I also find that LCD is more popular than Plasma just due to advertising. Samsung LCDs are the official HDTV of the NFL after all. Lots of people see those commercials which makes them want one even if they don't know anything about them. Plus LCD manufacturers like to play the "numbers game" in their advertisements. 120Hz is a bigger number than 60Hz so it must be better right? I just saw a KURO commercial yesterday and from the commercial there was no way to tell that KURO are literally the absolute best TV you can buy today. It was just a normal rather boring commercial and to the average person it was much less informative and exciting than a typically Samsung commercial. If Plasma is going to ever take the lead they're going to have to change their way of communicating to consumers. They need to explain why 120Hz means nothing to a Plasma and why contrast ration on a Plasma will always be better. They need to explain why burn-in is a thing of the past. They need to explain, in plain english, why the technology is superior to LCD on a fundamental level. A Plasma can produce a much better picture than LCD without having to resort to all the smoke and mirror tricks that LCDs do nowadways (120Hz, edge enhancement, noise filtering, smart color, etc. etc.). You can literally just turn on a Plasma, leave off all the bullcrap DSP features and it will still look better.
There's a reason why, in the most recent 2008 HDTV face off in Home Theater Magazon, the top two spots were taken by Plasma. #1 was a Pioneer KURO (the only 720p set in the group) and #2 was a Panasonic VIERA.
“The other one is a biggie, and it's something very noticeable in the videos: touch sensitivity is pretty bad. Using the virtual keyboard proved to be far too painful, and we're pretty sure it wasn't multitouch-friendly.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I also find that LCD is more popular than Plasma just due to advertising. Samsung LCDs are the official HDTV of the NFL after all. Lots of people see those commercials which makes them want one even if they don't know anything about them. Plus LCD manufacturers like to play the "numbers game" in their advertisements. 120Hz is a bigger number than 60Hz so it must be better right? I just saw a KURO commercial yesterday and from the commercial there was no way to tell that KURO are literally the absolute best TV you can buy today. It was just a normal rather boring commercial and to the average person it was much less informative and exciting than a typically Samsung commercial. If Plasma is going to ever take the lead they're going to have to change their way of communicating to consumers. They need to explain why 120Hz means nothing to a Plasma and why contrast ration on a Plasma will always be better. They need to explain why burn-in is a thing of the past. They need to explain, in plain english, why the technology is superior to LCD on a fundamental level. A Plasma can produce a much better picture than LCD without having to resort to all the smoke and mirror tricks that LCDs do nowadways (120Hz, edge enhancement, noise filtering, smart color, etc. etc.). You can literally just turn on a Plasma, leave off all the bullcrap DSP features and it will still look better.
There's a reason why, in the most recent 2008 HDTV face off in Home Theater Magazon, the top two spots were taken by Plasma. #1 was a Pioneer KURO (the only 720p set in the group) and #2 was a Panasonic VIERA.