help me pick an HDTV too please?

[scarredgod]

hopefully someone here can help because im lost on buying a new tv, here are some guidelines...

-im looking to spend $1,000, possibly push it up to $1200 if i really need to

-hopefully looking at 46" or above if possible

-1080p

-we will be sitting about 8-10 feet from the tv

-i dont know if im looking for LCD or plasma but the tv will be used for horror dvds, dark scenes and b/w etc but also very importantly for hockey games (i have heard the quickness of the game is hard on certain tvs?)


any suggestions for me? thanks very much for the help!

[hdtv00]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8749447&type=product&id=1202649424693

[Mr. Salty]

This (http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Viera-TH-46PZ85U-46-Inch-Plasma/dp/B00142MUEC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1237189141&sr=8-3) would be a better choice, IMO. Plasma has better blacks, and I think it would handle fast action better, too. And if you're willing to go to $1,300, you can get a 50-inch Panasonic plasma.

You can probably find better prices than Amazon if you look around.

[hdtv00]

It's not an opinion it's a fact that's a better tv lol. That's a crazy ass good price too. I didn't go there cause I didn't think you could get one for that cheap.

[Sdallnct]

Dare I ask? Why 1080p? How far will you be sitting?

[scarredgod]

thanks for the replies and the options.

i will be sitting 8 to 10 feet away. i wanted 1080p because i thought that was the best, is 1080p unneccesary from that distance? i am completely clueless on all of this.

[Sdallnct]

Well 1080p won't hurt...but in that small of a set, sitting at that distance, it won't help.

For that budget, I'd say it is pretty much a no brainer. If picture quality is your most important factor, get the Panasonic 720p 50" plasma. With careful shopping you should be able to pick it up for close the $900! Which is just a steal of a deal for one of the best pics you can get at any price.

[Mr. Salty]

If you end up with a 50-inch TV, I'd go with 1080p. Heck, I'd be inclined to go with 1080p even at 46 inches.

[hdtv00]

I agree go 1080p, why , because you can.

[Sdallnct]

Well again, I got no problem with 1080p. But look at his budget?

I don't think you can get a Panny Plasma 50" 1080p for $1,200. Can you? I think not.

You can get close with a 46" Panny Plasma 1080p. But I still not sure you can get it for $1,200.

Sooooo....then get a LCD 1080p 47". Which you would stll have to do careful shopping to get under $1,200 on a decent set. But for the sake of argument lets say you can get a 47" 1080p LCD for $1,200.

Or you can get a 720p 50" Panny Plasma. Now...seriously. Really. Which would be a better picture? A very low end 1080p LCD or a Panny 720p plasma? Ummmm...pretty much a no brainer. The Panny will BLOW away the 1080p LCD. And it is bigger!!!!!!

Now lets say you could get the 46" 1080p Panny plasma close to the budget. You really want to give up that much size? Why? It is questionable if you would see the difference in a 50" set, let alone a 46".

And if the answer is "get 1080p because you can" then you better freaking not stop there. You better get a 1080p LCD at 240hz...."because you can". Or should you wait for 480hz "because you can"? I mean if numbers is the only thing that matters....well...

[Spiky]

Well, the link above is a Panny 46 1080 for $1100. Tiger actually has two generations for about this price right now. And the 50" 80U model is $1300.

[Mr. Salty]

I don't think you can get a Panny Plasma 50" 1080p for $1,200. Can you? I think not.
I found one on my first and only search for $1,300. If he looks a little harder I'm sure he can get close if he wants a 50-inch.

You can get close with a 46" Panny Plasma 1080p. But I still not sure you can get it for $1,200.
If you had clicked on the link in my first post, you would have seen that you can.

In fact ...

Well, the link above is a Panny 46 1080 for $1100.
Actually, it's now down to ~$999.

Personally, I wouldn't let going from $1,200 to $1,300 be a deal breaker. I'd save up my money for another couple of weeks and get a 50-inch, 1080p Panasonic plasma. Best of all worlds for only $100 more.

[hdtv00]

Get 1080p, don't pretend you have HD. You'll thank us later when you're watching Blu Ray. And yeah if you'd nother to read the post already you'd see 46 inch for $1100( ok ok anyone could have missed that link) but still.

No refresh rate is bullshit made up marketing tool. Actual resolution is not. Don't be an asshole and pull out some numbers bullshit. I'm not a marketing department for some fucking tv maker, yeah I take offense that you imply that frankly.

Now if you plan to use it with a pc at all, then 1080p is what you want, because 720p pc use looks like complete shit. End of that topic.

Is there a difference in 1080i or p from 720p, yep. I'm not saying its not small, agree with Sdallnct for some people it doesn't matter. If you want the best or care for blu ray one day. Then clearly 1080p even in this size range you can see it from 8-10 ft. Anything farther though and it's a waste of time. With pc use it's clear as day from that distance. Movies it's much harder to see, but you also don't want sets having to convert to their crap res either. Which also leads me to these so called fucking 720p plasma sets. Go look at their actual resolutions, 720p my ass. Most of them are made up bullshit res to begin with let alone 720p.

Haha I'm ranting at this point, but don't pass me off like I'm some best buy hack salesman, that's bullshit. That panny Spiky linked to is a damn fine set, As is the one I linked to quality wise, but the plasma is better.

[Spiky]

Actually, it's now down to ~$999.

Shipping.

[hdtv00]

Haha I must've been in a bad mood last night. Well that or I'm an asshole.

[Mr. Salty]

Shipping.

Which is $99. But sales tax on a TV like this will run you about $70 if you buy it locally --- more than that if you can't find the TV as cheap as Amazon/Tiger Direct is selling it for --- which offsets most of the shipping cost.

I bought my 50-inch Sony SXRD HDTV from OneCall.com. Even with the $99 shipping it was way cheaper than if I had bought it anywhere in town. And having a set that big shipped was painless. I ordered it on a Monday and it was here Wednesday afternoon.

[Sdallnct]

Get 1080p, don't pretend you have HD.

Seriously? And you don't want to sound like a "marketing person". Surprised you didn't say "true HD" or "real HD".

I have made my position clear in the past and supported it by links from such places as home theater magazines who's job it is to generate interest in the newest HT equipment.

But lets be clear. If you (I) don't believe if you can tell a difference in between 720p to 1080p on such a small set at so far, then it doesn't make any difference the source. Period. Of course if you do, then I guess it does. It's a matter of your eyes not the equipment.

I never said 1080p was over hype. I don't believe it is. I can't wait till I upgrade to a 1080p project (course that is a 94" screen sitting 10.5 and 12.5 feet).

I do believe I wouldn't pay extra for 1080p on such a small set or that I'd get a smaller set just to get 1080p. If you got the money for 1080p in the size you want go for it.

[Sdallnct]

Yea...I did miss the link for a $999 46" Panny Plasma 1080p. That is a nice price. But I'd still get the 50" 720p of that. Go with the size.

And if indeed you can swing the money for a 1080p Panny Plasma, I guess that is fine. I just don't see the point in spending the extra money. I'd rather get the 720p, a nice BD player and have money left over to start my BD collection.

[hdtv00]

If you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p from a pc from 30 ft away you're blind. Pc at 720p just plain sucks, and sucks bad.

I do agree with bigger is better screen wise. And I would NEVER , ever settle for some fake made up res 720p, if it was real 1280x720 then maybe. Find one of those though...not so easy.

HAHA do searches on past post all you want to, 1080p is better, fake 720p res sets are shit. Pc use they suck, 1080p has a better picture, set will have higher resell. It will be much better when you get a different one down the road and move it into your bedroom lol.

Get 1080p, Don't listen to Sdallnct. I've never seen a single person regret getting 1080p set. But I've seen dozens regret they got 720p, the correct answer is simple.

[Sdallnct]

If you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p from a pc from 30 ft away you're blind. Pc at 720p just plain sucks, and sucks bad.

I do agree with bigger is better screen wise. And I would NEVER , ever settle for some fake made up res 720p, if it was real 1280x720 then maybe. Find one of those though...not so easy.

HAHA do searches on past post all you want to, 1080p is better, fake 720p res sets are shit. Pc use they suck, 1080p has a better picture, set will have higher resell. It will be much better when you get a different one down the road and move it into your bedroom lol.

Get 1080p, Don't listen to Sdallnct. I've never seen a single person regret getting 1080p set. But I've seen dozens regret they got 720p, the correct answer is simple.

Oh...I missed the part where the OP is using a PC. Oh, no I didn't.

So please post a link where any reputable article show you can see a difference on 1080p v. 720p at 30' watching a BD movie.

I love how you say some number are market, but then tell me to ignore the research. Tell you what, show me one article that suggests 46" set at 10' would benefit from 1080p.

Here, let me start: from a quick google,

"We've done numerous side-by-side tests between two same-size HDTVs, one with 1080p resolution and another with lower resolution, and every time it's been almost impossible to see the difference with regular program material, especially when that material is moving. The difference becomes even more difficult to see at smaller screen sizes or farther seating distances--say, more than 1.5 times the diagonal measurement of the screen. For example, to see the benefits of stationary 1080p content on a 50-inch screen, you'll generally need to sit about 6.5 feet or closer. Few viewers want to sit that close, especially when low-quality content seen at that distance (remember the "garbage" maxim?) looks so bad"

"Although resolution separates HDTV from standard-definition TV, it's not as important to overall picture quality as other factors. According to the Imaging Science Foundation, a group that consults for home-theater manufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio the second most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy. Resolution comes in fourth, despite being the most-cited HDTV specification."

"The point is, once you get to high-definition, it's difficult to discern further improvements in the sharpness of the picture. All other things being equal--namely contrast and color--HDTV looks more or less spectacular on just about any high-definition television regardless of its size, native resolution, or the HDTV signal's resolution itself. The leap from normal TV to HDTV is so big that additional leaps in resolution--from high-definition to higher-definition, let's say--are tiny by comparison."

1. What's all the fuss about 1080p? Should I buy a 1080p HDTV now?

There are plenty of 1080p HDTV's on the market and more coming. Manufacturers are moving to 1080p resolution in their displays mostly because the prices of 720p and 768p HDTVs are dropping so quickly, and 1080p sets have better profit margins. It's also not as expensive to make 1080p sets using DLP, LCOS, and LCD technologies as it used to be. (1080p plasma is still getting out of the gate.) If you plan to get a new HD DVD or Blu-ray player, you might want to consider a 1080p set to get all the resolution these disc formats offer-or if you are into really big HD images and want to sit close to the screen. Of course, you'll want to make sure your 1080p DHTV deinterlaces 1080i correctly; not all do. If it doesn't deinterlace correctly, the image will be softer then it should be. If, on the other hand, you are planning on getting a TV smaller then 60 inches and are sitting 10 or more feet away, then a 720p/768p set will be just fine. This is because, at that size/distance, your eye can't resolve all the detail in 1080p anyway.

[hdtv00]

Hook your pc to the tv stupid ass and you'll shut your mouth. Pc use is painful using 720p , it looks like utter shit.

No he didn't say it, but he also didn't say he wouldn't. Future proof, later down the road , even now whenever. You spend $800 or more you're stupid for nothing buying a correct res set. No matter if it's 1280x720 or 1920x1080.

Ramble on all you want with you can't see shit. How do you know what he will do with set later, He may not know himself. I stand by it, I've seen DOZENS complain later getting 720, and I've never seen a single person complain they got 1080p. I rest my case.

You should not be listened to , it's that simple. If he is tight on money, then sure cut some corners, but I'd cut few inches instead of cutting resolution.

And I never argued that the difference is small when it comes to blu ray. It's very small, even right up next to it. But that's NOT my point. Where did I say OMG when you play blu ray you're screwed. Never did I mention that, I pointed out later you may be wishing he didn't listen to the likes of you. Not being able to see the big picture and all.

[Sdallnct]

Hook your pc to the tv stupid ass and you'll shut your mouth. Pc use is painful using 720p , it looks like utter shit.

. Not being able to see the big picture and all.

I have no desire to hook my PC up to my TV. If you want to, fine get a 1080p. "Stupid Ass"? Really? What are you 12?

Most people buy a TV to hummm watch TV and bluray and DVD...not to hook to a PC.

But hey if it makes sense to you to go with a smaller tv on the off chance you may, some day, in the future decide you use as a computer monitor so your willing to sacrifice a better viewing experience now for movies, sports and prime time TV, then knock yourself out.

And you talk about the "big picture". Funny....your the one that want's to cut corners to get a less enjoyable display "just in case".

Now if the OP wants to spend the money for 50" 1080p Panny Plasma then I think our conversation is over. It certainly won't hurt. But what I hate is that many people (maybe not the OP) don't want to spend the money so they go grab a Visio, Westinghouse, Polaroid or Olevia 1080p LCD just to get a 1080p because of folks that blindly think that is "best". When a 50" Panny Plasma at 720p would blow these away, image quality wise.

And if you would read my posts I offered suggestions for the OP's budget. But again, if he wants to spend the money I certainly don't have anything against the 1080p Panny Plasma. If it were me, I'd save the $300-$400 but if you or the OP wants to spend it, great. Knock yourself out. But I sure wouldn't drop in size for it. Assuming a reasonable pic quality, nothing effects the overall movie watching experience, sports watching experience, or gaming, as much as size!

[Mr. Salty]

While I disagree with hdtv00's abrasive posting style, I do agree with "future-proofing." I bought my HDTV with the intent of making it last for several years. Just because I sit a certain distance from it now doesn't mean that's the way my setup will always be.

[hdtv00]

"then I think our conversation is over."

It was over a LONG time ago.

"Assuming a reasonable pic quality, nothing effects the overall movie watching experience, sports watching experience, or gaming, as much as size!"

Yep which is why he should do the right thing and get a projector...MHAHAHA.

Yeah stupid ass. I don't know and neither do you what the OP will or wont use or do. Which is why I pointed it out, instead of completely dismiss it like you did.

Yeah I'm being a dick on purpose at this point lol. But doesn't mean I'm wrong. Also half the tv's or at least several 1080p "True HD" or whatever else they're labeled can be just as big a BS as 720p. I seriously almost died when I seen a set at wal mart said TRUE HD, and I looked at the res and I swear it was 1600x 1080 or some crazy made up BS. That's insane.

[Sdallnct]

While I disagree with hdtv00's abrasive posting style, I do agree with "future-proofing." I bought my HDTV with the intent of making it last for several years. Just because I sit a certain distance from it now doesn't mean that's the way my setup will always be.

Fair enough. And a reasonable argument. Of course I don't see displays lasting that long anymore. I mean really. Are people are going to spend $1,500 on a display and keep it 10 years?

And what I mean "lasting that long" is not a function of them physically lasting. But there will be such advances and changes (even in connections and such), that I don't think you can reasonable "future proof" with any display today.

It's just like surround receivers. Every few years they come out with another "must have" feature. I mean how can anyone live without 4 HDMI's and lossless audio processing on their surround receiver? I just think most will want to upgrade, for whatever reason in much, much less then 10 years. Of course I'm being sarcastic as I certainly live very nicely without them. But most want to upgrade. And I think that will happen with displays as well.

But maybe...I can buy that argument more then any other I have heard. I have a Samsung 46" 1080p LCD in my living room (long story that I have discussed before). With the drops in the 50" Planny Plasma's I've thought about seeing if I could hang the LCD somewhere in my bar, and get a Panny Plasma for the living room. But I could have done that if it was "only" 720p. For even if I was sitting closer in the bar, how much critical watching would I do in there? Or if I moved it to the bedroom, it would be for watching Late Night before bed. So again the very minor quality difference (if any), if it was 720p of sitting even closer wouldn't matter.

[Sdallnct]

"then I think our conversation is over."

It was over a LONG time ago.

"Assuming a reasonable pic quality, nothing effects the overall movie watching experience, sports watching experience, or gaming, as much as size!"

Yep which is why he should do the right thing and get a projector...MHAHAHA.

Yeah stupid ass. I don't know and neither do you what the OP will or wont use or do. Which is why I pointed it out, instead of completely dismiss it like you did.

Yeah I'm being a dick on purpose at this point lol. But doesn't mean I'm wrong. Also half the tv's or at least several 1080p "True HD" or whatever else they're labeled can be just as big a BS as 720p. I seriously almost died when I seen a set at wal mart said TRUE HD, and I looked at the res and I swear it was 1600x 1080 or some crazy made up BS. That's insane.


Well, surprisingly I agree with you. Nothing is better then a projector. Tho based on your conversation, I'm surprised your friends hang with you since you "only" have a 720p projector. I'm shocked you can even watch it.

Yup, being an ass is always a good way to make a point. Really gets people to be on your side.

[NoirFan]

Finally saved up enough scratch to ditch my 27" CRT. I'm aiming to spend around $1,500 and am looking for a 46" screen and 1080P. My (admittedly small) research sample seems to suggest the Sony Bravia Z-Series KDL-46Z4100 is the way to go at that price, the anti-Bravia thread in this forum notwithstanding. I'm also a HD newbie here, so am relatively clueless. Is that TV recommended at that price? I won't be using my television for video games at all, if that's a factor.

[Mr. Salty]

Yeah I'm being a dick on purpose at this point lol. But doesn't mean I'm wrong.
No, but it does mean you're likely to get suspended or banned for making personal attacks. You've been a member here long enough to know that.

Of course I don't see displays lasting that long anymore.
I feel just the opposite. The HD standard is set, and it is not going to change in the next few years. And my TV has plenty of inputs and outputs, including HDMI 1.3 or whatever the designation is. Those connection standards aren't going to change either. And because my TV is 1,920 x 1,080p, I'm not feeling any need to replace it, and doubt I will unless it dies.

Sure, OLED or whatever technology is available when it comes time to replace my TV will different. But it won't change the fact that the picture and features of my current TV are great. And OLED, if it is ever perfected, is still years away.

[Mr. Salty]

Is that TV recommended at that price?

Sony's Bravias are nice, but I like plasma a lot more than LCD. If you've read this thread, you must have read my post that you can get a 50-inch Panasonic plasma for $200 less than you're wanting to spend, and a 46-inch for a lot less than that.

[Spiky]

The top Bravias are....ok. The lower models are hard to get past adequate. The Panasonics discussed above will give a better picture.

[Sdallnct]

Finally saved up enough scratch to ditch my 27" CRT. I'm aiming to spend around $1,500 and am looking for a 46" screen and 1080P. My (admittedly small) research sample seems to suggest the Sony Bravia Z-Series KDL-46Z4100 is the way to go at that price, the anti-Bravia thread in this forum notwithstanding. I'm also a HD newbie here, so am relatively clueless. Is that TV recommended at that price? I won't be using my television for video games at all, if that's a factor.

If your spending that much, and picture quality is your top priority get the Panny Plasma 1080p. Better image then anything else even close in price range.

[Sdallnct]

I feel just the opposite. The HD standard is set, and it is not going to change in the next few years. And my TV has plenty of inputs and outputs, including HDMI 1.3 or whatever the designation is. Those connection standards aren't going to change either. And because my TV is 1,920 x 1,080p, I'm not feeling any need to replace it, and doubt I will unless it dies.

Sure, OLED or whatever technology is available when it comes time to replace my TV will different. But it won't change the fact that the picture and features of my current TV are great. And OLED, if it is ever perfected, is still years away.

Oh, I totally agree with you. But I don't think you and I are the "typical" consumer. I think there will be back lighting, wireless interfaces, lighter so easier to hang, customized cabinets, and who knows what else. I mean the manufacturers will have to generate something to get people to buy new sets. And people will.

I don't think people will "need" to upgrade, but I think they will to get the newest and latest bells and whistles. I got a buddy who has gone thru 3-4 surround receivers in like 24 months. WTF? But he had to have HDMI and then had to have lossless processing and then it was something else....agghhh

I'm thinking of a new TV as I feel I made a mistake. And prices on the plasmas have come down so much, I'm tempted.

[NoirFan]

If your spending that much, and picture quality is your top priority get the Panny Plasma 1080p.

That's the way I'm leaning now. Is there any significant difference between the Panasonic Viera TH-50PZ80U and the TH-50PZ85U, other than 150 bucks?

[NoirFan]

Hmmm...the review on CNET states that the Panasonic suffers from "ineffective noise reduction" and, most troublingly, "....below-average score in our standard-definition tests. Details were relatively soft, and the full resolution of the DVD format, according to test patterns, was not displayed." There's also apparently a new line of Sony Bravia TVs that debuted this month, but I can't find any reviews.

[NoirFan]

Another thing - how do I go about getting a warranty from Amazon? There's one listed on the Panasonic Viera page, but it's $449.99 for three years! That seems outrageous, no?

[parrotheads4]

Hmmm...the review on CNET states that the Panasonic suffers from "ineffective noise reduction" and, most troublingly, "....below-average score in our standard-definition tests. Details were relatively soft, and the full resolution of the DVD format, according to test patterns, was not displayed." There's also apparently a new line of Sony Bravia TVs that debuted this month, but I can't find any reviews.

I own a pz85u. I read the same review on cnet as you, and was a little concerned. I got it because the price was right. I got this as a "family room do everything" tv. Mine is the 42" version. I got it for a total cost of $995 last October. I'm sure you can find the 50" in that range now.

The picture is fantastic. Better than I expected. I own a Pioneer also, and the only difference I can see is the Pioneer is a little bit blacker.

The reviews also mention green trails in video games. The only game I get the effect on is Gears Of War, and it's not a big issue.

[Sdallnct]

Hmmm...the review on CNET states that the Panasonic suffers from "ineffective noise reduction" and, most troublingly, "....below-average score in our standard-definition tests. Details were relatively soft, and the full resolution of the DVD format, according to test patterns, was not displayed." There's also apparently a new line of Sony Bravia TVs that debuted this month, but I can't find any reviews.

I regularly go to the highest home theater store in town to "calibrate" my eyes. And without a doubt the best picture I have ever seen is the Pioneer plasma. But then a fairly close 2nd is the Panny plasma.....everything else is a very distant 3rd.

To me the keys to the Pioneer and Panny are as follows:

Incredible black levels. Inky blacks that still show detail (LCD doesn't come close)
Very, very natural look (many a LCD has a harsh digital look)
An almost 3-D image with solid detail.

[Spiky]

the full resolution of the DVD format, according to test patterns, was not displayed."

Sounds like overscan was on. This is normal. It can usually be turned off. Can't it on the Panny's?

[NoirFan]

That's the way I'm leaning now. Is there any significant difference between the Panasonic Viera TH-50PZ80U and the TH-50PZ85U, other than 150 bucks?

Upon closer inspection, the difference is $500. Is it worth the extra cash?

[parrotheads4]

Upon closer inspection, the difference is $500. Is it worth the extra cash?

Here's the avs forum link to this discussion with a list of the differences.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14472276

[scarredgod]

thanks for all the replies, they have all been a great help.

i was about to pull the trigger on the 46" Panasonic Plasma TV discussed earlier, then i noticed i can get the 50 inch Panasonic Viera TH-50PZ85U for about 200 bucks more. am i safe in assuming that the 50" model will be just as highly regarded as the 46", just larger??

thanks again.

[eXcentris]

Please note that LCD's are more suited to higher ambient light environments (because they have higher screen brightness) than plasmas. That's an often glossed over but important factor. If you watch a lot of tv/movies in the daytime and your set is in a brightly lit room where you can't do much about keeping the light out, you're better off with an LCD display.

[Spiky]

Actually, in a bright room, you're better off with floral arrangements.

LCDs are able to go brighter, but that's hardly the right idea for quality TV viewing. If you were to properly calibrate both sets in the same room, the lumen output would actually be identical.

[Sdallnct]

Please note that LCD's are more suited to higher ambient light environments (because they have higher screen brightness) than plasmas. That's an often glossed over but important factor. If you watch a lot of tv/movies in the daytime and your set is in a brightly lit room where you can't do much about keeping the light out, you're better off with an LCD display.

If you can't keep light off your display....you must not be interesting in image quality.

I have an LCD in a bright room. And with the shades open, it sucks. And it is a nice Samsung. I also have a LCD Olevia in my bar with 3 huge windows and 4 skylights. Yea...it is tourch. Is is watchable? I guess. But terrible, terrible image.

For any real watching, you need light control with any display. Period. So in reality that is not an issue with Plasma's.

[eXcentris]

If you can't keep light off your display....you must not be interesting in image quality.

For any real watching, you need light control with any display. Period. So in reality that is not an issue with Plasma's.

Your first statement is condescending silliness. Your second statement assumes that you can always control light. It's false.

Any intelligent article comparing pros and cons of LCD vs Plasma will mention the fact that LCD's are better in brightly lit environments where you can't do much to control the light. Is such an environment ideal for optimum image quality? No. But it's not something you can always control and not everyone has an ideal viewing environment. "What are the characteristics of your viewing environment?" should always be one of the first questions asked (along with budget and size constraints) when someone asks for advice about buying a tv set.

Everytime I see the first few responses to advice take the form of "Get a plasma they are better!" I cringe...

[Sdallnct]

Did you not read Spiky's note either?

Sure an LCD is brighter. But as anyone (including myself) who owns one will tell you (as well as any theater site) is the first thing you do is turn the brightness down. When you properly calibrate an LCD it will not be any brighter and a plasma.

Now if you argue that you can turn up the brightness, then I'll stand by my statement; you must not care about image quality. Which is fine. That is not to be an ass or condescending or anything else. For many (dare I say most) image quality is NOT the most important factor.

I don't assume everyone can control light. But what I'm saying if you can't I wouldn't worry about spending a lot of money on a set.

And I don't know why you cringe about us recommending Plasma. From an image quality stand point they are better. There is no debate with that. Just like CRT's have better image quality. There is no debate. In fact LCD's maybe at the lowest end of the food chain, image quality wise. Does that mean they suck? Or that know one should ever buy one? Of course not.

And to be truthful, I'm a live example of "your talk". Even though I knew better, even though I knew I wanted a plasma, even though I carefully shopped and compared images, I let my wife talk me out of it. One idiot salesmen said exactly the garbage you said "if you have a bright room you want LCD". And also, to be fair, my wife thought 50" was to big, but 47" would be ok (a year ago Panny didn't have the 46" plasma). Yea, our living room is bright. Including large windows very close to the set. And guess what? That LCD looked terrible. TERRIBLE! So what did we do? She went and got nice looking curtains that we keep open till we watch TV. And now for a year, I've regretted not get a plasma. So much so and the fact they have come down so much, I may move the LCD to the bar (if I can find room for a set that big) and get the 50" plasma.

[eXcentris]

Did you not read Spiky's note either?

Sure an LCD is brighter. But as anyone (including myself) who owns one will tell you (as well as any theater site) is the first thing you do is turn the brightness down. When you properly calibrate an LCD it will not be any brighter and a plasma.

Yes, I fully understand that, but keep reading...


Now if you argue that you can turn up the brightness, then I'll stand by my statement; you must not care about image quality. Which is fine. That is not to be an ass or condescending or anything else. For many (dare I say most) image quality is NOT the most important factor.

I don't assume everyone can control light. But what I'm saying if you can't I wouldn't worry about spending a lot of money on a set.


The problem with your arguments is that they are all black or white. One, viewing conditions in a room can change (day, dusk, night). Two, there are different things you can watch on tv: news, sports, films, etc... Not all require optimal image quality which does not mean one doesn't care about image quality. In some instances, turning up the brightness, although not resulting in optimal image quality, is required because one will actually want to SEE what the heck one is looking at...


And I don't know why you cringe about us recommending Plasma. From an image quality stand point they are better. There is no debate with that. Just like CRT's have better image quality. There is no debate. In fact LCD's maybe at the lowest end of the food chain, image quality wise. Does that mean they suck? Or that know one should ever buy one? Of course not.


As I stated, I cringe at the knee-jerk "buy plasma, they are better!" responses which are dished out without asking appropriate questions about viewing habits/environment. That's no better than the "advice" you get from the idiots at Best Buy.


And to be truthful, I'm a live example of "your talk". Even though I knew better, even though I knew I wanted a plasma, even though I carefully shopped and compared images, I let my wife talk me out of it. One idiot salesmen said exactly the garbage you said "if you have a bright room you want LCD". And also, to be fair, my wife thought 50" was to big, but 47" would be ok (a year ago Panny didn't have the 46" plasma). Yea, our living room is bright. Including large windows very close to the set. And guess what? That LCD looked terrible. TERRIBLE! So what did we do? She went and got nice looking curtains that we keep open till we watch TV. And now for a year, I've regretted not get a plasma. So much so and the fact they have come down so much, I may move the LCD to the bar (if I can find room for a set that big) and get the 50" plasma.

It's only "garbage" if you don't ask ALL the pertinent questions that should be asked...

I live in a condo. My living room is brightly lit because it's all open space with a lot of windows. My LCD is calibrated for evening viewing and I never watch DVD's/Blu-rays during the day because I do care about image quality. However, I do watch HD tv and sports during the day and I have to use different settings (increase brightness). Not optimal image quality but at least watchable. And I did try a Panny plasma and it was near unwatchable during the day, regardless of what settings I boosted. Purchasing decisions often involve trade-offs, you know "lose a little here, gain a little there".

I'll repeat. You can't simply regurgitate readymade tv buying advice to people without asking ALL the pertinent questions. Understanding the viewing environment/viewing habits of a user is just as important as price or room/tv size, regardless of what the so-called "experts" on AVS or HomeTheater say. In fact, most would probably react much like you and spew crap like "well you must not care much about image quality...", which really doesn't help anyone...

"Get a Porsche Boxster son, if you care about quality!"
"Bought one, I had to keep the top on to avoid suffocating, plus the suspension is so stiff it's like driving a washing machine. Oh, I only drive on dirt roads..."

[Sdallnct]

I live in a condo. My living room is brightly lit because it's all open space with a lot of windows. My LCD is calibrated for evening viewing and I never watch DVD's/Blu-rays during the day because I do care about image quality. However, I do watch HD tv and sports during the day and I have to use different settings (increase brightness). Not optimal image quality but at least watchable. And I did try a Panny plasma and it was near unwatchable during the day, regardless of what settings I boosted. Purchasing decisions often involve trade-offs, you know "lose a little here, gain a little there".
..."

Sorry...not buying it.

Modern plasma's (any Panny or Pioneer bought today) are plenty bright enough. I can't imagine a situation in which a plasma would be totally unwatchable but a LCD would be even a "good" image.

And if in a bright room with light on the screen your going to try to compare the "poor" image of one display to the "poorer" of another, I'll still stand by my statement and go Plasma. I'd take a slightly worse image of the plasma during the day (if it would actually be worse which I'm not sure of) to get the significantly better image at night or when there was better lighting. And if you do think image quality is most important, why would you get the set that never give you the best image?

Talk about not a bright image. In my media room, I have a HD70 (DLP) projector on a white screen. I do have heavy curtains, but Sunday mornings I like to read the paper and watch TV or watch Sunday afternoon football in there. If that can show a decent image with curtains open, (and I don't use "day time settings") a plasma would be more then enough. And at night I get a great image, as would a plasma.

[Spiky]

"Get a Porsche Boxster son, if you care about quality!"
"Bought one, I had to keep the top on to avoid suffocating, plus the suspension is so stiff it's like driving a washing machine. Oh, I only drive on dirt roads..."

See, what I see is this: Don't drive on dirt roads.


(translation: don't watch TV with the sun shining on the screen.....at all)

[eXcentris]

I'd take a slightly worse image of the plasma during the day (if it would actually be worse which I'm not sure of) to get the significantly better image at night or when there was better lighting.


Ok but that's YOUR choice now isn't it? You compromised to cater to your own preference now didn't you? You do realize that terms like "significantly better" are also a tad subjective, i.e. where one might notice a slight difference, another might see a big difference? Ever ventured into the HD forum on discussions about "how much better" Blu-ray is, and noticed that you won't find a consensus?

Do you not understand now that this isn't as black and white an issue as you and a lot of these obsessive AVS and HomeTheater posters make it out to be?


And if you do think image quality is most important, why would you get the set that never give you the best image?


One more time... Compromise according to YOUR OWN viewing environment/habits/preferences/needs. How can you pretend to give sound advice to others without knowing what THEIR viewing environment/habits/preferences/needs are? All you are doing is projecting YOUR OWN needs/wants/preferences on others...



See, what I see is this: Don't drive on dirt roads.


(translation: don't watch TV with the sun shining on the screen.....at all)


That's mindbogglingly assinine or thouroughly idiotic, or both...


And since this is turning into a futile circle jerk, I'm done.

[Sdallnct]

No matter how many time you say we are missing the point, doesn't make it so. We are try to have a reasonable conversations here....

I guess your skipping the point that modern plasmas are plenty bright enough.

And if you care to do a search I started a thread long, long ago about my somewhat surprise the lack of difference between BD and DVD. However, since that thread, I properly calibrated by display for each source and can regularly see the difference. The easiest difference is not in sharpness, but in color saturation and more 3-D effect.

And truth be told, I'll stand by my statement that a Plasma is significantly better then most LCD's. And tho I've never had the opportunity to try them all side by side, I'd say the difference between a plasma and most LCD's is more significant then BD and a nice DVD player. By far the most impressive image I have ever seen, by far was from a Plasma.

While I agree with Spiky, I almost always do here is my take if you care to listen,

If you want to buy a display to show an image in an undesirable setting, then there is no point is spending a lot of time worrying about it. Just go get some 1080p Visio down at Wally World or whatever. If you want your set optimized for daylight, sun viewing I totally agree with that choice, but then there is no need to start a thread of "I want the best TV" thread.

[Spiky]

That's mindbogglingly assinine or thouroughly idiotic, or both...


And since this is turning into a futile circle jerk, I'm done.

The only jerk here is you. The fact is, watching TV in direct sunlight is asinine (note: spelled correctly), not talking about it.

[hdtv00]

Hey I resent that, I'm here too hahaha. Didn't this thread turn out awesome.

I agree LCD isn't some magic light source that can be watched with massive amount of light. Excentris is just wrong.

[eXcentris]

The only jerk here is you. The fact is, watching TV in direct sunlight is asinine (note: spelled correctly), not talking about it.

Pointing out spelling mistakes never win you any arguments...

Calling someone a jerk however will get you banned. You need to revisit forum rules...

Now, there's no doubt that plasma displays offer better PQ in normal and low light conditions. My point about the "buy a plasma they are better!" advice given without knowing the viewing environment/habits of the user still remains. And nobody is arguing that LCD's are a panacea for watching tv while in orbit with blinding solar flares...

[hdtv00]

Oh you mean much in the same way without knowing how someone will use it saying get 720p because there isn't a difference between 1080p and 720p.

Haha. Ban's all around woo hoo.

[NoirFan]

I just ordered the 50" 85U for $1,295 shipped. Thanks for the help. I must say I'm pretty excited - this is my first ever big-screen purchase. I can't wait to ditch my 27" Sony tube!

[dick_grayson]

I just ordered the 50" 85U for $1,295 shipped. Thanks for the help. I must say I'm pretty excited - this is my first ever big-screen purchase. I can't wait to ditch my 27" Sony tube!

when you get it, you'll need to adjust the settings. they seem to ship them out with at random settings. if you search for that model on avsforum.com, you'll likely find a thread that has other people's calibrated (sometimes professionally) settings. I went with someone's posted settings from there (have a 50" panasonic plasma myself) and couldn't be happier.

[NoirFan]

Will do, thanks for the tip.

[scarredgod]

im kinda enjoying the argument and i dont mean to sound like a jerk, but i am waiting to pull the trigger on my tv and i just still need to know if the 50" panasonic plasma is just as highly regarded as the 46" mentioned earlier, just larger.

[Sdallnct]

I would go with the bigger set.

[Sdallnct]

Pointing out spelling mistakes never win you any arguments...

Calling someone a jerk however will get you banned. You need to revisit forum rules...

Now, there's no doubt that plasma displays offer better PQ in normal and low light conditions. My point about the "buy a plasma they are better!" advice given without knowing the viewing environment/habits of the user still remains. And nobody is arguing that LCD's are a panacea for watching tv while in orbit with blinding solar flares...

Actually I believe a plasma is a better pic in normal, lower then normal and higher then normal light levels.

Now in super bight rooms with the sun shinning on the set, I don't really care because any display will simply suck. So arguing which one will suck less is pointless.

I'll stick by my statement; in any reasonable viewing environment a modern plasma is the best pic you can get (unless you want to go CRT).

[X]

I'll stick by my statement; in any reasonable viewing environment a modern plasma is the best pic you can get (unless you want to go CRT).Maybe it's just me, but I just don't like the way plasma looks. It's not at all film-like in my opinion, it's too "in your face" with the image.

And if it's not 1920x1080 I think it looks too pixelated. Perhaps plasma pixels need more space between them than LCD.

[eXcentris]

Actually I believe a plasma is a better pic in normal, lower then normal and higher then normal light levels.

Now in super bight rooms with the sun shinning on the set, I don't really care because any display will simply suck. So arguing which one will suck less is pointless.

I'll stick by my statement; in any reasonable viewing environment a modern plasma is the best pic you can get (unless you want to go CRT).

Then you'd be wrong. In comparing LCD vs Plasma displays, no article from a reputable source will give higher marks to plasma in "higher than normal" light conditions.

[Sdallnct]

Maybe it's just me, but I just don't like the way plasma looks. It's not at all film-like in my opinion, it's too "in your face" with the image.

And if it's not 1920x1080 I think it looks too pixelated. Perhaps plasma pixels need more space between them than LCD.

Well that is a good observation. See I'm just the opposite. I think LCD looks to digital. It is too sharp. While Plasma looks more natural to me. Especially in such things as skin tone.

[Sdallnct]

Then you'd be wrong. In comparing LCD vs Plasma displays, no article from a reputable source will give higher marks to plasma in "higher than normal" light conditions.

LMAO...guess so. Course we haven't defined "higher then normal" but I guess that is some standard I'm unaware of.

And my point of saying that is that I can't imagine anyone wanting to make a purchase decision based on the worst possible situation. But if you want to continue down this road, then fine...lets go with this:

best picture in normal or low light environment = plasma
best picture in bright light = CRT

Done.

[eXcentris]

LMAO...guess so. Course we haven't defined "higher then normal" but I guess that is some standard I'm unaware of.


You're the one who mentionned "higher than normal" in your previous post :lol:


And my point of saying that is that I can't imagine anyone wanting to make a purchase decision based on the worst possible situation.

It's a purchase decision based on viewing environment/habits/needs which means that sometimes you have to compromise. Damn...

[Sdallnct]

You're the one who mentionned "higher than normal" in your previous post :lol:



It's a purchase decision based on viewing environment/habits/needs which means that sometimes you have to compromise. Damn...

OMDG...I have never said otherwise. What I have said in every thread that was asked, based on anything the person has asked is that Plasma is the best choice. Including this thread.

What I am saying is that I can't imagine a situation in which you would go wrong going with plasma.

Bright light on a plasma = poor image
Bright light on a LCD = poor image
Bright light on a CRT = poor image

If you only watch in bright light, get a plasma for hopefully at some point you can control that light and have a great image. If you can never control the light, then get the plasma as poor image, is poor image and they are a great price at a good size set. Or don't waste your time and just get the cheapest you can find of any display.

If you watch some in bright light and some in low light, get a plasma. For it may be a poor image in in bright light but will be awesome in low light.

If you only watch in low light, then get the plasma. You will have an awesome image.

So your point of me not considering the environment is wrong. I do.

[eXcentris]

So your point of me not considering the environment is wrong. I do.

Yeah you do, according to your own needs and preferences which by no means translates into some universal truth, i.e. it's YOUR opinion.

Take that statement:

"If you watch some in bright light and some in low light, get a plasma. For it may be a poor image in in bright light but will be awesome in low light."

How exactly does that fit everybody's needs and preferences? It doesn't. One more time you're just projecting your needs/preferences onto others.

How about this:

If you watch some in bright light and some in low light, get an LCD. The image will be a little less awesome in low light but you'll get a better image in bright light.

Both statements make sense. Ultimately, the decision should be made according to viewing habits/preferences (what you like to watch when). Get it now?

[Sdallnct]

Yeah you do, according to your own needs and preferences which by no means translates into some universal truth, i.e. it's YOUR opinion.

Take that statement:

"If you watch some in bright light and some in low light, get a plasma. For it may be a poor image in in bright light but will be awesome in low light."

How exactly does that fit everybody's needs and preferences? It doesn't. One more time you're just projecting your needs/preferences onto others.

How about this:

If you watch some in bright light and some in low light, get an LCD. The image will be a little less awesome in low light but you'll get a better image in bright light.

Both statements make sense. Ultimately, the decision should be made according to viewing habits/preferences (what you like to watch when). Get it now?

There is a "universal truth" WOW....And you are the keeper of that truth! Awesomeness!

Ummm the consept of communities like this is for people to come here and ask for "opinions". If there were one single "univeral truth" then no one would ever ask, now would they? And we would never get a "Help me buy a TV" thread for your universal truth would spell it all out for them.

You can do a google and get a zillion hits on LCD v Plasma v CRT v whatever. Yet people come here and AVS and other sites to get real world experience. Ask from people who put their own money down.

So I stand by my opinion and I have made it clear many a times. I have no problem with people taking that opinion or not. Not sure why you do.

I find it ironic that you spell out how people should decide on a display device but you take exception to others that that do.

[eXcentris]

I don't have a universal truth. I ask the appropriate questions and then offer my opinion. You don't care about asking (some) of the questions that should be asked, you just throw your opinion out there because that's what YOU like. To me that's a rather odd way to help people. And note that you're the one who seemed to have an issue with me mentionning viewing environment/brightness issue because well "It doesn't matter, plasma is better!", despite evidence to the contrary.

This reminds me of the silly game console threads where fanboys who have already made up their minds just spew out "buy 'console_name' they are better!" without ever asking who will use it and what it's going to be used for... Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as sound advice.

Now do I read AVS for information? Yup. Would I go there to ask for advice? Hell no. :lol:

That said, thanks for your time.

The End

[dick_grayson]

Well that is a good observation. See I'm just the opposite. I think LCD looks to digital. It is too sharp. While Plasma looks more natural to me. Especially in such things as skin tone.


I agree.

[X]

Well that is a good observation. See I'm just the opposite. I think LCD looks to digital. It is too sharp. While Plasma looks more natural to me. Especially in such things as skin tone.I know plasma has better contrast and colors, but I think LCD looks smoother. Perhaps due to pixels being closer together with LCD (if they indeed are).

Are there, say, 42" plasmas with 1920x1080 resolution? That would answer the question about the amount of space necessary between pixels. That space is what I think removes the film-like look to me.

[Sdallnct]

I don't have a universal truth. I ask the appropriate questions and then offer my opinion. You don't care about asking (some) of the questions that should be asked, you just throw your opinion out there because that's what YOU like. To me that's a rather odd way to help people. And note that you're the one who seemed to have an issue with me mentionning viewing environment/brightness issue because well "It doesn't matter, plasma is better!", despite evidence to the contrary.

This reminds me of the silly game console threads where fanboys who have already made up their minds just spew out "buy 'console_name' they are better!" without ever asking who will use it and what it's going to be used for... Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as sound advice.

Now do I read AVS for information? Yup. Would I go there to ask for advice? Hell no. :lol:

That said, thanks for your time.

The End

If you have read any of the "help TV threads" I think I can speak for most of us, we do ask questions. Such as sitting distance, budget, and size. You seem hell bent that the ONLY way to arrive at the answer is by talking environment. Where some (most?) of us feel that, that may have been true in the past, is not so much IN THE REAL WORLD. Are their exceptions? Perhaps. But few people have sun light shinning on their sets more then a few hours a day (in my living room it is almost exactly from 7-9 AM), that is uncontrollable AND they want their sets to look good during this time. And I'll stick by my notion that if you have sun shinning on your set and you want to buy a set based on that environment, there is not really a way to have a meaningful conversation. Just buy whatever (tho I'd still say buy a plasma in case things change in the future).

Hell I still get bitch slapped for recommending 720p in sets 50" or less because "I'm not on board"....LOL

See you are the one making assumptions, thinking that I or others "just throw things out". I have recommended LCD's in the past. Not often, but have. But that was mainly before plasma's have dropped in price so much. Just because I or others don't ask every person 20 questions before giving a reply doesn't mean we (I) don't consider things.

The way these threads go, is someone asks for help, someone gives a recommendation, we get more information, we do or don't modify that recommendation. Just because we don't follow your formula doesn't make it any less accurate of a recommendation.

If I did what you claim I do, then the ONLY set I would ever recommend would be the Pioneer Kuro. Yet when I only do that when the person mentions they have the money to spend on it.

[Sdallnct]

I know plasma has better contrast and colors, but I think LCD looks smoother. Perhaps due to pixels being closer together with LCD (if they indeed are).

Are there, say, 42" plasmas with 1920x1080 resolution? That would answer the question about the amount of space necessary between pixels. That space is what I think removes the film-like look to me.

Yup,

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-TH-42PZ700U-42-Inch-1080p-Plasma/dp/B000QI1R94

Technical Details
1920 x 1080 Resolution
4096 Shades of gradation
2 HDMI Inputs
Built-in SD Card Memory Slot
GalleryPlayer Capable

[cpgator]

Here are the correct answers -

Some people like Plasma, some like LCD. It is all personal preference.

1080P doesn't always mean a better picture over 720P. If you want a quality picture, buy a quality TV.

If because of budget, you have to decide between a larger 720p and a smaller 1080p TV, go with the larger. You will probably not be able to see the difference, and you will most likely wish you bought the larger one later.

When viewing in direct sunlight, no TV is going to look good.

If your thoughts are different on any of these points, it is only because you are wrong. :)

[X]

Yup,

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-TH-42PZ700U-42-Inch-1080p-Plasma/dp/B000QI1R94

Technical Details
1920 x 1080 Resolution
4096 Shades of gradation
2 HDMI Inputs
Built-in SD Card Memory Slot
GalleryPlayer CapableI took a quick look at Best Buy and found none under 50". Maybe they're getting the pixels closer together in newer sets now. Or they're just making the pixels smaller with the same relative size gap between them...

Is that a newer set though? "Date first available at Amazon.com: October 2, 2001"

I'd like to see that set to see how it looks to me.

Edit: In reserching the differences between pixels of LCD and plasma, I found this:

What Kind of HDTV Is Right for You?
I Want It Flat and I Want It Big: For screens of 42 inches and up, the best choice is the plasma panel. It has better black level and off-axis uniformity than LCD flat panels. On the downside, it's also subject to the "screen-door effect"--with more noticeable spaces between pixels.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4352-12658_7-6544448.htmlSo that may be what's bothered me about plasma as I frequently tend to be close when watching a flatscreen. Close enough that I really notice the difference between 1080 and 720 on a 42".

[abintra]

I just ordered the 50" 85U for $1,295 shipped. Thanks for the help. I must say I'm pretty excited - this is my first ever big-screen purchase. I can't wait to ditch my 27" Sony tube!

Congrats.

Regarding getting it setup to better than default settings. That model is really quite simple. Literally, just plug it in, choose home environment, switch to cinema mode and then drop down the picture (contrast) and brightness settings.

Depending on whether or not you want to do a break-in period, lower both of those to under 50 for the first 100 hours, really not necessary but doesn't hurt either if you go that route, and then everything else is pretty close to ideal (presuming using an HDMI connection and an HD source anyway).

There are a couple of advanced settings like disabling the TV speakers, using Size 2 to get rid of overscan (a couple of poor channels like TBS/TNT still seem to have colored lines on some programming though) that you may want to do also. After that, just dialing in white/black levels to your environment/liking and perhaps nudging color/tint a point or two if desired (but at default they are very close so it won't be something you need to do immediately).

Personally, I expected the lower than 50 break-in settings to equate to a picture quality sacrifice but was pleasantly surprised at how bright they were even during the day next to some windows (to the point that I can't imagine bumping the white levels up much). Better than the CRT it replaced (definitely less glare).

[Spiky]

I took a quick look at Best Buy and found none under 50". Maybe they're getting the pixels closer together in newer sets now. Or they're just making the pixels smaller with the same relative size gap between them...

At first they couldn't make the cells small enough to even get 1080 in a 50". The first one to do so was by Pioneer and had a $10000 price tag. That dropped fast. Now there are plenty of 42" 1080 plasmas for under $1000, there's one hanging on the wall at my uncle's house.

What they did is elongate the cells to narrow the width. They had to maintain the same volume.

I would say there haven't been any screendoor issues (wide gaps between pixels) in either flat screen tech for several years. The pixels are bigger in a 720 model of the same size, not farther apart, afaik.

[Spiky]

Here are the correct answers -

...... It is all personal preference.......

If only that were accurate. The problem is, many people don't have a frickin' clue. So, many opinions and preferences are complete bullshit.

[cpgator]

If only that were accurate. The problem is, many people don't have a frickin' clue. So, many opinions and preferences are complete bullshit.

Except yours, right? -wink-

You don't have to have a clue to know what looks best to you. I have plasmas and LCDs, and I like them all. Since I am the one watching them, only my opinion matters.

[hdtv00]

I don't care if it looks best to someone, that someone may have no clue what to look for or be utterly clueless, which frankly most people are. So what they think means nothing.

Just like when someone tells me oh how this or that set looked better in the store next to whichever set. 100% worthless comparison and tells you zero about actual picture quality. But hey it looked best to them , right....

[NoirFan]

I just ordered the 50" 85U for $1,295 shipped. Thanks for the help. I must say I'm pretty excited - this is my first ever big-screen purchase. I can't wait to ditch my 27" Sony tube!

I'm having a bit of a headache setting this up - I have Sony and Phillips DVD players, and entering in the codes provided in the owner's manual doesn't seem to work. Any ideas? Is one code as good as the next? Do I need to try them all? Nothing happens either way, so I'm not sure where I'm going wrong. I can plug in more than one DVD player, right? I have one connected in the back and one on the side.

[NoirFan]

Nevermind, I figured it out. I just watched Footlight Parade, and it was utterly wonderful. I think I'm in love!

[NoirFan]

A question - do I need an HDMI cable in order to take advantage of upscaling/progressive scan? Are they the same thing? When I press the upscale button on my Phillips, it tells me "operation cannot be performed". When I press the progressive scan button on my Sony, the image is scrambled.

[Spiky]

They are not the same. Upscaling is converting from 480 lines of DVD up to whatever resolution your HDTV is. Progressive means converting from the interlaced picture stored on DVD back to its native progressive format to match with your TV. A cheap player will probably not do as well as the plasma you just ordered.

You do need HDMI to upconvert with almost every player ever made.

[NoirFan]

You do need HDMI to upconvert with almost every player ever made.

Jut purchased and plugged one in, thanks.

[blued888]

Quick question for everybody.

Planning to get a 42" or 50" 720p Panasonic plasma soon. I will only be watching DVDs (upscaled via Oppo DV-980H) on it. No plans to go Blu.

No plans to get 1080p sets since they're way too expensive here in the Philippines. And the 50" 720p ($1,833 USD) is actually more than twice as expensive as the 42" ($833 USD).

Money considerations aside...

Is 42" the better route since (I think) it has greater pixel density than the 50"?

[Spiky]

Well, technically yes. Same number of pixels in a smaller screen means greater density. That's easy enough to figure out with a standard ruler and a calculator.

Not sure why that makes it better. Just smaller.

Nothing wrong with a 42" set. The money seems to make your decision easy.

[blued888]

Well, technically yes. Same number of pixels in a smaller screen means greater density. That's easy enough to figure out with a standard ruler and a calculator.

Not sure why that makes it better. Just smaller.

Nothing wrong with a 42" set. The money seems to make your decision easy.

Thanks!