DLP vs Plasma/LCD

merge03 raised a good point.

But, and this is a big but, there is no need to continue shrinking plasma cell size because human visual perception has limited range and we can't see anything smaller than a cell size of HDTV panel right now. Regardless the size of panel, you will sit at a comfortable distance from it, not using it like computer monitor which is right up against your nose.

And this is not my claim, Applied Materials owns one of the Japanese LCD substrate equipment and they are NOT developing newer tech to shrink cell size. Very unlike the rest of AMAT where they need to continue developing new process chambers and tools like ALD and low K for the demand of 65nm and beyond.

And for DLP, we are talking about millions of tiny mirrors on a silicon substrate that need to move. MTBF (mean time between failure) is low, and you get a dead pixel unlike plasma or LCD where you get a stuck pixel. LCD and LCOS will have an easier time when it comes to reliability.

No tech is perfect if you want slim and vibrant display, but plasma will be my choice again for the display of next 10 years.

A few things that I should point out.

1. LCD display also burns, just check avsforum. In fact, plasma has less chance of burn in after some initial "treatment".
2. Plasma tech will continue to improve, but not revolutionary. I am in semiconductor business and no one really know how much more we can push the Moores law in 5 to 10 years. It's suffice to say plasma will get better, but not enought to stop you from buying now.
3. DLP/LCD rear projection has lots of limitation, one of the biggest is side viewing angle. DLP also has rainbow effect that some easily observe that include me. Also, Samsung is not known for reliability, not when you compare to Japanese made plasma.
4. Have you compare the PQ of plasma (even a EDTV) to DLP with hi-def signal? It was so obvious which one was better my wife said no to either DLP or LCD projection.