The short answer is picture quality and energy use. I'll refrain from the descriptions of how it works, because, unlike myself, few people actually care about it.
Plasma:
- Picture quality - Plasma seems to do color and contrast very well. Blacks are very black, colors are very colorful. However, like a CRT, the pixels seem to blend together. They are not very distinct. Can have burn-in effects like a CRT.
- Power - These are the relative power hogs of the bunch. They'll use more power (on the order of $10-20 worth per year) than either of the LCD solutions
- Quick conclusion - good for movies or TV, not as a display for a computer. Standard def TV probably looks best on this.
- Picture quality - LCDs have very sharp pixels. Color quality is not as good as plasma. Has a smaller viewing angle than plasma.
- Power - these use less power than plasmas, but more than the LED backlit LCDs
- Quick conclusion - Good for double-duty as TV and computer monitor. It's comparable cost to Plasma would make it my number 2 pick.
- Picture quality - It seems to have all the sharpness of the plain LCDs, but much better color reproduction. It still has the smaller viewing angle as plain LCDs. IMO, it has the best overall picture of the three.
- Power - uses the least amount of power. You're not going to save (in power costs) the difference in cost between this and a plasma or standard LCD at this time, unless you run it for ~ 15+ years or would usually have the TV on ALL DAY LONG.
- Quick conclusion - Number 1 pick. It does double duty with a computer well, has great color reproduction, and uses the least power. I think the extra cost is well justified.
No comments:
Post a Comment