Plasma to LCD

So I got a Samsung 50" HPS5073 Plasma for least than a month before it broke on me. I was given a new replacement unit by Samsung but I upgraded to the 52" LNS5296 LCD for $600 more.
Is it worth the price? How is LCD compare to Plasma esp. from Samsung units? I wasn't too satisfy with the plasma unit due to the extensive video noise it has.
One thing this LCD model has compare to the Plasma is 1080p. Any other major differences?

Plasma
http//www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7908589&st=hps5073&type=product&id=1151658134877

LCD
http//www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7963536&st=lns5296&type=product&id=1158323612768

Plasmas are generally cheaper than LCDs as you may already know and LCDs do not suffer from burn-in like plasmas do.

Among other things, plasmas are much heavier than LCDs and do not come in sizes less than 40".

LCDs are also
more durable
easier to setup
brighter
thinner
and can perform well at high altitudes.

LCD's to me seem to be better. But as of right now they cost a lot to make, so that means they cost a lot to buy. If you have the cash go for it.

I personally am waiting till LCDs become cheaper because I think they are alot better than plasma.

Although plasmas aren't too bad themselves.

i already made the upgrade for $600 more. I was just wondering if its worth it.

Should be if u went for it.

Its worth it. Plasma will be obsolete in a few years just like rear projection became obsolete when plasmas came onto the scene.

LCD's have a lot of pros, but they aren't without their cons. I personally prefer plasma due to the high amount of sports I watch. My father in law just got a LCD and to watch a basketball game on that is kind of weird. Due to the nature of an LCD it doesn't work well with quick movements and the athletes or ball tend to blur across the screen as they move. On a plasma you don't have that trailing effect. It really comes down to personal preference, and what you plan on using the display for.

I personally have a plasma, and love it, but I imagine the next TV I would buy is an LCD. The reason being I think LCD is superior in some ways, and I would like to have one of each )

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about that. Thats one thing plasmas are really good for, really fast refresh rates. According to

http//www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/lcd-vs-plasma.asp

plasmas are almost on par with CRT TVs (read big ass tube TVs)

Plasmas do have their drawbacks, but so do LCD's. However neither have been accurately described in this thread so far. Not sure where some of these comments are coming from.

li Plasma's are still more expensive than LCD for a given size
li Burn-in is much less of an issue with current plasma's than it used to be. Short of long term gaming with a static dashboard image, you almost certainly will never experience serious burn-in with a plasma.
li Plasmas typically produce a much better image at larger sizes. I have yet to see a large format (42"+) LCD drive a display without artifacting and ghosting to some degree -- and some are horrible. Plasma's typically have a faster response time and higher brightness/contrast ratios than LCD. Although their image quality is more sensitive to ambient lighting levels than LCD.
li Rear projections have hardly become "obsolete," whether after plasmas or currently. Ultimately, if space and money are no object, I'll take a high-end RP like a Sony SXRD over a flat panel (either plasma or LCD) any day. If I must have a 42"+ flat panel for wall mountability, I'd rather have a plasma than an LCD.

[quote0c429efcd7="dmorris68"]Plasmas do have their drawbacks, but so do LCD's. However neither have been accurately described in this thread so far. Not sure where some of these comments are coming from.

li Plasma's are still more expensive than LCD for a given size
li Burn-in is much less of an issue with current plasma's than it used to be. Short of long term gaming with a static dashboard image, you almost certainly will never experience serious burn-in with a plasma.
li Plasmas typically produce a much better image at larger sizes. I have yet to see a large format (42"+) LCD drive a display without artifacting and ghosting to some degree -- and some are horrible. Plasma's typically have a faster response time and higher brightness/contrast ratios than LCD. Although their image quality is more sensitive to ambient lighting levels than LCD.
li Rear projections have hardly become "obsolete," whether after plasmas or currently. Ultimately, if space and money are no object, I'll take a high-end RP like a Sony SXRD over a flat panel (either plasma or LCD) any day. If I must have a 42"+ flat panel for wall mountability, I'd rather have a plasma than an LCD.[/quote0c429efcd7]From what I've seen, LCDs are always more expensive than plasmas.

Like this [quote0c429efcd7] http//www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16889253048
and
http//www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16889253046
[/quote0c429efcd7]
I've no personal experience with plasmas and burn-in, but I've read many Cnet reviews pointing out the advantages of LCD tvs over plasmas as well as other internet buying guides, so I haven't really heard of any improvements with plasmas although I'm sure they have improved.

And when I mentioned rear projection, I was thinking, and I should've said it before, of those really old TVs without HD capabilities and really bad viewing angles =P

[quotedadf657de3="csurge"]From what I've seen, LCDs are always more expensive than plasmas.

Like this [quotedadf657de3] http//www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16889253048
and
http//www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16889253046
[/quotedadf657de3][/quotedadf657de3]
LOL, if you're going to compare them, you need to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a 1080p LCD with a 1080i Plasma. 1080p plasmas are HUGELY expensive, usually several thousand dollars. In fact I just consulted PriceGrabber the cheapest 1080p 50" plasma listed is $4300, the most expensive 50" is over $6000. 50" is the smallest listed. There is even an LG 71" 1080p plasma listed for [bdadf657de3]$67,999[/bdadf657de3].

So, compare a same-brand, same-feature-line 1080i LCD to a 1080i plasma, preferably of the same brand, and I can almost guarantee you the plasma is more expensive. Sure, you can find the cheapest plasma to put against the most expensive LCD, but that doesn't prove the argument that LCD's are more expensive than plasmas.

[quotedadf657de3]I've no personal experience with plasmas and burn-in, but I've read many Cnet reviews pointing out the advantages of LCD tvs over plasmas as well as other internet buying guides, so I haven't really heard of any improvements with plasmas although I'm sure they have improved.[/quotedadf657de3]
Plasmas have improved greatly over the years, and you can read that in almost any article that discusses the merits of various large-screen display formats. Plasmas used to be plagued by not only terrible burn-in problems, but also dramatically reduced half-life. Both are now on par with or better than CRT technologies (for which burn-in is also still a problem). Currently plasmas actually have a better half-life than CRT's.

[quote11d94ce11d="dmorris68"][quote11d94ce11d="csurge"]From what I've seen, LCDs are always more expensive than plasmas.

Like this [quote11d94ce11d] http//www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16889253048
and
http//www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16889253046
[/quote11d94ce11d][/quote11d94ce11d]
LOL, if you're going to compare them, you need to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a 1080p LCD with a 1080i Plasma. 1080p plasmas are HUGELY expensive, usually several thousand dollars. In fact I just consulted PriceGrabber the cheapest 1080p 50" plasma listed is $4300, the most expensive 50" is over $6000. 50" is the smallest listed. There is even an LG 71" 1080p plasma listed for [b11d94ce11d]$67,999[/b11d94ce11d].

So, compare a same-brand, same-feature-line 1080i LCD to a 1080i plasma, preferably of the same brand, and I can almost guarantee you the plasma is more expensive. Sure, you can find the cheapest plasma to put against the most expensive LCD, but that doesn't prove the argument that LCD's are more expensive than plasmas.

[quote11d94ce11d]I've no personal experience with plasmas and burn-in, but I've read many Cnet reviews pointing out the advantages of LCD tvs over plasmas as well as other internet buying guides, so I haven't really heard of any improvements with plasmas although I'm sure they have improved.[/quote11d94ce11d]
Plasmas have improved greatly over the years, and you can read that in almost any article that discusses the merits of various large-screen display formats. Plasmas used to be plagued by not only terrible burn-in problems, but also dramatically reduced half-life. Both are now on par with or better than CRT technologies (for which burn-in is also still a problem). Currently plasmas actually have a better half-life than CRT's.[/quote11d94ce11d]

My fault, I wasn't paying attention to the resolution. w/e you win dmorris, I concede defeat =P

[quote22d9250880="ILoveToys"]LCD's have a lot of pros, but they aren't without their cons. I personally prefer plasma due to the high amount of sports I watch. My father in law just got a LCD and to watch a basketball game on that is kind of weird. Due to the nature of an LCD it doesn't work well with quick movements and the athletes or ball tend to blur across the screen as they move. On a plasma you don't have that trailing effect. It really comes down to personal preference, and what you plan on using the display for.

I personally have a plasma, and love it, but I imagine the next TV I would buy is an LCD. The reason being I think LCD is superior in some ways, and I would like to have one of each )[/quote22d9250880]

thats what i heard. ( and I watch a whole lot of sports. I guess I'll have to see when it arrives.
thanks for all the help.

I watched a game the other night on his LCD, and I can't really say it stopped me, or I really noticed it. I guess it just depends on how picky you are.

Yeah, it can be very subjective. Some people are hypersensitive to visual anomalies, while others notice only after your point it out, and even then some can't see it. I have seen people not notice things, until you point it out. Then they get mad at you for pointing it out, since they never noticed before but now it bugs them. )

i just got done looking at the local furniture store in omaha and i cant really tell the difference personally as far as picture or ghosting. The salesman was really pushing a lcd but it was more expensive and he is on commision so. My question is that i saw a 42 without a tuner box for around 5 dollars less than a 32" with a tuner. i have a cable box do i really need the tuner box?

No, you don't need a tuner if you have any sort of cable/satellite box or an external tuner. Only if you want to pull in OTA HDTV stations (and your cable/sat service doesn't do it for you) would you need to have a tuner.