regarding the LCD Vs Plasma issue; this is good reading from an article in the latest issue of The Perfect Vision from a review of the Sharp 37 written by Randy Tomlinson:
"Sharp, on its Web site, has a page dedicated to comparing LCD and plasma technologies. Since Sharp only makes LCD sets, you might expect some bias, but most of its information is right on target. Here are some of the points it makes, and some of my own (italicized) comments from personal experience.
Viewing Angles: LCD sets have 170-degree viewing angles while typical plasmas are 160 degrees. My experience is that the picture on LCD sets changes character (loses contrast, in particular) considerably as you move off axis, while the plasma picture does not.
Screen Sizes: Aquos LCD sets range from 13"-37" in size, while plasma displays aren't produced in sizes smaller than 32". As I mentioned before, plasma sizes probably won't shrink but LCD will definitely grow and probably improve as time goes on. In small sizes, they have little competition, and soon they'll threaten the big boys.
Burn-in: LCDs aren't prone to image burn-in, while plasmas can easily be damaged by static images. No question about this advantage. Many plasma owners have already learned the hard way that image burn-in is a very real problem, and one for which there is no repair and no warranty-coverage. Plasma sets often have all the inputs for being a computer monitor or game display, but using them that way is inviting disaster. Even the stock-market ticker is a potential threat.
Brightness: Sharp indicates that its LCD sets measure typically more than four times as bright as typical plasma sets. It doesn't mention, however, the poor black levels of LCD sets, especially when compared to the Panasonic plasmas. And even a set that measures four times as bright doesn't look anywhere near four times as bright with typical movies and TV programs.
Weight: LCD sets are said to be lighter, thinner, and more manageable, but their screens are also smaller. When LCD hits 42", we'll have a level playing field for this comparison. They'll still be lighter than plasmas, but both will be too big and heavy for one person to easily (and safely) wallmount. More important: Sharp builds handles into some of its sets' rear covers for easy carryingothers don't.
Product Life: Sharp claims 60,000 hours for its LCD panels while estimates for plasma panels typically run from 20,000 to 30,000 hours. But the real advantage for LCD is that the light source is a bulb, which can be replaced. Plasmas cannot be rejuvenated by a quick recharge of gas, as some uninformed salespeople have told their customers.
Power Consumption: LCDs consume half the power of plasma displays and comparably-sized CRT sets. Plasma sets do run hot, and some have noisy fans that can't be turned off.
Altitude: LCDs aren't affected by altitude, while plasma sets will often hum and buzz at altitudes above 6500 feet. If you're up high, listen for buzzing at the dealer's showroom or just opt for LCD.
Other differences I've noticed include:
LCDs typically don't track gray as well as plasmas and often have extreme color tint errors as they approach black. Plasmas can often be ISF-calibrated to near perfection, while many LCD sets must settle for calibrations with compromises. Few are calibrated well out of the box.
LCDs have subjective resolution that only the best plasmas can approach. Once again, when screen sizes become identical, the playing field will be more level.
LCDs have bright, vivid colors, but greens usually look even more unnatural than typical plasma greens. The latest Sharp seems to have negated this advantage.
LCDs have always had a problem with slow response time, which results in the smearing of fast-moving objects. The latest models are much improved, but fast pans (in sporting events, for example) can give some people viewer fatigue after a while. The problem is very subtle, but it slowly eats away at you, particularly when you've identified it and know what to look for. One solution: Don't look for it. RT"