PDA

View Full Version : TV sales by type



Dr Mordrid
25th December 2006, 05:21
Compiled by NPD Group

2005:

CRT: 46%
LCD: 26%
Plasma: 5%
Other (projection etc.): 33%

2006:

LCD: 49%
CRT: 21%
Plasma: 10%
Other (projection etc.): 20%

59% of new TV's are now LCD or Plasma, the vast majority of which are of course HD. Most of the "Other" category are also likely HD.

Talk about an obvious trend line :p

My 2 cents;

1. people want big screens.

2. they're happy with how their new LCD computer monitors look/play video and that transfers directly to LCD TV sales in spite of issues some "pro's" may see with them.

3. Joe/Jane Sixpack are far more concerned with replacing $200-$300 lamps semi-annually, size (mainly for projections) & high power consumption (plasma & projection) than what "pro's" consider IQ negatives for LCD's; see #2.

4. ever see a plasma in a fluorescent-lit showroom next to an LCD? Ewwww....

Elie
25th December 2006, 15:03
I predict the following for 2007...

LCD 50%
Plasma 35%
CRT 5%
Other 10%

Mehen
25th December 2006, 17:03
I don't think Plasma will rise by that much, and with any luck the Other category will rise with the advent of new technology (SED should make its first appearance in 2007).

I am actually suprised the Other category dropped from 05 to 06, I prefer DLP over LCD or Plasma.

agallag
25th December 2006, 21:53
I agree. My DLP set looks nicer than any LCD or Plasma I've seen yet. Sure, it's bigger, but with the picture quality and substantial cost savings, I'll live with that for now.

agallag
25th December 2006, 21:57
...and even though my set is rather big, it's still very pretty. See here:

http://forums.murc.ws/showpost.php?p=547224&postcount=28

Mehen
26th December 2006, 00:05
That picture proves a good point too - do you really need it to be only an inch thick anyways? It is plenty thin enough for your space - I mean, who honestly hangs their plasma above their fireplace like in the commercials anyways?

Out of all the technologies out NOW, DLP would definitely be my #1 choice if I had to get a new tv.

Dr Mordrid
26th December 2006, 00:12
I predict the following for 2007...

LCD 50%
Plasma 35%
CRT 5%
Other 10%

LCD 65%
Plasma 15%
CRT 10% (post-Christmas sales of old stock)
Other 10%

Why so low for Other? Because people like the idea of hanging the set on the wall. Save for those enamored with projection for its virtues most people I talk to state three show-stoppers;

1. replacing those $200-$300 lamps on a regular basis.

2. the power consumption of said lamps.

3. their cases are freakin' HUGE. A whole lot of people, mainly wives like mine, can't figure out how to decorate around that big damn black/silver box & they do have a big say about the purchase :p

This makes projection sets a niche device, not a general purpose solution.

TransformX
26th December 2006, 00:24
LCD and I mean the spiffy new ones I see at the store, have one BIG minus that you don't need to be a pro to notice, if you care about it.
Dark color is crap. Watch a night/dark scene in a movie, a rock concert or anything with a dark backdrop etc. Instead of seeing things in the dark, seeing different shades of blue, black and many other colors, you see big black stains.

Dr Mordrid
26th December 2006, 00:29
And this differs from Comcast & most other cables dark area compression banding how?

Sorry, but most people are so used to that bit-budgeting defect in cable & many DVD's it matters mainly to those with satellite (hardly ever see it there) or people like you.

The people I talk to have the attitude that every TV system has its drawbacks and limited blacks are less objectionable than snow, interference, line twitter and the other foibles we've been used to for ages.

In return they give up red/blue smudging and get bright, saturated colors that draw their eyes from the blacks, much as the high brightness/contrast luma in DV video streams draw the eye from its poor color resolution which in NTSC is half that of broadcast video (slightly better in PAL).

BTW: ever notice that single CCD consumer DV cams aren't too sweet in the blacks either? Consumers accepted that too as part of "the DV tradeoff".

Like it or not, that's the street view.

TransformX
26th December 2006, 05:01
Well, when I do watch TV it's either DVD or satellite. Either way, for better or worse it's PAL.
Current set is a 32", wide screen 100hz Samsung CRT that my inlaws bought for us. Very decent TV other than weighting around 60Kg...

Kooldino
26th December 2006, 14:01
What are the benefits of plasma?

DLP looks good, but i hear that they have "lag" in regards to gaming.

Elie
26th December 2006, 14:37
Benefits of plasma as far as I heard...
1-the blacks are pitch back, which is extremely nice, compare to LCD
2-LCD suffers from ghosting due to speed limitations, whre plazma doesn't apperantly.
You have to buy an extremely expensive LCD set in the low 5ms rates for it to be good.

both LCD and plazma may have the same life span.

Dr Mordrid
26th December 2006, 15:17
OLED's are are running 2 ms with up to a 10,000:1 contrast ratio. Seiko-Epson expects to market 40 inchers in 2007.

rylan
26th December 2006, 16:17
Yeah, Plasma has a far superior contrast ratio (due to good blacks) than LCD, along with excellent viewing angle, which LCD isn't very good at. Viewing angle normally isn't an issue though since most people watch tv from a fairly centered position. Response time on Plasma is also excellant, being essentially like a CRT. This is the biggest problem that I have with LCD, since watching sports sucks on an LCD due to the ghosting from the response. Plasma also has superior color reproduction than LCD, due to the CCFL bulbs in an LCD set. However, far more development money is being spent on improving LCD tv technology than plasma, so it won't be long before big LCD TVs are on par with plasma.

Oh yeah and as for OLED's, yes they are nice but are still several years out from being viable on a mass production scale, especially for large devices like TVs. The life of the blue organic material is still far from sufficient. If those sets come out, they will cost a LOT (much like Plasma did when it first came out) and have numerous issues (again like Plasma did in its early stage). I'd be watching SED more closely than OLED for tvs, assuming they can also get SED yields up for mass production.

Kooldino
27th December 2006, 06:45
both LCD and plazma may have the same life span.


Really? I heard that plasmas only last about 4 years...

Kooldino
27th December 2006, 06:49
Yeah, Plasma has a far superior contrast ratio (due to good blacks) than LCD, along with excellent viewing angle, which LCD isn't very good at.

Gotta argue with that point. The LCDs I see in the store have damn near 180* viewing angles.

One thing I don't like about LCDs (or maybe this is with HDTVs in general?):

Watching SDTV on an LCD HDTV looks worse than it does on m SDTV. Is this the case with plasma as well?

GT98
27th December 2006, 07:55
Watching SDTV on an LCD HDTV looks worse than it does on m SDTV. Is this the case with plasma as well?

Yes, since the SDTV resoultion is only 300-400 Lines, where HDTV starts at 480. its just like looking at 640x480 scaled up to fit a 20in LCD on a computer...

rylan
27th December 2006, 20:02
Yeah, depends on the scalar chip, but generally that'll look bad on any HDTV.

Chrono_Wanderer
27th December 2006, 21:28
I think the only reason why LCDs have such a huge market share is because you can't get small PDPs. The best scaling I've seen on an LCD is probably a 20" Toshiba, and even that was very crappy. LCDs look nice in stores when they're running at 720p, but when you bring it home and view those SD-only channels they look even worse than a 20 year old CRT.

In the long run, LCDs (and by that time, OLEDs) is the only option when every single channel is boardcasted in full HD. Plasmas use more electricity, heat up more, but without that native resolution crap. I think Plasmas and DLPs are the only practical replacements of CRT TV sets for the next few years. (unless they find out some funky way to improve the scaling on LCDs / OLEDs)

First generation plasmas have around 20000hrs I believe. Current Plasmas have 60000hrs (at least by MTBF... not sure how much you can trust that). But I think LCDs are still more reliable, the thing that would die first is probably the backlit.

rylan
27th December 2006, 21:45
The CCFLs in LCDs are good for 40k-50k hours to 50% of original brightness.
Its an exponential type curve, where the biggest brightness drop is in the first 5-10k hours... so the display can lose 20-25% of its brightness in that time.

Chrono_Wanderer
29th December 2006, 14:37
I don't remember where I read this, but I think PDP's brightness half life is a lot sooner than the CCFLs on LCDs.

rylan
29th December 2006, 15:05
Yup... well it used to be that plasmas were 20-30k hours to half brightness. Plasmas are now 40-50k hour to half-brightness, while most LCDs are now 50k and up.

Lots of it is turning into marketing specmanship now between the manufacturers. If your tv gets used 8 hour/day every day of the year, thats about 3000 hours per year. Even after 10 years at that use rate, both a plasma and lcd tv will be substantially brighter than a 10 year old CRT based TV.

Dr Mordrid
29th December 2006, 15:50
The life of the blue organic material is still far from sufficient. If those sets come out, they will cost a LOT (much like Plasma did when it first came out) and have numerous issues (again like Plasma did in its early stage).
Blue OLED lifetimes hit 400,000 hours @100cd/m²; 25,000 hours @400cd/m² (http://www.oled-info.com/blue_color/cdt_announces_another_lifetime_milestone_400_000_h ours_for_blue)

Long enough for you? :p

Our LCD's rarely get set to over 20% (most often 0%) on their brightness scales so.....

Mehen
29th December 2006, 17:31
Thats pushing 50 years of straight running. Yikes.

Some specs on SED if anyone is interested.

From wiki:
Exceptional 50,000:1 contrast ratio (dark room only). According to IGN at the 2006 CES show Toshiba's final versions of SEDs will ship with a contrast ratio of 100,000:1.
Exceptional 1ms response time.
Brightness of 450 cd/m2.[3].
180 degree viewing angle.

Dr Mordrid
29th December 2006, 18:39
I'd be watching SED more closely than OLED for tvs, assuming they can also get SED yields up for mass production.

Toshiba's president says OLED is the successor to SED :)

Granted he also says they don't plan on using OLED until 2015 +/-, but on reading a bit deeper it sounds like this is because they have so much invested in SED than anything else. As such their position may change if the market leapfrogs them and their timetable, which is very possible. Other companies aren't so conservative in their OLED timetables

@|Mehen|

Samsungs OLED response time is now less than 0.01ms.

Chi Mei EL Corporation (CMEL)/Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO), sold here as Westinghouse, have a 25" OLED TV in testing now.

Mehen
29th December 2006, 20:22
What impresses me from those specs is the contrast ratio, makes LCDs seem like a joke.

rylan
30th December 2006, 17:57
25K hours at 400cd on blue OLEDs isn't acceptable for commercialization into tvs etc. For small devices, that'll be fine since they don't run bright anyway and people won't care if there is color shift from the blues dimming before the red and green... and thats where oled will be targeted first, such as cell phones and portable media devices + laptops due to the substantial power savings over lcd.

Yup, contrast ratio for SEC and OLED will be great, since they are a light generating source and not dependant upon blocking light such as in an LCD array.

I'll be at CES and looking at some of the SED and OLED displays so I'll give an update if I see anything new.