Panasonic Plasma TH42PW5AZ $4,999

[mich1503559502]

IMO $5K for a pana plasma is awsome. and re: bargepoles, the idea is that your not supposed to watch it within bargepole length anyway. for most peoples viewing distances at home with a 42" screen (whilst the detail may be tonnes better up close) the difference between SD and HD aint that much - unless your watching with binoculars or something.

i'd say go HD if your sitting up close (i think the figure mentioned was within 5-6 times the viewable screen height). if your sitting equal to or further away than that from it then your wasting your money on HD.

in particular, the pana SD models have fantastic blacks and about the best contrast around. alot of people have different opinions about what makes a "good" picture, but to me i'd prefer to watch a 852x480, 3000:1, 780cm/m2 screen (which from memory was the specs of that pana) than a 1024x1024 screen with far less contrast and brightness.

[Ripsnorter]

Found this article regarding SD and HD plasmas

"Plasma Monitor/ TV Article

1024X1024 Resolution Plasma Display Monitors VS.

853X480 Resolution Plasma Display Monitors

By Robert Wiley

Copyright © 2001 PlasmaTVBuyingGuide.com

All Rights Reserved.

08/28/2001

Pixel resolution with regard to plasma monitors is a tricky issue. Basically, all 42" plasma tv's have a built in converter/scalar to take care of the interpolation issue with matching up the incoming signal with the native pixel resolution. A 42" plasma monitor with 1024X1024 will not display a 1080i signal straight out. In order to show a true 1080I HDTV signal a 42" 16:9 plasma display monitor must have a native pixel resolution of 1920X1080. None currently have this resolution. All current 42" plasma monitors must do a certain amount of interpolating through the video processing chip/converter/scalar.

Because the 1024X1024 monitor seems closer in native pixel resolution to the 1080I signal than an 853X480 monitor it stands to reason that it would show the 1080i signal at a higher resolution - closer to the 1024 than the 853. However, the 1024X1024 monitor uses an interlace scan to see every other line while the 853X480 monitor uses progressive scanning. Using a comparison at a 60hz refresh rate, what you will actually see vertically is 512 lines on the 1024X1024 monitor compared with 480 vertical lines on the 853X480 monitor. Not much difference.

While the 1024X1024 (XGA resolution) plasma monitor still appears to have the edge in resolution we have to remember that the pixels are rectangles rather than square. This enables the monitor to produce the images for the 16:9 widescreen monitor. This means that the 1024 X1024 monitor has to do more interpolating on the horizontally stretched pixel, which can cause some softening. There is just a lot of severe scaling to be done there. The 853X480 monitor, having square pixels, will have an easier time with the horizontal conversion.

The 1024X1024 monitor can end up softening the image more due to the more severe horizontal filtering. It can depend upon the scalar/converter of the monitor as to which views the best.

This is where the difference between reasoning and true to life experience gets a little hairy. Contrast, brightness, and black levels come in to play with video images. What the eye picks up may be a much better picture on the 853X480 monitor because the converter/scalar does a better job of "blending" (through progressive scanning) the color information in such a way as to cause a crisper image. Contrast will necessarily translate into a better picture image given the effectiveness of the scalar/converter, though at the same time the 1024X1024 monitor may show a bit better depth/ three dimensionalities.

Since computer signals are progressive the 1024X1024 monitor will convert the signal very well to interlaced and provide a good resolution vertically. Obviously an XGA resolution will favor the 1024X1024 monitory because of the similarity in signal and pixel. Still image graphics for instance would look better on the 1024X1024 than on an 853X480 monitor because the refresh rate does not come into play. The progressive scanning 853X480 may look better using a computer with fast motion imaging, but generally the 1024X1024 monitor should display most computer graphic presentation materials better. A normal VGA resolution of 853X480 will match up nicely with the 853X480 monitor.

The 50" plasma monitors display somewhat different pixel resolutions. Native pixel resolutions of 1280X768 or 1365X768 are shown. These plasma monitors will use progressive scanning to show the best possible picture. An incoming 1080i signal will be cross-converted to 768P (as opposed to down-converted with an 853X480 widescreen monitor). An incoming 720P signal will be upconverted to 768P. Therefore, the viewer will get a full and true HDTV picture.

Copyright © 2001 PlasmaTVBuyingGuide.com All Rights Reserved. "

[cummo]

People like John_Barber can number crunch all day to try and work out what is a good display. The simple fact is the panasonic sd series 5 is a fantastic unit.

I've had mine for 10 months. Even foxtel running via composite looks good, dvd via component and a HD set top box via rgb look fantastic. There is a lot of fine detail that you pick up on a plasma that you miss on a crt.

The comment about rather having a PJ is fine but it also comes down to your viewing habits. I can't imagine turning a projector on and off each time you want to watch the news or the kids want to watch cartoons.

If as many say, 100 lines of pal information is lost with a 480 pixel plasma, where is the information taken from. The overall size of the picture is not reduced. The picture is not distorted in any way. You would think that if you removed 20% of its vertical resolution the picture would be out of wack. The internal processor & scaler does the job its designed to do. Each pixel is processed & scaled to suit 852x480 display. What determines a good plasma is its engineering and quality of its internals. Forget pixel count and judge the picture quality of a display with your own eyes.

[Billy Two Hats]

Nice one "Rip". I had read that article before but could not remember where from.

So I guess the logic is that with all other things being equal a 50" plasma should display a better picture than a 42". The question is to what extent would one appreciate the difference and to what extent is it worth the extra cost.

In the context of this thread, given the quality of the now superseded pana and the clearance price of $5k, a similar quality 50" plasma may not be worth the extra cost.

[Peter D]

Hey guys, the article being quoted is being totally MISUNDERSTOOD.

It is talking specifically about 1024 x 1024 ALIS displays.

ALIS displays are not the same as other plasmas. They are actually interlaced. One half of the 1024 lines are lit up alternately. So what the article is kind saying is that the plasma is kind of equivalent to 1024 x 512. A lot of people woiuld not agree with that logic.

Anyway this NOT HAVE ANYTHING to do with 852 x 480 or 1024 x 768 displays. These are not interlaced.

You have been comparing apples with oranges!

[mich1503559502]

1024x1024 alis is definantly sharper than 1024x768 progressive. as a direct example check out the pioneer 43" which is 1024x768p vs the 42" 1024x1024i hitachi.

i actually like the pioneer overall better than the hitachi for other reasons, but the hitachi is definantly sharper.

[Peter D]

That doesn't necessarily mean that ALIS is better. It could be better electronics such as for scaling.

I haven't come across anything really definitive as to whether ALIS is better or not.

[Geeseman]

1024x1024 alis is definantly sharper than 1024x768 progressive. as a direct example check out the pioneer 43" which is 1024x768p vs the 42" 1024x1024i hitachi.

i actually like the pioneer overall better than the hitachi for other reasons, but the hitachi is definantly sharper.

i actually like the pioneer overall better than the hitachi for other reasons, but the hitachi is definantly sharper.

I dont see how you can come to that conclusion when the Alis panel has alternate lighting of pixels and at any one time a lit line of pixels is separated form another by a unlit row of pixels.

The end result is that, like interlaced TV images, the image is not as clear or sharp as a progressive scan image.

Scaling has something to do with the quality of the image, and hitachi may have good scaling properties in its panel but it cannot get around the fact that it's still an alis panel and as such can not be as clear as a progressive panel.

Ive looked at many alis panels side by side with SD 42 inch plasmas and at a distance they look almost identical. Up close alis owners would argue more detail is evident in their panels, but at the same time, up close its very evident that the panel is interlacing its image. Because of this, and the current pricing of SD panels, there's no reason to recommend the purchase of an alis panel whatsoever.

[John_Barber]

People like John_Barber can number crunch all day to try and work out what is a good display. The simple fact is the panasonic sd series 5 is a fantastic unit.

If as many say, 100 lines of pal information is lost with a 480 pixel plasma, where is the information taken from. The overall size of the picture is not reduced. The picture is not distorted in any way. You would think that if you removed 20% of its vertical resolution the picture would be out of wack.

G'day Cummo,

My point in "number crunching" is simply to remind people that there's no such thing as a free lunch and no such thing as a $6000 42" HD Plasma (yet).

Ultimately if you like the picture, then that is the important thing.

You query the 100 missing lines on these 853 x 480 pixel plasmas.

A PAL TV picture consists of 576 horizontal lines (each about 720 "pixels" wide). Your Plasma monitor displays 853 pixels wide and 480 pixels high.

There are NOT the same number of pixels (in height) on the plasma as there are TV lines (576). As you say, the picture is not distorted, naturally as the monitor's internal electronics is scaling the image to look correct. In scaling the 576 visible TV lines to display on 480 horizontal rows of pixels, it basically means that each row of pixels represents 1.2 TV scan lines or every 12 TV scan lines are represented by 10 rows of pixels, so resolution is being LOST on your display. Although your screen displays 853 pixels across, the resolution of the source image is still 720 pixels wide (SD Digital) and those extra pixels cannot provide any extra detail which is not there in the first place. I find the loss of almost 100 scan lines unacceptable, personally. Remember that these plasmas are built for the NTSC market with their lower number of scan lines and therefore lower vertical resolutions.

Cheers

JB

[John_Barber]

Hi,

Further, the article also says the following:

"using a Plasma display with 852 x 480 pixels for HDTV or DVD is nearly as good a display with 1024 x 768 resolution"

Now I am no expert, but to me this is implying that for non-computer applications, i.e. watching DVD, VHS, normal PAL/NTSC TV and even HDTV there is little different between a $5000 and a $11000 monitor !

Hmmm.... surely that can't be right, can it?

cheers,

Ritesh

<< "using a Plasma display with 852 x 480 pixels for HDTV or DVD is nearly as good a display with 1024 x 768 resolution">>

I think that line is pushed by people tring to flog low res plasmas.

This is utter rubbish.

Just compare the numbers.

Cheers

JB

[John_Barber]

A line of pixels is the same as a broadcast analogue line.

Whatever you read - "to display a particular resolution, one only needs half the pixels" - sounds like absolute crap!

And to the person who said 853 x 480 is not SD: there is no particular resolution for SD and there is no particular resolution for HD. As someone said on another thread anything below 720 lines is SD; 720 and above is HD.

Hi Peter,

<< And to the person who said 853 x 480 is not SD: there is no particular resolution for SD and there is no particular resolution for HD.>>

What I meant was (and didn't make it plain) was that 853 x 480 is not up to the standards of SD. The 480 rows of pixels do not map 1:1 to the 576 visible TV lines of SD PAL.

I don't know where you get the "no particular resolution" bit from. In Australia standard definition is pretty much accepted as 576i, 720 pixels across by 576 rows of pixels, which corresponds to the 576 visible TV lines on our PAL 625 system. Most TV production gear (even prior to the introduction of digital TV) worked with images of a resolution of 720 x 576 internally (some gear worked at 768 x 576 to display correctly on computer monitors which used square pixels)

From a "legislative" point of view HD in Australia also includes 576p which some networks transmit. This forum has in no uncertain terms indicated its attitude to this format.

While we all may agree "anything below 720 lines is SD" the problem is that no-one is transmitting 1280 x 720 in Australia (shame) and there are affordable displays with this native resolution. While we have 1080 here as our "real" high definition, there are no native 1920 x 1080 plasmas (at a price competitive with a budget Mars mission), and even if they were, there's only 1440 pixels per line (due to the HD production gear here).

The tempting compromise ( BIG piccies) is either a pj or rptv at 1280 x 720 native, and put up with the down converted 1080 , or for the bathroom the new Sony CRT for 1080 (native?)

Cheers

JB

[Geeseman]

I think that line is pushed by people tring to flog low res plasmas.

This is utter rubbish.

That's your opinion. I don't own a SD panel and the numbers are dependant on how well each individual frame takes advantage of the pixel benefit of the alis panels.

In alis' favour, it has some 170 more horizontal pixels times 30 lines.

What you need to count in favour of SD panels is that they don't interlace the image.

Yes, 1080i is an interlaced signal, but even so my previous post's comments about the separation of lit pixels results in notable image instability and lack of clarity. This is not present in SD panels.

In side-by side viewing, it's VERY debatable that any resolution difference or benefit to the alis panels is visible, yet its very clear to see the clarity difference between them in favour of SD panels.

Numbers dont mean much when the tech is faulted.

[Peter D]

Hi JB,

I agree with you. But there is a difference between a SD signal and a SD display.

As you say, in Australia standard definition broadcasting is 576i, 720 pixels across by 576 rows of pixels.

But does not mean that a set has be able to display all 576 lines natively to be called a SD set.

A 852 x 480 set is definitely SD but infortunately is not capable of displaying the full SD signal.

It is also true that there are currently no Plasmas that display the maximum HD signal (1080 x 1920). This is a physical limitation of plasma technology. Next year we will see 72" sets with this capability.

[John_Barber]

Hi Peter

<< A 852 x 480 set is definitely SD but infortunately is not capable of displaying the full SD signal.>>

Well yep, you can put it like that, but my main point here in saying these units are not SD is that they are substandard SD in terms of vertical resolution. Now I do not have an issue with people using these plasmas if they are happy with them, but what I am disappointed about is that we are being flogged inferior resolution displays made for the NTSC standard definition market (where they are capable of displaying full resolution NTSC) which are being touted as HD ready, which confuses many punters into thinking they are an HD display.

<< It is also true that there are currently no Plasmas that display the maximum HD signal (1080 x 1920). This is a physical limitation of plasma technology. Next year we will see 72" sets with this capability.>>

Yeah I will look forward to that, but I don't think I will be able to afford one.

I did see some bloody huge plasmas at a work thing a couple of years ago and they were impressive size wise, and the quality looked good but they would not have been HD, and I couldn't find out the resolution (this was in the USA).

I dunno which way to go myself. I am tempted by a 1280x720 display but this is an inbetween compromise which is wasted on SD, and does not fully do justice to a 1080 signal.

I have been looking at the new Sony CRT fine pitch tube which I am led to believe is native 1080, but Dick Smith Powerhouse insists on playing a DBA DVD demo which is SD of course and the pictures look crappy as the monitor shows up all the artifacting on the SD signal. Some of these retailers insist on connecting HD STBs to RPs and plasmas which are not native 1080, and the monitors which are native HD are fed lower resolution signals so it is hard to see the real thing. Anyway at work I have a native 1080 monitor fed from a native 1080 source, now that looks really crisp, the trouble is the display is only 19" (and the monitor costs about $30,000)!

Cheers

JB

[Peter D]

I have difficulty in describing a CRT as doing "native 1080", as no matter what a CRT is an analogue device. While there are discrete pixels in the form of phosphors, the electron beam does not know exactly where the phosphors are - it just fires at the tube. The best way of putting it that I have seen is to describe the CRT as "being able to resolve 1080".

I have seen the new Sony and Panasonics in several stores and I'm not overly impressed. [And they did appear to be correctly set up apart from one store, where it was easy to tell that it was not]

But even if I was impressed, CRT does nothing for me. The sets are too bulky, and are simply not large enough. I'm after 100 - 125 cm widescreen.

[mich1503559502]

at our shop we've got the new sony HD set running off a dg-tec box (why - cos we've got plenty of the damn things we're too embarressed to sell lying around, and cos we use the toshiba STBs for all the good TVs) and it seems to have interference, similar to that which is given off by the SD thomson box. has anyone else seen this on the new sony?

also.. so far as CRT goes for displaying HD, i dont think there is one on the market that does a good job because of the scan flicker.

IMO leave CRTs for SD and get a plasma for HD.

[John_Barber]

<< I have difficulty in describing a CRT as doing "native 1080", as no matter what a CRT is an analogue device...... The best way of putting it that I have seen is to describe the CRT as "being able to resolve 1080".

>>

Peter, yes I guess I should have used the term that the display is capable of resolving 1080 rather than native 1080. I was using the "native" term as it is accepted as meaning the display (plasma or projector) is capable of displaying the input resolution exactly.

I agree on the size of the set, it is impractical to get a decent sized image on a CRT, even the 86 cm units weigh 80 or so kilos. There's a lotta glass in there, and the thickness/weight goes up exponentially (sort of) as the screen size increases to stop the tube imploding.

I am still not impressed with the plasmas, the artifacting on detail and edges is not that good, partly due to the frame store inside the set, and part probably due to the compression (which would also show up on a CRT, I have seen similar on Loewe 16:9 SD CRT sets). Some of the plasmas also appear to show "stepping" on gradient areas of shading, like they can only resolve 5 or 6 bits per pixel. Mind you I like the plasma concept, but I think I will be hanging out for a while until there is a native 1080 unit at an affordable price!

Cheers

JB

[robertr]

Mich,

I must say I think that you have been hanging around Display Devices too long, I think that you need a break.

Now you are inferring that the Sony HD CRT is inferior to Plasma worse still you have a DGTEC2000A attached to the unit.

Mate to honest with you I am yet to see a plasma showing the loop that does not display horrible artifacts.

At least the Sony CRT does a commendable job with the Demo Loop.

Please explain the noble Display Device that earns the hookup to the Toshiba STB.

A puzzling post by you.

[mich1503559502]

Its not that the CRT isn't clear, it is extremely sharp and shows excellent contrast, but at normal viewing distance what hits you when you compare them is not nearly as much the artifacting (without binoculars anyway) on a plasma or LCD, but the flicker on any HD CRT.