QUOTE (delazy @ Sep 12 2009, 06:24 PM)

one of the many rules floating around...reason LCD was preferred in previous years was because of screen burn with plasma...screen burn with plasma screens is near extinct these days...sooo...
The Lazy man is right.
WAS a big issue, not so now. CNET had a Panasonic panel on for 8hrs with a static image. After playing a full-screen image for a few mins, they switched to a black screen with 100% NO signs of burn in. You MIGHT get residual ghosting, but it doesnt stay on the screen.
Panasonic advertise "Best for Gaming, Movies and Sport" and they live up to it. With HDMI lag below 30ms, there is bugger-all out there that that can match it.
QUOTE (MookieMadskillz @ Sep 12 2009, 07:33 PM)

i need something to display my films on at trade shows etc so the plasma will look good.
Just came back from a trade show, and yes, plasma's do look good as long as the contrast is cranked-up a bit to give it some more brightness (or put it in "Dynamic mode").
FYI: LCD's are and forever will be 10 bit panels (=amount of displayable colours.) The more colours, the better. Provides more life-like pictures with depth. While plasma panels can process (and display) up to 18 bits of colours = LCD is forever limited.
Also, LCD's CAN NOT provide the same amount of moving picture resolution as Plasma. (LCD=600 lines vs. Plasma=1080) Which is also proof that the number of hertz on LCD doesnt mean a whole heap when compared against plasma.
And Lazy: Edge lit panels have poor viewing angles, and the dynamic backlight dimming means in a scene where a comet flies across the screen, you will see the stars in the night sky. When the comet leaves the screen, the backlight will dim, making the stars invisible. - Super flawed.