Well, I did my research, and still chose the much more expensive LCD with no regrets whatsoever.
I clearly saw burn-in on a plasma TV first hand (Hitachi) despite the claims that it had anti-burn-in features.
I saw a dead pixel on an LCD first hand. Between the two, I can live with a dead pixel, but not the burn-in.
As far as PQ is concerned, once you calibrate your LCD properly, it will be just as satisfying as a plasma TV.
Plus I won't have to worry about prolonged watching of 4:3 on an LCD as compared to a Plasma.
I don't have any angle problems on an LCD.
I can easily tilt the TV with a finger to my direction --duh
,
and if I don't want to do that, I can still view good quality even at an angle of 178 degrees.
If its that last "2" degrees people are complaining about...that isn't even noticeable in real life.
Besides, I think it is obvious that LCDs are clearly the more reliable technology.
It is is used on the millions of laptops today, and not plasma technology.
To understand why people buy LCD...well, what is the criteria that people use?
- Reliability/quality (I wouldnt want to spend 100K-200K only to see it conk out within a year)
- Picture quality (really, at HD quality, all I can say is WOW, it is really hard trying to find something I don't like about it - LCD)
- Price (LCD users don't mind spending more for proven technology)
- The balance between pros- and -cons
And what most of LCD users think, is that Plasma is cheaper, just like the rear projection TV, because it is outgoing technology.
That alone, will scare a buyer into plunging $$$ on a Plasma. Never mind if it is or not, its what the buyer believes at the end of the day.