Re: LCD vs Plasma
- From: Heinrich Galland <heinrichg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 16:08:09 -0500
In article <1146934495.725575.159860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
justsc <scowart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Exactly. My buddy recently picked-up a Sharp Aquos 45" LCD set and it
loses no points to Plasma sets. Its blacks are just as black, colors
are just as vibrant and off-axis viewing is just as good. But as one
previous poster mentioned, this comes at a cost. I still generally
prefer Plasma over LCD, but the time is coming, quickly, when I believe
Plasma will be subplanted by LCD and other technologies less prone to
burn-in (and I know that Plasmas are getting better in this area too).
The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:
Really, as long as you don't have a static image up on the screen for
at a time, and you properly break the plasma in over the first 100 hours,
most plasmas won't ever come close to sufferring from burn-in.
So what do you do about the "bugs" at the bottom of every TV station
that are there constantly?
I like LCD a lot, but the off-axis viewing really bugs me
My Sharp Aquos looks pretty good off-axis. You have to get really
crooked before the picture becomes unwatchable, and by then the image is
so distorted anyway (since you're so far off-axis) that it's moot.
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
I think more of a common problem with current Plasma sets, is that they
loose about 1/3 of their brightness output after a year or two
(depending on how hard they're driven).
- Prev by Date: Re: Time Warner 8300HD and Connection Issues
- Next by Date: Re: More Bad News
- Previous by thread: Re: LCD vs Plasma
- Next by thread: Re: LCD vs Plasma