Eisboch wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
...
I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with the
recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought that
might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:
http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...-32468193.html

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?



We just bought (another) HD TV. This one is a 46" Samsung LCD. As I've
mentioned before, we also have two 42" plasmas and a 50" plasma. All are
also Samsungs. These are in addition to several smaller LCD sets from
various manufacturers.

I just finished hooking up and calibrating the new 46" LCD. It's connected
to cable HD, a regular DVD player and a Blu-Ray player. My impressions are
that it looks very, very good, especially after a few adjustments, but the
plasmas still have a richer, deeper color presentation, including the 50".
If all you watched was the LCD, it would be very satisfying and there would
be no need to expect more. It's only nerds like me that has to go compare
them, but the difference is obvious. The plasmas still are a bit better.
This analogy is not exactly representative, but the LCD display is like a
rich water color painting whereas the plasma is oil.

Eisboch



That has always been my impression, that the blacks were blacker and it
made the other colors more vivid.