|
Both LCD and Plasma have their pro's & cons (LCD uses a lot less power than Plasma for instance) but Plasma's do have less cons now than they used to: The biggest issue with them was always screen 'burn-in' but most newish models have built in protection against that now so getting permanent black bars really is a thing of the past (if it were not, word would be out and the technology long since abandoned by now)
LCD...Biggest con is that no LCD I have ever seen handles SD signals well at all. The picture simply looks awful (very bland and blurry) no matter how well it is set up - and after trying for hours with all manner of recommended settings on my sisters very expensive Panasonic number I can speak with the confidence of experience on that matter.
High Definition is what LCD is made for though and the quality there is great, however...the picture still comparatively weak in brightness/contrast to any Plasma (or good old CRT for that matter) and still (for me) looks noticeably bland.
Another thing to consider is 1080p HD really is wasted on screens under 50". For screens under that size the full HD resolution is simply not required so that's a costly feature you are paying for that makes ****** all difference to what you will be seeing.
Anyhow, summing up, LCD is tech to look at in the future, not now (imho), and until you have a set-up running entirely on HD signals, Plasma remains the best tech available to cover both SD and HD performance for screens over 30".
|
