|
that glare is from a room light and the angle of the photo. There is zero glare on screen when I watch. But as I said I have decent light control in the room.
Plasmas are significantly heavier and do use more juice. But to my (somewhat trained) eye, they look closer to a good CRT tube (the gold standard) than LCD. But ymmv. Really depends on the application.
At this point in technologies, if you have a lot of ambient light you can't control, or have to have light weight, or want to do a lot of computer display, LCD is the way to go. If you don't have those constraints, I think plasma will give you a better (more "filmic") picture. Go check out the latest generation Pioneer Kuro. Then watch an LCD. If you can't see a difference, then buy whichever is cheaper.
As for resolution, progressive will almost always look better than interlaced. 1080p is the highest common resolution (there are 4K cameras coming to the market but it'll likely be a few years before there is distribution of content beyond 1080p), and I could see a difference even at a 42" display. But it can be subtle.
|