The battle between plasma and LCD TV technology rumbles on, and if you're in the market for a big-screen TV you need to seriously consider which tech is right for you, LCD or plasma.

The first flat TVs in the late 1990s - costing thousands of pounds - used plasma tech, and were 42-inches in size right from the off. LCD screens, invented in the 1970s for calculators, slowly grew in size and gradually improved until they started to challenge plasma in the mid Noughties.

Now, roughly one in ten flat TVs sold uses plasma, with LCD - increasingly in its Johnny-cum-lately LED-backlit guise - dominating the market. That's largely down to economies of scale; many of the major TV manufacturers chose to concentrate on LCD panel factories, eventually making them cheaper to produce in big sizes. They also had the leap on plasma by achieving Full HD resolution first.

But plasma isn't dead. Panasonic still churns out plasmas in their millions, while Samsung and LG refuse to switch completely to LCD.

The reason is picture quality; many of the features LCD TV makers like to shout about the loudest - such as 200Hz and LED backlighting - are designed to cure some innate problems that LCD panels have with video. The biggest of those being a tendency to blur with video, and a lack of contrast - problems plasma panels don't suffer from to any great degree.

So loudly they shout that the plasma manufacturers now often include similar-sounding features in their own marketing just to tempt us brainwashed consumers.

Though that's not to say that LCD doesn't have a few advantages over plasma - it does, with competitive prices and an often much slimmer design.

The truth is there is no 'winner' between LCD and plasma. What suits you will depend not only on your needs, but also on your preferences. To help you navigate the tidal wave of hype here's a round-up of the major differences between plasma and LCD TVs.

LCD vs plasma: price and popularity

Figures from market research agency GfK show that 822,000 TVs sold in the year ending July 2010 were plasmas - the rest of the 9,994,000 being either regular or LED-backlit LCD TVs. That's barely one in eleven, but the value statistics are more revealing.

The average price of a plasma TV in that same period was £713 - compared to just £322 for a LCD TV. That's largely because plasma technology is only used in screens above 42-inches in size, which obviously command a higher price.

Introduce LED TVs - treated as a different category by both GfK and TV manufacturers - and the picture begins to change. After sales of just 41,000 to the 12 months ending July 2009, LED TVs sold 3,550,000 in the following 12 months.

The main reason for the surge in popularity for a LED-backlit LCD TV is a sharp price decline; the first sets' average cost to a consumer of £1,365 had fallen to £924 by July, though LED-style sets do have some very attractive features.

LCD vs plasma: screen size

Aside from novelty über sizes, plasma TVs come in 42-inch, 46-inch, 50-inch and 60-inch sizes - and they always have. (There have been some 37" models.)

 

Plasma tv factory

 

GROWING UP: 'Plasma' was the generic term for big-screen TVs until relatively recently when LCD panels grew to similar sizes

LCD, meanwhile, has only relatively recently broken the 32-inch barrier, though they can now be found in all shapes and sizes. That's the key to LCD's statistical domination of the market - a huge chunk of TVs sales is in the under 42-inch size, where plasma doesn't feature at all.

LCD vs plasma: slimness

There's no denying that we're in the age of slim, where small and slinky gadgets often outrank larger models - even when the latter is technologically more proficient (iPad vs netbook, anyone?).

And here's where LCD succeeds; the advent of LED backlighting means LCD makers have been able to shave off centimetres from a TV's depth, with high-end TVs from the likes of LG and Samsung hovering around the 8mm mark. Less is more, though - that kind of slimness goes for around the £2,000 mark.

 

Samsung led9000

 

SLIM SET: Samsung markets its super-slim C9000 LED-backlit LCD TVs simply as 'LED TVs'

Plasma, meanwhile, is a little more portly, with Panasonic's NeoPDP plasma tech - which does promise ultra-thin screens in the future - measuring around 8cm.

Does it matter? If you're going to put your flatscreen TV in the corner of a room, it's not much of a consideration. If, on the other hand, you want to mount your purchase on a wall, it might be the deciding factor.

LCD vs plasma: brightness

No doubt about it - LCD TVs are brighter than plasma models. It's a facet that has surely helped LCD TVs sell in their millions in brightly-lit shops where plasmas can appear to be less than vibrant.

It's a false economy, though - take a plasma home and it looks just fine in a living room, producing arguably more cinematic pictures. The advent of LED tech is, however, enabling LCD TVs to challenge plasma in the 'cinematic' stakes.

LCD vs plasma: contrast

The innate brightness of LCD TVs can make them instantly appealing in shops, but there's a downside. A regular CCFL-backlit LCD TV (if it's cheap, it's CCFL) uses an always-on backlit across the back of the panel, which is capable of extreme brightness, but not darkness. Black areas of images can often look grey and misty.

LED-backlit panels, where thousands of lights are used that can be locally switched on and off according to what's showing onscreen, are starting to overcome this problem - but the tech is expensive and being constantly refined.

Unlike an LCD TV, which has to block out all the light from the backlight to reproduce black, a plasma panel simply cuts-off the electrical current to each cell. Plasma's ability to reproduce deep black makes it a popular choice for home cinemas.

LCD vs plasma: resolution

Put a still image JPEG on both an LCD and plasma screen and it will likely look brighter and slightly more detailed on the former. TVs, though, don't spend their time displaying JPEGS - and it's plasma tech that can more deftly display detail from moving images (surely a TV's main task).

So while ultimate Full HD resolution is generally more impressive on an LCD, the technology's problem with motion blur (see Motion handling, below) can render this skill rather pointless.

Plasma's slight lack of sharpness with Full HD does, however, have another plus over and above its skill with motion; versatility. Blu-ray images look detailed enough, but the real advantage is that Freeview, DVD and other standard definition sources are treated more kindly.

It depends on the size of the screen, of course, but those whose TV diet has a fair chunk of DivX files ought to consider plasma - a low quality DivX file on a 46-inch LCD TV can look exposed and be unbearably noisy.

However, if you want to hook-up a PC to your big-screen TV for desktop duties, a LCD TV has to be your top choice - especially given plasma's slight (and decreasing) issue with image retention or 'screen burn'.

LCD vs plasma: motion handling

100Hz, 200Hz, and now 400Hz - it's a must-have feature on a flat TV, isn't it? Actually, it's not; this only applies to LCD TVs.

Fast-moving images on an LCD TV often blur, meaning all that extra detail in a Full HD video image is lost. And movies, well, they move quite a bit! So LCD makers often double the scanning rate in an effort to increase the response time of a panel.

Like a lot of LCD TV technologies (including LED), it's catch-up technology; plasmas TVs do not suffer from this problem anywhere near as seriously. Plasma panels are much quicker, which may give them an advantage in the age of 3D TVs.

LCD vs plasma: 3D TV

TechRadar's full investigation of this issue lies here, though it's fair to say that plasma is beginning to look like it might get a reprieve on the back of 3D.

Although the 3D glasses used with Panasonic's 3D plasmas does cut out a lot of the light to produce a rather dim 3D image, it's clean - there's not as much crosstalk (picture echoes from one eye's image visible to the other) as on 3D LCD TVs.

 

Sony 3d tv

 

CROSSTALK: The first wave of 3D TVs using LCD tech have suffered from 'crosstalk' issues

As 3D TV is a first-gen technology, it's perhaps a tad early to draw definitive conclusions using the plasma Vs LCD argument. Ironically, rear-projection DLP TVs from the likes of Mitsubishi - chunkier sets than never caught-on in the UK because of our tiny living rooms - provides a superb 3D picture.

Plasma TVs: pros

LCD/LED TVs: pros