1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Panasonic eyes Plasma Exit

Discussion in 'High Definition Displays' started by Cholly, Mar 18, 2013.

  1. Mar 19, 2013 #21 of 104
    Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,054
    152
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    That's impressive! I'd expect that from the newer models, but not from the pre-2009 or so models.
     
  2. Mar 19, 2013 #22 of 104
    acostapimps

    acostapimps Hall Of Famer

    1,866
    50
    Nov 5, 2011
    Illinois
    I know this is about Panasonic, but Samsung Plasmas been having problems with the 2011 and 2012 low end models lately, I've been having pink spots on the bottom of the screen but only visible on white background, They already adjusted the voltage but came back a short thereafter, I think one of the boards needs replacing, and this has been well documented on avsforums. But back on-topic this will be bad for Panasonic as they have one of the better black levels for Plasmas, And I'm not to fond for LCD's with their side angle viewing issue and expensive bigger size HDTV's.
     
  3. Mar 20, 2013 #23 of 104
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    232
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    What viewing angle issues do LCD's have? Most LCD/LED"s have a 176 degree viewing angle. And I've never found myself in a situation where you watch TV at 90 degrees let alone 176.

    Plasmas reflect everything for one so if there is a night light in the room, you will see it.

    I will admit they do give a slightly nicer Picture and black levels are better.
    But that rediculas 4 minute screen shift, and Image retention nonsence and the constant worry the kids will pause a game for 4 hours, poor viewing in any type of light , Don't dare Turn the contrast up with the threat of Burn in.
    I'm not sorry to see them go!
     
  4. Mar 20, 2013 #24 of 104
    bobukcat

    bobukcat Hall Of Fame

    1,965
    2
    Dec 20, 2005
    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.
     
  5. Mar 20, 2013 #25 of 104
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    27,202
    550
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    They range in age from 6 years to 1 year. The thing that really gets me is my son falls asleep every night with his 58" 720p (the most expensive TV I've ever bought at $2400) on NetFlix's home page. Just turned it off a half hour ago and...nothing even resembling burn in. I don't know what else to say about burn in on plasmas.

    Rich
     
  6. Mar 20, 2013 #26 of 104
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    27,202
    550
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    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
     
  7. Mar 20, 2013 #27 of 104
    machavez00

    machavez00 Hall Of Fame

    3,760
    11
    Nov 2, 2006
    Phoenix,...
    It also depends on what flavor of panel you get. (IPS, PVA, TFT etc.)
     
  8. Mar 20, 2013 #28 of 104
    Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,054
    152
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    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.
     
  9. Mar 20, 2013 #29 of 104
    CCarncross

    CCarncross Hall Of Fame

    7,058
    60
    Jul 19, 2005
    Jackson
    The last several models of Panny plasmas have been rated among the best....my GT50 is fantastic....
     
  10. Mar 20, 2013 #30 of 104
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,337
    501
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    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.
     
  11. Mar 20, 2013 #31 of 104
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    232
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    Well said and I respect that.:)
     
  12. Mar 20, 2013 #32 of 104
    CCarncross

    CCarncross Hall Of Fame

    7,058
    60
    Jul 19, 2005
    Jackson
    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?
     
  13. Mar 20, 2013 #33 of 104
    Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    27,202
    550
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    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
     
  14. Mar 20, 2013 #34 of 104
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,337
    501
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    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.
     
  15. Mar 20, 2013 #35 of 104
    Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,054
    152
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    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
     
  16. Mar 20, 2013 #36 of 104
    CCarncross

    CCarncross Hall Of Fame

    7,058
    60
    Jul 19, 2005
    Jackson
    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.
     
  17. Mar 21, 2013 #37 of 104
    Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,054
    152
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    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 Files:

  18. Mar 21, 2013 #38 of 104
    CCarncross

    CCarncross Hall Of Fame

    7,058
    60
    Jul 19, 2005
    Jackson
    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.
     
  19. Mar 21, 2013 #39 of 104
    bobukcat

    bobukcat Hall Of Fame

    1,965
    2
    Dec 20, 2005
    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.
     
  20. Mar 21, 2013 #40 of 104
    gov

    gov Legend

    1,101
    50
    Jan 11, 2013
    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!!
     

Share This Page