A press release from Displaybank predicts that by 2013, more than 86% of all plasma HDTVs sold will be 3D-ready. As the press release points out, it’s easier for plasma to support 3D than it is for LCD technology, because plasma has an innate advantage with its much higher switching speed. The result is that [...]
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/07/hdtv-almanac-3d-to-dominate-plasma-by-2013.php]Read Column[/url]
HDTV Almanac - 3D to Dominate Plasma by 2013
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
-
AVInsights
- Member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:13 am
-
Richard
- SUPER VIP!
- Posts: 2578
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:28 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Contact:
Hi Alfred,
You said...
On top of that I don't see the cost difference at all considering they have been driving LCD at 120Hz and multiples there of for a few years now.
The article does point out that plasma is less expensive compared to 3D LED LCD but LED back lighting is not required to provide 3D on an LCD. Besides, LED technology is being used to charge a premium although it does not cost that much more and with major LED volume around the corner, it will be competitive with flourescent.
All the press release appears to be saying is, 1) plasma manufacturers intend to include 3D capability on 86% of all plasma models available, 2) points out what certain manufacturers are doing to meet that goal, 3) takes a price competitive stab at the LED back lit LCD product line.
You said...
... yet I could not find that statement anywhere in the link you provided.As the press release points out, it’s easier for plasma to support 3D than it is for LCD technology, because plasma has an innate advantage with its much higher switching speed. The result is that the incremental cost for 3D support should be less for plasma than LCD.
On top of that I don't see the cost difference at all considering they have been driving LCD at 120Hz and multiples there of for a few years now.
The article does point out that plasma is less expensive compared to 3D LED LCD but LED back lighting is not required to provide 3D on an LCD. Besides, LED technology is being used to charge a premium although it does not cost that much more and with major LED volume around the corner, it will be competitive with flourescent.
All the press release appears to be saying is, 1) plasma manufacturers intend to include 3D capability on 86% of all plasma models available, 2) points out what certain manufacturers are doing to meet that goal, 3) takes a price competitive stab at the LED back lit LCD product line.
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
Connecting the dots
Richard, you're right that the press release didn't make the point about faster switching; I was explaining why they were justified in claiming that it's easier to do 3D with plasma. You're right about 120 Hz, but that requires a lot of processing power and some special engineering which is not really required with plasma. But I can't argue with your summation of the press release's overall points. Plasma will have to continue to fight an uphill battle with LCD. Even Panasonic is expanding its LCD production capabilities.
Alfred
Alfred