I am learning a bunch about the different flat panels. I am trying to make a decision as to what suits my needs better so I can at least narrow down my search. I've seem some comparisons (pros and cons), but what I would like to know now is what you all think about each. What do you prefer and why? What do you have know and why do you like/dislike it?

Just cause I'm bored, I'll post what I like/dislike about both.

Start with Plasma. I have a 50".

I love the depth of Plasma. Contrast is incredible and PQ is amazing on HD media. To me it has a richness and clarity that makes it better. It does have a glass panel and ours sits opposite a full wall of flor to ceiling windows. During the day it can be a bit irritating to watch, but unless the blinds are open, I don't mind too much. I have played games (albeit not much) and used my pc on my plasma with out an issues. It can be a bit tougher to use the pc as the lettering can be difficult to read at times. As for overall viewing pleasure, plasma is my preference hands down and worth the cost.

LCD, I have a 40".

The PQ is also incredible. I personally feel that it does not have the depth and richness, but not to the point that I would never own one (cause I already do). Contrast is definitely not as good. Especially in dark lighting conditions. I have the actuve backlight turned on and when the lights go off, the set dims just a bit. That helps the contrast, but it's still not as good as the plasma. The surface of the panel is a glare resistant surface, but it;s not 100% perfect. Instead of sharp images of lights, you get diffused "spots". In a way that's easier to deal with since there is nothing specific to draw your attention to and focus. That makes it easier to ignore. I also tend to get a bit irritated with the motion blur of the lcd especially when watching hockey (substitute your fav sport). I still watch it sometimes, but I prefer the plasma for sports. SDtv is a wash. Neither really wins. HD movies can look very real on a 120Hz lcd. some say too real, I say it depends on what you like. My wife prefers BD movies on the lcd. I prefer the plasma.

As for the other "issues":

Power consumption is not an issue. Plasma is slightly more power, but on the order of $20 a year maybe. Should not be considered.

Burn-in is a non-issue from the past. While original plasmas did suffer, for the last year or so, the sets have not had any problems. I still would not recommend leaving a static image on a plasma for say 2 weeks. But watching tv alone prevents any issues.

Life span. Both are in the 60,000 hour range. That gives you nearly 30 yrs at 5 hours per day. I think that's going to last you.

Altitude. Plasma's are now routinely rated for 9,000 and higher. I believe my pioneer is in the 9,000 feet range and many are 10,000+. I live at 6190. Not a problem with humming or buzz. This was a issue when they started, not anymore.

At this point, the difference between plasma and LCD really comes down to your budget and your preference. Pioneer plasmas are still considered the reference in tv reviewing. sony's XBR line is often rated "near" plasma but just below. Either way, enjoy whatever you decide on and get it calibrated.

Plasma and LCD TVs are the latest trend in home entertainment. Both offer unrivalled picture quality and resolution, while doing away with the bulkiness of the older rear-projection technologies. But with all of the hype surrounding these two types of televisions, what is the difference between them? Although they look- and are virtually priced- the same, they are not.

There differences are found in the way in which they display their pictures. Plasma TV technology is made up of hundreds of thousands of little pixels, each capable of displaying red, green, and blue colors. A plasma monitor often consists of two panels, which are filled with an inert gas, such as xenon or neon. When the pixels are excited by pulses of electricity, the gas becomes liquid, thus generating light. This light in turn then illuminates the pixels, causing them to display the appropriate color to form a picture.

LCD panels function in a very similar manner. A panel of thin-film-transmitters, or TFT, sends electricity to cells filled with liquid crystal. When the cells are struck by the electricity, the liquid crystals allow light to filter through. Unlike the pixels found in plasma TVs, LCD monitors create color by blocking out the appropriate wavelengths from white light.

So which is better? The answer to this question depends upon what you plan to use TV for. Do you just want to use it to watch movies and television? If so, then a plasma TV might be best, because they are capable of a higher better color saturation and contrast than their LCD counterparts and for displaying moving images. If you plan in spending a lot of time showing digital photography or plan on using the monitor with your computer, then a LCD display might be better suited to these purposes.

Both plasma and LCD technologies each have their advantages and disadvantages and your decision should ultimately be based on your monitor's application.

a year or two ago i read an article that stated that plasma TVs lose 70% of their brilliance in the first year of use, I don't know about you but that is a scary thought to me. I'm going LCD because of it but feel free to find an article proving me wrong and link it I want to be proven wrong in store Plasma is awesome. Oh and i don't remember where the article was and am to lazy to care and find it, sorry, and it might not have been true i guess I mean some stuff on the internet has to be a lie right?