News

These aren't exactly flush economic times. But believe it or not, according to a new Consumer Electronics Association survey, the most desired electronic gift item for this holiday season is a plasma TV.

Of course, there are other kinds of TV sets (direct-view, projection and so on). But those big, thin, wide, wall-mountable screens look so good, they continue to make a statement even when they're turned off. (Namely, that you just spent a few thousand dollars on a TV set.)

By far the most popular plasma models are the 42-inchers, which are broad and sweeping enough to make any wall blush with pride. But if you're about to go buy one, three words of advice:

Don't do it.

Before you drop all that money on a 42-inch plasma TV, consider dropping it on a different kind of flat-screen TV, one that until this month wasn't even in the running: LCD.

Of course, liquid-crystal display screens aren't anything new; they've graced laptops, camcorders and cameras for years. But until recently you couldn't buy flat-panel LCDs with screen sizes above 40 inches, not even if you were Bill Gates. They just didn't exist.

It finally dawned on two of the world's biggest LCD makers, Samsung and Sharp, to spend a few-million dollars to upgrade the screen-size capacity of their factories. The fruits of their labours, the world's largest commercially available LCD screens, have just arrived: a 45-inch LCD from Sharp (the LC-45G1H) and a 46-incher from Samsung (LT-P468W).

Apart from their sheer neighbour-humbling size, the biggest breakthrough is the screen resolution: 1,920 pixels by 1,080 pixels. That's the highest resolution of any flat-panel TV (including the gorgeous new 42-inch LCD sets from Sony and Philips). You're getting more than two million tiny colour dots.

Compare that number with the 786,000 pixels on a typical 42-inch plasma HDTV, 345,000 on one of those $2,500 (U.S.) "enhanced definition" plasmas, and only 300,000 on a standard TV. Clearly, these are very, very sharp screens.

Now, high-definition geeks may be protesting at this point: "But that's more resolution than anyone's broadcasting yet!" And true enough, all those extra dots don't make DVDs or today's high-definition broadcasts (known as 1080i and 720p signals) look any sharper.

For now, the primary benefit of all those seething pixels is improved brightness and contrast, simply because more of the glass is covered by pixels. You also enjoy a greatly reduced "screen door" effect when you're sitting up close; the square pixels are so tiny, you can't discern the pixel grid even from three feet away.

The real payoff, though, will come in a few years, when broadcasters begin filming and broadcasting an even better, so-called 1080p HDTV signal. When that great day arrives, you'll see far more picture clarity than your buddies who bought 42-inch plasmas.

These screens also enjoy the more universal perks of LCD-hood, like being a couple of inches slimmer than a plasma one, and quite a bit lighter. For example, the 45-inch Sharp, without its stand or speaker, weighs only 48 pounds; a plasma set weighs about 80 pounds, requiring more structural support when mounting it on the wall.

Then there's the matter of burn-in, which has terrified plasma buyers for years. A static image left long enough on a plasma screen will eventually leave a permanent ghost image on its phosphors.

Now, everyday channel surfing doesn't produce this sort of burn-in. You're most likely to see it, for example, on airport monitors that show gate information around the clock. But all-news cable watchers should beware the headline ticker at the bottom of the screen, and video gamers may worry about the motionless grid of, say, the field in a football game. In any case, an LCD doesn't have any phosphors, so images can't burn in.

In general, LCD screens last longer, too. The Sharp and Samsung are rated at 60,000 hours, which comes out to six hours of viewing a day for 27 years, after which you can have the bulb replaced for $200, if in fact the TV, the company and you are still around. Plasma life spans are shorter, and you can't replace the bulb, although the latest models are catching up. The earliest screens, which are even now being hauled out to the curb by sobbing early adopters, lasted only a few years before the picture deteriorated noticeably.

Finally, LCD screens consume less electricity than plasmas, and they don't emit a buzz at high altitudes, as plasmas do.

So if plasmas are thicker, heavier, shorter lived, greedier for power, buzzier and vulnerable to burn-in, why on earth are they at the top of everyone's wish list?

The fact is, plasma is still superior to LCD in certain areas, especially price. The 45-inch Sharp and 46-inch Samsung cost $6,100 and $6,200 on-line, respectively, and about $8,000 in retail stores. For that kind of money, you could get a 50-inch plasma and still have $1,000 left over for popcorn.

Plasma is also the only way to go if you want something larger than 46 inches (for now, anyway; Samsung and Sharp have already demonstrated 57- and 65-inch LCD prototypes). You should also opt for plasma if you don't care about milking every speck of quality from high-definition broadcasts and you're perfectly content with the quality of DVDs. In that case, an "enhanced definition" plasma can save you thousands of dollars.

Picture quality is another debate. In general, an LCD's picture is sharper than a plasma's, and the colours are more vibrant. Moreover, an LCD screen fares much better in a bright or sunlit room.

But in a side-by-side test, you might be inclined to declare the plasma's colours more lifelike and its blacks slightly blacker.

Still, most people would call this theoretical nitpicking. Both the Samsung and the Sharp look incredible. (Or, to quote a visiting home-theatre installer who saw my review unit, "I — I've never — I've never seen a picture like that." He would have stayed to watch The Godfather, parts I, II and III if I'd let him.)

They couldn't be more dissimilar in design, however. The Sharp is understated, calming and minimalist: a pure, floating sheet of moving image with only a 1.5-inch margin of handsome dark aluminum. It owes much of its sleekness to an external box that houses the power circuitry and all of its jacks.

On one hand, you have to stack this box on your other components and hope that its 10-foot cable is long enough (or pay plenty for a special extension cord). On the other hand, the box offers three features that the Samsung lacks. First, it's a high-definition tuner, meaning that you can plug an antenna directly into it. (The Samsung is purely a monitor; if you get your TV from an antenna, you have to buy an external HDTV tuner box.)

Second, the box has a slot for a CableCard, a new offering from cable TV companies that eliminates the cable box, its remote and its cords.

Third, it has a slot that (with an adapter that you must buy) accommodates a memory card. It can play slide shows of your digital pictures, or even — get this — capture what's on TV, either as digital photos or even little digital movies. Sharp cheerfully suggests that this screen-capture feature could eliminate having to scramble for a pencil when a recipe or an 800-number appears.

The Samsung, on the other hand, is entirely self-contained; all of its jacks are on the back. As a result, it's thicker (5.7 inches, compared with 3.4 for the Sharp) and a good deal heavier (99 pounds instead of 48). You'll certainly prefer it if the effect you want is pure wall-covering massiveness. The broader margin and the 30-watt attached speakers make this screen a full foot wider than the Sharp.

Otherwise, though, these screens are more alike than they are different. Each offers a healthy assortment of jacks (HDMI, DVI, component, composite, S-video and so on), a swiveling table stand and a remote (the Sharp's is illuminated and much nicer).

Both offer excellent viewing angles (170 degrees) and much better handling of fast motion than previous LCDs (down to 12 milliseconds per pixel flicker). Both can memorize calibration settings (brightness, colour tint and so on) independently for each video input. And both can serve as computer monitors, which is handy if you work with really, really big spreadsheets.

Above all, both of these screens change the landscape for anyone who's in the market for a big, gorgeous, luxurious flat-panel TV. If you're among those whose No.1 wish-list item is a plasma TV, consider wishing upon a different star.