LCD or Plasma

[Tim]

Hi I am in the market for a new TV, can someone give me the pro's and con's
of each.
Thanks kindly

 

[David L. Jones]

Hi I am in the market for a new TV, can someone give me the pro's and con's
of each.
Thanks kindly

Plasma is cheaper if you are after 42" or larger.
Plasma generally has a better contrast ratio, better response time,
brighter, and is better for darker environments (e.g. watching movies
in a dark room).

LCD is really your only option for <40"
LCD is generally a more reliable technology.
LCD are all high resolution.
LCD is better in bright rooms.

Power consumption is similar for both under average conditions.

If you are after a really big screen for watching movies, save your
money and go Plasma. If you want a small to average size TV for
everyday use, go LCD.
If you go Plasma, do not touch a "Standard Definition" 480 line
screen, they are a piece of proverbial excrement.

But as always, YMMV.

Dave.

 

[Jerry G.]

My preference is for Plasma, especialy for at home. The Plasma screen
is better for viewing in a dark or poorly lit room. LCD is better for
viewing in a bright environment.

With Plasma, the contrast ratio is higher, and the details in the
black levels of the picture are better defined. Plasma is lower in
cost for the size of screen.

LCD is able to display a sharper picture, but in the native mode only.
The LCD has a limited contrast ratio.

If you have children at home, there is the danger of a toy or ball
hitting the screen. With LCD, this would be an expensive disaster. LCD
screens can be damaged from simply being touched too hard, unless
there is a safety glass in front of it. Plasma screens are a lot less
sensitive to be touched, or knocked in to.

I myself am in the market for a new HDTV. I am definately going for a
Plasma set. I am looking for something in the 50 inch size range. My
preference for a manufacture is Panasonic as a first choice.


Jerry G.
======

 

[Mr.T]

Stay away from plasma. Crap technology.

Agreed, so are current LCD's.
One day there will be a flat screen technology to beat CRT. There is plenty
of development work being done to that end.

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

I am doing a lot of repairs, including warranty repairs.
Plasma and LCD are crap, but lasma is "crappier". Nothing beats good old
CRT.

Sure, but what are the average stats re percentage of screens returned
in X years etc?
If you are in the TV repair business then you are obviously going to
see lots of TV's in for repair :->
What are the common failure modes?
etc...

It's easy to say Plasma and LCD are crap, but millions of people are
buying them and have been doing so for a fair while now, so they must
have something going for them.
If they were really "crap" technology then no-one would buy them and
the manufacturers would go out of business. So they obviously aren't
entirely crap.

Yes they are complicated technology and almost certainly not as robust
as some CRT sets. But if a CRT gets say an average of X years life
before service and plasma or LCD gets say half of that before service,
does that really make plasma and LCD "crap"?

Both Plasma and LCD have a lot going for them, you can't just label
them as crap. I could say CRT's are crap because they are big, heavy,
ugly, and the scan lines are more visible.

Dave.

 

[Mr.T]

Sure, but what are the average stats re percentage of screens returned
in X years etc?

Well all of my previous CRT TV's have lasted longer than LCD/Plasma have
even been available, before any repairs.
The fact that quite a few LCD/Plasma's are needing repair, and in many cases
being written off because they can't be repaired, and considering the
selling price, you have to wonder if they are worth it IMO. I recommend an
extended warranty to those who must have one.

It's easy to say Plasma and LCD are crap, but millions of people are
buying them and have been doing so for a fair while now, so they must
have something going for them.

Isn't marketing wonderfull

If they were really "crap" technology then no-one would buy them and
the manufacturers would go out of business. So they obviously aren't
entirely crap.

Most people cannot be told, they have to find out the hard way. And of
course everyones needs and expectations are different. For example, I'm very
happy with my new $300 66cm flat widescreen CRT in the bedroom. Most people
I know would prefer to pay far more for a worse picture, simply to reduce
the size and weight, regardless of any reliability issues.

Yes they are complicated technology and almost certainly not as robust
as some CRT sets. But if a CRT gets say an average of X years life
before service and plasma or LCD gets say half of that before service,
does that really make plasma and LCD "crap"?

If it also costs far more, and gives an inferior picture, then IMO.... YES.

Both Plasma and LCD have a lot going for them, you can't just label
them as crap. I could say CRT's are crap because they are big, heavy,
ugly, and the scan lines are more visible.

See, everyone's entitled to spend their own money in the manner they choose
themselves.
However technical issues can actually be measured against the required
performance criteria, just as size and weight can.
LCD and Plasma don't perform as well in those areas. You get to choose
what's important to you.

And what the hell are you on about scan lines? That is more a function of
the video system. True High Def CRT TV's are available with progressive
scan. The only reason the scan lines would be any more visible is because
the resolution was better. That's a good thing IMO.

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

Well all of my previous CRT TV's have lasted longer than LCD/Plasma have
even been available, before any repairs.

I know people with the exact opposite experience. They have early
generation LCD's and plasma that have lasted longer than their CRT's
have. Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats, and I suspect CRT
would win out but I don't think it's as big a problem with Plasma's
and LCD's as some people make out.

The fact that quite a few LCD/Plasma's are needing repair, and in many cases
being written off because they can't be repaired, and considering the
selling price, you have to wonder if they are worth it IMO. I recommend an
extended warranty to those who must have one.

They are "worth it" if they do what you want. Plasma offers large
screen and the form factor advantage at a reasonable price. Yes there
are CRT rear projection sets, but they are an immature technology, the
picture is crap in a bright environment, and they don't have the same
form factor advantages as plasma.

Isn't marketing wonderfull

Yeah, but people are still getting what they want, i.e. a really big
screen that looks great, can be wall mounted, and doesn't take up much
space.

Most people cannot be told, they have to find out the hard way. And of
course everyones needs and expectations are different. For example, I'm very
happy with my new $300 66cm flat widescreen CRT in the bedroom. Most people
I know would prefer to pay far more for a worse picture, simply to reduce
the size and weight, regardless of any reliability issues.

Worse picture?
The picture on both my Plasma and LCD shit over my old (by only a few
years) top of the range european 76cm 100Hz widescreen CRT. There is
no contest in my mind.
I though my CRT was the ducks guts until I sat my LCD next to it and
did an A-B.
Most people I know also think Plasma and LCD kills CRT in picture
quality, and I think you'll find that is the general public consensus.
But it's up to the individual of course, if you think CRT looks
better, then it does, to you, no problem with that.

If it also costs far more, and gives an inferior picture, then IMO.... YES.

See above re the "inferior" picture.

See, everyone's entitled to spend their own money in the manner they choose
themselves.
However technical issues can actually be measured against the required
performance criteria, just as size and weight can.
LCD and Plasma don't perform as well in those areas.

Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats.

And what the hell are you on about scan lines? That is more a function of
the video system. True High Def CRT TV's are available with progressive
scan. The only reason the scan lines would be any more visible is because
the resolution was better. That's a good thing IMO.

By that I mean that LCD's don't have visible "scan lines" like CRT's
do, they are pixel based. This gives a sharper picture without any
visible dead space between the lines. When you have them side-by-side
it's plainly obvious. I have not seen a hi-def CRT so cannot comment
on that, but I am comparing a top-of the-line standard-def CRT with a
"standard" 768 line LCD.

BTW, who would buy a hi-def CRT? Not too many of them around, and for
how long?
Wonder what the sales figures are...

Dave.

 

[Ross Herbert]

Hi I am in the market for a new TV, can someone give me the pro's and con's
of each.
Thanks kindly

I recently bought a Sony Bravia KDL 32V-2000 when they dropped the
price to AU$1999 and I find it to be an excellent LCD set. I was
tossing up whether to buy the new Sony 40" X series but after seeing
the picture difference I couldn't see where the price difference was
justified. If you have a large room you may want to go over 40" but I
am happy with the 32" in my room. Personally, if I were looking to go
to a full HT setup, and I had the room, I would put the money into a
projector and screen, and not waste time with either LCD or Plasma.

 

[David L. Jones]

I recently bought a Sony Bravia KDL 32V-2000 when they dropped the
price to AU$1999 and I find it to be an excellent LCD set. I was
tossing up whether to buy the new Sony 40" X series but after seeing
the picture difference I couldn't see where the price difference was
justified. If you have a large room you may want to go over 40" but I
am happy with the 32" in my room. Personally, if I were looking to go
to a full HT setup, and I had the room, I would put the money into a
projector and screen, and not waste time with either LCD or Plasma.

I've got a 32" S-Series Sony Bravia KLV32S200 and it is supurb, and
it's got fairly low power consumption. The in-laws got the X-series
40" KDL40X2000 and while it looks (physically) superb, the picture
isn't much better (the greater resolution being the only real
difference), but the menu system sucks. The X-series menu system is
totally different to the S-series and is much more difficult to use.
The X-series also does not appear to have the ability to mask out
unwanted channels, and the remote keeps switching between "favourites"
and all channels. I have to fix the thing up for them every second
week, crazy.
I certainly wouldn't pay the difference.

32" is a nice size for our kitchen.

I wanted bigger than the 42" plasma in the loungeroom but the wife
wouldn't have a bar of it :-(
Fitting in with the decor was her (and hence "our") main buying
criteria :->

Dave.

 

[Mr.T]

They are "worth it" if they do what you want.

Of course.

Plasma offers large screen and the form factor advantage at a reasonable

price.

That's all relative.

Yes there
are CRT rear projection sets, but they are an immature technology, the
picture is crap in a bright environment, and they don't have the same
form factor advantages as plasma.

Agreed, not much impressed by any projection TV.

Worse picture?
The picture on both my Plasma and LCD shit over my old (by only a few
years) top of the range european 76cm 100Hz widescreen CRT. There is
no contest in my mind.
I though my CRT was the ducks guts until I sat my LCD next to it and
did an A-B.

And having just done an A-B between a $300 CRT and a $1000 LCD, no doubt in
my mind which had the better contrast, brightness, and color gamut, not to
mention a rather large price advantage

Most people I know also think Plasma and LCD kills CRT in picture
quality, and I think you'll find that is the general public consensus.

Maybe, but not shown in any actual measurement I have seen.

Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats.

Yes, if you have any actual measurements, not marketing hype, that shows LCD
brightness, contrast and color gamut figures equal to or better than CRT,
I'd love to see them too. LCD's are forced to use tricks like dynamic
backlighting in an attempt to pretend the contrast is adequate. I find the
dark grey blacks, and light grey whites on a single scene rather
disappointing myself.

By that I mean that LCD's don't have visible "scan lines" like CRT's
do, they are pixel based. This gives a sharper picture without any
visible dead space between the lines.

What crap, space between pixels is the same as space between phosphor dots.
Use a CRT with a smaller dot pitch! And yes I do realise it is possible to
have smaller dot pitch with LCD, but to do that would cost even more money.
As I said, a new technology is required that allows more pixels at less
cost, without getting more dead ones. Plus higher brightness and contrast
ratio's.

When you have them side-by-side it's plainly obvious.

If you compare with a crap CRT. But then the 720*480 pixel Plasma's I've
seen are far worse IMO.

I have not seen a hi-def CRT so cannot comment on that,
Exactly!

BTW, who would buy a hi-def CRT?

Me for one, but I agree most people are not after viewing performance.

Not too many of them around, and for how long?

No problem at the moment. Hopefully there will be something better than
LCD/plasma by the time I want another one

Wonder what the sales figures are...

Who cares? Sales figures for the Bugatti Veyron are extremely small, but I'd
love to have one
You might just complain about the petrol consumption though. Each to their
own.

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

And having just done an A-B between a $300 CRT and a $1000 LCD, no doubt in
my mind which had the better contrast, brightness, and color gamut, not to
mention a rather large price advantage

Well I did an A-B against my $2700 Thomson CRT and my new $1300 Sony
Bravia LCD. The Bravia won hands down, as it does against any other
CRT I've even owned or saw.

Maybe, but not shown in any actual measurement I have seen.

Most people would rather watch the TV that looks best to them, not
what the measurements say.

Yes, if you have any actual measurements, not marketing hype, that shows LCD
brightness, contrast and color gamut figures equal to or better than CRT,
I'd love to see them too. LCD's are forced to use tricks like dynamic
backlighting in an attempt to pretend the contrast is adequate. I find the
dark grey blacks, and light grey whites on a single scene rather
disappointing myself.

That's why I also have a Plasma for my more discerning movie viewing,
I find it better, and yes, even better than my CRT in actual image
quality.

I didn't say LCD or Plasma are technically superior to CRT's in actual
image performance, but they do *look* better to most people.

What crap, space between pixels is the same as space between phosphor dots.
Use a CRT with a smaller dot pitch! And yes I do realise it is possible to
have smaller dot pitch with LCD, but to do that would cost even more money.
As I said, a new technology is required that allows more pixels at less
cost, without getting more dead ones. Plus higher brightness and contrast
ratio's.


If you compare with a crap CRT. But then the 720*480 pixel Plasma's I've
seen are far worse IMO.

We aren't talking about 480 pixel plasma's here, we are talking CRT vs
LCD or 768 line plasma. And yes, I agree, 480 line Plasma's are
horrible and always have been. I refused to buy one on principle.

If you can't notice the scan lines on a CRT (even a top quality one)
when A-B'ing CRT and LCD then I think an eye checkup is in order!
I compared my $2700 Thomson Scenium 76cm, hardly a "crap" CRT. I find
the same results can be clearly seen in any TV store where CRT and LCD
are side-by-side. LCD clearly has a more "solid" image, and as such it
makes the scan lines on the CRT really stand out.

No problem at the moment.

Funny, I don't recall seeing one in any shop I've been into lately.
Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough and have been overly distracted
by the vastly superior image on all those gorgeous LCD's and
Plasma's :->
I do rather like the HD video loop they show in some stores, the one
with the girl in the white bikini...

Hopefully there will be something better than
LCD/plasma by the time I want another one

I'd buy your Hi-Def CRT now, they won't be around in another a year or
two.

Dave.

 

[David L. Jones]

Let me give you few recent examples:
Hitachi 50" plasma. Power supply died just after warranty. New power supply
board -- $1100 trade price.
I am doing at least 1-2 plasmas a week based on LG panels. Y-boards just
die.
Actually, Y-board is a very common failure on any plasma.

You can not repair them on component level unlike CRT TVs. Firstly, no
documentation is available, secondly no parts are available.

Same stands for LCD, but you do have chance to repair them on component
level. I did few after warranty.

Sure, that sucks, but really has nothing to do with whether they are
"crap" technology or not.
On the contrary, I think LCD and Plasma are superb technology which is
let down by poor after sales support.
I hope the situation changes, but until then it won't stop the vast
majority from buying LCD and Plasma.

LCDs do not have "power electronics" like plasma. As a result, there are
less components that get stressed, so they should last longer. I say
"should" because we have another aspect to the problem -- Asian design and
manufacture, but this is another story. You get what you paid for.

That's why I made sure my Plasma (a Panasonic) had cooling fans and
actually runs much cooler than the other sets I looked at.

None of the plasma or LCD sold today will last you for the time expected.

That's a big claim.
LCD displays have been around for more than 15 years, and they are a
pretty mature technology. Not uncommon to have LCD still working 15
years later. None of my LCD's have ever died on me.

Plasma don't have as good a track record as LCD's to be sure.

After warranty expired, prepare to throw it away when any fault pops up.
They not built to last, but LCD has better chance of surviving.

And for plasmas -- ask any technician. Everyone has a plasma graveyard.

Yeah, but that would be because of the parts supply and cost problem
right?

I just did! And I am not basing my opinion on the visuall appearance or
picture quality. It is purely on technology used and longevity/reliability
of the unit.

Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats...
Plasma and LCD are being sold in their millions in this country alone,
would be interesting to see the % returns in the first year compared
with CRT. It would not surprise me if they are not too dissimilar.

Dave.

 

[atec 77]

Since CRT sets are no longer produced, what are you going to do when you can
no longer have this type of technology.

Crt's can still be bought in generic models , I bouthg one weeks ago .

I remember when high end solid state sound systems came out. Even a few
years later, there were people saying that solid state sound systems were
crap. At least, even today, if you want to spend a big amount of dollars,
you can have a good tube amplifier. But, with CRT's there will soon be zero
availability.

maybe another year or two but the tubes are still used so I expect
dropping them will be a while

One of the big problems with the CRT technology was the disposal problem.
When disposing of CRT's there are many environmental problems. This was one
of the reason for its disappearance. The Plasma is very close to the same
problems as with CRT disposal, but there are much fewer Plasma sets being
sold in comparison to the LCD sets.

Another problem with CRT sets, is that there are some X-Ray emissions, and
heavy EMF emissions. This is a possible health hazard. The government here
in Canada and the UK have been raising their safety standards. There are no
CRT sets that can pass these new regulations.

must be or they wouldn't be on sale
there are other new and upcoming technologies so I doubt the
lcd/plasma is the end of the line for viewing yet .

 

[Mr.T]

Well I did an A-B against my $2700 Thomson CRT and my new $1300 Sony
Bravia LCD. The Bravia won hands down, as it does against any other
CRT I've even owned or saw.

An opinion you are entitled to.

Most people would rather watch the TV that looks best to them, not
what the measurements say.

Agreed, and I have no problem with people preferring something technically
inferior. It's their money, and their own reasons.

I didn't say LCD or Plasma are technically superior to CRT's in actual
image performance, but they do *look* better to most people.

Again, so what?
As the ad says, most people prefer plasma to LCD too. You don't appear to be
one of them.

We aren't talking about 480 pixel plasma's here,

Why not, they are still more expensive than CRT?
If you truly must have a 40" screen at a reasonable price, they are the only
option for many.
But if price is of absolutely no consideration, then good luck to you.

we are talking CRT vs LCD or 768 line plasma.

No, you are simply redefining/narrowing the context to suit your argument.
As I said, all things are relative.

And yes, I agree, 480 line Plasma's are
horrible and always have been. I refused to buy one on principle.

Me too.

If you can't notice the scan lines on a CRT (even a top quality one)
when A-B'ing CRT and LCD then I think an eye checkup is in order!

This from a man who admited he hasn't even seen a HiDef CRT!!!!!!!

I compared my $2700 Thomson Scenium 76cm, hardly a "crap" CRT.

Never seen one so can't say, but that must have been the price some time
ago, a bit like comparing it with the $10K plasma's of a few years back.
Truly awful regardless of the huge price.

Funny, I don't recall seeing one in any shop I've been into lately.

Check out the LG 32FS4D for about $1,000 now including inbuilt Hi Def tuner.
Some shops carry them.
Please name any LCD or Plasma that really offers a better picture for the
same price and I will check it out.

Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough and have been overly distracted
by the vastly superior image on all those gorgeous LCD's and
Plasma's :->

Again, an opinion you are welcome to. I'm not interested in an "my opinion
is better than yours" discussion.
Truly pointless!

I'd buy your Hi-Def CRT now, they won't be around in another a year or
two.

I'm betting mine will still be working by then. And with no dead pixels

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

Since CRT sets are no longer produced,

What crap!

what are you going to do when you can no longer have this type of

technology.

Hope that something better than LCD/Plasma is developed.

I remember when high end solid state sound systems came out. Even a few
years later, there were people saying that solid state sound systems were
crap. At least, even today, if you want to spend a big amount of dollars,
you can have a good tube amplifier. ]

Good example, you can pay far more money for far less performance if you
really want.

But, with CRT's there will soon be zero availability.

Which is what they said about valve amps 40 years ago!

One of the big problems with the CRT technology was the disposal problem.
When disposing of CRT's there are many environmental problems. This was one
of the reason for its disappearance.

Who was it that said "news of my death appears to be premature" (or
something like that

Another problem with CRT sets, is that there are some X-Ray emissions, and
heavy EMF emissions. This is a possible health hazard. The government here
in Canada and the UK have been raising their safety standards. There are no
CRT sets that can pass these new regulations.

Regulations are another issue entirely. I'll bet the manufacturers simply
choose not to bother since demand is too low.

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

Again, so what?

It is probably the main reason why people have ditched CRT and rear-
pro in favour of Plasma and LCD.

As the ad says, most people prefer plasma to LCD too. You don't appear to be
one of them.

As I've said before, LCD and Plasma have there PRO's and CON's, that
is why I have one of each, they are used for different purposes.
I prefer either depending on the use.

Why not, they are still more expensive than CRT?

If you truly must have a 40" screen at a reasonable price, they are the only
option for many.

Sure, and the picture is crap of course. But some people don't mind,
they have their big screen at the lowest price.

I've noticed that rear-projection is getting very cheap, I think I saw
a fairly decent looking Sony 40" for <$1000 recently. If you want a
big screen at a budget price, they are still a reasonable option I
think. I'd certainly have a rear-pro any day over a 480 line Plasma.

This from a man who admited he hasn't even seen a HiDef CRT!!!!!!!

No need to thanks, I am comparing regular def CRT's to LCD's that have
almost replaced them.

Check out the LG 32FS4D for about $1,000 now including inbuilt Hi Def tuner.
Some shops carry them.

If I ever see one before they get discontinued and dropped from the
range as all hi-def CRT's will, I'll let you know!

Dave.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Agreed, so are current LCD's.
One day there will be a flat screen technology to beat CRT. There is plenty
of development work being done to that end.

MrT.

Surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display

"A surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) is a flat panel
display technology that uses surface conduction electron emitters for
every individual display pixel. The surface conduction emitter emits
electrons that excite a phosphor coating on the display panel, the
same basic concept found in traditional cathode ray tube (CRT)
televisions. This means that SEDs use small cathode ray tubes behind
every single pixel (instead of one tube for the whole display) and can
combine the slim form factor of LCDs and plasma displays with the
superior viewing angles, contrast, black levels, color definition and
pixel response time of CRTs. Canon also claims that SEDs consume less
power than LCD displays."

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Mr.T]

As I've said before, LCD and Plasma have there PRO's and CON's, that
is why I have one of each, they are used for different purposes.
I prefer either depending on the use.

Tha's one of the big problems IMO. What is needed is a new technology with
the benefits of both, and better than either, because I'm not sure what your
other use is besides watching TV?

I've noticed that rear-projection is getting very cheap, I think I saw
a fairly decent looking Sony 40" for <$1000 recently. If you want a
big screen at a budget price, they are still a reasonable option I
think. I'd certainly have a rear-pro any day over a 480 line Plasma.

Agreed, if you can afford the home cinema room to go with it.

No need to thanks, I am comparing regular def CRT's to LCD's that have
almost replaced them.

So apples with oranges then. The only way you can make your case I guess.
And you also refuse to compare regular def CRT's with 480 line plasma's
because you know which one wins there too.

If I ever see one before they get discontinued and dropped from the
range as all hi-def CRT's will, I'll let you know!

Don't bother, I'll still be happily enjoying mine whatever your opinion.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

Surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display

"A surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) is a flat panel
display technology that uses surface conduction electron emitters for
every individual display pixel. The surface conduction emitter emits
electrons that excite a phosphor coating on the display panel, the
same basic concept found in traditional cathode ray tube (CRT)
televisions. This means that SEDs use small cathode ray tubes behind
every single pixel (instead of one tube for the whole display) and can
combine the slim form factor of LCDs and plasma displays with the
superior viewing angles, contrast, black levels, color definition and
pixel response time of CRTs. Canon also claims that SEDs consume less
power than LCD displays."

Yes that's one technology I hope might be the answer, or maybe something
even better in years to come.
One thing I will bet my house on, neither LCD or Plasma will be around as
long as CRT TV's have been.
Thankfully

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

Tha's one of the big problems IMO. What is needed is a new technology with
the benefits of both, and better than either, because I'm not sure what your
other use is besides watching TV?

Surprisingly, watching movies on DVD.
Most of the regular TV watching gets done in the (bright) kitchen/
living room on the LCD, but that's no place to relax and watch a movie
for several hours. That's what the dark loungeroom, comfy leather
couches, 5.1 surround and bigger screen plasma is for.

So apples with oranges then. The only way you can make your case I guess.

No apples with apples.

And you also refuse to compare regular def CRT's with 480 line plasma's
because you know which one wins there too.

Of course I know which one wins there, 480 lines on the plasma does
not cut the mustard. It does not even let you see Region 4 PAL DVD's
or SD Digital TV at their full resolution (576 lines).
The reason I don't compare them is because they are not in the same
market, so that would be comparing apples with oranges. You can't get
a plasma under 40" or so, and you can't get a CRT over 32" or so, they
are two entirely different market segments.

LCD's on the other hand are designed to replace replace CRT in the
smaller screen market, so it is fair to compare those. And I don't
think there are any LCD's under 768 lines (I stand to be corrected
though), so the resolution is a whole lot better than standard def
CRT's.

Dave.