Newps wrote:



Peter Duniho wrote:


One big downside to plasma is the issue of burn-in. They are getting
better, but you can still wind up with latent images of an image that
stays on the screen for extended periods of time. This might be a TV
channel logo, a ticker from CNN, computer graphics, or whatever.
Another downside is that the lifetime of the display itself is
somewhat limited, as it fades over time. Plasma displays are also
VERY heavy, consume a lot of power, and generate a lot of heat. They
do look VERY nice though.



I bought a 42" plasma January 2005. I was concerned about burn in and
how long it would last. The life of the TV is supposed to be 40,000
hours before it gets to half brightness. Well, run the numbers. That's
5000 days at 8 hours a day. I've never kept my primary TV that long. As
for burn in it isn't a problem. We've got lots of hours with Fox News
on the TV with the scroll running on the bottom. Just not a factor.
Plasma is not heavy. Our 42" TV weighs about 75 pounds, less than any
similar sized CRT TV and a lot easier to carry. As for power my 42"
uses 350 watts which is quite a bit, a lot of heat comes of a plasma.
As for picture, no question a plasma is better. I also have an LCD flat
screen HD TV, the plasma makes it look silly. If you consider a
projector make sure you check on the cost of repalcement bulbs. I see
some of them can be over $200, plus not all projectors are capable of
HD. You'll need to spen at least $1000 to get a halfway decent
projector picture plus the disadvantage of having to have a dark room.

Burn in takes about two years to set in on the newer sets. I'm not
surprised that you haven't seen anything in only 13 months. By 4-5
years it will be very noticeable if you watch certain channels too much.
For folks that watch a variety of standard TV shows, then it likely
won't be a big problem.

Matt