Looking to buy a Plasma TV

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Aug 2008, 00:55

I'm thinking of getting a FullHD plasma this month, maybe next...
Pretty much the only option in my price-range seems to be the Panasonic plasma's, which are supposedly pretty damn good.

Anyone here have a plasma, and knows what to look for, or if there is a price drop soon, or if there are new models soon to be released, etc etc!

At the moment, the Panasonic TH-42PZ80E seems to be the best choice: FullHD, 24p, not all that energy-consuming, 3 HDMI ports, etc etc.
Getting quite good reviews as well, I believe.

Max. amount I'm willing to spend is about 1500. A little bit above if it's really worth it.

Any help/suggestions would be much appreciated.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 06 Aug 2008, 11:36

Iron monkey is the plasma expert around here i think.

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 06 Aug 2008, 12:14

Can you afford a Pioneer 4280XD? It will blow away any other 42" Plasma until Pioneer release a 42" version of their 9th generation panels. 1080p is a bit of a gimmick at 42" and below, you get very little advantage from it and the Pioneers have far better contrast ratios, saturation and colour gamut which are far more important. They also have no issues with 24p whereas most Panasonics seem to have niggles still.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 06 Aug 2008, 12:34

Panasonic have issues with 24p? Thats news to me. I've not seen any issues yet. Care to elaborate?

Pioneers are stupidly expensive & I don't believe you get the amount of difference in picture quality proportionate to the extra cost.

Yi-Long, are you into BD? If you are, go Full HD. If not, don't bother.

The TH42PZ80 is an excellent set. We've got 2 at work, one in the showroom & one in the window. I've been playing around with BDs & 360 on it recently.

Its definitely worth getting if you ask me, and I'm not really even an advocate of 1080p sets!

If you want any more help, either reply here or PM me.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 06 Aug 2008, 12:40

Oh yeah, and as for contrast ratios, don't believe all you hear & read. Most companies use different methods of measuring contrast ratios - some are now quoting stupid figures like 1,000,000:1 (including Panasonic). I mean, how the hell could anyone ever spot 1,000,000 different changes in contrast? Its not possible.

The reason they do this is that Joe Public always believes the higher the number, the better. If they see one set has 10,000:1 contrast and another has 1,000,000:1, they'll pick the latter every time.

In reality, you should look at the greyscale range, as that is the real contrast ratio. For example, some of the latest Panasonic plasmas quote 15,000:1 contrast, but this is achieved by dynamically changing the contrast range on a scene per scene basis. I'm pretty sure all Panasonic plasmas (except 37") now offer 4,096 shades of grey, which is the true contrast ratio.

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 06 Aug 2008, 13:01

I don't quite recall, something about the PZ80 having trouble with 24p input, may have just been FUD.

I'm talking real world not manufacturer specifications. I have a 5080XD and it was well the worth the extra over the PZ81, I demo'd both head to head and it was much better - far better blacks and colour reproduction. Pioneer may be overpriced in Europe but their displays are easily the best and the 8G's have come way down in price and that's increasing by the day with the 9G's out.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Aug 2008, 13:24

Why Plasma, not LCD? I'm just wondering.

Generally speaking which is better LCD or Plasma?

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 06 Aug 2008, 13:28

Because LCD above 37" is a stupid idea. They're nowhere near as good at motion, blacks, etc.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Aug 2008, 13:30

@ Lourdes: Pioneer is about twice as much as a Panasonic, so over 2500 euro I think. That's too much.

IronMonkey wrote:Panasonic have issues with 24p? Thats news to me. I've not seen any issues yet. Care to elaborate?

Pioneers are stupidly expensive & I don't believe you get the amount of difference in picture quality proportionate to the extra cost.

Yi-Long, are you into BD? If you are, go Full HD. If not, don't bother.

The TH42PZ80 is an excellent set. We've got 2 at work, one in the showroom & one in the window. I've been playing around with BDs & 360 on it recently.

Its definitely worth getting if you ask me, and I'm not really even an advocate of 1080p sets!

If you want any more help, either reply here or PM me.

Thanks man.

I WILL be into BluRay as soon as I get a Plasma and a PS3 (and a 360). Hopefully the prices for BR will come down a bit in a few months.

I thought I might as well go FullHD, because of the PS3 and Blu-Ray, and considering the future.
It's only a few hundred more than HDReady screens anyway, so I'd rather pay a little bit more for the extra quality.

@Brad: Plasmas have better videoquality.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 06 Aug 2008, 13:34

Yi-Long wrote:Pioneer is about twice as much as a Panasonic, so over 2500 euro I think. That's too much.

Exactly. That was my point. I know Pioneers are better, BUT they cost stupid amounts of money more & the difference just isn't worth it. Panasonic's plasma screens are far better value for money.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 06 Aug 2008, 15:56

I'm so jealous of people who can afford Kuros

I'd love one of the new ones sooo much! I find it hard to enjoy my Toshiba because I know what I'm missing.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Aug 2008, 16:21

gasteropod wrote:I'm so jealous of people who can afford Kuros I'd love one of the new ones sooo much! I find it hard to enjoy my Toshiba because I know what I'm missing.

I'm sure prices will keep dropping the next few years, so that before long most of us can find a very good full HD Plasma for under 1000 euro.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 06 Aug 2008, 18:52

Don't forget, Pioneers are still panned for screen burn issues. This doesn't happen under normal use with Panasonics anymore...

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Aug 2008, 19:21

IronMonkey wrote:Because LCD above 37" is a stupid idea. They're nowhere near as good at motion, blacks, etc.

What about 37" and under? Is LCD then better?

Is there anything that LCDs above 37" beat Plasmas with? I'm just wondering. Thanks.

Aren't Panasonic's Freesat TVs all LCD? If that interests you in The UK.

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 06 Aug 2008, 19:39

LCD is shit Brad, it's just that you can't really buy small Plasmas.

IronMonkey wrote:Don't forget, Pioneers are still panned for screen burn issues. This doesn't happen under normal use with Panasonics anymore...

No they're not, I've treated my 8G like any old TV without issues and nor have I heard of anyone having problems with image retention or actual burn in.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 06 Aug 2008, 19:49

bradavon wrote:Is there anything that LCDs above 37" beat Plasmas with? I'm just wondering. Thanks.

Aren't Panasonic's Freesat TVs all LCD? If that interests you in The UK.

Nope there isn't. LCDs are poor technology, and only any good for small screen sizes, simply because they're easier to manufacture than plasmas at small sizes.

All of Panasonic's Freesat TVs (42, 46 & 50 inch models) are plasma screens. Panasonic does 19" to 37" in LCD and 37" to 150" in plasma.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Aug 2008, 20:11

Thanks Lourdes and IM. I'll bear that in mind when I get my next TV.

So therefore companies which don't make Plasmas and only sell LCDs over 37" only do so, to reduce costs, right? Aren't Plasmas much more at the same size to LCD TVs?

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 06 Aug 2008, 20:22

i've seen plasmas going pretty cheap lately. a 42 panasonic for £800?

http://www.richersounds.com/showproduct ... A-TH42PZ80

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Aug 2008, 20:57

I paid £833 for my 32" Samsung LCD back in Summer 2005

. They did cost an absolute fortune back then.

They wanted a whopping £90 more for the Digital model. Needless to say I didn't bother.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 06 Aug 2008, 23:14

bradavon wrote:Thanks Lourdes and IM. I'll bear that in mind when I get my next TV.

So therefore companies which don't make Plasmas and only sell LCDs over 37" only do so, to reduce costs, right? Aren't Plasmas much more at the same size to LCD TVs?

Plasmas, when compared size for size, are generally cheaper than LCDs. Most manufacturers don't have their own factories, so they buy LCD screens from manufacturers that do.

Unfortunately, consumers have this stupid idea in their heads that LCD is better than plasma, so the cheaper manufacturers give them what they want.

The higher end companies (Panasonic, Pioneer) have their own factories & concentrate more on quality of the image than cost. Obviously cost is a factor, but the better companies justify their higher prices with better build quality, far better picture & overall quality "feel" of their sets.

There is a lot of junk on the market these days. Most LCD panels are from 1 or 2 manufacturers. For example, Samsung supply Sony with their LCD panels.

bradavon wrote:They wanted a whopping £90 more for the Digital model. Needless to say I didn't bother.

LOL you fool! Who in their right mind would buy a TV without a digital tuner these days?!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Aug 2008, 23:22

IronMonkey wrote:Plasmas, when compared size for size, are generally cheaper than LCDs.

Thanks. I guess not any more but LCDs certainly used to be much cheaper.

IronMonkey wrote:Unfortunately, consumers have this stupid idea in their heads that LCD is better than plasma, so the cheaper manufacturers give them what they want.

I'm not sure about that. Most people buy LCD/Plasma TVs because of their thinness first, next their size. Their physical size is by far the biggest draw over CRT, for most.

They'd be just as happy with a Plasma (if it was plugged more) over an LCD. I doubt Joe Public even knows what the words mean. Most people even call them "flat screens". Which is an utterly ridiculous name. You could easily buy a flat screen CRT TV/Monitor a decade ago.

It sounds like LCD TVs are cheaper to make and as Joe Public wants a TV for as little as possible, LCD will always win. They're both as thin as each other after all.

The higher end companies (Panasonic, Pioneer) have their own factories & concentrate more on quality of the image than cost.

I wonder why Sony and Toshiba aren't also plugging Plasma more. They're just as big as Panasonic/Pioneer, well Sony is.

For example, Samsung supply Sony with their LCD panels.

That is a strange one as Sony's LCD TVs are better.

Sorry Yi. I've finished . . .

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Aug 2008, 23:35

bradavon wrote:
Sorry Yi. I've finished . . .

Geez Brad, dont share that kind of filthy info with the rest of us!

Geez(!)

Monkey Man: what kind of TV do you have at home!?

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 07 Aug 2008, 08:53

I have a Panasonic plasma screen. Its a TH-37PX70 (last years 37" version).

My dad might be buying it off me soon so I'll be able to get the new version (PX80) which supports 24p.

I wish I could go to a bigger size screen, but as it is I sit 5 feet away & can't increase the size of my room! 42" is just too big to be sitting that close.

Pity, because I'd love a 42", 46" or even a 50" Full HD set now that I've got Blu-Ray & Full HD sets are not much more expensive.

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 07 Aug 2008, 10:59

IronMonkey wrote:
Yi-Long, are you into BD? If you are, go Full HD. If not, don't bother.

Whether he really[/i[ should go FUll HD or not regardless of if he's into BD will be his sitting distance from the TV.

Over a certain distance away the human eye will not be able to tell the difference between a mere HD image and a FUll HD image as your eye only has limited resolution. As indicated by this image...

I've not long bought a 40" Sony LCD. Budget was about £600. Ended up going for the 40d3500. Picture quality and detail wise I'm happy with it. Images can look really nice. What I'm not happy with is the shadow detail. When people's faces or whatever are half in shadow, the half in shadow is now pretty much completely black... so I've had to up the brightness to a bit too high a level to see more of the image that is there. Also motion across the screen is a little juddery. It seems as though when something is moving across the screen at a reasonable rate you get a annoying effect where is seems like for 1 frame it moved a bit forward and that bit is fairly transparent, but the original frame is still on screen too... kinda like an interlaced frame effect mayeb... It has annoyed me too...

While I knew plasmas were better, I got the LCD as it is going to be on a wall facing a south facing bay window. Plasma screens have the glass over them that would probably give far too much reflection on the window for watching when it is daylight or sunny.

However, despite reading up that it wasn't that bad, if I knew exactly what my TV was going to be like before I bought it, then I wouldn't have got this Sony model... would have gone for a similarly priced Samsung (40a558) as I've seen it next to another sony and motion seemed better on it.

If it wasn't a screen reflection issue, I'd have preferred a plasma.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 07 Aug 2008, 12:14

IronMonkey wrote:I have a Panasonic plasma screen. Its a TH-37PX70 (last years 37" version).

My dad might be buying it off me soon so I'll be able to get the new version (PX80) which supports 24p.

I wish I could go to a bigger size screen, but as it is I sit 5 feet away & can't increase the size of my room! 42" is just too big to be sitting that close.

Pity, because I'd love a 42", 46" or even a 50" Full HD set now that I've got Blu-Ray & Full HD sets are not much more expensive.

My room is also quite small, probably smaller than yours, but I'm still hoping that me and my girl can find a place soon, in which case we obviously have a much bigger room to put the tv in. So I'll be going for the 42 inch plasma, even though in my current room it wouldnt really make much of a difference if I'd get a HDready one.