i don't see how lcd is better than plasma, so why does it cost more?

i've been researching a 42-inch set for a long time and i don't get why lcd screens are -- on average -- more expensive than plasma displays.

plasma shows better blacks (and therefore better contrast), but the big one for me is that plasmas have a far superior viewing angles.

i'm not going to wall-mount, so that's not a factor for me.

is it the power consumption? if so, how concerned should i be about that?

i don't think i can afford 1080, and since this is my first HD set i think i'll be blown-away-enough by 720.

 

Better, but not best. Although a few of the new LCDs have some incredible black levels. I'd put the new Sharp Aquos models up against ANY plasma and expect it to tie if not win. The downfall is that the Aquos is hideously red pushed out of the box and you have to tweak the hell out of it to get it to look normal. Take at loot at one @ your local big box and you'll see what I mean. Pay attention to skin tones.

This has not been my experience. Basicly, both of them beat the pants off of DLP and other rear projection, but in general, the two techs have very similar viewing angles. I prefer the LCD, especially for bright saturation colors from weird angles.

Might wanna consider DLP, SXRD or D-ILA then. I only like the SXRD, but all of them equal a much bigger screen and cheaper 1080p than plasma or LCD.

Plasmas:

1. Get hotter
2. Cause they tend to use a LOT more juice
and
3. Burn out faster.

#3 isnt a big factor unless you are the type to keep a TV for 10-15 years. I bought an LCD because I will keep mine, it is 1080p, and I love the way LCDs look on unnatural (think games, animation, etc) programming. And I'm gonna use mine as a PC monitor.

720p looks really good to me on a quality screen. In fact, it looks great. What I dont like is overscan or black bars. My Samsung LCD is 1366x768. I have two choices for 16:9 content -> black bars or overscan. I can live with the black bars, but I feel like Im getting cheated. Overscan blows monkey balls (you lose some of the picture).

Here are some links to look at Larry. Pay attention to the dates on some of the info. This stuff changes fast:

http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/lcd-vs-plasma.asp

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tech_stats/TVdisplay050930.htm

http://digg.com/design/FINALLY_a_legitimate_LCD_vs_Plasma_comparison (fanboys arguing it out)

Ohh, and from probably the best source on the subjects:

The case against 1080p

and this thread turns towards the discussion of plasma versus lcd with some decent links.

Enjoy. Hope that doesnt confuse you more.

FWIW - if youre just gonna watch movies on it, get a Plasma set.

 

two more links:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=747858&highlight=plasma+vs+lcd

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=746491&highlight=plasma+vs+lcd

It's getting to be a coke versus pepsi argument. I think you're fine with whatever suits your budget and usage.

 

Get this and forget it... http://www.discounts-webstore.com/index.php?target=products&product_id=1596

 

I think LCDs have a better picture all around.

 

i read a lot of those links last night. i think plasma is for me. i don't play games at all and won't be using it for a computer monitor.

 

we finally got one. you can really tell the difference when they are next to each other. LCD just has a better picture IMO

 

Agree. When I bought mine, LCD was WAY WAY WAY more expensive than plasma in 42", and I haven't checked on anything since. That was 18 months ago.

 

it's all those tiny motherfucking mirrors, ************

 

If she actually said that, it would be the coolest commercial evar.