4 ms·

And 5 minutes later oled came out, viewing angles improved, brightness of 100nits wasn’t cutting it, and they were not worth it. They had a moment. Edit: my poi

And 5 minutes later oled came out, viewing angles improved, brightness of 100nits wasn’t cutting it, and they were not worth it. They had a moment. Edit: my point is that there is no mystery in the article. What happened with them? Nothing. The technology was only good in that context, like many others, but it wasn’t any holy grail once LCDs improved a bit.

rsynnott 4y ago
The interesting thing is that plasmas died before OLED was really born; you couldn't get a sensible OLED at the time that the last plasma was discontinued.
bonzini 4y ago
More like 5 years later.
vetinari 4y ago
OLEDs at the TV sizes came years after plasma. You could make it natural upgrade. If you had one with 100 nits, you got defective unit.
- happyopossum 4y ago
  FTA: Even the best plasma TVs could only reach just over 100 nits of peak brightness in a 10% window test.
  - vetinari 4y ago
    It wasn't that bad (I had one). But the article also compares them to todays LCDs with 1000 nits. LCDs at the time weren't so bright either, they were about so bright as plasmas, but unlike plasmas, they also were gray goo.
  - dbttdft 4y ago
    The article is shit, but all I could find is that RTings measured 80 nits on some plasma TV. So it wouldn't surprise me. But this is fine. OLED is low brightness too. And CRTs can be adjusted down. This is one of the advantages of not using an LCD. LCDs are too bright. The sole use for their brightness is to be able to be used in sun light in the afternoon but why would you not just close the curtains at that point instead of getting fried. Brightness is literally what the guy at the electronics store uses to try and sell you this vs that monitor.
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      OLED is "low brightness" at 200-300 nits. 100 means that if there's any ambient light at all, the contrast ratio is ruined.
      - dbttdft 4y ago
        I don't think that means that. I have a CRT I keep around 100 nits and it still has an order of magnitude higher quality color with a lamp behind me to the side.
    - vetinari 4y ago
      Plasma panels age. The last models were rated for 60,000 hours lifespan (to lose half of their brightness). So if they measured some 10-15 years old panel that spent most of its life being turned on, there's your answer.
2bitencryption 4y ago
It was more than a moment. For roughly a decade, your options were Plasma, LCD, or rear projection (or briefly hi-def CRT which was pretty wild). There was not much overlap of consumer-priced plasma and OLED panels.
- christoph 4y ago
  For anybody that truly cared about picture quality above all else, Plasma ruled for many years. This is easily validated by going back to reviews/AV forum discussions of Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas around 2008 -> 2012. One big thing to also remember, that I think gets forgotten is that in that time period there was still a huge amount of SD content being produced/viewed, in the era before vaguely decent post-processing, Plasma made much of this material watchable/enjoyable on the larger screen sizes. LCDs would generally produce an awful mess, especially with the early/janky picture processing they employed when viewing SD content, especially 24fps content - many plasmas had native 24fps modes, specifically designed for handling lower frame rate content. Lots of those Pioneer/Panasonic plasmas all had "hidden" service menus that allowed people tweak/calibrate all sorts of picture variables to their hearts content as well, which rightly or wrongly, probably also helped give them a certain love within cinephile type groups.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rsynnott 4y ago

The interesting thing is that plasmas died before OLED was really born; you couldn't get a sensible OLED at the time that the last plasma was discontinued.

bonzini 4y ago

More like 5 years later.

vetinari 4y ago

OLEDs at the TV sizes came years after plasma. You could make it natural upgrade. If you had one with 100 nits, you got defective unit.

happyopossum 4y ago
FTA: Even the best plasma TVs could only reach just over 100 nits of peak brightness in a 10% window test.
- vetinari 4y ago
  It wasn't that bad (I had one). But the article also compares them to todays LCDs with 1000 nits. LCDs at the time weren't so bright either, they were about so bright as plasmas, but unlike plasmas, they also were gray goo.
- dbttdft 4y ago
  The article is shit, but all I could find is that RTings measured 80 nits on some plasma TV. So it wouldn't surprise me. But this is fine. OLED is low brightness too. And CRTs can be adjusted down. This is one of the advantages of not using an LCD. LCDs are too bright. The sole use for their brightness is to be able to be used in sun light in the afternoon but why would you not just close the curtains at that point instead of getting fried. Brightness is literally what the guy at the electronics store uses to try and sell you this vs that monitor.
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    OLED is "low brightness" at 200-300 nits. 100 means that if there's any ambient light at all, the contrast ratio is ruined.
    - dbttdft 4y ago
      I don't think that means that. I have a CRT I keep around 100 nits and it still has an order of magnitude higher quality color with a lamp behind me to the side.
  - vetinari 4y ago
    Plasma panels age. The last models were rated for 60,000 hours lifespan (to lose half of their brightness). So if they measured some 10-15 years old panel that spent most of its life being turned on, there's your answer.

2bitencryption 4y ago

It was more than a moment. For roughly a decade, your options were Plasma, LCD, or rear projection (or briefly hi-def CRT which was pretty wild). There was not much overlap of consumer-priced plasma and OLED panels.

christoph 4y ago
For anybody that truly cared about picture quality above all else, Plasma ruled for many years. This is easily validated by going back to reviews/AV forum discussions of Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas around 2008 -> 2012. One big thing to also remember, that I think gets forgotten is that in that time period there was still a huge amount of SD content being produced/viewed, in the era before vaguely decent post-processing, Plasma made much of this material watchable/enjoyable on the larger screen sizes. LCDs would generally produce an awful mess, especially with the early/janky picture processing they employed when viewing SD content, especially 24fps content - many plasmas had native 24fps modes, specifically designed for handling lower frame rate content. Lots of those Pioneer/Panasonic plasmas all had "hidden" service menus that allowed people tweak/calibrate all sorts of picture variables to their hearts content as well, which rightly or wrongly, probably also helped give them a certain love within cinephile type groups.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]