On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:19:52 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with
the recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought
that might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:
http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...-32468193.html

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

Power consumption, heat generation, picture brightness, operational
lifetime, reliability. Another big reason is that even if you go by
the rated spec for Plasma length of service, that doesn't include
burn-in. I use my LCD TV as a *big* computer monitor and also for
playing games with the PS3. LCD does not suffer from screen burn with
static areas of bright screen. Plasma does.

When I watch a 4:3 program on my widescreen, I don't want to
strrreeecchhhhh it to fill the screen and have it distorted. But you
have to do that to prevent plasma burn-in. I want to see it 4:3 with
black bars on the side. If you do that a lot with plasma, the area
where the bars are will eventually be brighter than the rest of the
screen when you watch a fullscreen program. Some stations put gray
bars up for you to prevent plasma burn-in. But they're far and few
between. If you watch a lot of movies with the 2.35 aspect ratio,
your plasma display will burn-in the area between the black bars on
the top and bottom of the display.

It doesn't matter anyway as this whole debate will become moot as soon
as LED panel technology becomes more mature.

Steve