corrected. Since the author does not agree that plzmu could not have improved, and the production of a sovershestvovat LCD panel was much easier and cheaper, that's why they went and manufacturers. But they do not persist in, but the main disadvantage of the LCD panel ostalsya- is not present (as it should be!) The black level. Now they hope to fix this transition to clean LED panels, and a not only for illumination (OLEDs), but here nehily any problems, except that these TVs are much more expensive, with a much smaller lifetime (compared with plasma and LCD) but also necessary, for this, the LEDs of different colors at the same time do not wear out - such as blue are less red, green. Of course, such panels have large and they plyusy- very thin, flexible and can be different Black Level, very low power consumption, but still major shortcomings still strongly outweigh,
I read an article about the principle of plasma operation, and how to construct the plasma. Here is the result of plasma panel ETERNAL - is the reason for which was removed from the production of plasma. with each year it becomes cheaper to produce. with its power consumption has fallen every year. Technology does not stand still when there is a production, then there is money, and their modernization. Ask any scientist and technologist in this direction and will tell you exactly Plasma panel itself forever. If televisions and monitors are intentionally divided into separate modules - Panel, receiver, power supply, interface unit with other devices. That plasma panels bought once and for all life. He hung on the wall and forget about the problems of their receivers varies with different codecs and always remains at the level of modern technology. LCD and OLED panel or when they can not be compared to LCDs. Of course today suspended their production and sales. And there are no sales, and hence will not be upgrading. The capitalists want to make money and sell sell, and at first they even wanted to leave the plasma screens in the production and sales, but to do a little trick all in one package, so when you change the encoding or frequency receiver, you have to buy a new TV. We did not separable receiver on one board and the plasma panel itself. But then we realized that it was not for long. yourselfers to quickly find a way to cut it. and it does not care or does not get ahead of other technologies Plasma. Even do not try to argue and compare the pros and cons.. all broken up about the infinity sign plasma operation. A power would be brought to a minimum in the development. Deceive us and taken the path of constant purchases and spending money. ))
Nothing but plasma and projector may not show a live picture. LCD and oled lie in the back. Not natural. Golimaya figure. The eye does not please. on plasma recently refused entry. Propek oven board and everything works. At present, the best plasma, IMHO, nothing. Exorbitant cost for quality oled into an advantage not think so. Cheap 100,000 in my opinion definitely lose plasma.
You just stood in 2008. Wake up
Borya, change your foreign car digital to analog Cossack. All high-quality content for a long time already in the figure. So what are you looking at the figure, the alleged analogue plasma.
Article not.
Provide the best image quality CRT monitors. Disadvantages - the inability to create ultra-large screens, wide screens, expensive customization information, weight and dimensions.
Plasma. Advantages: Not bad, but not quite a natural color reproduction, high brightness. Disadvantages: price, power, fear of static images.
LCD. Pluses: price, cost. Disadvantages: the principle laid down by forming an image on these monitors.
ICE / OLED. Dignity, "almost like a plasma" with low power consumption. Many shortcomings, the technology is still damp. So far - are expensive and short-lived.
Countryman, all right saying. But the algorithm processing.. When you watch a movie shot on film and you see golimuyu figure as if shot yesterday on a digital device, with a train, strobe itd, then lost all desire to look further. And another thing, when you see the film is virtually indistinguishable from the original that you seen on the CRT, then yes, it is more important to me. A similar picture is observed on the modern devices of 100 and above. I have one of the latest plasma skis. And I'm very pleased. LCD and Oled too, Skiing, but up to 100. And to get them, while running a plasma, there is no desire. Perhaps this is my purely subjective perception.
Boris, you forgot to specify that the projector which displays a live picture must be DLP, since projectors LCD matrices and their clones of the same problems as that of LCD TVs - poor contrast and dynamic on smozy images.
xs some hairy plasma times the commentators, I have a 2012 intake - 185vatt, looked Lcd model - 175vatt (51 and 55 inches, respectively). Yes lcd little more economically but to write that because it stopped assembling them... well, it's certainly much. Nitsche platma significantly longer eats.
Steep 50 "Plasma Panasonic 2013 consumes 350W, wee must not forget that in order to limit consumption electricity in the plasma artificially limit the brightness of the image, and without this limiting the plasma in at this point could would 1000W!!! consume. This naturally decreases the image quality, it has not passed the brightness of the image that is actually and therefore spoils the idea of ​​the film director.
I have a modern LCD 49 "led TV consumes 60W at the maximum!!! Thus the difference in energy consumption at the same diagonal at least 5-6 times !!!
