macserv @ Sep 22nd 2008 1:42AM

That would be because of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt spread around by LCD manufacturers. Plasma certainly wasn't a very robust technology when it launched... it was very susceptible to burn-in, and the picture faded over a relatively short period of time as gases escaped. Decent 1080p plasmas also tended to be much more expensive than their LCD rivals.

I was a victim of this fear-mongering where plasma tech is concerned, but I looked for myself, did a LOT of research over several months, and decided to buy a Panasonic Viera Plasma (the new 50" PZ85). I've been absolutely blown away by the set, and I've made some observations about the two technologies.

- Never judge a set by its appearance in the store. Find an independent, high-end A/V shop near you and make sure the set is calibrated. Do a lot of research and figure out what's best for you.

- The big spec with LCD TVs is "response time". This is how long it takes to turn a pixel on and off. I think good (reasonably affordable) LCD panels have this down to 5 miliseconds or so. Plasma technology is completely different, and "response time" becomes meaningless. Fast motion looks amazing, and any "phosphor lag" is barely ever visible.

- Another big spec is "Contrast Ratio". No company is telling the truth with these numbers, but there is one statement I can make that is virtually always true: Plasma TVs offer MUCH higher contrast. Next to a plasma, an LCD's "black" looks like "charcoal grey". Again, the best LCDs may beat some plasma models, but I'm talking about those in the same price range as my Panasonic PZ85.

- While 1080p LCDs tend to be less expensive than 1080p Plasmas, only the newer 120Hz LCD sets compare to Plasma when fast motion is shown on the screen. 120Hz LCDs are much more expensive, negating that advantage.

- Visually, most LCD TVs are a lot like looking at your computer monitor... very, very bright, with a slightly bluish cast. Plasma isn't as bright, but it's certainly not dim. It's more like looking through a window at an actual scene; the colors (especially skin tones) seem much more natural.

- Standard definition programming tends to look much better on the plasma sets I've tried. I'm sure there are LCDs that do SD scaling and smoothing very well, but Plasma TV has the edge here. Granted, if you're lucky enough to watch HD content exclusively, this isn't a big deal, but most of us watch some SD shows or DVDs once in a while.

- The better technology choice also depends heavily on the size of the panel you're buying. In my own research, I have found that LCD looks wonderful at small and medium panel sizes, and is almost always the best value all the way up to 42", especially if you don't watch a whole lot of sports or other content with fast motion. The benefits of plasma really kick in at 46" and larger, and the difference becomes much more visible.

- Now onto the big fears. First, display life. If you leave a modern plasma TV on 24 hours a day 7 days a week, it will take about 5 or 6 years before it loses half its brightness. Most people don't leave their sets on that much, but its still good to know that it'll last.

- Finally, a word on image retention and burn in. During the first 100-200 hours of a plasma TV's life, you should turn the brightness down a bit, and avoid watching content with any black bars on the top/bottom or sides. Many people use a "break-in" DVD that loops continuously through full-screen color patterns. This process wears the TV evenly while it is most susceptible to image retention or burn in, and helps to prevent it later.

Let me talk a bit about my own experiences with my plasma. I've been told that, even after break-in, if I leave a bright logo or dark bar on the screen, I might see a "shadow" of the bars or logo when I switch channels. This is called "image retention" and it goes away after watching full-screen programming for a while. Indeed, there have been quite a few occasions where I've watched movies with bars, shows/games with logos, or left a video game menu paused for an hour or so. I find it amazing that I've never seen the slightest bit of retention, and I've looked really closely. I've definitely seen it many times on older plasmas, so I have to conclude that newer panels are better about this, and that it's not something I have to worry about that much anymore.

My bottom line: Until OLED is large and affordable) plasma has proven to be the closest thing to the reliable, high-contrast, natural, film-like image that my old Trinitron offered. Several months ago, I would never have considered a plasma. Now, looking at the image this set produces, I'm just sorry I didn't do it sooner.