Plasma or LCD?

[Griffin]

So I'm browsing around for tv's and I'm leaning towards a Panasonic GT60 plasma (last Panasonic plasma ever). The reason being that I want an improvement over my Philips CRT. So I'm used to not having motion blur, dark corners, narrow viewing angles etc. Amoled is just not affordable yet, so that's why I'm thinking about going plasma.

Does anyone feel where I'm getting at, or is motion blur really now a thing of the past? Do I really need 137W powering into my living room each day with, let's face it, mostly featuring daytime kiddy shows? It just doesn't seem sensible anymore in this day and age.

Griffin

 

[JoeV]

I went from CRTs to a Vizio LCD and love it. A buddy has a plasma, I prefer the newer, brighter, richer colors of the LCD.

~Joe

 

[Greyscale]

I bought a Sharp Aquos LED TV and it is wonderful.

 

[majid]

I just bought a house, that came with a 42" LG plasma TV (I would say 2008 vintage). I am going to toss it, it has severe burn-in, defective pixels, and distractingly visible pixel borders, none of which I have ever experienced with my equally old 46" Toshiba LCD TV. Don't believe the plasma fanboys who claim burn-in is a thing of the past, there is a reason why the technology is dying out (along with the grotesque power consumption).

 

[shortstop]

I prefer plasma screen. Black is better. Tonality are more adherent to the real. LCD is too brilliant and gives false colors for me. This is my taste. Others may be different.

 

[Griffin]

Yeah, I am worried about burn in, but from what I've read the floating/orbiting pixels have pretty much eradicated this. I just feel that LCD screens are not up to the task. They come up with tricks to counteract image blur by inserting black frames which has the unwanted side effect of causing a drop in brightness and screen flicker.