> > Scientifically, it's hard to understand why this happened because > CRT, LCoS and DLP offered the highest picture quality at the lowest > price, while direct-view large-screen LCDs have historically offered > the lowest picture quality at the highest price. This seems to be the
I disagree completely with this statement from the analysis. Projection-based technologies have had two advantages: they're cheap and available in very large sizes. They haven't ever really been competitive in terms of image quality with anything other than bottom-feeder LCD and plasma sets. Personally, I'm a big fan of Samsung's current lineup of LCD sets. I don't really like their marketing though...for example, the new sets are NOT LED TVs. They're LED-backlit LCDs. It's a major step forward in technology to be sure, but it is still an LCD panel with the only change being from a CCFL to LED backlight. AFAIK, the only places you'll find real LED TVs are the huge jumbotrons at sporting venues. I should also mention that several people that have seen my 52" Samsung Series 7 (LN52A750-now 1 year old) have went out and bought one themselves based on nothing other than the spectacular image quality. Sony's best sets are very comparable as well--you can't really go wrong with either of them at this point. Plasma has always felt more like an interim technology to me, and the sales volume supports that. There are still a few things they do better than LCDs, but the current generation of LCDs have gotten so good that plasma really only becomes compelling when looking for a set bigger than the 52-55" that mainstream LCDs seem to top out at. Just my two cents. Opinions on this topic tend to be quite....strong. Greg
