I recently attended Panasonic's "spring fashion show", where all of the new TVs for the season were unveiled. As I sat, smack dab in the center of the audience, to my left was a wall of plasma TVs, to my right the LCDs.

The spectacle reminded me that at heart I'm an LCD gal. There's something brighter and crisper about an LCD picture versus a plasma picture. Funny, many of the men I know prefer plasma. I think it may boil down to the difference between liking the fast action of sports that looks so good on plasma or the crisp detail of a good movie on a bright LCD in a darkened room. And though plasma is still less expensive at larger screen sizes, let's just say that size isn't everything.

Panasonic's biggest announcement was its plans for the TH-42PZ700 (pictured here), a 42-inch plasma model with 1,080p resolution. It'll be available in June for $2,499. If you're wondering why a small plasma screen is a breakthrough, it turns out that it's a considerable manufacturing challenge to create a small plasma. With smaller screen sizes, it's hard to house the phosphors that control the display. (Think of plasma construction like a waffle whose squares are so close that there's no room for the syrup in the smaller size monitors.)

LCDs pack in more pixels per same screen size than plasma and, because they're packed closely together, it's harder to see the pixelation. Hence that crisp picture that I enjoy so much. Where LCDs fall short is in their viewing angle (plasma still plays better for a wide-viewing audiences) and that their dark colors tend to look too bright.

Don't take my word alone. The recent issue of PC Magazine praised Westinghouse for its ­affordable (under $900) 1,080p 32-inch LCD TV, calling it the best resolution possible for today's TV technology. Jim Louderback, editor in chief, agrees that LCDs are poised for great things. He wrote that today's LCD picture quality is "often pulling alongside plasma, and even besting it in bright rooms." And he reminds us that plasma no longer holds the size advantage, either. "In the "mine's bigger" category at CES, Sharp showed a 108-inch flat-panel—using LCD, not plasma." And just ask him about his Sony Bravia lust.

Over at Alfred Poor's HDTV Almanac, Alfred notes Philips is phasing out the production of plasma TVs everywhere but in North America. Plasma panels, he says, are getting squeezed badly in the market. LCD HDTVs have gained a price advantage in sizes below 50-inch and are showing signs of competing in the 50- to 55-inch size range.

In a nutshell, the war's not over, but a new battle has begun. There's still a price premium for LCD, but the delta is shrinking fast. For now, if you're looking for a screen (under 40-inch) for a small room, I'd buy an LCD. Rooms with larger screens will still get more bang for the buck with plasma, but in two years time I expect it will be an LCD game.

But don't take your eye off the introduction of new laser DLPs. The war's far from over.