Re: What is better, LCD or Plasma?
Well that depends. Power levels are reported as out of the box, so to speak. While it is true that once you get both displays home and adjust the controls with a calibration disc the plasma power consumption will be far less than out of the box, that's not what is being used to report. Also not what's being used for California's power ratings. Sad but true. I guess they feel like most people will just use plasmas with the out of the box settings.
As far as burn in goes it has not been eliminated from plasma technology. The occurrences have been significantly reduced especially if calibrated correctly, but not eliminated. Hook one up to a computer and leave the desktop on the display and see what happens. I know that is not a usual way a plasma would be used, but it still can not be said that burn in ceased to be a problem. In general it can be said that if you watch TV on a plasma, burn in is not going to be a problem, assuming full screen video is watched. Pillar box video probably will have an effect over a long term.
Off axis viewing of LCDs is highly overly stated, in my opinion. By the same token the 170+ degree viewing angles the manufacturers say is completely false as well. In my experience the viewing angle for most current LCD panels is about 45 degrees each direction horizontally. At 45 degrees you don't get a picture that is as good as straight on viewing, but I find it very watchable. You get much more off axis than 45 degrees and the picture is pretty distorted anyway even on a plasma. There is some merit to the vertical viewing angles being far more restrictive with my experience being about 20-30 degrees. That becomes a problem when the panels are mounted up high, but tilting them will reduce this problem. Still if I lay on the floor, my LCD will wash out a bit. That would not be a problem with a plasma.