[mixsit]

I've only just started looking at (or more accurately, paying attention to ) flat screen tvs so please excuse the beginner's question-
So far it seems that the plasmas have more natural images over LCD, but there's almost nothing available in the smaller sizes. Is that because there is little market for small sets like that?
Wayne

[kenscott30]

My guess is that there are only a few plants manufacturing Plasmas and there is more of a demand for 42, 50, 70" models...Why start a manufacturing process only to sell a few hundred small plasmas.  I think that's why it is pretty small money to get a 32 over a 36 or a 47 over a 42".

Ken

[TheChairGuy]

My guess is similar to Ken Scott's.....but with another slight twist.  There may be sufficiant interest for smaller screens, but as there are fewer manufacturers for it, the few that do maximize dollars by producing larger screens only.  The lead in electronics is very small - while you have it (as Pioneer and other Plasma makers do now) - why squander it with smaller/less profitable offerings?

In time, as they popularize and gain additional manufacturers, they will likely produce smaller screen sizes and be more comparably priced with LCD's.

I think the cost differential for same sized sets have skinnied from 100% more to only about 30% more now (just at quick glance at some recent offerings)....it's in the right direction, at least 

[JoshK]

It doesn't make any sense from the manufacturers POV.  There is already serious competition existing in the smaller screen arena with the LCDs, so why build out capabilities where you are going to be squeezed for profit?  I think plasma's are more expensive to manu IIRC, so they focus where there is still some margin, the higher end sets where the consumer is more likely to care that the plasma provides better blacks etc.

[DSK]

I also read recently (sorry, didn't bookmark it) where tests indicated that plasma's picture quality margin over LCD was greater as the screen size increased. At the smaller end, say 40", the best LCD's and plasmas were relatively equal in performance.

[mixsit]

I also read recently (sorry, didn't bookmark it) where tests indicated that plasma's picture quality margin over LCD was greater as the screen size increased. At the smaller end, say 40", the best LCD's and plasmas were relatively equal in performance.

All the market driven reasons seem logical enough. Which brings me back to this. What I don't understand is I've yet to see a medium (30" range) LCD not look odd' to me, (color, metallic hues etc.. Then again my 19" p/c screen looks beautiful.. Hmm. 

[Zero]

I love plasmas. They have a quickest and most natural looking flat screen on the market, rivaled only by a solid CRT (such as the Sony XBR). To out-perform a good plasma, you're gunna have to sink some SERIOUS cash into an overhead projector/screen set-up. Reliability on some of the latest screens from Panasonic is incredible - with a half-life span that is greater than any other sort of television. And Pioneer.. sheesh, what a great picture.

That said, plasma's are, at this point in time, too expensive to manufacturer in small sizes...

LCD's by sharp contrast - are cheap to build. At least, in small sizes. However, once you take it above 40" the manufacturing costs rise tremendously. Plasma actually offers the better value in this territory, and by no small margin.