The end of the LCD vs plasma TV format war?
LCD is fast becoming the format of choice for flatscreen TVs, according to shopping website Reevoo.com, and plasma could be in terminal decline.
Growing demand for smaller screen sizes are an increasing threat to plasma TV technology, says Reevoo, with LCD taking increasing market share from plasma.
Reevoo.com analysed data from 60 of the top online electrical retaiers in the final quarter of 2008 and found that plasma's market share more than halved from 22 per cent in October to just 8 per cent in December 2008.
"Flatscreen TVs are now almost ubiquitous in sitting rooms in British homes, meaning that purchasers are more likely to be buying smaller second room TVs for the kitchen or bedroom," says Reevoo.
"Falling consumer spending on non-essential items is also having an impact, with shoppers choosing smaller, cheaper LCD TVs rather than larger plasmas."
Boost in popularity for smaller LCD TVs
Over the Christmas period Reevoo.com tracked a boost in popularity for LCD TVs with a screen size smaller than 26in. This category's share of the market more than doubled between September and December 2008, rising from 15 per cent to become the largest TV category with 35 per cent of the market in December.
What's more, Reevoo says customers are reporting increasing satisfaction with LCD TVs. LCD has finally caught up with plasma picture quality, according to Reevoo's sample of 5708 customers.
Plasma has long been the favourite of home cinema aficianados, with a consistently higher rating for image quality. But LCD has been closing the gap, and in January 2009 that gap became almost non-existent, with the average LCD and plasma screen being rated 8.9 out of 10 by Reevoo.com's sample.
Plasma TVs are cheaper than LCDs
And contrary to popular opinion, plasmas are not more expensive than LCDs, with the cost of a 42in plasma averaging £525 in 2008, £22 cheaper than an equivalently-sized LCD.
Sam Bostock, category manager for televisions at Reevoo.com, says: "Shoppers shouldn't mourn the passing of plasma. Customer reviews prove that LCDs perform just as well as plasmas, and the great thing is they're more environmentally friendly too."
Reevoo backs up that statement with a claim that a plasma screen on average uses 50 per cent more electricity than an equivalent LCD, so shoppers can save £38 a year by switching from plasma to LCD.
Mmm, that's a bold claim, especially as plasma manufacturers such as Panasonic have gone out of their way to reduce the power consumption of their 2009 model screens.
And the latest figures we've seen from industry analysts Gfk show that 100,000 plasma screens were sold in December 2008, still a significant number. We don't reckon plasma is dead just yet.
As for LCD picture quality, the more vocal members of our Forums will no doubt have much to say about that issue. So let us know what you think.
Comments
Its articals like this that make my life harder, you'll get some ''know it all'' come and speak to me and quote something like this...
I demand consumer education thats not biased...
Places like Comet/Currys dont help matters, employing snotty nosed kids that are only there to pickup a weekly wage, and think they know more than they do...
I still believe plasma better than lcds
Probably should'nt do this but:
FrankHarveyHiFi - Have you checked your emails recently?
No wonder more LCD's are sold than plasmas. Was in Curry.digital (or whatever they call it now), and they had an LG LCD and LG plasma sitting next to each other, playing the same film, with a sign above them saying "LCD vs Plasma". Of course, on initial glance the LCD looks better because it's brighter, and hence to most people, 'better'. But if you looked at it for longer than a moment, you'd realise that even though the plasma looked darker, you'd rather watch a 2 hour film on that than be given a headache by the LCD, which was obviously set to 'dynamic', and if it wasn't then God help those that use the dynamic feature....
I sometimes like the brightness and 'extra crispy' picture LCD gives, but can't stand the still obvious motion problems, and the less accurate black reproduction. I purchased a Panasonic Plasma and think I made a great decision! It doesn't offer that eye bleeding level of brightness and sharpness a Sony has, but it's got what I want - a truly accurate AND PLEASING picture.
Plasma all day long - best high def picture, better than lcd in my view
uksamo - could you break that down for me some more?
Mind - we already have a 32" plasma.
Sorry, that should have read:
"Plasma every time, I'd never consider Lousy Crystal Disaster...
Plasma every time, I'd never consider Lousy Crystal Display...
LCD displays always disapoint me picture wise. Most people don't even set their TV up correctly, so reviews by the ignorant are hardly definative. Factor in sales staff in the big stores with even less idea than their customers and you are bound to get a confused view. My LCD owning friends are always astounded at the quality of my plasma nuff said
QUOTE: "And if plasmas were made in smaller sizes more, that would become obvious."
QUOTE: "Why not make a tv that has the best of both worlds :-)"
Each pixel in a plasma TV requires a minimum volume of gas to form a plasma and emit light, thus there's physical limitations on how small plasma TV's can be created.
I believe OLED or FED TV technology will be the answer. Both tech's will provide improved performance, colour depth, efficiency, size etc.
Its an absolute load of old cobblers.
And if plasmas were made in smaller sizes more, that would become obvious.
Even Sony's LCD screens don't compete with plasma. Plasma just has a filmic look and realistic colours that LCD cannot seem to rival. When LCD does rival plasma in terms of picture quality, then I might consider buying one.
Unfortunately the 'great' British public don't always buy the best product. If they did then that would mean that Ronan Keating was one of the greatest musicians of our time.
I have never seen an LCD screen that can compete on picture quality terms with a plasma from Pioneer.
Dan
Yesterday I watched Pirates of the Caribbean "At The worlds End" in blue ray HD, on my Kuro 5090H.
I do not think an LCD can show these dark scenes at the beginning of the movie in such a great detail. I could see absolutely everything in the background!
On similar sizes LCDs in most scenes you can just see black. A black wall on the LCD is a dark wall on the plasma with stones and debris and texture! Perhaps the only LCDs that can compete are the new and super expensive LED displays which cost 2000 Euros more than my Pioneer. I 've seen a 3900 euro Philips one few days ago in a store and it looked great but there wasn't a good big plasma around to compare. That particular store favours LCDs...
With Pioneer out of the game maybe LCD is winning the war, but for now I think you still get the best picture from plasma. (and note I was an LCD pro until I experienced the Kuro effect
)
FYI: The Dutch Government is about to consider banning the sale of Plasma's due to their environmantal footprint. Even if the law is not passed, and is only discussed in The Netherlands, its a serious hit to Plasma reputation.
Why not make a tv that has the best of both worlds
I still think that for HD is better LCD but plasma for SD.
Tom