Plasma TV, and the Tragedy of Misinformation

Well, the other shoe appears to be dropping in the TV Wars.

Pioneer is exiting the plasma business by March, 2010. On a less impactful note, so is Vizio.

With this news, we can assume that plasma will be seeing a very low level of visibility in manufacturers' lineups. This is a shame, since anyone truly familiar with the technologies of various video displays understands that, broadly speaking, plasma will give viewers better black levels, more accurate color, and superior off-axis viewing. Sure, some sets are a little glare-happy on their screens, but that typically is countered by a glare coating applied to mitigate that issue. This is truly annoying to any self-professed videophile, not wanting to have to sacrifice picture quality based on rumors and speculation about burn-in or lifespan, which have never been correct. Just about a month ago (10+ years after plasma truly hit the ground running), I had a client ask me some months back, "So, have they ever fixed the problem of having to refill the sets after the plasma leaks out?" Trying to stifle laughter, I felt compelled to re-train this person on the differences, and dispel some spoiled knowledge that unfortunately came his way.

So what caused this radical decision on the part of the industry leader in performance plasma? Mythology, poor advice at the retail level and spreading of rampant rumors.

Plasma has had a bad rap since the outset, mainly due to the fact that initially, the technology was really only seen in commercial environments. In those places (airports, restaurants, office foyers, etc) nobody really pays attention to the settings of the TV, nor do they typically pay much attention to the content thereon. In such situations, it's no wonder that people saw cooked TVs--but not due to the "inherent flaws" the technology possesses. Today, one will be steered towards LCD tech in probably 8/10 situations, simply because it's a risk-averse technology--no one screaming at the salesperson about how their kid burned in Super Mario, QVC is now a permanent channel, or how they can't in good conscience use the set due to "green" issues regarding power consumption.

In what seems to be a flailing, failing attempt to at least continue the good fight, below I have listed myths regarding certain issues, and how it affects both LCD and plasma. For the sake of simplicity, I will omit other TV technologies.

1. Plasma TVs don't last any more than a few years: Both LCD and plasma are rated at anywhere from 60,000 to 85,000 hours of viewing, based on five hours per day. Although it is true LCD trend higher on that scale, the myth of "four to five years" of life for plasmas is and has been, broadly speaking, wrong.

2. LCDs are more energy efficient: What year are we discussing? True, most LCDs were more efficient, but the truth is that after a plasma TV is properly dialed back from the torch-like settings found out of the box, the numbers are surprisingly close--so close as to be virtually irrelevant.

3. Plasmas leak: No.

4. A 120hz LCD is better with fast motion than a plasma: 120hz frame interpolation was designed to keep up with plasma's inherently superior refresh abilities at the pixel level. It still looks less natural, but better than 60hz tech.

I could go on, but the point is that unfortunately, the desire to hire the cheapest wage-earners at big box stores is bringing about the demise of a great technology in plasma TV. Of course, they aren't the only culprit, but as clerks, their jobs are to take orders and move products, not educate. In fact, in these environments, the consumer typically has the product-education upper hand.

Down the line, when people are suffering with the quirks of various successor technologies, this period of time will hopefully be looked at with a measure of perspective. Probably not though, and the cycle will repeat, claiming another superior technology that is too good to be understood (and therefore sold) by the retailers that display the largest selection.