Hi everyone,

I am currently trying to decide between the Panasonic TH-50PX77U and the 50PZ700U. I have a company discount with Panasonic, and the price difference is about $500. I can technically afford either, but obviously would like to save the extra $500 if the extra resolution, etc aren't really worth it. I know that the contrast ratio on the 77U (10000:1) is better than the 700U(5000:1), but the 700U has the higher resolution and costs $500 more.

Picture quality is DEFINITELY the most important thing to me. If you think that the full 1080p of the 700U will make even a small difference, I will probably go for it. I will mostly be watching TV on my 1080i cable box, but occasionally HDDVD's.

Any advice? I'm torn, and need to make a decision by Friday. Thanks!

depends how close u sit to tv.....more than 8 feet away, save your money...u will really only notice the difference 7 feet and closer...

Make sure you know that only 700U allow PC input through VGA but not on 77U. So the 77U is a big no if you planning to hook up with htpc.

Hi everyone,

I am currently trying to decide between the Panasonic TH-50PX77U and the 50PZ700U. I have a company discount with Panasonic, and the price difference is about $500. I can technically afford either, but obviously would like to save the extra $500 if the extra resolution, etc aren't really worth it. I know that the contrast ratio on the 77U (10000:1) is better than the 700U(5000:1), but the 700U has the higher resolution and costs $500 more.

Picture quality is DEFINITELY the most important thing to me. If you think that the full 1080p of the 700U will make even a small difference, I will probably go for it. I will mostly be watching TV on my 1080i cable box, but occasionally HDDVD's.

Any advice? I'm torn, and need to make a decision by Friday. Thanks!
When 1080p plasmas first came out (Pioneer FHD-1) last year I had the opportunity to view it side by side with its counterpart the Pioneer Elite 768p 1140. True enough, with the D* broadcast material shown, my viewing could not see a benefit from the increased resolution from beyond about 8'. That is, the picture did not look better/sharper beyond that distance. Closer than that and I could begin to see SDE on the 768p display whereas the 1080p remained sharp.

But this distance component (or spatial resolution component or visual acuity component call it what you will) to the answer while the simple answer is not the whole story. Processing is a weak link in video and so I think it is time to fairly consider the role processing plays in the PQ we achieve. In general, the less the better. Ideally we would have source signals that were (1) high quality and (2) the same as the native resolution/rate of our displays and (3) our displays would accept these signals and display them without overscan in a 1:1 mode without further possible harmful processing.

Because 768p is not a spatial resolution broadcast or disk recording standard, these displays will tend to require more processing than 1080p displays. As more and more HD content is available, this becomes increasingly true. This fact should in many cases allow for more effective processing and I believe lead generally to better PQ – even if the direct visual acuity component of the increased resolution can’t always be taken full advantage of from normal viewing positions.

Remember, concurrent with this year’s broad introduction of 1080p displays we are seeing the emergence of advanced video processing chips such as the SI Realta & Reon w/HQV as well as the Gennum/VSX making inroads into products. This trend will continue over the next few years yielding better signals than we can now imagine. I believe that 1080p displays accepting 1080p/24/60 signals will be better able to display the benefits of these high quality signals. It is primarily for this reason that I am now for the first time seriously considering 1080p displays.

Cheers, :)

Gary

Maybe a stupid question, but what is D* broadcast?

So are you saying that, even if the input is only 1080i, I will see more SDE on the 1080i screen vs. the 1080p screen?

Thanks again!

Maybe a stupid question, but what is D* broadcast? D* is short for DirecTV. E* is short for Dish/Echostar. Both these companies compress their digital signal excessively and is known as the worst source for broadcast television (compared to cable or OTA or BUD).

So are you saying that, even if the input is only 1080i, I will see more SDE on the 1080i screen vs. the 1080p screen?Yup.

1. To really see the differences in these sets you need to see them with Live HD Sports1080i OTA and/or BluRay 1080. The 700 will make a better picture, (sharper, much more picture details etc). But the further you sit back from the set, the less benefit that will be (till you get so far back you can’t see the difference).
2. Contrast Ratio IMHO it is not an issue with these sets, both are great (among the best out there). Just because the 1080p set is so called “half” the CR of the 77 model, in the real world it has virtually no effect. Basically the 1080p is able to render more black details then the 77 set, and that alone makes it a better then CR
3. The Coatings – Now this is a BIG issue, and this may be the most important to you. If you have a lot of lights and windows, the 77 may be the way to go. If you have lights and windows that you can control the 700 is the way to go. The 77 will lose some detail and clarity due to it very aggressive coating, but it really kills the glare. The 700 does have a coating that works good, but it still lets most of the “clarity” and “detail” of the picture come through.

When 1080p plasmas first came out (Pioneer FHD-1) last year I had the opportunity to view it side by side with its counterpart the Pioneer Elite 768p 1140. True enough, with the D* broadcast material shown, my viewing could not see a benefit from the increased resolution from beyond about 8'. That is, the picture did not look better/sharper beyond that distance. Closer than that and I could begin to see SDE on the 768p display whereas the 1080p remained sharp.

But this distance component (or spatial resolution component or visual acuity component call it what you will) to the answer while the simple answer is not the whole story. Processing is a weak link in video and so I think it is time to fairly consider the role processing plays in the PQ we achieve. In general, the less the better. Ideally we would have source signals that were (1) high quality and (2) the same as the native resolution/rate of our displays and (3) our displays would accept these signals and display them without overscan in a 1:1 mode without further possible harmful processing.

Because 768p is not a spatial resolution broadcast or disk recording standard, these displays will tend to require more processing than 1080p displays. As more and more HD content is available, this becomes increasingly true. This fact should in many cases allow for more effective processing and I believe lead generally to better PQ – even if the direct visual acuity component of the increased resolution can’t always be taken full advantage of from normal viewing positions.

Remember, concurrent with this year’s broad introduction of 1080p displays we are seeing the emergence of advanced video processing chips such as the SI Realta & Reon w/HQV as well as the Gennum/VSX making inroads into products. This trend will continue over the next few years yielding better signals than we can now imagine. I believe that 1080p displays accepting 1080p/24/60 signals will be better able to display the benefits of these high quality signals. It is primarily for this reason that I am now for the first time seriously considering 1080p displays.

Cheers, :)

Gary
Very informative post Gary, thanks! I too am considering 1080p even though I'm outside the optimum range.

Make sure you know that only 700U allow PC input through VGA but not on 77U. So the 77U is a big no if you planning to hook up with htpc.

I connect my PC using a HDMI to DVI cable, I don't think any new decent video card has a vga connector anymore. Just don't forget to set your resolution to 1920X1080 and if your doing a dual monitor setup make sure your plasma is set to primary.

I connect my PC using a HDMI to DVI cable, I don't think any new decent video card has a vga connector anymore. Just don't forget to set your resolution to 1920X1080 and if your doing a dual monitor setup make sure your plasma is set to primary.

Yes, a lot of video card today has dual dvi output but they usually come with a dvi-vga adaptor. And 1920x1080 will make the font too small to read for a tv unless you have a 100+ or sitting very close. And I found that most of the tv if they have both VGA & hdmi input, the 1:1 mapping from VGA input can give a way more better picture than hdmi input, let's not mention the overscan problem & a lot of handshaking problem with the hdmi.

1. To really see the differences in these sets you need to see them with Live HD Sports1080i OTA and/or BluRay 1080. The 700 will make a better picture, (sharper, much more picture details etc). But the further you sit back from the set, the less benefit that will be (till you get so far back you can’t see the difference).
2. Contrast Ratio IMHO it is not an issue with these sets, both are great (among the best out there). Just because the 1080p set is so called “half” the CR of the 77 model, in the real world it has virtually no effect. Basically the 1080p is able to render more black details then the 77 set, and that alone makes it a better then CR
3. The Coatings – Now this is a BIG issue, and this may be the most important to you. If you have a lot of lights and windows, the 77 may be the way to go. If you have lights and windows that you can control the 700 is the way to go. The 77 will lose some detail and clarity due to it very aggressive coating, but it really kills the glare. The 700 does have a coating that works good, but it still lets most of the “clarity” and “detail” of the picture come through.

Re: paragraph 3.

Sometime in the distant past I purchased a couple of 2'X3' poster prints with geometric designs. When I asked that they be framed with non-glare glass the person doing the work suggested that I should use standard glass because the pictures (print) would lose depth (sort of a 3D effect) if non-glare was used. And you know that person was 100% correct! With non-glare glass (as was demonstrated to me) the prints appeared 'flat' and did not project well to the viewer when hung on a wall.

So my question is: Do you think the same principle (and results) apply to the plasma? In other words could 'depth and 3D effect' be added to "clarity" and "detail"as
concessions that must be made when buying a coated display?

-GeorgeM