Share GreatAchilles's profile
GreatAchilles
GreatAchilles's stats
- Review count4
- Helpfulness votes144
- First reviewSeptember 27, 2008
- Last reviewNovember 2, 2008
- Featured reviews0
- Average rating3.8
Reviews comments
- Review comment count0
- Helpfulness votes0
- First review commentNone
- Last review commentNone
- Featured review comments0
Questions
- Question count0
- Helpfulness votes0
- First questionNone
- Last questionNone
- Featured questions0
- Answer count1
- Helpfulness votes1
- First answerNovember 8, 2008
- Last answerNovember 8, 2008
- Featured answers0
- Best answers1
GreatAchilles's Reviews
![Perfect Symmetry [CD] [PA]](https://pisces.bbystatic.com/image2/BestBuy_US/images/products/9030/9030121_sa.jpg)
Customer Rating
3
Imperfect Symmetry: not as we've known them ..
on November 2, 2008
Posted by: GreatAchilles
They say you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover nor an album by its art. However, in the case of Keane's third album, Perfect Symmetry, there are some real similarities between the cover art and the music. Keane has pulled together an interesting collection of musical styles and influences, creating an overall effect something like the fractal images on the album cover itself. Fans of the first two albums (myself included) might find themselves unsure what to make of their use of vibrato key-board instead of their traditional (and crystal clear) piano, of their 80s influenced retro sound, or their departure from ballad choruses with some of the best pop hooks in the business.
The album starts off with the best track first. Spiraling is witty, fun, and has a dance/funk feel. Full of energy, lyrical, and incredibly listenable, the first track sets you up for a huge disappointment in the next few tracks to follow.
"The Lovers are Losing," "Better than This," and "You Haven't Told Me Anything," have an 80s feel that simply isn't what I've come to expect from Keane. "You can do so much better than this," the chorus to track #2 feels appropriate. Synthetic drums don't quite jive with the guitars in track #4, and take away from the lyrics, the only redeeming element of the song.
Track #5, "Perfect Symmetry" offers a welcome return to what makes Keane excellent: solid piano, compelling lyrics, and of course the wonderful voice of Tom Chaplin. The song carries the same melancholic tones that fuel both of Keane's first two albums, and that create the 'mood' that I have come to associate with Keane. I love to play their stuff after a long day at work, and this song will take it's place on my 'cool down,' play list.
"You Don't See Me," is another solid effort, combining a vibro-synth keyboard with Tom's voice which creates a nice dynamic reminiscent of U2's "All That You Can't Leave Behind" album.
"Again & Again," carries some of the energy of "Spiraling," and is another hybrid of Keane's old style and their new fascination with synth influences and 80s era sound. The chorus is fantastic. "It was in your eyes, in your eyes, they were just easy lies..."
"Playing Along," is an average track, with an Oasis feel to it. It's the most rock influenced track with strong electric guitars taking center stage rather than the keyboard that dominates the rest of the album. Not incredible, but listenable, this song just doesn't do it for me. If you're an Oasis fan, this will probably be your favorite track.
"Pretend That You're Alone," is terrible, and my least favorite track on the CD. The funk influence is there once more, but this time it is smashed together with Keane's piano-rock heritage. The result is painful to listen to.
"Black Burning Heart," is an ok track. It seems a little too slow until the chorus hits. However by that time the song has lost it's momentum.
"Love Is the End," is a quiet little love song, both breezy and sad. It's probably my third favorite track because it doesn't try to do too much, and is content to just tell a good story without the music overwhelming it.
Overall, this is not a bad album, it just isn't the excellent album that I hoped it would be. There are elements of it that are great, and others that are quite poor. It comes across as an album not sure what its identity is. All the pieces are there, but like the cover, they've not been arranged correctly and sometimes even clash.
If you're a fan of Keane, buy the CD, there are a half dozen decent tracks. If you're new to Keane, get Under the Iron Sea instead. Follow that up with Hopes and Fears and only make your way to "Perfect Symmetry," once you've exhausted those two superior albums.
I would recommend this to a friend!
Share this review:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D Standard Lens: The wide-open aperture of this versatile Nikon lens allows you to capture photos in most situations without a flash. Whatever you're shooting, you'll get consistently sharp results at dusk, dawn or even in dim indoor lighting. Weighing just 5.5 oz., it makes a convenient carry-around lens for shooting stills and video.
Customer Rating
5
Great lens for portrait and low light photography.
on October 24, 2008
Posted by: GreatAchilles
This lens produces sharp pictures and great color and contrast. And for its price (which seems to climb recently), it is worth more than 5 stars rating. I initially get this lens for low light action and sport photography (as this lens is famous for being one of the fastest lens together with its brother 50mm f/1.4), but I also found out that this lens is also perfect for portrait and other general purposes (macro, etc). This is definitely a very versatile lens.
As much as I want to encourage everyone to buy this lens right away, let me mention some of the limitation that you would see (which I think will be helpful to go over before deciding to buy this lens)
First, being a prime lens, you will need to move your feet a lot to compose your picture. If you are used to zoom lens, don't underestimate this limitation. It takes me a while to get used to it, and sometime I still find people looking at me wondering why I am moving forward and backwards. the good news is that most of the time, they don't think I'm weird, but they are actually wondering if I'm a professional photographer.
Secondly, the focal range of 50mm, which is considered the normal lens and great for portrait lens. but on a DSLR (which I assume most of you use nowadays), this lens become a 75mm equivalent which is in the border of a short tele lens. I actually like the 75mm equivalent though I often have to move backwards when taking picture of a group of people.
Third, in some situation the autofocus might not able to focus (which is common for many other lens too). It is hard for the autofocus to lock when aiming at a wall that is one color (usually black or white), or on a clear sky (day or night). This kind of makes sense to me actually. IN these situations the AF assist light doesn't help either so you can opt for manual focus or set the focus to infinity when you can't find focus lock on scenic/landscape or sky photography. So far I don't have many problems with the autofocus.
Sharpness increases as you stop down to f/2.2 or f/2.5. I actually use f/1.8 most of the time and the results are still nice. Personally, I'd rather use f/1.8 aperture settings than stopped down (e.g to f/2.8) and compensate with higher ISO setting which often gives me grainy picture. But if your object is not moving (static) then it is better to stop down to f/2.8 or more.
If you are wondering whether you should get a fast lens or a lens with VR, here's my take: VR does help a lot (and produce better/sharper picture than equivalent faster lens without VR) if the object is static. If the object is moving (sports/action) then VR feature doesn't really help and fast lens (like this lens) will be a far better solution. Using tripod (and a remote) will substitute for the need of VR feature. In general I would recommend getting a fast lens with VR feature (and usually it is expensive) such as the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but if one can only get for one or the other, then find out what do you want to use the lens for and then use the guideline mentioned here.
If you are wondering whether you should get a fast lens or a lens with VR, here's my take: VR does help a lot (and produce better/sharper picture than equivalent faster lens without VR) if the object is static. If the object is moving (sports/action) then VR feature doesn't really help and fast lens (like this lens) will be a far better solution. Using tripod (and a remote) will substitute for the need of VR feature. In general I would recommend getting a fast lens with VR feature (and usually it is expensive) such as the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but if one can only get for one or the other, then find out what do you want to use the lens for and then use the guideline mentioned here.
Here are the summary of pros and cons for this Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF lens.
Pros:
+ Very fast (f/1.8)
+ Very sharp pictures (especially when stopped down to f/2.2, f/2.5 or more.)
+ Great for sport/action photography
+ Great for indoor and low light situation
+ Great for portrait
+ Bokeh is almost as good as many expensive Nikon tele-lens
+ Fast autofocus
+ Good for wedding photography (or no-flash event). However, if this is your main objective then you might want to get the 50mm f/1.4 version or 28-70mm f/2.8 lens)
+ 75mm equivalent which can be considered a short tele lens (I actually like the fact that it's 75mm equivalent vs 50mm in DSLR. if you need more zoom, you can get the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, or the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR)
+ Inexpensive
+ Very sharp pictures (especially when stopped down to f/2.2, f/2.5 or more.)
+ Great for sport/action photography
+ Great for indoor and low light situation
+ Great for portrait
+ Bokeh is almost as good as many expensive Nikon tele-lens
+ Fast autofocus
+ Good for wedding photography (or no-flash event). However, if this is your main objective then you might want to get the 50mm f/1.4 version or 28-70mm f/2.8 lens)
+ 75mm equivalent which can be considered a short tele lens (I actually like the fact that it's 75mm equivalent vs 50mm in DSLR. if you need more zoom, you can get the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, or the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR)
+ Inexpensive
Cons:
- Being prime lens, you need to move your feet a lot to adjust/compose
- Autofocus issue on some situations (read detail above)
- Plasticy build
- Autofocus is not the most silent but very reasonable
- 75mm equivalent with 1.5x multiplier on DSLR (many people find this is an odd range for normal lens)
- Autofocus issue on some situations (read detail above)
- Plasticy build
- Autofocus is not the most silent but very reasonable
- 75mm equivalent with 1.5x multiplier on DSLR (many people find this is an odd range for normal lens)
Bottom line:
This lens is so versatile (and inexpensive) that I think everyone should own in addition to all the lenses that they already have. Being a very fast lens, it enables me to take pictures in low light (sport/action photography) that I otherwise wouldn't be able to do.
I would recommend this to a friend!
Ease of Use
4
Durability
5
Share this review:
+67points
77of 87voted this as helpful.
Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Macro Lens: Let every detail speak for itself with a Nikon 105mm macro lens that delivers stunningly intricate close-up images of flowers and insects, as well as beautiful portraits. Vibration Reduction technology eliminates blurring caused by camera shake, and the Silent Wave Motor ensures fast, silent and precise autofocusing.
Customer Rating
3
Still catching up to the Tamron 90
on October 19, 2008
Posted by: GreatAchilles
Here we have what appears to be a made-in-heaven lens from Nikon combining thier excellent 105 2.8 with 9 blades for better bokeh (out of focus rendering) and (gulp!) VR!!!
Well, let's cut to the chase. Is this lens worth the money? It depends. If you absolutely had your heart set on a Nikon 105 2.8 Micro, then this lens makes sense. The bokeh IS better than the older 7 bladed version. And it also has the VR which will be of aid when doing normal non-macro work. There's no denying that VR works great and combined with the 2.8 speed you get a nice package here for available light work.
My problem with this lens, as with the original, is that the Tamron 90 Macro 2.8 DI is still a better lens. It is sharper and continues to hold the lead in bokeh for protrait work. With the Tamron being under 450 new, people in the know can save and score.
On the other hand, the Nikon is HARDLY a bad lens by any stretch. We're talking about minute differences most of the time. The Nikon's VR is of very little aid doing macro work, but it's great when shooting anything else. On top of that you get VERY fast AFS focusing.
Once again I'd like to point out that a macro 105 or 90 requires close distances to subject for 1:1 work. If you want to shoot bug faces a longer focal range, such as a 150 or 180 may be better suited, though less useful for protrait work on a DSLR with a 1.5 crop ratio.
So depending on your applications, the Nikon 105 VR may still be worth the money. You have to consider how and where you'll be shooting. Optically I still feel the Tamron 90 is the lens to beat for this range in macros. But the gadget factor on this new Nikon makes for a very interesting product that will please a lot of shooters and gadget photogs alike. Enjoy!
No, I would not recommend this to a friend.
Ease of Use
3
Durability
3
Share this review:
+3points
61of 119voted this as helpful.
This elegant portable drive is simple to use, light and easy to carry, and require no power adapter -- it is powered directly through the USB cable. Comes with sync & encryption and Google software.
Customer Rating
4
A Great Value In Portable External HDs
on September 27, 2008
Posted by: GreatAchilles
The Western Digital My Passport Essential 320GB USB 2.0 Portable Hard Drive (Midnight Black) is the largest capacity in the portable essentials line-up. They say that this is the update to the regular Western Digital 320 GB Passport Hard Drive and I own both of them. In fact I also own many other portable hard drives in the Western Digital passport lineup and so far I couldn't be happier. All of these are great for mobile backups of data, though slower to copy large backups than their A/C powered MyBook big-brothers.
Some will be considering the Western Digital My Passport Essential 250GB and the Western Digital My Passport Essential 160 GB sizes of these drives. I started with the 160 GB and have owned multiple versions in all sizes, and capacity aside these drives are basically the same. If you are on the fence between a smaller or larger size, the decision will come down to what you really need most. If you need a drive for complete backups, don't box yourself in purchasing a 160 GB model when your hard drive is 120 GB. Give yourself some room and go with the 320 if you can.
For those with backup needs of 80 GB or smaller, look into the other capacities. Periodic specials are being run on some of the smaller sizes, making them very attractive. Plus a 500 GB model should be on the way soon. So if you need the largest size, then by all means get the 320 GB version. But if you can make do with the smaller size, then the value pricing may entice you. Weigh your options but whatever size you pick now make sure it's enough to meet your needs right now and for at least the next 6 months. In fact, some people who are extremely picky like me are going to want to buy at least 2 drives so that they can have 2 copies of their backups, just in case.
>> Pros:
+ Great capacity options at good prices available in this line of products.
+ Nice portable form factor that easily connects via USB.
+ USB powered, no A/C required, which is great for portability.
+ Works well on Windows Vista, XP and Mac OS X.
+ Easy to set up disk encryption for security and privacy.
+ Nice looks, and cool color options for those that care about that.
+ Turns on and off with your computer or easily ejected via system tray.
+ Easy plug-and-play installation.
+ Integrates nicely with my growing stable of WD MyBook drives.
+ Included software may be useful for some novices.
+ Drives are sufficiently durable holding up to normal use over time.
+ 320 GB capacity is just about right for most users.
+ Great capacity options at good prices available in this line of products.
+ Nice portable form factor that easily connects via USB.
+ USB powered, no A/C required, which is great for portability.
+ Works well on Windows Vista, XP and Mac OS X.
+ Easy to set up disk encryption for security and privacy.
+ Nice looks, and cool color options for those that care about that.
+ Turns on and off with your computer or easily ejected via system tray.
+ Easy plug-and-play installation.
+ Integrates nicely with my growing stable of WD MyBook drives.
+ Included software may be useful for some novices.
+ Drives are sufficiently durable holding up to normal use over time.
+ 320 GB capacity is just about right for most users.
>> Cons:
- Somewhat slow file transfer speeds for larger backups.
- Included software not useful for power users.
- Shiny body attracts scratch, fingerprints and dust.
- Only USB, so look to the LaCie 250 GB Rugged Hard Disk if you need fire-wire ports too.
- Only up to 320 GB right now, so look to the LaCie 500 GB Rugged Hard Disk with FireWire and USB if you need more capacity in a portable drive.
- Have to spend your cash to get a case that should have been included.
- Somewhat slow file transfer speeds for larger backups.
- Included software not useful for power users.
- Shiny body attracts scratch, fingerprints and dust.
- Only USB, so look to the LaCie 250 GB Rugged Hard Disk if you need fire-wire ports too.
- Only up to 320 GB right now, so look to the LaCie 500 GB Rugged Hard Disk with FireWire and USB if you need more capacity in a portable drive.
- Have to spend your cash to get a case that should have been included.
The Looks:
The drive has a nice shiny exterior. The case can scratch in transit and the surface also attracts fingerprints and dust. But the look is still nice and you can easily purchase a case or holder for the drive if it bothers you. Most versions don't ship with the case included, but you can pick up the CaseLogic Small External Hard Drive Case (Black) for $10 or $15.
The drive has a nice shiny exterior. The case can scratch in transit and the surface also attracts fingerprints and dust. But the look is still nice and you can easily purchase a case or holder for the drive if it bothers you. Most versions don't ship with the case included, but you can pick up the CaseLogic Small External Hard Drive Case (Black) for $10 or $15.
The Features:
I had no problem connecting this drive to any computer, including Windows XP, Vista and Mac OS X. Keep in mind this is a USB 2.0 device so ancient computers may not yield the same results.
I had no problem connecting this drive to any computer, including Windows XP, Vista and Mac OS X. Keep in mind this is a USB 2.0 device so ancient computers may not yield the same results.
Transfer speeds are ok but definitely slower than the A/C powered MyBooks. This guy is still limited by the 480 Mbs connection speed of USB 2.0, but performs somewhat slower than this when performing large backups. The USB 2.0 speed rating can not really be achieved in production and you will get a fraction of that. But it's a trade-off that's worth it since it's USB-powered. Check out the LaCie 250 GB Rugged hard disk if you need fire-wire ports too. Or try the LaCie 500 GB Rugged hard disk if you need more portable capacity.
The software utilities included with this device will be most useful for beginners. I tested the backup software in particular but found it to be slow and impractical. I mean REALLY slow. It works, but cutting and pasting is better. Take my advice: don't use these utilities and just do cut and paste backups and saves to this drive.
Reliability:
I've had good luck with the passport line of drives. They seem to have lower failure rates than many MyBook drives, though I also own those and haven't had issues there either. Maybe my gentle care has helped me to get lucky with these guys so far. Maybe it's because these drives are generally off when in transit. Regardless, these guys have held up fine.
I've had good luck with the passport line of drives. They seem to have lower failure rates than many MyBook drives, though I also own those and haven't had issues there either. Maybe my gentle care has helped me to get lucky with these guys so far. Maybe it's because these drives are generally off when in transit. Regardless, these guys have held up fine.
Conclusion:
This drive is great or those who want a portable drive for backups on the run. It's nice getting the 320GB capacity in one drive. There are smaller drives but other than capacity there is no real difference between them. Watch the price changes and choose the sized drive that's right for you.
This drive is great or those who want a portable drive for backups on the run. It's nice getting the 320GB capacity in one drive. There are smaller drives but other than capacity there is no real difference between them. Watch the price changes and choose the sized drive that's right for you.
I would recommend this to a friend!
Ease of Use
5
Performance
4
Share this review:
+6points
6of 6voted this as helpful.
GreatAchilles's Review Comments
GreatAchilles has not submitted comments on any reviews.
GreatAchilles's Questions
GreatAchilles has not submitted any questions.
GreatAchilles's Answers
what the difference between plasma and lcd
Outward appearances are definitely deceiving when it comes to LCD and Plasma televisions. Although both types of televisions are flat and thin, they employ different technology in an attempt to deliver similar results.
Plasma TV Overview
Plasma television technology is based loosely on the fluorescent light bulb. The display itself consists of cells. Within each cell two glass panels are separated by a narrow gap in which neon-xenon gas is injected and sealed in plasma form during the manufacturing process. The gas is electrically charged at specific intervals when the Plasma set is in use. The charged gas then strikes red, green, and blue phosphors, thus creating a television image. Each group of red, green, and blue phosphors is called a pixel (picture element).
Although Plasma television technology eliminate the need for the bulky picture tube and electron beam scanning of traditional televisions, because it still employs the burning of phosphors to generate an image, Plasma televisions still suffer from some of the drawbacks of traditional televisions, such as heat generation and screen-burn of static images.
LCD TV Overview
LCD televisions, on the other hand, use a different technology (see also question #1 for this same explanation).
Basically, LCD panels are made of two layers of transparent material, which are polarized, and are "glued" together. One of the layers is coated with a special polymer that holds the individual liquid crystals. Current is then passed through individual crystals, which allow the crystals to pass or block light to create images.
LCD crystals do not produce their own light, so an external light source, such as florescent bulb is needed for the image created by the LCD to become visible to the viewer.
Unlike standard CRT and Plasma televisions, since there are no phosphors that light up, less power is need for operation and the light source in an LCD television generates less heat than a Plasma or traditional television. Also, because of the nature of LCD technology, there is no radiation emitted from the screen itself.
Plasma vs LCD
The ADVANTAGES of Plasma over LCD are:
1. Larger screen size availability.
2. Better contrast ratio and ability to render deeper blacks.
3. Better color accuracy and saturation.
4. Better motion tracking (little or no motion lag in fast moving images).
The DISADVANTAGES of Plasma vs LCD include:
1. Plasma TVs are more susceptible to burn-in of static images.
2. Plasma TVs generate more heat than LCDs, due to the need to light of phosphors to create the images.
3. Does not perform as well at higher altitudes.
4. Shorter display life span (about 30,000 hours or 8 hrs of viewing a day for 9 years) than LCD. However, screen life span is improving to as high as 60,000 hours due to technology improvements.
LCD television ADVANTAGES over Plasma include:
1. No burn-in of static images.
2. Cooler running temperature.
3. No high altitude use issues.
4. Increased image brightness over Plasma.
5. Longer display life (about 60,000 hours - at which time all you may need to do is replace the light source, not the entire set). This can vary according other environmental and use factors.
6. Lighter weight (when comparing same screen sizes) than Plasma counterparts.
DISADVANTAGES of LCD vs Plasma televisions include:
1. Lower contrast ratio, not as good rendering deep blacks.
2. Not as good at tracking motion (fast moving objects may exhibit lag artifacts) - However, this is improving with the recent implementation of 120Hz screen refresh rates in higher-end LCD sets.
3. Not as common in large screen sizes above 42-inches as Plasma. However, the number is growing fast, with 46 and 47-inch screen sizes becoming more common, and some LCD sets having a screen size as large as 65-inches now available to the general public.
4. Although LCD televisions do not suffer from burn-in susceptibility, it is possible that individual pixels on an LCD televisions can burn out, causing small, visible, black or white dots to appear on the screen. Individual pixels cannot be repaired, the whole screen would need to be replaced at that point, if the individual pixel burnout becomes annoying to you.
5. LCD televisions are typically more expensive than equivalent-sized Plasma televisions (although this is changing), especially when comparing EDTV Plasmas to HDTV-LCD Televisions.
Plasma TV Overview
Plasma television technology is based loosely on the fluorescent light bulb. The display itself consists of cells. Within each cell two glass panels are separated by a narrow gap in which neon-xenon gas is injected and sealed in plasma form during the manufacturing process. The gas is electrically charged at specific intervals when the Plasma set is in use. The charged gas then strikes red, green, and blue phosphors, thus creating a television image. Each group of red, green, and blue phosphors is called a pixel (picture element).
Although Plasma television technology eliminate the need for the bulky picture tube and electron beam scanning of traditional televisions, because it still employs the burning of phosphors to generate an image, Plasma televisions still suffer from some of the drawbacks of traditional televisions, such as heat generation and screen-burn of static images.
LCD TV Overview
LCD televisions, on the other hand, use a different technology (see also question #1 for this same explanation).
Basically, LCD panels are made of two layers of transparent material, which are polarized, and are "glued" together. One of the layers is coated with a special polymer that holds the individual liquid crystals. Current is then passed through individual crystals, which allow the crystals to pass or block light to create images.
LCD crystals do not produce their own light, so an external light source, such as florescent bulb is needed for the image created by the LCD to become visible to the viewer.
Unlike standard CRT and Plasma televisions, since there are no phosphors that light up, less power is need for operation and the light source in an LCD television generates less heat than a Plasma or traditional television. Also, because of the nature of LCD technology, there is no radiation emitted from the screen itself.
Plasma vs LCD
The ADVANTAGES of Plasma over LCD are:
1. Larger screen size availability.
2. Better contrast ratio and ability to render deeper blacks.
3. Better color accuracy and saturation.
4. Better motion tracking (little or no motion lag in fast moving images).
The DISADVANTAGES of Plasma vs LCD include:
1. Plasma TVs are more susceptible to burn-in of static images.
2. Plasma TVs generate more heat than LCDs, due to the need to light of phosphors to create the images.
3. Does not perform as well at higher altitudes.
4. Shorter display life span (about 30,000 hours or 8 hrs of viewing a day for 9 years) than LCD. However, screen life span is improving to as high as 60,000 hours due to technology improvements.
LCD television ADVANTAGES over Plasma include:
1. No burn-in of static images.
2. Cooler running temperature.
3. No high altitude use issues.
4. Increased image brightness over Plasma.
5. Longer display life (about 60,000 hours - at which time all you may need to do is replace the light source, not the entire set). This can vary according other environmental and use factors.
6. Lighter weight (when comparing same screen sizes) than Plasma counterparts.
DISADVANTAGES of LCD vs Plasma televisions include:
1. Lower contrast ratio, not as good rendering deep blacks.
2. Not as good at tracking motion (fast moving objects may exhibit lag artifacts) - However, this is improving with the recent implementation of 120Hz screen refresh rates in higher-end LCD sets.
3. Not as common in large screen sizes above 42-inches as Plasma. However, the number is growing fast, with 46 and 47-inch screen sizes becoming more common, and some LCD sets having a screen size as large as 65-inches now available to the general public.
4. Although LCD televisions do not suffer from burn-in susceptibility, it is possible that individual pixels on an LCD televisions can burn out, causing small, visible, black or white dots to appear on the screen. Individual pixels cannot be repaired, the whole screen would need to be replaced at that point, if the individual pixel burnout becomes annoying to you.
5. LCD televisions are typically more expensive than equivalent-sized Plasma televisions (although this is changing), especially when comparing EDTV Plasmas to HDTV-LCD Televisions.
15 years, 5 months ago
by
GreatAchilles