adder said:well lcds arent exactly new infact i knew about plasmas only around 1999,but i knew lcds even before that, but lcds were very small used mostly in aircrafts,cockpit displays,and monitors.
I meant LCDs in the TV segment. Plus their development cycle is comparatively newer, whereas plasma development is mostly evolutionary now.
if u had seen gadget guru 2years ago in NDTV a long time back there were various flat screen tvs switched On and people were asked which picture they prefered and picture of lcds is what 90% prefered and the they weren't told which was plasma or lcd nor the brands and logo which were covered.
Wouldn't trust what gadget guru says, but I agree, its all about what a consumer prefers. About companies choosing which format to support.. like I said, it need not be a case of them choosing what is better technology, but what is popular. Its all about profit at the end of the day.
and about burn in plasmas they still suffer
Panasonic Viera TH-42PZ81E - DigitalVersus and this one of the latest and most expensive models.
I didn't said they don't, but they have been drastically reduced to manageable levels or at the very least can be reversed. In fact PC LCD monitor users have occasionally been struck with the same. Its just something thats been blown out of proportion. The review doesn't point out any evidence of burn in, its just a cautionary note.
IMO late 2009 lcds tech may surpass the contrast levels of plasma like pioneer kuro.
I'd highly doubt it, simply because of the way LCDs work.
In the case of a plasma cell, you are 'turning off' that cell.. whereas in an LCD, you are merely 'blocking' the backlight. How effectively that works ceases beyond a point.
Anyway I'm going wayy OT in someone else's thread :ashamed: