Wow... I like it when someone takes 9 pages to talk about their experience in reviewing and comparing screens without ever reviewing or comparing any screens. All of these "subjective" comparisons are hardly a good way to argue or defend screen technologies.

This must have been written by an 8th grader, because it was all filler with no substance. My head hurts now and I think I'm going to give him an 'F' for being a flamer.

I did my homework on this beofre buying a new TV recently. I went with LCD. Here's why:
Plasma TVs gulp down power. A 50" Plasma uses about 700W of power!!! That sort of usage is noticeable when you come to pay the electricity bill.
Plasma TVs, especially big ones, are crazy heavy and so are a significant problem to mount on a normal drywall.
Also I've been told from more than one source that if you tilt a plasma TV more than about 20 degrees from vertical (even when not plugged in) you ca permanently damage the screen.
Plasma TVs seem to have a fuzzy appearance to me. In a side-by-side comparison in the store, My Samsung 52A750 LCD had a noticeably sharper image compared to more expensive sony an panasonic plasmas.

100 inch plasma? Geezus that must take 1500 watts? Suck energy like there's no tomorrow.

Simply put, you wont see the blur in LCD if you don't go looking for it. Movies in the dark with awesome black levels? pfft, get a projector. JVC LCoS on a 120 inch screen...priceless.

Viewing angles is no longer a big issue between plasma and LCD. My sceptre is visible at very wide angles, trust me, with the size of my family, sitting in front of the tv is not always an option.

Lifespan is diminished in high altitudes. I live in Denver, and I have noticed that most Plasmas that have been purchased by family and friends do not last long at all. Most companies have given the explanation that it is the high altitude.

I am a gamer, and I play CODWAW WOW and many other games on my 46" lcd and to be honest, I never notice motion blur, but I am also not trying to find it, the new 120hz systems have virtually eliminated motion blur from hd signals, and most Game setups.

You say that you have tested these things, but I see no proof, no pictures, nothing other then words to back up you claims. Most of the things you list are old diatribe from the beginning of LCDs, most of which technology has defeated at least 2 years ago. Yes Plasmas have blacker blacks, and depending on the LCD, plasmas can have better colors, but why spend more money on a technology that will remain on the top of the price list when you can wait a bit longer for LCD to close the gap. Plasma, like all technology, is limited in its expansion, or upgrade ability, LCDs are as well, but with the innovations streaming out from LCD R&D on a daily basis versus the fairly stagnant development of Plasmas, I would say that the LCD has a better platform to keep it going for years to come.

I would say to purchase current equipment, and redo this article with more visible proof to back up your claims.

who cares about plasma when OLED is coming out in the next few years

OK, I have been watching a Sony Bravia 52" and a Sony Bravia XBR4 46" for the last year, and about 2 weeks ago I bought a Pioneer Kuro Elit 50" plasma when I read about Pioneer discontinuing plasmas. I have them all in different rooms naturally, so I haven't done a side-by-side comparison. However, I haven't seen a huge difference in the picture quality, once all the TVs are set for the input source optimums.

The XBR4 has a 120Hz refresh rate so motion blur is not very noticeable. I sit about 8 ft. from it so I can spot any defects easily. The Kuro is being used as a 2nd computer monitor so I sit even closer to it - about 3 ft. The 52" gets the most use as it hangs above the fireplace in the family room and typical viewing distance is maybe 12 ft.

IMHO the best picture I have seen so far was my Sharp Aquos 45" LCD - once adjusted, it had the best color reproduction of all of them. Unfortunately it developed a black line across the screen a couple months after the 1 yr warranty expired, and Sharp had discontinued that model and in fact, no replacement screens were available. Luckily I had purchased it with a platinum Visa card, so they reimbursed me for about 70% of the purchase price, which paid for the XBR4 Sony. I will never buy another Sharp product, but I freely admit they had the best picture...

Anyway, the old saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder seems to ring true here.

I think only LCDs with TN-Technology have bad viewing angels.
Some LCDs have reached 2ms or less (no visible bulring).
LCD black light bleeding is a problem.
LCD color calibration is difficult.
I prefer LCDs over Plasma because they are affordable, but that doesn't mean that plasma should go
anyway
Thanx for the review, now how about you put some efforts in showing Plasma's poor side?

blah, blah, blah, blah, Save Plasma, blah, blah, blah.

Sorry i have a Samsung LN52A750 LCD and I love it. But I don't have a plasma to watch side by side. I guess I am missing the extremely marginal differences between my LCD and an equal plasma.

Was this article wrote 2 years ago, because much of this information just isnt true anymore.
The money you save buying a plasma that IS EQUAL in quality to an LCD of similar size is lost after just 1 year of useage, due to increased wattage. Also, if something was ever to happen to your TV and you opted to get it fixed, the difference in cost of repairs is 3x more costly on a plasma.
Yes plasma offers darker blacks, because LCD has to make black with light. Watching a new Samsung LCD though, tell me that you see a large difference.
In the end, smaller than 50" Plasma had no market, and now with LCD taking over the larger sizes in roughly similar costs, Plasma has no market over 50".
Pioneer Kuro 60" Plasmas are still the standard for reproduction, but thier retail suggested price is $5500-6500.
Samsung's LN55A950 55" LCD is easily had for $4000, will cost on average $10 or more less per month to operate, and if something was ever to happen to it, you have less to shell out for repairs.
The 1 other thing this article doesnt mention is you CANT get burn in on an LCD but it is still possible to get on plasmas. This is something that everyone who loves plasmas forgets to mention. So when using as monitor, or for video games, this can become a major situation.

I have a 42" 1080p Vizio LCD and a 50" 1080p Panasonic Plasma. The plasma definitely has the more natural picture (I've calibrated both).

@ niz....what are you talking about "normal drywall"? If you're mounting any flat panel and not hitting studs in the wall you're an idiot.

Plasma's are still a good choice for large screens... but LCD's have beat them in every product category they compete in.

IMO Plasma screens do tend to have VERY marginally color, but not enough to justify the energy cost IMO. Also... they're not the best color reproduction technology (by a long shot). Projection is better than plasma OR LCD... and the good old 3 tube projector is still BY FAR the best for color (very expensive though).

The debate is similar to one that occurred several years ago: Betamax versus VHS. Looking at only the technology side of things, Betamax was better. However VHS won the war for totally other reason: major movie distributors decided to choose VHS.

In the end, the technology doesn't matter that much: it's all about perception. If the TV looks good enough in the store and people can't see a very obvious difference between the plasmas and the LCDs, then they choose whatever is the lowest price. CUrrently LCD is winning at that game.

Yes, I believe when you look closely at it and compare two screens side-by-side, Plasma will look better. However when you simply look at one of the two in your living room, the vast majority of people will be satisfied with the technology they bought, no matter which one it is.

Plasma is being seriously hurt in Europe because of it's power consumption. Some countries are actually considering passing laws to ban them. That's why Panasonic had no choice but come out with lower consumption panels. I'm sure this increases the production cost for Panasonic (although I haven't read anything to that effect). Unless of course they simply lower the overall brightness of the panel to make up for it (it will be interesting to read the first reviews of these new models).

In North America, I think the vast majority of people don't see such a big difference between the 2 so they go for the cheapest. As long as people are satisfied with their purchase, there's no problem. I bought a VHS a few years ago and I'm still satisfied with it (still plays those children VHS that I don't want to replace because the kids will outgrow them in 2-3 years). I still have one Sony CRT TV which is working perfectly fine. So as long as it fulfills my needs, I don't really care about the fact these technologies are not available anymore. Content producers (Cable/sattelite TV) are the ones that will force me to switch because they will change their content (digital, lots of 16:9 format rather than 4:3).

LCD have made great improvements to catch up with plasmas. Plasmas are making marginal improvements since they are already at the top of the technology. Therefore the gap between the two is reducing.
Then it there will be only one differentiator left: price.

As for OLED, it may be a great technology but right now it is still several years away from becoming affordable. It will follow the same curve that plasma followed (remember those 40" plasma screens that cost 10,000$ 7 years ago?).

I think Plasma will die eventually for lack of manufacturer support. Will LCD be the only kid in town? I doubt it. Plasma will hold on for a few more years and OLED will come down in price. Then plasma will fade away and it will be an all out battle LCD vs OLED.
And life will go on!

@piec2

You're history is a little fuzzy. The major movie studios developed vhs so they would not have to royalties to sony for every betamax cassette they produced (as sony owns the patent to betamax technology).

The industry has gone lcd because they make more money. How many manufactures have been accused now of lcd price fixing?

OLED is very nice but it looks to be a while until its economically feasible. I'm curious on what has happened to SED technology. It was originally supposed to replace plasma but has seem to have fallen by the wayside.

Psh... give me my laser tv Mitsubishi... Lighter, less power, produces 97% of the color spectrum (the human eye can see far less what the display puts out). :3

SED has fallen by the wayside because of patent disputes (http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196900459).
I would say (if it ever makes a come back) that it will be even further on the horizon than OLED.

LCD TVs with LED backlight are better than both LCD TVs with CCFL backlight and top of the line plasma TVs.

Some of the absolute top of the line Sony and Philips LCD TVs have LED backlight.

ok, you have a lot of good information and arguments about the plasma tecnology, but what about the "Burn in" effect??? this is why I am afraid about buying an plasma HDTV

OOOK lets still compare a pos vizio to a to of the line kuro!! the plasmas ive seen suck the pictures are not that good.. newer LCD color are very very good.. no one likes old tech get rid of it!!

I'm personally a fan of the samsung DLP TV's with the LED light systems.

For the money its pretty untouchable.
Far cheaper than = size LCD or plasma
120mhz and certified 3D ready
deep blacks
great color
no burn in
rated for 20yrs+
uses very little electricity
no rainbow effect like other DLP solutions

Cons:
not truelly flat (though it gives the impression that it is) so it can't be flush wall mounted.
suffers a bit from viewing off center angle imo

Still...for the money it is a no brainer to me.

When the worst plasma has better color reproduction than the best LCD, that should tell you something.

My 3 year old Panasonic still puts to shame the best LCD when it comes to color, motion, blackness and off cangle viewing.

Bunch of computer geeks who look at artifical graphics all the time think tha LCD is fine, but if you ever see a 1080p BluRay originally recorded in HD format and has natural landscape as it's subject, there is simply no comparison.

It's like when all the young ones listen to distorted base boom speakers or iPods with lossy MP3 format and think that is real musical reproduction, but they never have heard an acoustic instrument unamplified or - god for bid - a symphonic orchestra.