Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Panasonic eyes Plasma Exit


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   Rich

Rich

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationPiscataway, NJ
Joined: Feb 22, 2007

Posted 20 March 2013 - 08:18 AM

The higher end Plasmas have anti-glare coating that really improves a lot of the issues with reflections. I have two Pioneer and one Panasonic. The Panasonic is usually watched in a dark room and the only reflection that is a problem is a hall light directly behind the seating area, if all the other lights are off and that is on it's bothersome. The lights on the side can be on with no problem whatsoever. The Pioneer upstairs is in a room with windows and glass doors on almost every side of it, I had to turn the brightness and contrast up SLIGHTLY from ideal to compensate. This is our main TV and glare is rarely if ever a problem. The bedroom Pioneer is viewed with the room lights off except for a reading light next to the side of the bed on. This light is right above / next to the "seating" position and never causes a problem with reflection. As for watching from an angle, we commonly view it from the bathroom at about 130 degrees angle in the morning while getting ready and it looks great.

The stated viewing angles for LCD/LED are what's ridiculous. You may be able to see the picture from that angle but the colors and contrast are completely out of whack.

Imagine retention can occur on LCD as well, BTW. However I play video games often, my wife almost never turns the other two off Food Network or The Cooking Channel so their logos are featured prominently for long hours at a time and I've never had a single scare with image retention on any of them. Even when she falls asleep with it on and it's been on Food Network of ESPN with the ticker at the bottom for 12-15 hours straight. The pixel orbiters are so good they are undetectable by the human eye.

Compared to the blooming effect you get in dark scenes with all but the very best LED/LCDs (and it's still there to some degree), weird Soap Opera effect on movies, poorer SD picture quality, inferior black levels and high prices for comparable performance I'd take a Plasma over LCD in almost any situation.

I respect that you prefer LCD over Plasma but these are my experiences and reasons for preferring Plasma.


I've got a room where we do most of our viewing. The room juts out from the back of the house and has windows on three walls, 9 windows in total. On a bright sunny day, I do have to put the blinds down, but most of the time we watch with some of the blinds up and I have no problem with glare. I've had 3 Panny plasmas in that room, each with the glare reducing screens and we are just not bothered with glare.

Show me something better and I'd buy it.

Rich

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   machavez00

machavez00

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,673 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, Arizona
Joined: Nov 02, 2006

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:10 AM

It also depends on what flavor of panel you get. (IPS, PVA, TFT etc.)

#28 OFFLINE   Steve

Steve

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 22,797 posts
  • LocationLower Westchester County, NY
Joined: Aug 22, 2006

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:17 AM

It also depends on what flavor of panel you get. (IPS, PVA, TFT etc.)

Ya. And that's the rub. To get a panel with comparable PQ, you have to spend a lot more than you would for a plasma in the same size. I would have thought by now, with economies of scale, LEDs would be cheaper. Makes me wonder if there's some collusion on pricing going on.
/steve

#29 OFFLINE   CCarncross

CCarncross

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 7,058 posts
  • LocationJackson
Joined: Jul 19, 2005

Posted 20 March 2013 - 10:25 AM

The last several models of Panny plasmas have been rated among the best....my GT50 is fantastic....

#30 ONLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,278 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 20 March 2013 - 11:40 AM

My only slight regret is getting the 55" VT50 instead of the 65" GT50. But I don't let it get to me, it was still an upgrade from my 42" Toshiba LCD.

#31 OFFLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,142 posts
  • LocationNewfoundland, Pa
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:34 PM

The higher end Plasmas have anti-glare coating that really improves a lot of the issues with reflections. I have two Pioneer and one Panasonic. The Panasonic is usually watched in a dark room and the only reflection that is a problem is a hall light directly behind the seating area, if all the other lights are off and that is on it's bothersome. The lights on the side can be on with no problem whatsoever. The Pioneer upstairs is in a room with windows and glass doors on almost every side of it, I had to turn the brightness and contrast up SLIGHTLY from ideal to compensate. This is our main TV and glare is rarely if ever a problem. The bedroom Pioneer is viewed with the room lights off except for a reading light next to the side of the bed on. This light is right above / next to the "seating" position and never causes a problem with reflection. As for watching from an angle, we commonly view it from the bathroom at about 130 degrees angle in the morning while getting ready and it looks great.

The stated viewing angles for LCD/LED are what's ridiculous. You may be able to see the picture from that angle but the colors and contrast are completely out of whack.

Imagine retention can occur on LCD as well, BTW. However I play video games often, my wife almost never turns the other two off Food Network or The Cooking Channel so their logos are featured prominently for long hours at a time and I've never had a single scare with image retention on any of them. Even when she falls asleep with it on and it's been on Food Network of ESPN with the ticker at the bottom for 12-15 hours straight. The pixel orbiters are so good they are undetectable by the human eye.

Compared to the blooming effect you get in dark scenes with all but the very best LED/LCDs (and it's still there to some degree), weird Soap Opera effect on movies, poorer SD picture quality, inferior black levels and high prices for comparable performance I'd take a Plasma over LCD in almost any situation.

I respect that you prefer LCD over Plasma but these are my experiences and reasons for preferring Plasma.

Well said and I respect that.:)

Blue Ridge Communticatons

Digital HD Basic Plus, Cinemax,Showtime/TMC,Starz /Encore
Tivo T6 (Roamio Plus) Master Bedroom,Samsung 5300 40 Inch

Tivo Mini Livingroom Vizio M602i-B3 60 Inch

Tivo Mini Bedroom 2  LG 26LE5300 26 Inch
Tivo Mini Bedroom 3  Element ELEFW328 32 Inch
Cisco HD ,Bedroom office 4  Magnavox 32 inch

Arris Touchstone DG1660

Dream 60 Mbps down 3 Mbps up.

 


#32 OFFLINE   CCarncross

CCarncross

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 7,058 posts
  • LocationJackson
Joined: Jul 19, 2005

Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:41 PM

My only slight regret is getting the 55" VT50 instead of the 65" GT50. But I don't let it get to me, it was still an upgrade from my 42" Toshiba LCD.


I thought the 65" anything was a little too big. At current resolutions, I prefer displays at or below 60" so I got the 60". When we get to the next res(4k), I'll be ready for a bigger screen. SO you dont think the VT was worth it over the GT?

#33 OFFLINE   Rich

Rich

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationPiscataway, NJ
Joined: Feb 22, 2007

Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:23 PM

My only slight regret is getting the 55" VT50 instead of the 65" GT50. But I don't let it get to me, it was still an upgrade from my 42" Toshiba LCD.


I wish I would have gotten the 65" model last year, too. I did get a 60", but I really should have planned better than I did.

Rich

#34 ONLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,278 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:49 PM

Not really sure it is, actually, especially if it won't be professionally calibrated. Differences are that the VT50 has an "Infinite Black Ultra" filter instead of "Infinite Black Pro", different bezel, can do 24p @ 96 hz and 48 (GT can only do 48hz) and advanced calibration options. So it does have slightly better black levels, but is it something someone can really tell without them side by side, when you are not a professional calibrator?

I'm still happy with it, and the wife probably would think 65" is too big.

#35 OFFLINE   Steve

Steve

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 22,797 posts
  • LocationLower Westchester County, NY
Joined: Aug 22, 2006

Posted 20 March 2013 - 03:02 PM

I wish I would have gotten the 65" model last year, too. I did get a 60", but I really should have planned better than I did.

I bought a 65" 1080p S1 back in 2011. I knew I was going to calibrate it, so I was able to save a few bucks by going with it instead of a more expensive model. The picture quality is almost "3D", with really deep blacks that still show lots of detail.

We generally sit about 12' away. It only took a couple of days before it no longer seemed "big" to us. :P
/steve

#36 OFFLINE   CCarncross

CCarncross

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 7,058 posts
  • LocationJackson
Joined: Jul 19, 2005

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:05 PM

I guess I'm the only one that thinks that 1920x1080 isnt enough resolution for tv's bigger than 60"? :shrug:

I much prefer the crispness of 1080 on a 46-50" set, but I wanted as big as I could stand. To my eyes, the smaller the tv the sharper the same resolution looks on it all other things being relatively equal. But I'm also very used to 1080 on a 24" pc monitor as well.

#37 OFFLINE   Steve

Steve

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 22,797 posts
  • LocationLower Westchester County, NY
Joined: Aug 22, 2006

Posted 21 March 2013 - 05:57 AM

I guess I'm the only one that thinks that 1920x1080 isnt enough resolution for tv's bigger than 60"? :shrug:

Depends on seating. If you've got 20/20 vision and are sitting closer than 8', you're probably right, according to this guy. Over 8', 65" is OK, according to his calculations.

Attached Thumbnails

  • Screen size vs. Resolution vs. Distance.jpg

/steve

#38 OFFLINE   CCarncross

CCarncross

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 7,058 posts
  • LocationJackson
Joined: Jul 19, 2005

Posted 21 March 2013 - 06:22 AM

I dont think anyone's getting my point....its not about viewing distance at all. Take a low res image or video, lets say 360x200 pixels, roughly the digital equivalent of 16:9 VHS....and display it on a 9" portable screen, looks fine, in fact it probably looks pretty good. Now playback that same image/video on a 70" screen, it looks absolutely terrible, like watching a bad youtube video. It has nothing to do with viewing distance. To me, when you start getting over 60" screens, 1080 resolution doesnt cut it anymore.

#39 OFFLINE   bobukcat

bobukcat

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,965 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2005

Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:46 AM

I dont think anyone's getting my point....its not about viewing distance at all. Take a low res image or video, lets say 360x200 pixels, roughly the digital equivalent of 16:9 VHS....and display it on a 9" portable screen, looks fine, in fact it probably looks pretty good. Now playback that same image/video on a 70" screen, it looks absolutely terrible, like watching a bad youtube video. It has nothing to do with viewing distance. To me, when you start getting over 60" screens, 1080 resolution doesnt cut it anymore.


I see what you are saying but with that logic a projection screen in a theater would need to have some outrageous resolution. I'm no expert on this but viewing distance has to be factored into the equation at some point. My example is that as you get closer to a large screen you can see individual pixels and things may look like crap, but as you move away those pixels appear to be closer together and the picture looks fine. Obviously more resolution would be desirable but I certainly don't find 65" plasma too big for 1080P at 8-10' viewing distance. It may look poor with SD content, particularly if it is heavily compressed, but with a good source it looks excellent.

#40 OFFLINE   gov

gov

    Legend

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,101 posts
Joined: Jan 10, 2013

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:49 AM

I've seen the 4K Sony 84" set and was amazed at how rapidly with distance the picture quality (detail) became indistinguishable from the current HD standard.

4K TV sets are going to have to be BIG for my (and quite a few of the rest of you, LOL) 55 year old eyes at a 'regular' seating distance (at my house ~15 feet).

4K set for me would need to be 140" minimum, and could go 160" easy.

Not sure how I get it home, get it in the door, and then set it up , but I ALREADY want one!!

there is a sports bar nearby with, IIRC, the panasonic 105", I need to go look at that beast!!

#41 OFFLINE   CCarncross

CCarncross

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 7,058 posts
  • LocationJackson
Joined: Jul 19, 2005

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:26 AM

I see what you are saying but with that logic a projection screen in a theater would need to have some outrageous resolution. I'm no expert on this but viewing distance has to be factored into the equation at some point. My example is that as you get closer to a large screen you can see individual pixels and things may look like crap, but as you move away those pixels appear to be closer together and the picture looks fine. Obviously more resolution would be desirable but I certainly don't find 65" plasma too big for 1080P at 8-10' viewing distance. It may look poor with SD content, particularly if it is heavily compressed, but with a good source it looks excellent.


If I were to put in a projection system in a theater, it would have to have expensive line scalers again because 1080 "just dont cut it" above 60" for me. Anyone remember back in the days of LD's and projection systems and the Faroudja line doublers/ etc...? I would need the modern equivalent of that in the digital world.

#42 OFFLINE   coolman302003

coolman302003

    2014 NBA CHAMPIONS!

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,661 posts
  • LocationSoutheast
Joined: Jun 01, 2008

Posted 31 March 2013 - 03:02 AM

A few updates:

Panasonic's restructuring plan will let it keep making TVs, for now

Panasonic stays in TV business, chairman resigning

UPDATE 2-Panasonic falls short of announcing job cuts in business plan

Panasonic to Pare Unprofitable Units (Subscription required to read)

http://e.nikkei.com/...328D2803F04.htm (Subscription required to read)

#43 ONLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 32,409 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 31 March 2013 - 03:31 AM

If I were to put in a projection system in a theater, it would have to have expensive line scalers again because 1080 "just dont cut it" above 60" for me. Anyone remember back in the days of LD's and projection systems and the Faroudja line doublers/ etc...? I would need the modern equivalent of that in the digital world.

While there is some truth to that...there is also another truth...there comes a tipping point where the image reproduction gain exceeds the ability of most people to recognize the difference and/or accept the costs to produce it.

As one who routinely views images on a quality 116" HD projection system...I always need to remind myself that most folks don't have the obsession for perfection that others do at DBSTalk when it comes to video, audio, and related technology.

Having seen 4K resolution firsthand with 4K content...the imagery is clearly better than 1080p. Yet, the cost to produce it exponentially exceeds 1080p's best image production at time. For that reason alone...it's years away.

Circling back to the topic at hand...

Plasma displays have been dying a slow death in the market for some time. Panasonic is not the first manufacturer to head out the door on plasma. Folks sometimes forget that tech moves on.

Edited by hdtvfan0001, 31 March 2013 - 03:36 AM.

DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#44 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,363 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:29 PM

Just got the new Panasonic 50" ST60... this set is phenomenal. Early indications are hinting it's equal to and possibly a tad better than the highly touted VT50 from 2012.

At only $999, it's a steal.
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#45 OFFLINE   Steve

Steve

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 22,797 posts
  • LocationLower Westchester County, NY
Joined: Aug 22, 2006

Posted 05 April 2013 - 11:42 AM

At only $999, it's a steal.

It is. I just read this excellent review of the 42ST60, which sells for the equivalent of $1380 (£900) in the UK. Sounds like your eyes are in for a real treat. Enjoy!
/steve

#46 OFFLINE   satcrazy

satcrazy

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 872 posts
  • LocationGreat lakes, NW Pa.
Joined: Mar 15, 2011

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:34 PM

Just got the new Panasonic 50" ST60... this set is phenomenal. Early indications are hinting it's equal to and possibly a tad better than the highly touted VT50 from 2012.

At only $999, it's a steal.


sig,
Mind me asking where you purchased from?

thanks

#47 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,363 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:45 PM

sig,
Mind me asking where you purchased from?

thanks


Best Buy... ordered online and picked it up about an hour later.
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#48 OFFLINE   bobukcat

bobukcat

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,965 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2005

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:35 AM

Panasonic just keeps making their plasmas better and better but consumers are largely ill-informed, so we're faced with the prospect of them abandoning the technology (and possibly the entire product sector) because of poor sales. Every time someone comes to me for a TV recommendation and I tell them to start with Panny Plasmas I hear the same thing "I was told LED is better" "they'll have burn-in (incorrect terminology)", "they're too heavy", etc. Despite the fact that I'm widely accepted as the "Technology Guy" (or more commonly geek or nerd) by my friends and family it takes a lot to convince them otherwise. I'm often successful but not always as the amount FUD seems almost overwhelming.

I know there are other good choices, but you really can't get close to the same picture performance with LED/LCD unless you spend a LOT more money.

#49 ONLINE   lparsons21

lparsons21

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 3,664 posts
  • LocationHerrin, IL
Joined: Mar 04, 2006

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:47 AM

Circling back to the topic at hand...

Plasma displays have been dying a slow death in the market for some time. Panasonic is not the first manufacturer to head out the door on plasma. Folks sometimes forget that tech moves on.


Yeah, tech does move on. But usually it is something better and at least price competitive, which is not the case right now.

Plasma is on the way out, that seems a forgone conclusion, but yet a 'better' tech isn't really there yet. OLED seems to be the next big thing, yet after lots of years still isn't ready for the consumer market, or any other market it seems.

And no, LCD/LED isn't a 'better' tech, imo.

Lloyd
Receiver/Provider: Tivo Roamio Plus/Mediacom
HDTV : Mitsi WD-73742 73" 3D DLP
Surround: Denon AVR-2113ci 7.1 Setup

 


#50 OFFLINE   Steve

Steve

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 22,797 posts
  • LocationLower Westchester County, NY
Joined: Aug 22, 2006

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:48 AM

Panasonic just keeps making their plasmas better and better but consumers are largely ill-informed, so we're faced with the prospect of them abandoning the technology (and possibly the entire product sector) because of poor sales. Every time someone comes to me for a TV recommendation and I tell them to start with Panny Plasmas I hear the same thing "I was told LED is better" "they'll have burn-in (incorrect terminology)", "they're too heavy", etc. Despite the fact that I'm widely accepted as the "Technology Guy" (or more commonly geek or nerd) by my friends and family it takes a lot to convince them otherwise. I'm often successful but not always as the amount FUD seems almost overwhelming.

There's also FUD about power consumption. E.g., a 42S60 draws 109 watts average. Maybe more than a comparable LED, but not bad, IMO. Especially compared to what we were using with our CRTs 10 years ago.

I know there are other good choices, but you really can't get close to the same picture performance with LED/LCD unless you spend a LOT more money.

At least 1.5x the price (or more), based on what I saw last time I was in the store.

Edited by Steve, 11 April 2013 - 06:54 AM.

/steve




Protected By... spam firewall...And...