Originally Posted by Brian SD
Pulling down the shades is hardly a peculiar circumstance. The best home TV's I've seen are all plasmas, Panasonic, Pioneer and Fujitsu all make (made?) excellent ones.
a peculiar circumstance. I don't want to have to adjust the lighting in my living room every time I want to watch TV. For decades, nobody has had to dim the lights or pull down the shades to get a decent image out of their television set--why should plasma screens by measured by a different standard? Keep in mind, you aren't always sitting down to watch a movie. Anyway, the best plasma screen in the world doesn't look as good as a DLP (either front or rear projected) in the dark.
Originally Posted by poorsod
I can't tell much difference between LCD or plasma unless they are side by side. But when I compare, I like the color in Plasma TVs more. The 120 Hz LCDs look fake to me - figures in the foreground look hyperreal compared to the background. I don't notice this so much on the Plasma TVs.
Well, I think it depends on the LCD. A lot of LCDs (Samsungs come to mind) are targeted at the mass market, where bright, vivid colors are more valued than natural-looking ones. When LCDs were less of a commodity, the high-end Sharp AQUOS sets were very hyped amongst the enthusiast audience because of how realistic and natural the image looked. Since then, Sharp has lost a lot of market share to Samsung, as well as downmarket competitors. The rise of LED-backlit LCDs is a pretty telling indicator of what the average consumer cares about. When I was comparing Sharps to Samsungs last year, the guy at the store could not understand why I'd want a Sharp when the Samsungs produced such higher-contrast images. However, in my opinion, the top end Samsungs tended to make everything look like a video game.
Originally Posted by imageWIS
Understatement of the century.
In the sense that I'm very right or very wrong?