Originally Posted By: alan
 Originally Posted By: sirquack
The whole lcd versus plasma question has me confused. \:\)


Here are the differences: All LCD displays have reduced contrast and overall picture quality when viewed from extreme angles to either side. The picture on plasma sets does not deteriorate viewed from angles. The best LCD sets have improved considerably, but you can still easily see the effect--try it in a store. Watch the picture intently and walk to either side and you'll see the contrast and the color values deteriorate.

This isn't a big deal if you normally sit on-axis or at modest angles away from the LCD screen.

Plasmas tend to use quite a lot more power than LCD displays, some almost twice as much.

The other problems of LCD displays are occasional "motion artifacts" with rapid motion--a blurring of a ball or hockey player moving cross-screen. The increased refresh rates of newer LCD displays combat this to a large degree. Keep in mind that the video compression of MPEG2 or MPEG4, used in all satellite, cable-TV, Blu-ray, DVD, and broadcast transmission of HD also introduce brief but sometimes visible motion artifacts, so it's hard to know what's causing them. Still, watch some fast-motion sports on a couple of different brands of LCDs in a store (and a plasma if there's one nearby) to see if you can spot any annoying motion trails.

Generally speaking, plasmas don't have visible motion artifacts of the sort sometimes seen on LCD displays.

Regards,
Alan


Alan (or anyone \:\) ) , could you please help me understand how DLP would perform/underperform compared to LCD and plasma. Right now, my eye is on the 67 in. Samsung because I've heard excellent things about it on these forums and abroad.

Thank you very much


The only reasonable argument for owning a gun is to protect yourself from the police.