lcd or plasma?
 

i want to get a 40-47 inch tv. i was looking at a sharp aqous 46"1080p from dell for 1699 or a 42 panasonic plasma from circuit city for like 1499.
Dell has MUCH better prices than CC...but no plasma.
I am confused about 780p 1080 i and 1080p..i know the what but i personally have a very hard time seeing the difference (i can't honestly) the plasma sets seem to look better to me, but lcd is better?

IMO, and still claimed to be marginally better are the plasmas. But in a highly lit room an LCD will suffer less from reflections off the screen.

What source was used to compare 1080i to 1080p?

BTW, I found PC Richards to be very competitive with pricing. Bring your best price from an authorized retailer and they will talk.

Lcd

I have a 40" LCD (perfect for my room size) and really like it. The prices you are quoting seem VERY high imo...do you have Costco's in your area? A quick check on their site (I'm not a member) showed much better deals on both LCDs and Plasmas...just a little over a grand.

light is not a problem in the room it will be in..i prefer it dark though.

we have costco, and i have been meaning to join..

If Costco has the TV then they may have the best deal. Is there a PC Richards near you?

i work across the street from the one on rt10...

Get a 1080p Samsung LCD and move on to your next desire...

I have Sharp Aquos 1080p 42' LSD and I'm very pleased. Plasma doesn't have the same resolution as LCD but contrast is slightly better. Plasma also suffers from "burn-in".


I prefer LCD.

I have a 52 inch Sharp Aquos LCD 1080 ,that thing is awesome.

52 is too big for the room, i am looking 40-47 max with 42 being ideal it looks

Plasmas that are sold today do not suffer from burn-in.

Here's an impartial comparison... http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv-plasmavslcd.shtml

I have an LCD, mainly due to a room that's pretty bright during the day.

The plasma burn-in issue is kind of an old one- the new models don't really suffer from this, so that alone is a non-issue.

Plamsa does suck down a lot more juice, but for dark scenes in movies it will be nicer than LCD I think.

Don't even worry about resolutions- let your eyes be your guide. Its just like audio- the specs don't mean much. Just watch and decide.

Plasma does have the same resolution...I have a 42" Panasonic that is true 1080p.

Most modern plasmas use pixel wobble and other tricks to avoid burn-in. Still, if I leave a static image on my screen for a long time I can see a very faint ghost afterwards. But it goes away and once a picture signal is there I can't see it. I just don't leave menus, etc sitting on-screen for hours at a time.

I looked at both and to me plasma was a clear winner wrt getting more of a "film" look. The key to tvs these days are the blacks, and the better plasmas are better than any of the LCDs in that regard. LCD is getting better, but to my eyes there was a difference.

The Pioneer Kuros are the hot ticket right now but you'll pay north of $2K for a 42". I think it is worth it to go true 1080p, and in fact I traded my lower resolution Panasonic for the one I have now.

Check out the PZ700U and PZ77U. The main difference is that the 77 has an anti glare coating. I went with the 700 as I have a reasonably dark room, and some maintain that the coating on the 77 softens the pic.

If you have a lot of glare, then LCD is likely a better choice.

http://nostatic.com/photos/ht2.jpg

True on the anti glare coatings. Manufacturers have been trying different methods but non pass muster for many critics.

LCD blacks also tend to fade as the viewing angle is increased.

I have the 40inch plasma from Samsung for our master bedroom - got it at Sams for around 1100. I have not seen a better picture yet.

i thought XBR's were tits when it came to LCD's?