Which Plasma To Select

janmike
janmike Posts: 6,146
edited April 2007 in Electronics
I am on the edge of purchasing a Plasma screen and wanted to hear what other members had purchased and their level of satisfaction. I have decided on a few things.

1) The screen will be a 50 inch screen.

2) Panasonic is leading the race for my selection, although nothing definitive at this point.

I am a little confused on 1080p vs. 1080i. My DVDP will probably not be replaced in the near future (Panasonic RP56). As well, I do not rent a lot of movies. It seems that the cable and satellite worlds are a few years away from having the Full HD feed (1080p). That being said it would seem that a screen supporting 1080i may be sufficient for me and a lot less expensive.

As well, is there an optimum way to cable plasma? (HDMI, RCA…)
I did look at a 46" Sony (1080p) in comparison to a 50" Panasonic (1080i). From 12 ft. away it was difficult to tell the difference. The 50" Panasonic was a lot less cash.

My room is 19' X 15' with the viewing distance at approx. 11.5 ft.

Any feedback would be great appreciated. Thanks folks.
Michael ;)
In the beginning, all knowledge was new!

NORTH of 60°
Post edited by janmike on
«1345

Comments

  • Deadof_knight
    Deadof_knight Posts: 980
    edited February 2007
    Why not lcd ? they have a 50 by phillips I believe. The LCDs are much more viewable from anywhere in the room.
    :cool: " He who dies with the most equipment wins Right ? "

    Denon 3300 Adcom 535 BBe w/sub out 1 pr 4.6s 2 pr of 4 jrs Recent additions Samsung Lns-4095D LCD, Samsung hd-960 DVD, Monster HT-5000 Power center
    ,HPSA-1000 18" sealed DiY home sub.:D
    Black Laquer 1.2tl's w/ upgraded x-overs and Tweets BI-Amped with 2 Carver tfm-35's Knukonceptz 10ga cables
  • janmike
    janmike Posts: 6,146
    edited February 2007
    I am of the belief that plasma is a better picture and that is my main priority. The LCD screens I have looked at seem to quite bright. My selection is also limited (brands) in my location.
    Michael ;)
    In the beginning, all knowledge was new!

    NORTH of 60°
  • LuSh
    LuSh Posts: 887
    edited February 2007
    LCD will give you a worse viewing angle and overall provides a worse picture quality, there are advantages to LCD but not in regards to picture quality. This is fact and not open to dispute.

    Onwards, the two Plasma's i'd consider would be a Pioneer and Panasonic. The Pioneer hands down is everybody's favorite when only taking into consideration picture quality. The Panasonic is very close and has some nice anti-burn in features. If it was my money i'd go with Pioneer. It should be noted that the native resolution's of most flat panels are either 720p or 1080p.
  • janmike
    janmike Posts: 6,146
    edited February 2007
    And how far away is the 1080p world from being the dominant feed via cable or satellite? I know in Canada we are not talking the near future (that being a couple of years).
    Michael ;)
    In the beginning, all knowledge was new!

    NORTH of 60°
  • Ferres
    Ferres Posts: 310
    edited February 2007
    I find plasma's have a warmer natural color while lcds tend to be cold and even bluish.

    Panasonics have decent black levels. Before you purchase, view a movie scene with dark/night settings and have the lights in the viewing room dimmed. See if its black or just darkgrey.

    Plasma's tend to get warm too, just like a class A amplifier
    Gear: Rotel RC 1082, Rotel RSP 1068 pre/pro, Rotel RMB1077 amp, Cayin CDT 15a CD player, S301 bluray.

    Speakers: Tannoy DC sensys speakers, Paradigm Servo15 Sub, Velo Spl-1500r

    Conditioner: Isotek :D
  • cheddar
    cheddar Posts: 2,390
    edited February 2007
    A few corrections:

    1. All panels are progressive native resolution. It's just how digital TVs operate. Interlaced signals are simply electronically voodooed to the native resolution of the panel. 1080i scaled down to 720p and all.

    2. It's not a fact that LCDs are inferior to plasmas. That's like saying that SS is inferior to tubes. They just produce different results (at different price points) that different people prefer. There are tradeoffs involved in any viewing experience that include things as simple as ambient light reflecting poorly off the screen surface. Don't limit your choices before you get your eyes on the product which it seems you've done.

    3. You should compare 720p to 1080p screens using 1080p content. (Blu-ray or HD-DVD source). If it's just 1080i, you're really just seeing the results of the internal scaler. Which is probably poor in either case.

    You really think you won't get 1080p HD content eventually even if internet downloads or HD players become cheap and commonplace? If you're certain, get a 720p set. But if you're in doubt at all, you might be having buyers remorse in only a couple of years.

    Edit: Also, for whatever reason, most plasmas have oddball resolutions (as well as pixel sizes) such as those noted by fireshoes below. This means that internal scalers are almost always involved, degrading the quality of the original source. 1366x768 is not 720p. But 1080p lcd screens are 1920x1080 which is pixel for pixel dead on 1080p. Just make sure that the lcd panel accepts 1080p pass through via hdmi instead of sending the signal to its 1080i electronics.
  • Holydoc
    Holydoc Posts: 1,048
    edited February 2007
    I am in agreement with all above that recommended either the Pioneer or the Panasonic. The 50" Panasonic that I have has a native resolution of 768p. This means that is accept all resolutions as inputs but will scale all inputs it receives to 768p for output. As for which to purchase, Pioneer or Panasonic, that is according to your bank account. The Pioneer has more adjustments than the Panasonic and the best picture in the business, but you will pay for it. The Panasonic has a superb picture (compared to others in its price range) and has been rated as a best buy by just about all reviewers.

    Paying the extra for a 1080p display is a hard decision. Currently the only sources that broadcast in 1080p are the HD DVD and Blueray DVD players. That means that besides these sources, these displays will also be scaling all signals they receive to 1080p. According how large a display you get and how far you sit from it will determine if you can discern a difference in 1080p or the 768p.

    Of course if you select to purchase a 1080p at premium price now, you will probably be ahead of the curve so that you will not need to replace your set for a while. But if you are like me, you will wait for a few years until TV broadcasts can figure a way to compress their signal better to broadcast in 1080p and purchase a new TV when the prices have settled way down. Then you can move your old, worn-out 50" plasma to the bedroom. ;)
    Holydoc (Home Theatre Lover)
    __________________________________________
    Panasonic -50PX600U 50" Plasma
    Onkyo -TX-NR901 Receiver
    Oppo -Oppo 980HD Universal DVD Player
    Outlaw -770 (7x200watt) Amplifier
    PolkAudio - RTi12 (Left and Right)
    PolkAudio - CSi5 (Center)
    PolkAudio - FXi3 (Back and Surround)
    SVS - PB-12/Plus (Subwoofer)
    Bluejean Cables - Interconnects
    Logitech Harmony 880 - Remote
  • fireshoes
    fireshoes Posts: 3,167
    edited February 2007
    LuSh wrote:
    LCD will give you a worse viewing angle and overall provides a worse picture quality, there are advantages to LCD but not in regards to picture quality. This is fact and not open to dispute.

    I'll dispute it: there are definitely times when LCD's have better PQ. Whiter whites, and on bright, vividly colored material. Also when the sun is shining on your plasma and you can't see **** because of all the glare. :D

    Plasmas certainly have the better black levels, and generally have better viewing angles, unless you are bothered by the ghost image seen on some plasmas caused by having two panes of glass. Pioneer plasmas only have one, so that is another advantage to them of course. For plasma, Pioneer would definitely be my choice.

    janmike, the Sony 46" 1080P you looked at was an LCD. Sony stopped making plasmas a couple years ago. Also, true 1080P plasmas are exceptionally rare. Pioneer has one that runs about $8000. Just about all the other ones are ~1366x768, 1024x1080 , or 1024x768.
  • VXR8
    VXR8 Posts: 291
    edited February 2007
    Hi guys,

    What's the story with Fujitsu's in the land of USA and Canada? I don't see them mentioned very often in these forums, but they are by far the best plasma money can buy, here in Australia. When I purchased both of mine, I looked at Pioneer (was too grainy), NEC, Panasonic, LG, Samsung etc., but none of them had the picture quality and clarity of the Fujitsu Plasmavision.

    I'm not sure of your prices over there, but these are priced at the higher end of the market over here. A current Panasonic 50' plasma here at the moment with HDMI retails for $4200 AUD, my 50' Fujitsu with HDMi retails at $9990 AUD, so you pay for what you are getting. My second choice in plasma would be Hitachi and for LCD, it would be Sharp.

    As for comparisons between plasma and LCD, a recent study in the UK of 600 people - half of them with some prior knowledge of flat screen technology and the other half with none, showed plasma came out on top in all areas. For the record and IMPO, LCD isn't quite there yet. Fast moving objects "drag" on LCD where this isn't so noticeable on plasma. As Fireshore rightly mentions above, plasma has better black levels as only the pixels that need illuminating are lit whereas LCD has a constant back light, giving that grey / black appearance.

    Anyway, not muddying the waters, just adding more for you to contemplate.

    Cheers.
    Regards - Gaz from the land of Oz

    Main System
    Denon - AVC-4700H
    Emotiva - XPA-9
    Cambridge Audio - Azur 851C - CXUHD
    Polk Audio - Legend L800 - Legend L400 - Legend L900 - LSiM fx - OWM3
    SVS - PB1000 x 2
    Foxtel - iQ4
    Belkin - Pure AV PF40
    Sony K77A9G

    Front Room System
    PS Audio - Sprout 100
    Cambridge Audio - CXC S2 - CA752BD
    Sony - UBX800 4K BluRay
    Polk Audio - Legend L200
  • Lsi9
    Lsi9 Posts: 616
    edited February 2007
    Pioneer makes the best Plasma, If you can afford them.

    Audio Physic Scorpio II
    Pathos Logos
    MIT Shotgun S3
    Bada HD-22 CDP
  • okiepolkie
    okiepolkie Posts: 2,258
    edited February 2007
    Since you don't need speakers, take a look at the Pioneer PDP-425CMX(or 50" version, and get the Key Digital HD Xplorer KD-PC2 scaler card. From what I have told, using this setup can get you very close to a Fujitsu.
    Tschüss
    Zach
  • LuSh
    LuSh Posts: 887
    edited February 2007
    Fireshoes,

    If you take two panels one being an LCD, one being a plasma...calibrate it to 6500k and proper graysclaes and run test pattern's the plasma will beat the LCD. LCD's might offer a "shock" value, what they don't offer is better picture quality.
  • doug lang
    doug lang Posts: 261
    edited February 2007
    I have the 58 panasonic 600u plasma. I looked at them all,and found the picture quality to be the best. I have had it for two weeks and i am well satisfied. I might add Panasonic is one of the most leading sellers.
    Oppo bdp 93 Blue Ray
    Integra DTR-80-2
    Polk LSi9s (mains)
    Polk LSiC (center)
    Polk LSiFXs (surrounds)
    Sub SVS 20-39+
    Samsung 60" Led 3-d
    Blue Jean Cables
  • MikeC78
    MikeC78 Posts: 2,315
    edited February 2007
    If I was going to purchase a new 50" plasma today, I'd get this model...

    Panasonic TH-50PF9UK, 1080p, won't have to upgrade for a long time.

    Here is a thread over at the AVSforum on it.
    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=732803

    Mike
  • JimBRICK
    JimBRICK Posts: 1,543
    edited February 2007
    janmike wrote:
    I am of the belief that plasma is a better picture and that is my main priority. The LCD screens I have looked at seem to quite bright. My selection is also limited (brands) in my location.


    have you seen a plasma and lcd side by side with the same picture? there is no conparison. LCD is MUCH better. At the store I work at we sell 10 lcd's to the one plasma we sell.
    2 CHANNEL
    Speaker - Klipsch Heresy II
    Under construction
  • MikeC78
    MikeC78 Posts: 2,315
    edited February 2007
    You are very delusional.
  • JimBRICK
    JimBRICK Posts: 1,543
    edited February 2007
    I have a panasonic 50px600 right beside a sony 50" sxrd projection and the projo KILLS the panasonic in colour, brightness and detail. Plasma is the dinosaur of televisions now. Reason sony doesnt make them anymore
    2 CHANNEL
    Speaker - Klipsch Heresy II
    Under construction
  • MikeC78
    MikeC78 Posts: 2,315
    edited February 2007
    JimBRICK wrote:
    I have a panasonic 50px600 right beside a sony 50" sxrd projection and the projo KILLS the panasonic in colour, brightness and detail. Plasma is the dinosaur of televisions now. Reason sony doesnt make them anymore

    :D Very interesting, do you have these ISF calibrated? Keep telling yourself these fallacies...
  • cheddar
    cheddar Posts: 2,390
    edited February 2007
    LuSh wrote:
    Fireshoes,

    If you take two panels one being an LCD, one being a plasma...calibrate it to 6500k and proper graysclaes and run test pattern's the plasma will beat the LCD. LCD's might offer a "shock" value, what they don't offer is better picture quality.

    This is still a pretty big blanket statement to make. Are you saying there is no LCD panel that will beat any plasma panel? At any resolution? What about non-1080p plasmas with oddball pixel resolutions? What native resolutions are the source test patterns? What metric are you using to guage whether the test patterns are better? Are the differences even noticeable with real world 1080p source material? Are the 1080p panels forced to upscale a 720p signal? Or are you just adjusting the test patterns to optimize for each native resolution eventhough a 1080p panel might give a superior picture to a 720p panel with 1080p source material? There are just way too many variations in available panels for purchase to make such a broad statement. It's much more helpful if you just suggest a plasma that you think is superior instead of just saying there's no way for an LCD to beat a plasma in PQ. IMHO anyways...
  • SKsolutions
    SKsolutions Posts: 1,820
    edited February 2007
    JimBRICK wrote:
    I have a panasonic 50px600 right beside a sony 50" sxrd projection and the projo KILLS the panasonic in colour, brightness and detail. Plasma is the dinosaur of televisions now. Reason sony doesnt make them anymore

    That is not reason Sony doesn't make them, and I'll take my Stegosaurus over that mirror box any day, thank you.
    -Ignorance is strength -
  • JimBRICK
    JimBRICK Posts: 1,543
    edited February 2007
    ok so elighten us why they don't. I speak the sony representative for ontario weekly. They have stopped production of plasma for that reason. If you guys would read other things than advertisements you'd see that. I work with all these tv's everyday of the week. Panasonic,samsung,sony,hitachi and toshiba. We have lcd,plasma,lcd projo and dlp. I've seen all the models in person set up by each companies given representative. So when someone comes on a forum stating a plasma is better than an lcd tell us why? is it the heat is generates? the burn in the screen gets? the burnt out pixels? tell us why plasma is better?
    2 CHANNEL
    Speaker - Klipsch Heresy II
    Under construction
  • JimBRICK
    JimBRICK Posts: 1,543
    edited February 2007
    The best tv for your buck are these models

    Sharp LC-46D62U
    Sony KDL46XBR2
    2 CHANNEL
    Speaker - Klipsch Heresy II
    Under construction
  • JimBRICK
    JimBRICK Posts: 1,543
    edited February 2007
    and Janmike, I'm not like most of these guys who have read a couple stories on the net about these tv's, I see them and sell them everyday. I'm not talking out my arse I have actual experience with them.
    2 CHANNEL
    Speaker - Klipsch Heresy II
    Under construction
  • SKsolutions
    SKsolutions Posts: 1,820
    edited February 2007
    JimBRICK wrote:
    ok so elighten us why they don't. I speak the sony representative for ontario weekly. They have stopped production of plasma for that reason. If you guys would read other things than advertisements you'd see that. I work with all these tv's everyday of the week. Panasonic,samsung,sony,hitachi and toshiba. We have lcd,plasma,lcd projo and dlp. I've seen all the models in person set up by each companies given representative. So when someone comes on a forum stating a plasma is better than an lcd tell us why? is it the heat is generates? the burn in the screen gets? the burnt out pixels? tell us why plasma is better?
    JimBRICK wrote:
    The best tv for your buck are these models

    Sharp LC-46D62U
    Sony KDL46XBR2


    Are you so arrogant that you can make these statements without feeling like the **** that you obviously are, Brick? Because you speak with whatever representative or salesman you wish, that makes you no more the expert. I'm sure you can quote specs and models ad nauseum, but that makes you what you were criticizing: susceptible to advertising. Specs, in most cases are ads.

    Oh, and to my recollection. Sony stopped making plasma, because they sucked at it. Probably because they never fully invested in the technology.
    -Ignorance is strength -
  • doug lang
    doug lang Posts: 261
    edited February 2007
    Hey Jim that is great that you have first hand knowledge and actual experience with tv's. But when it comes to a purchase it is what the consumer sees in the tv along with their budget. And I for one are not like most guys who have read a few stories. Do your homework and make a purchase you are happy with.
    Oppo bdp 93 Blue Ray
    Integra DTR-80-2
    Polk LSi9s (mains)
    Polk LSiC (center)
    Polk LSiFXs (surrounds)
    Sub SVS 20-39+
    Samsung 60" Led 3-d
    Blue Jean Cables
  • MikeC78
    MikeC78 Posts: 2,315
    edited February 2007
    Sorry JimBRICK, this isn't Best Buy!:rolleyes:

    You can take your crappy advertising techniques back to whatever B&M store you work at, doesn't work here.

    Have a nice day, and enjoy your Sony LCD.:)
  • SKsolutions
    SKsolutions Posts: 1,820
    edited February 2007
    JimBRICK wrote:
    and Janmike, I'm not like most of these guys who have read a couple stories on the net about these tv's, I see them and sell them everyday. I'm not talking out my arse I have actual experience with them.

    A very little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
    -Ignorance is strength -
  • janmike
    janmike Posts: 6,146
    edited February 2007
    Here are some facts I found just to complicate the decision process.

    LCD TV disadvantages :

    One problem with LCD tv screens is that they have a inherent delay problem. This is something that cannot be overcome. " It is the nature of the beast" When a fast moving object moves across a LCD screen the delay of LCD technology causes "artifacting" Basically there are trails or blockiness of the image since the screen cannot keep up. There are newer LCD panels that have lower m/s ( millisecond) times but there still is a delay. The good news is that with a good name brand LCD tv the artifacting is minimal and really wont be noticeable until you get a screen over 30 or 35 inches. At that point the delays will be noticeable and in some cases extremely annoying. Expect severe artifacting on "no name" units to the point of making the tv basically unwatchable .


    Black levels: A LCD display has a backlight which shines through the lcd panels. The panels allow or block light depending on what is required to produce an image or a color. Most , if not all, LCD tv's tend to have difficulty going fully "black". Blacks tend to have a very very dark grey. This is especially true on no name units.


    Field Of Vision: Even the best LCD tv has field of vision problems. When you look straight on the picture looks great, as you move to either side the picture quality diminishes and eventually disappears. Some LCD tv makers claim up to 170o field of view. This is a complete lie. To quote one major manufacturer " well it doesn't mean you have a great picture for 170 degrees, but you do have a picture" . Realistically a good LCD tv such as a Sharp Aquos will have a a 90 degree (45 each side) usable picture.


    Single Usage: There are many LCD screens on the market but very few have good video processing. If a LCD screen is made as a computer monitor, it is usually very poor as a video display. If you are planning to use the unit as a tv, do not buy a computer monitor with a tuner upgrade. Stick to a unit designed for video such as a Sharp Aquos. For dual purpose, buy a lcd tv with a computer input, not a computer screen with a tuner


    Extremely expensive over 35 inch,


    Unbelievable amounts of no name junk units on market. Stick to name brands with proper warranties


    16/9 widescreen units expensive


    Cheaper no name LCD tv's have very poor picture quality and generally poor video performance


    Pixel failure: This can be a problem with no name LCD screens. All the major brands have pixel policies which may allow one or two dead pixels. These are not noticeable unless you are right in front of the screen. A 20 inch lcd screen has over 300,000 pixels. so one or two dead could not be seen. No name lcd screens have extremely poor policies which can allow higher then 10%. This would make the unit unwatchable.

    Digital looking picture: Many LCD screens tend to have a "digital look " to the image and therefore don't seem to reproduce colors naturally.

    LCD TV Advantages:

    Good for still images such as computer display, Fairly reasonable pricing below 30 inches.


    Quality units have good brightness levels


    No real estate: A LCD tv screen hangs on a wall and takes as little space as a picture.


    Low operating cost per hour ( over 35 inch extremely expensive acquisition cost)


    Long Life. Expect 30 to 50,000 hours bulb life according to Sharp ( Please note that the picture can fade over time on a LCD TV. I would expect prime performance to last closer to 20 to 30,000 hours maximum ( 13 years at 6 hours per day). Expect substantially less on a no name.

    Plasma TV Screen Disadvantages:

    Image retention: Plasma screens can suffer image retention ( burn in) if a still image is left on the display for a extended period of time. For example, you would not want to use a plasma screen for a computer display constantly. If you were to use a Plasma tv for Video Display and occasional use it for computer, burn in would not be a factor. Also if you were to leave the plasma tv screen on a station such as CNBC, which has constant ticker tape across the bottom, for 24 hours a day, there would be noticeable burn in when you switched to a different channel. If by error you were to burn your screen, proper name brand plasma screens do have a "white flash" utility which eliminates the burn, however it will shorten the life of the plasma. If your primary use of the plasma screen is for TV viewing and dvd, image retention will not be a factor.


    Size: Plasma screens are not available below 37 inches. There were some 32 inch units available but have been discontinued. Also 60 inch and above can be very pricey but prices are coming down. For example a Zenith 60 is below 7500 now.


    No tuners: Most plasma screens do not have tuners and if they do they are expensive upgrades. Some cheaper plasma tv's have optional tuners however they usually are not the best. This is not a disadvantage in most cases. Almost everyone who can afford a plasma will be using satellite, digital cable or external HD boxes. So the built in tuner would be redundant and a waste of money.


    Many no name junk units on market. Stick to name brands.


    Pixel failure: This can be a problem with no name plasma screens. All the major brands have pixel policies which may allow one or two dead pixels. These are not noticeable unless you are right in front of the screen. A 50 inch screen has over 983,000 pixels. so one or two dead could not be seen. No name plasma screens have extremely poor policies which can allow higher then 10%. This would make the unit unwatchable. If the plasma screen has a orbiter function, this will greatly reduce the chance of pixel failure. We have sold tens of thousands of Plasma tv screens and can count the number of units which we have had pixel problems with on one hand. It should be noted we do not sell no name units.


    Early models had poor contrast. the first generation plasma tv screens had poor contrast and brightness. Do not buy a used plasma screen from a online auction such as Ebay. The units that have been out for the last two years outperform the older units by miles.

    Plasma TV Screen Advantages:

    Long life: the average name brand plasma tv will last 30 to 50,000 hours to half like ( brightness is 50% of original, it will still be 2 to 3 times brighter then a regular tv) This is around 20 years at 6 hours per day. Expect substantially less on a no name


    Field of vision: A plasma screen tv has a field of vision of almost 180 degrees without loss of picture quality. From any angle you will have a great picture


    Brightness: Plasma screens are very bright. 4 to 5 times brighter then an average tv.


    Great contrast: The last two generations ( two years or so) of name brand Plasma screens have great contrast ratios. Look for a rating of 1000 to 1 or more Please note: certain manufacturers claim levels of 3 or 4000 to 1, That is a false rating and is achieved by using non standard measurement methods.


    Low operating cost: A name brand plasma is cheap to operate due to long life with virtually no maintenance ( No you cannot recharge a plasma, and they don't leak gas). The cost of a nice EDTV 42 inch is well below 3 k and a 50 inch is around 5 k. 60 inch plus are still highly priced per inch. This is substantially less then a LCD TV. 42 inch plasma tv screens cost almost half of a 40 inch lcd.


    Instantaneous picture response: There is virtually no delay in any name brand plasma and therefore no artifacting that is experienced on LCD screens.


    Natural looking picture: A plasma screen reproduces a picture in a similar manner to a standard tv .Name brand plasma tv colors tend to be natural looking and more accurate. Mo names can tend to be weak or soft on colors.


    No real estate: A plasma screen hangs on a wall and takes as little space as a picture.


    Wide screen, All but one or two plasma tv screens are 16:9 wide screen. format


    Upgradeability: Many plasma screens have upgradeable video cards that "future proof " your plasma
    Michael ;)
    In the beginning, all knowledge was new!

    NORTH of 60°
  • LuSh
    LuSh Posts: 887
    edited February 2007
    JimBrick and Chedder.

    There is no disputing LCD vs Plasma in regards to controlled lighting enviroments with equal resolutions. Post production company's use either CRT or Plasma there are reasons for this...Chedder compare apples to apples and the Plasma will win every time in regards to picture quality...a Pioneer 720p television will beat any LCD 720 TV on the market, again nobody within the industry disputes this. LCD has many other advantages, in fact I own one.

    JimBrick, having been present and participated in an ISF calibration and knowing that not a single television in Best Buy/Future Shop is calibrated remotely close to what is considered reference I think it is safe to say that nobody can tell what is good and what is bad in that enviroment...the prices are good though...

    Walk along your sales floor and pull up the menu screens on all your displays...you'll notice two basic no-no's in the world of calibrating televisions. Every television on the floor will have DRC or some sort of noise reduction activated and the sharpness will be pushed up to 50 or sometimes higher. DRC and hyper sharpness modes cause over scanning and will allow the picture to "pop" during bright scene's that are displayed from the demo disc's your rep might have brought in from time to time. You know, those demo's with a women walking along a sandy beach very slowly, the tight close up of an insect on a flower... but it also creates noise and distortion within the picture...when watching sports you'll notice grain, there will be smearing within the picture when movement occur's during a dark shadowy scene.

    I recommend you both pick up a copy of Digital Video Essentials to learn the basic's of visual optic's, NTSC standards used within the industry. It takes alot of guessing out of video, something I wish was used in Audio.
  • cheddar
    cheddar Posts: 2,390
    edited February 2007
    LuSh wrote:
    JimBrick and Chedder.

    There is no disputing LCD vs Plasma in regards to controlled lighting enviroments with equal resolutions. Post production company's use either CRT or Plasma there are reasons for this...Chedder compare apples to apples and the Plasma will win every time in regards to picture quality...a Pioneer 720p television will beat any LCD 720 TV on the market, again nobody within the industry disputes this. LCD has many other advantages, in fact I own one.

    That's all I wanted to clear up. Controlled lighting using calibration patterns and identical resolutions. This is a very narrow definition of Plasmas beating LCD PQ since large LCDs tend to be 1080p native and there are almost no 1080p plasmas in existence let alone available at retail. Add to that the non-test pattern concerns like highly reflective plasma screen surfaces and it really does come down to what the screen will be used for and what the user's preferences are. Have they uniformily eliminated burn in with the available plasma sets, or does one still have to watch out for this? Like I said, it's more helpful if you can recommend a specific plasma set or PQ characteristics that you think are superior rather than just saying that LCDs have inferior PQ.

    That said, I've actually been waiting on the 1080p plasmas to see what they can do. Should be interesting when they become commonplace. However, sounds like the first ones will remain very expensive.