or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › 2012 Panasonic Plasmas???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2012 Panasonic Plasmas??? - Page 6

post #151 of 601
I would have to imagine the Canadian lineup would be released alongside the US sometime around spring, I could be wrong though. Personally, I think the ST50 will be worth the wait, it's looking to be the best "bang for your buck" again this year; more so than the 2011 model. Considering they redesigned the entire panel from the ground up, including the speakers, I don't see why you wouldn't wait. If they no longer have any issues of phosphor lag (or the type of phosphor lag in the act of moving my eyes across the screen, which I talked about in an earlier post on this thread), or input lag, than I'm buying an ST50. It'll be a nice upgrade from my standard definition Sony KV-32FV300.
post #152 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by VFR View Post

http://panasonic.net/vision/amp/




Panasonic's third domestic plant is Amagasaki 1 (also known as P3).

Ibaraki 1=P1 The first domestic plant...Plasma 1????
Ibaraki 2=P2 The second domestic plant
Amagasaki 1=P3 The third domestic plant
Amagasaki 2=P4
Amagasaki 3=P5

http://www.panasonic.com.pa/microsit...x.html#topic03

This adds a little to the confusion as it describes Amagasaki 1 as:



When in fact its the first plant in Amagasaki and the third plant overall.

I believe Reuters reported this error and others perpetuated it.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/techno...79I8A420111020

http://www.avforums.com/forums/15637287-post1.html

Good Post!

There has been a lot of confusion about this.
post #153 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by korn646 View Post

Hi Michael2000, did you notice any flicker at all with the new sets? I seem to see a noticeable amount of flicker with the 2011 models.

Thanks!

Is the flickering you are referring to, the dithering that plasmas have? If so, I could not see it in their displays and I looked pretty hard, although my eyes seem to have a bit of their own dithering, so I am probably not the best judge. They were able to reduce dithering with the new faster phosphors.

Michael
post #154 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Thanks, was this the only perceptible area it failed in comparison? I can imagine that would stick out sorely to a videophile.

Yes, from what I saw. Nothing else stood out as a glaring defect, although all the material shown was in 3D.

Michael
post #155 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmarceau View Post

I would have asked if it's as black as that tv from 2008.

I believe your assessment, but the video feed on the Panasonics looked awful. The Samsung plasmas, in comparision on video feeds, looked gorgeous. How do think the Samsungs fared against Panny this year on the show floor?

I'm still surprised that they keep making all these technological advancements and yet they can't find a way to get the panels truly black within the amount of money they have to work with?!?!?!?

Also, you're the first person to report a color shift on the LG OLED- I'm surprised no one else has brought this up.

A really good A-B comparison is impossible at CES, with the variety of material shown and the distance between booths, so my analysis of picture quality is certainly subjective. Samsung's booth was a mob scene, so I didn't spend a lot of time there, so Samsung could have had something comparable. I looked at a lot of LCDs, and didn't see anything that came close to the Panasonic Plasmas. I was expecting more out of the LCDs this year. The Elites were very good, but I still saw some black level gimmickry and 3D ghosting going on.

I don't know why no one else brought up the LG OLED color shift issue. It wasn't hard to spot, since they had three sets in a row, and the two on each end were both showing the same material. There was a small brightness reduction, too. I looked for it, because I wanted to see how it compared to LCD. I think sometimes people get a little too wowed by the technology, and forget to keep an eye out for the defects.

Michael
post #156 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ma2T View Post

I think all but one is a 3D TV, it's just as you say, they aren't really pluggin it as the main feature this year, and just as a minor feature now.

I think 3D is moving towards being standard equipment. While 3D is fairly popular, I don't think it drove sales like the manufacturers thought it would. Now they are pushing "smart TV" features.

Panasonic probably sees more of a videophile market with their plasmss, so they still emphasized picture quality improvements.

Michael
post #157 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael2000 View Post

I don't know why no one else brought up the LG OLED color shift issue. It wasn't hard to spot....

Amazing how "amateurs" like you and me see something off and yet when some "professional" shill whose publication will depend on ads from LG calls it the best thing ever, they are listened to more seriously at AVS.

Just amazing...

Back to the Panasonics, one thing that still seems to be lacking is a truly jet-black substrate. I guess the materials don't allow for it, but it means with any room illumination, you can kind of see the panel itself. Somehow, LCD does a better job of appearing black in these circumstances despite having higher absolute black levels in a dark room.
post #158 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael2000 View Post

Is the flickering you are referring to, the dithering that plasmas have? If so, I could not see it in their displays and I looked pretty hard, although my eyes seem to have a bit of their own dithering, so I am probably not the best judge. They were able to reduce dithering with the new faster phosphors.

Michael

Good to know! Thanks!
post #159 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by VFR View Post

http://panasonic.net/vision/amp/

Panasonic's third domestic plant is Amagasaki 1 (also known as P3).

Ibaraki 1=P1 The first domestic plant...Plasma 1????
Ibaraki 2=P2 The second domestic plant
Amagasaki 1=P3 The third domestic plant
Amagasaki 2=P4
Amagasaki 3=P5

http://www.panasonic.com.pa/microsit...x.html#topic03

This adds a little to the confusion as it describes Amagasaki 1 as:



When in fact its the first plant in Amagasaki and the third plant overall.

I believe Reuters reported this error and others perpetuated it.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/techno...79I8A420111020

http://www.avforums.com/forums/15637287-post1.html

You are confused because your link refers to Apr 2011 when they presented their FY2012 plan. That plan changed 6 months later.

This is my post in another thread on 2nd Nov. You can get the words from the horse's mouth. I think P5 is amagasaki No 3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

I don't cover japanese stocks but here's more info on panny's strategy:
http://panasonic.net/ir/presentation...031_note_e.pdf

What has started to sink in for me is their plan to shut down the massive & latest P5 described here:
http://www.avforums.com/forums/14224794-post5.html

SDI and Sharp should be major beneficiary from their competitor's woes. If we recall what I said, Sharp would be like Panasonic now if they didn't make a bet on huge size.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post21156762

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Back to the Panasonics, one thing that still seems to be lacking is a truly jet-black substrate. I guess the materials don't allow for it, but it means with any room illumination, you can kind of see the panel itself. Somehow, LCD does a better job of appearing black in these circumstances despite having higher absolute black levels in a dark room.

The plasma cell and backpane cause the internal reflection. OTOH Liquid Crystal block light coming from backlight and from external. It is inevitable that plasma will always look worse than LCD in a room with light due to the tech structure

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfrey0118 View Post

The people just popping in here and assuming Panny hasn't done much from 2011 to 2012 need to read this several times.

Probably you can educate us how an improvement in subfield to 1000Hz helps in viewing experience.

FWIW I'm a kuro owner and I am cautiously optimistic about Michael2000's report on VT50. What I am not optimistic is the year after year rant on kuro-esque black. What eonibm said had been said in Panny 2010 and 2011 thread. If he said it's in VT50 I'll be keen. But since it is next year again, I'll pass.
post #160 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post



The plasma cell and backpane cause the internal reflection. OTOH Liquid Crystal block light coming from backlight and from external. It is inevitable that plasma will always look worse than LCD in a room with light due to the tech structure.

Right, well that's going to remain true in 2012. And it's too bad. Honestly, bright-room effective contrast on LCDs is already much better than plasmas. The Panasonic filters, fortunately, help a lot, but they don't work miracles.
post #161 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Amazing how "amateurs" like you and me see something off and yet when some "professional" shill whose publication will depend on ads from LG calls it the best thing ever, they are listened to more seriously at AVS.

Just amazing...

Back to the Panasonics, one thing that still seems to be lacking is a truly jet-black substrate. I guess the materials don't allow for it, but it means with any room illumination, you can kind of see the panel itself. Somehow, LCD does a better job of appearing black in these circumstances despite having higher absolute black levels in a dark room.

Rogo, I may be off on this by my analogy is this... Imagine a bright room with shades drawn on a sunny day. If we stand right in front of the drawn shade, the perception of natural light seeping through is minimized by our pupils allowing less light to pass through where as if we turn the lights in the room off, the pupils dilate making the shades inability to completely block easily perceivable. Since LCD is a transmissive technology, it acts much the same.

You may have already of thought of this, but figured I'd throw it out there anyway.
post #162 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

You are confused because your link refers to Apr 2011 when they presented their FY2012 plan. That plan changed 6 months later.

This is my post in another thread on 2nd Nov. You can get the words from the horse's mouth. I think P5 is amagasaki No 3.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post21156762


The plasma cell and backpane cause the internal reflection. OTOH Liquid Crystal block light coming from backlight and from external. It is inevitable that plasma will always look worse than LCD in a room with light due to the tech structure


Probably you can educate us how an improvement in subfield to 1000Hz helps in viewing experience.

FWIW I'm a kuro owner and I am cautiously optimistic about Michael2000's report on VT50. What I am not optimistic is the year after year rant on kuro-esque black. What eonibm said had been said in Panny 2010 and 2011 thread. If he said it's in VT50 I'll be keen. But since it is next year again, I'll pass.

Spec, one would think that increasing overall brightness (which we all know is the biggest limitation of plasma tech for reasons discussed here ad nauseam) would have a great impact on the perception of contrast in high ambient light environments, coupled with AR filters ability to reject external lighting from seeping into the panel.
post #163 of 601
post #164 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism View Post

Rogo, I may be off on this by my analogy is this... Imagine a bright room with shades drawn on a sunny day. If we stand right in front of the drawn shade, the perception of natural light seeping through is minimized by our pupils allowing less light to pass through where as if we turn the lights in the room off, the pupils dilate making the shades inability to completely block easily perceivable. Since LCD is a transmissive technology, it acts much the same.

You may have already of thought of this, but figured I'd throw it out there anyway.

I like your analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism View Post

Spec, one would think that increasing overall brightness (which we all know is the biggest limitation of plasma tech for reasons discussed here ad nauseam) would have a great impact on the perception of contrast in high ambient light environments, coupled with AR filters ability to reject external lighting from seeping into the panel.

So, it's definitely true that my 6-year-old plasma is not bright enough to create high contrast in a bright room. But it's also true that a 2011 LCD is brighter than it needs to be. That is to say, if you crank the LCD up to max, it's really ridiculous -- even in a bright room. I am curious to see how the 2012 Panasonics perform in a bright room with the latest filters and the somewhat brighter panel. Are we there yet?
post #165 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism View Post

Spec, one would think that increasing overall brightness (which we all know is the biggest limitation of plasma tech for reasons discussed here ad nauseam) would have a great impact on the perception of contrast in high ambient light environments, coupled with AR filters ability to reject external lighting from seeping into the panel.

If we assume AR tech is similar for both LCD and plasma, then the biggest determinant of why plasma looks worse under flashlight or bright rooms are 1)internal reflection and 2) luma per watt and the corresponding ABL. It's not good for marketing.

But OTOH I agree with rogo that LCD are actually too bright ie I'm not too sure if it's even a "limitation" for plasma per se. There is a reason why 100- 120cd/m2 is recommended for brightness but some LCD fans cranks to 250-400nit and you have amazing PERCEIVED contrast numbers. I don't know the exact science (and seems like no one in this forum could explain how bright is too bright) but I would think this would cause some serious damage to one's retina over a long term
post #166 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

This is my post in another thread on 2nd Nov. You can get the words from the horse's mouth. I think P5 is amagasaki No 3.

Thats what I was missing.
Thanks for posting it again.
post #167 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I like your analogy.



So, it's definitely true that my 6-year-old plasma is not bright enough to create high contrast in a bright room. But it's also true that a 2011 LCD is brighter than it needs to be. That is to say, if you crank the LCD up to max, it's really ridiculous -- even in a bright room. I am curious to see how the 2012 Panasonics perform in a bright room with the latest filters and the somewhat brighter panel. Are we there yet?

The number floating around is 50% brighter. So if my calibrated 42" ST30 puts out 31.25ftl, then it seems a calibrated ST50 may put out around 46.88ftl...I think that would be a noticeable improvement. The dimness of the 2011 line (especially the ST) definitely needed to be addressed, IMO.
post #168 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post



Probably you can educate us how an improvement in subfield to 1000Hz helps in viewing experience.

No thanks champ, I'll pass...just read the info.
post #169 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfrey0118 View Post

The number floating around is 50% brighter. So if my calibrated 42" ST30 puts out 31.25ftl, then it seems a calibrated ST50 may put out around 46.88ftl...I think that would be a noticeable improvement. The dimness of the 2011 line (especially the ST) definitely needed to be addressed, IMO.

The problem is that number was with some arbitrary amount of stuff on the screen (like 20% ABL or somesuch). It didn't look "50% brighter" to me, but again, I'll reserve judgment till there are shipping units.

Incidentally, 45+ftl calibrated should be bright enough for anyone. That's already eye-searing in the dark.
post #170 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Somehow, LCD does a better job of appearing black in these circumstances despite having higher absolute black levels in a dark room.

Color filters and polarizer. I remember a while back suggesting a high lm/w PDP with color filters. SED also employed color filters to improve amient light contrast IIRC.
post #171 of 601
How much was the VT30 when it first came out? Do you think the vt50 will follow the same price pattern when it's released?
post #172 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

If we assume AR tech is similar for both LCD and plasma, then the biggest determinant of why plasma looks worse under flashlight or bright rooms are 1)internal reflection and 2) luma per watt and the corresponding ABL. It's not good for marketing.

But OTOH I agree with rogo that LCD are actually too bright ie I'm not too sure if it's even a "limitation" for plasma per se. There is a reason why 100- 120cd/m2 is recommended for brightness but some LCD fans cranks to 250-400nit and you have amazing PERCEIVED contrast numbers. I don't know the exact science (and seems like no one in this forum could explain how bright is too bright) but I would think this would cause some serious damage to one's retina over a long term

You know, the Samsung rep mentioned this last year at the shootout, but I feel that he was using dated information as I do not see how transmissive light can pass through the layer of cells behind the initial substrate. Older plasma, from a commons sense POV had two points of reflection seeing as there were in fact three layers total, two being in front of the cells.

BTW, I have spoken to that Samsung rep before, and it seemed he had a spiel for that day specifically, as his technical aptitude behind FPD ended with what he basically said that day. I will say this though, Samsung wants to sell LCD's, plasma... not so much (Like any well ran business, they do not want to lose market share which IMO is their sole motivation in continuing with the tech)
post #173 of 601
Panny is the only one spending $ on plasma in the past 3 years. Sammy & LG are just "milking" it... their plasma fabs were more or less totally depreciated late 2010.

That is why Panny closing their new P5 rather than older and smaller P4 speaks volume on their view for this tech. Not saying plasma will disappear this decade but we have to be realistic how much R&D will be invested into this tech.
post #174 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism View Post

You know, the Samsung rep mentioned this last year at the shootout, but I feel that he was using dated information as I do not see how transmissive light can pass through the layer of cells behind the initial substrate. Older plasma, from a commons sense POV had two points of reflection seeing as there were in fact three layers total, two being in front of the cells.

LCD has color filters and polarizing layers that literally attenuate the incident light. Aside from front AR filters, light passing through the front glass of a PDP easily reflects off the barrier ribs, bus electrodes, phosphors and back of the cell. One way to improve this issue is to use black materials for cell strucutre (all manufacturers use some sort of black barrier rib coating). Unfortunately, any inclusion of black cell materials will reduce light output which PDP cannot afford to begin with.

10 lm/w or higher tech was supposed to provide the light output that would enable the use of black cell materials and a dark ND filter or color filters to give more of a LCD bright room look.

Panasonic actually has patents suggesting they want to put mirror like particles underneath the phosphors (bottom of cells) to increase light output. I would see this worsening the reflectance issue.
post #175 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigjoemeat View Post

How much was the VT30 when it first came out? Do you think the vt50 will follow the same price pattern when it's released?

?
post #176 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigjoemeat View Post

How much was the VT30 when it first came out? Do you think the vt50 will follow the same price pattern when it's released?

Just about, it will start out high and drop in price thru the year.
post #177 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

LCD has color filters and polarizing layers that literally attenuate the incident light. Aside from front AR filters, light passing through the front glass of a PDP easily reflects off the barrier ribs, bus electrodes, phosphors and back of the cell. One way to improve this issue is to use black materials for cell strucutre (all manufacturers use some sort of black barrier rib coating). Unfortunately, any inclusion of black cell materials will reduce light output which PDP cannot afford to begin with.

10 lm/w or higher tech was supposed to provide the light output that would enable the use of black cell materials and a dark ND filter or color filters to give more of a LCD bright room look.

Panasonic actually has patents suggesting they want to put mirror like particles underneath the phosphors (bottom of cells) to increase light output. I would see this worsening the reflectance issue.

Great post. I have added it to zero black research thread
post #178 of 601
Not sure if this was posted but the BOMB website is up for Panasonic >>> Click Here
post #179 of 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Plasma View Post

Not sure if this was posted but the BOMB website is up for Panasonic >>> Click Here

No reading glasses required-->

HH
post #180 of 601
Sad to read this morning from Panasonic's insider (from that other forum) he provided a 5-6 year path before plasma is discontinued - phased out

Maybe this is the reason of such small incremental changes from one generation to the other...

OLED will be taking over the market

It's like intel microprocessors, they already have it all planned for the next 15 years...

Call me fool but I wasn't happy reading that sentences...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › 2012 Panasonic Plasmas???