or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Plasmas disappearing. Should this (aging 27" CRT) viewer get a 42" or 43" 720p soon? Pls comment.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Plasmas disappearing. Should this (aging 27" CRT) viewer get a 42" or 43" 720p soon? Pls comment. - Page 2

post #31 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post


Yes, you would and most certainly do.  You are mistakingly taking the term "pixels" to mean only the rectangular (in the case of the 4500) RGB plasma cells of the screen.  The term "pixel" actually means picture element and can consist of literally anything making up the composition of a given picture.  When speaking of being able to see pixels in 240p and 480p games from 5 feet away, regardless if your display is 720p, 1080p, or even 2160p in the case of 4K displays, Im speaking of the pixels drawn by the input device (in this case, an older video game system).  Regardless of upscaling, a pixel of a 320x240 image is exactly 4 times larger than a pixel of a 640x480 image, which is exactly 3 times larger than a pixel of a 1280x720 image and it is of this type of pixel I that am describing.

When the set upscales a very low res image, it lights multiple plasma cells to make up a single pixel of the source image.  In the case of a 240p game system like the N64, the pixels drawn and sent by the N64 to the set are almost 16 times larger than the plasma cells of the 720p screen (not exactly though, because the screen is 1024x768).  You can most certainly see these pixels regardless of the resolution of your set.  They actually are even more pronounced on higher res displays.  

Interesting discussion! I also play a lot of classic consoles and for display discussion, the scaling element interests me the most. You're right. If we're to blow up a 320x240 image to a 1080p display, we quadrapple the pixels to 1280x960 resolutions with a few black bars on all sides to spare. As you said, this would blow up a pixel to be 16 pixels, (4x4) making a pixel painfully obvious to see. This may not be as problematic if we're to only dealing with horizontal or vertical lines, but if we're talking about diagonals, it would have severe stairstepping that's not present on original source, and this is why so many classic games look crap when played on a modern HDTV. To make things worse, the actual scaling procedure from majority of TVs does not use line doubling much, so the 1280x960 resolution example I gave doesn't even apply. it will fill whole 1080 vertical resolution and now we won't even get 1:1 scaling. One way to mitigrate this is to use 1:1 pixel matching, but this is only useful for 720p Xbox 360/PS3 games. 240p games will look like a postage stamp on a 1080p display! Other method is to use interpolation which majority of TVs do use, but at the expense of making picture softer because now we're calculating a intermediate pixel between two original pixels and this will go on for 3 more times for 1080p displays. Some interpolations are better than others and those offered by PC emulators (2xSAI etc..) but even those are not perfect. (SNES would work better with this than Sega Genesis for example because of more onscreen colors ready to be used for interpolation)

It's very easy to see how scaling is destroying PQ on my Sony Trinitron BVM. This display accepts both 240p and 480i, and no, they are not the same. 240p games will leave out scanlines while 480i games will actually show those extra lines. Problem is, when a game that originally had 240p resolution is upconverted to 480i by game publishers to minimize problems when running on HDTVs, (I've tested this with my Silicon Ops video processors as well. 240p games gives heavy flickers) it will look like linedoubled garbage when running on 480i instead of 240p. (I call this effect "The emulator smell" btw because it does reek feeling of playing on emulators lol) 480p Dreamcast SNK fighters now will make full use of 480i resolutions on my BVM yet they're actually LESS sharp because of interpolation involved. (BTW, My BVM is awesome on interlace signals. I was shocked the detail loss caused by interlacing is actually minimal. They don't actually look too different from my other progressive scan enabled Sony CRT, the FW900) So, in a nutshell, a 2D game that's meant to be 240p that is blown to 480p will lack the crisp sharpless, will have more dull color, have more jaggies. If I were to feed Guilty Gear X on my BVM, it will still have problems associate with interlacing, but at least there won't be any more scaling problems because GGX has true 640x480 resolution. (24hz games like Street Fighter 3 is another story. It's higher than 240p, but lower than 480p) Right now, the biggest 2D gaming casualty on my Panasonic 1080p plasma is King of Fighters XII and XIII because it acually mixes in TWO 2D resolutions in one. Charater sprites are 480p, yet the background is 720, making it impossible to pixel match on any displays.
post #32 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasondjulian View Post
 

Before I bought my S60.. I looked at the 51F4500 and F5300.. I sit 9-11 feet away... and when i stood 6-7 feet from both displays.. I could tell a difference.. not a huge one.. but it was there and noticeable.. the F5300 at 1080p was a cleaner, sharper image.  If I sat 10-12 feet from the tv, ok.. 720p would be alright.. but to MY eyes and MY sitting distances (which are quite average and not excessive one way or the other) the 720p panel wasnt going to make me happy. 

 

Take that for whats worth.. and I should note that I am 31 with rather poor eyesight, corrective lenses are pretty thick. With my glasses I am close to 20/20.

 

I'd recommend you go and find a store with both those models, stand at your viewing distance and see which you prefer.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

i agree, that in many cases 720p is good enough, and extra pixels are only that, extra.

but i also realize that my viewing tastes and habits change, and while i was totally happy with a 720p 46" RPTV 10yrs ago, a 720p 46" plasma or LCD in my room now looks tiny. haven't changed viewing distance or rooms, just changed personal preference. also, i watch a lot more 2.35:1 movies than 16:9 content now.

what spending 150bux extra does, is give you more room to grow. 1080p allows you the option to sit closer if you want a more immersive screen.

if you're buying a tv to use now and will upgrade soon, save the money. if you're buying a tv you intend to use for many years to come and you're not sure of where(might move, or move the tv to a different room), then spend the extra money now and save hundreds later by not upgrading as often.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post


I recently replaced my 2010 720p 46'' Panasonic plasma with a 50'' 1080p S60 in my small media room. Both TV's were in the exact same location. I sit 8 feet from the screen and I could see the pixels on the older set. However, depending on the quality of the content, it would be barely noticeable or very distracting. In either case, the S60's smaller pixels produce a much smoother picture, and it is one of reasons why I upgraded.


Ian

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post
 

 

 

I have the PN51F4500 and love it.  We have it in our bedroom and watch from about 9 to 10 feet away.  Pixels are not  visible from that point and the set looks great.  I play video games on it from about 4-5 feet away and while you can see pixels, it looks spectacular for 240p and 480p content with which you would see pixels anyway on a

1080p set.  720p on up to 1080p (downscaled) looks even better.

 

That said-- there is one major difference other than resolution between the 4500 and 5300.  The 5300 is a series 5000 panel, which supposedly has a 100,000 hour

panel life as compared to 60,000 for the 4000 series.  I read this from a Samsung site somewhere, but now can no longer find it.  So while its very unlikely you'll ever

watch either set for more than even 40,000 hours before you upgrade or die (lol) perhaps the 100,000 hour span can be taken to mean its generally a bit better built/less

likely to have an issue?

 

I would recommend either set, and if you are even slightly on the fence get the 5300, so you won't have any regrets later.  I do love my 4500 but its a bedroom TV.  If I were to purchase another for my living room, it would be the 5300, if for nothing else to play around with it and compare the two!!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post


Not the case with me. I also have DTV and my S60 performs better then my 720p Panny in almost every category. I have found that using HDMI and setting my DVR to native provides the best picture quality.


Ian

 

I hate to admit it, but I see where you guys are coming from. You may have seen in another post that my wife and I drove up to Best Buy this afternoon (the closest to us is about 35 miles away). We were able to compare the 51F4500 and the 51F5300. With measuring tape in hand, I positioned us about the distance we sit from the television in our living room. Admittedly, the two TVs were hooked up to a 1080p feed, according to the entertainment manager. At 8'-9' the 1080p F5300 was sharper to my aging eyes. Were we to be watching only SD, we may have bought the F4500. However, we plan to keep this TV for several years and didn't want to restrict ourselves to 720p, so we plan to get the F5300.

 

We didn't buy it today, though. I'm going to keep my eye on Best Buy sales for a few weeks and see if we can save some money on it. Besides, it wouldn't fit in our Nissan Murano anyway and delivery will be free.

post #33 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post


Yes, you would and most certainly do.  You are mistakingly taking the term "pixels" to mean only the rectangular (in the case of the 4500) RGB plasma cells of the screen.  The term "pixel" actually means picture element and can consist of literally anything making up the composition of a given picture.  When speaking of being able to see pixels in 240p and 480p games from 5 feet away, regardless if your display is 720p, 1080p, or even 2160p in the case of 4K displays, Im speaking of the pixels drawn by the input device (in this case, an older video game system).  Regardless of upscaling, a pixel of a 320x240 image is exactly 4 times larger than a pixel of a 640x480 image, which in turn has pixels exactly 1.5 times larger than a pixel of a 1280x720 image (960x720 in 4:3) and it is of this type of pixel I that am describing.

When the set upscales a very low res image, it lights multiple plasma cells to make up a single pixel of the source image.  In the case of a 240p game system like the N64, the pixels drawn and sent by the N64 to the set are almost 9 times larger than the plasma cells of the 720p screen (not exactly though, because the screen is 1024x768).  You can most certainly see these pixels regardless of the resolution of your set.  They actually are even more pronounced on higher res displays.  

*Edit - changed some of the figures relating to the pixel sizes, as I didnt account for the 4:3 to 16:9 screen ratio change when comparing 320x240 and 640x480 to 1280x720.  960x720 would be the 4:3 equivalent to 720p.

we seem to be stuck on wording. whatever you want to call it, a 1080p tv will display content on every single one of it's 'RGB pixels' and because it has more of those, with less space between them, even a lower resolution source will have less noticeable pixel structure on the display. I definitely noticed my SD sources looking 'smoother' on 1080p displays than 720p ones.

I did not mean to say(and I don't believe I did) that a low resolution source would have more detail, or look sharper in any way on a 1080p display. Only that the pixel structure of the display would not become more or less noticeable based on the source. and that that pixel structure is less noticeable on a 1080p display than a 720p one

I get what you are saying about the larger 'image pixel' of a 240p source being displayed on ~9 'display pixels', and yes they would be visible on any display. I still think that adding pixel structure from the display on top of that would still make it worse though. I mean looking at a low resolution image is bad enough, do you want to do it through a screen door too? tongue.gif
post #34 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

Interesting discussion! I also play a lot of classic consoles and for display discussion, the scaling element interests me the most. You're right. If we're to blow up a 320x240 image to a 1080p display, we quadrapple the pixels to 1280x960 resolutions with a few black bars on all sides to spare. As you said, this would blow up a pixel to be 16 pixels, (4x4) making a pixel painfully obvious to see. This may not be as problematic if we're to only dealing with horizontal or vertical lines, but if we're talking about diagonals, it would have severe stairstepping that's not present on original source, and this is why so many classic games look crap when played on a modern HDTV. To make things worse, the actual scaling procedure from majority of TVs does not use line doubling much, so the 1280x960 resolution example I gave doesn't even apply. it will fill whole 1080 vertical resolution and now we won't even get 1:1 scaling. One way to mitigrate this is to use 1:1 pixel matching, but this is only useful for 720p Xbox 360/PS3 games. 240p games will look like a postage stamp on a 1080p display! Other method is to use interpolation which majority of TVs do use, but at the expense of making picture softer because now we're calculating a intermediate pixel between two original pixels and this will go on for 3 more times for 1080p displays. Some interpolations are better than others and those offered by PC emulators (2xSAI etc..) but even those are not perfect. (SNES would work better with this than Sega Genesis for example because of more onscreen colors ready to be used for interpolation)

It's very easy to see how scaling is destroying PQ on my Sony Trinitron BVM. This display accepts both 240p and 480i, and no, they are not the same. 240p games will leave out scanlines while 480i games will actually show those extra lines. Problem is, when a game that originally had 240p resolution is upconverted to 480i by game publishers to minimize problems when running on HDTVs, (I've tested this with my Silicon Ops video processors as well. 240p games gives heavy flickers) it will look like linedoubled garbage when running on 480i instead of 240p. (I call this effect "The emulator smell" btw because it does reek feeling of playing on emulators lol) 480p Dreamcast SNK fighters now will make full use of 480i resolutions on my BVM yet they're actually LESS sharp because of interpolation involved. (BTW, My BVM is awesome on interlace signals. I was shocked the detail loss caused by interlacing is actually minimal. They don't actually look too different from my other progressive scan enabled Sony CRT, the FW900) So, in a nutshell, a 2D game that's meant to be 240p that is blown to 480p will lack the crisp sharpless, will have more dull color, have more jaggies. If I were to feed Guilty Gear X on my BVM, it will still have problems associate with interlacing, but at least there won't be any more scaling problems because GGX has true 640x480 resolution. (24hz games like Street Fighter 3 is another story. It's higher than 240p, but lower than 480p) Right now, the biggest 2D gaming casualty on my Panasonic 1080p plasma is King of Fighters XII and XIII because it acually mixes in TWO 2D resolutions in one. Charater sprites are 480p, yet the background is 720, making it impossible to pixel match on any displays.

while I agree, scaling is usually not a good thing, I don't think a 720/1080p display is 'ruining' the picture quality of the old consoles. if anything it's the fact you're now looking at it blown up on a 60inch display instead of a 19inch one that is making the pixels so obvious. I run some emulators on an old xbox and I don't think any of those games look terrible on the 40inch tv in my bedroom(which is 1080p). at least not any worse than I remember them being the first time around
post #35 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadus View Post
 

I hate to admit it, but I see where you guys are coming from. You may have seen in another post that my wife and I drove up to Best Buy this afternoon (the closest to us is about 35 miles away). We were able to compare the 51F4500 and the 51F5300. With measuring tape in hand, I positioned us about the distance we sit from the television in our living room. Admittedly, the two TVs were hooked up to a 1080p feed, according to the entertainment manager. At 8'-9' the 1080p F5300 was sharper to my aging eyes. Were we to be watching only SD, we may have bought the F4500. However, we plan to keep this TV for several years and didn't want to restrict ourselves to 720p, so we plan to get the F5300.

 

We didn't buy it today, though. I'm going to keep my eye on Best Buy sales for a few weeks and see if we can save some money on it. Besides, it wouldn't fit in our Nissan Murano anyway and delivery will be free.

 

I'm in a similar boat to the OP and others here. My primary TV for the last 11+ years has been a 34" 1080i CRT TV. And I've tried a couple of LCDs and plasmas out over the years, but decided to stick with the CRT because the blacks, color, and motion were usually better on it. (The LCDs and plasmas beat the CRT hands down in terms of size, clarity, resolution and geometry though.)


I just finished up a side-by-side comparison of the 2013 Panny 50S60 and Sammy 51F5300 1080p models though, and I'm fairly impressed by how far the tech has advanced on these "lower-end" models. Both were open-box items btw, that I picked up at an extreme discount.


There are still some areas of weakness on them. Both displays have noticeable dithering in their shadow detail (the appearance of which can be mitigated somewhat by using adequate room lighting, and not sitting too close). The Sammy doesn't have quite as impressive blacks as the Panny. And the Panny doesn't have quite as "crisp" motion to my eyes as the Sammy. But they both produce pretty impressive images.


I think I'd like to see reviews of the new 2014 Samsung displays though before making my decision. The main reason I started shopping for a new TV now is because the Panasonic displays were disappearing, otherwise I probably would've waited a bit longer.


The Panasonics seem to be better built and designed to me than the Sammies, but I think I actually like the picture better on the Samsung (except for the issues noted above). So I'm content to wait a bit longer, even if it means that the Pannies will no longer be available.


It's going to be hard to let the Sammy go though, esp. at the price I paid for it. I didn't really get a chance to look at any broadcast content on it, but all the Blu-rays and most DVDs I've watched on it look simply fantastic. :(


Edited by ADU - 2/9/14 at 4:25pm
post #36 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post


we seem to be stuck on wording. whatever you want to call it, a 1080p tv will display content on every single one of it's 'RGB pixels' and because it has more of those, with less space between them, even a lower resolution source will have less noticeable pixel structure on the display. I definitely noticed my SD sources looking 'smoother' on 1080p displays than 720p ones.

I did not mean to say(and I don't believe I did) that a low resolution source would have more detail, or look sharper in any way on a 1080p display. Only that the pixel structure of the display would not become more or less noticeable based on the source. and that that pixel structure is less noticeable on a 1080p display than a 720p one

I get what you are saying about the larger 'image pixel' of a 240p source being displayed on ~9 'display pixels', and yes they would be visible on any display. I still think that adding pixel structure from the display on top of that would still make it worse though. I mean looking at a low resolution image is bad enough, do you want to do it through a screen door too? tongue.gif

 

 

The thing about 1080p displays vs. 720p displays with 240p sources is that,  on all the sets I have compared, the edges of the 240p image pixels are much sharper and thus harsher looking on 1080p displays, while the on the 720p display the edges are a bit softer, more interpolated looking.  This look more closely matches the original look of the games when played on an SD CRT.  This is why I went with the 4500 in the first place.  PS1 and N64 polygonal games look especially ugly on 1080p displays due to the increased edge sharpness/ staircase effect. 

 

As far as 480p content is concerned,  the 4500 has the best 480p output I have ever seen.  I have done a lot of research and comparisons on a lot of TVs, and it is the hands down winner.  I have seen Wii and Gamecube 480p over component on several 1080p sets (both LED and plasma), and the 4500 smacks them all down, looking better in fact than even my previous 2 native 480p CRT sets.  Wii 480p on 1080p sets, especially LCD/LED, looks very blurry/extremely over interpolated.  It wasnt nearly as bad on a 1080p plasma, but still not as good as the 4500.  Not exactly sure why this is, Im guessing its just due to the way the upscaling is handled.  Perhaps the 1024x768 resolution is better suited to upscale 480p than 1920x1080?

post #37 of 78
A bottom barrel plasma would be a huge improvement, I've seen brand new 40-something inch 720p plasmas for under $400 on sale. That's going to be a massive improvement to the viewing experience over a 27 inch CRT.

I honestly don't know how you held out this long. I was a fan of CRT, but there's so much more to a viewing experience than black levels, the advantages of CRT started getting left in the dust about 15 years ago. I would take even a budget "new" LCD with a 16:9 screen over a 4:3 CRT tube.

I personally wouldn't fool with going used unless you have a friend/relative that's unloading a plasma. They're simply too cheap now brand new and usually when people sell them, they want too much.
post #38 of 78
Agreed, grab a Samsung before they're gone. Also, skip the future headaches and avoid Panasonic.
post #39 of 78
Thread Starter 

Thanks again for all the comments. I'm enjoying - and learning from - the continuation and offshoot directions of this thread. Don't be afraid to keep it going even if it seems off topic. - OP

 

How did I hold out so long? Most of my viewing is OTA. And after the DTV transition, new content looked as good or even better after being downconverted from all that extra picture info (even if cropped to full 4:3 screen again). And I've so far enjoyed TV as a watcher, not feeling a need to immerse myself as a participant.

 

Also when larger flat screens were new - admittedly a while ago by now -  I went into stores and was disgusted by the picture compared to the smoothness of analog CRTs. Often looked as if it were being projected onto, or comprised of, a mass of seething oatmeal flakes. (Don't know if it was the size, the source, the connection, the early screen tech, etc. but suspected it was mostly compression artifacts.) Made me want to wait until things got a lot better. And it sounds like they are better. - end of self-analysis, please continue…

post #40 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillonacrt View Post

Thanks again for all the comments. I'm enjoying - and learning from - the continuation and offshoot directions of this thread. Don't be afraid to keep it going even if it seems off topic. - OP

How did I hold out so long? Most of my viewing is OTA. And after the DTV transition, new content looked as good or even better after being downconverted from all that extra picture info (even if cropped to full 4:3 screen again). And I've so far enjoyed TV as a watcher, not feeling a need to immerse myself as a participant.

Also when larger flat screens were new - admittedly a while ago by now -  I went into stores and was disgusted by the picture compared to the smoothness of analog CRTs. Often looked as if it were being projected onto, or comprised of, a mass of seething oatmeal flakes. (Don't know if it was the size, the source, the connection, the early screen tech, etc. but suspected it was mostly compression artifacts.) Made me want to wait until things got a lot better. And it sounds like they are better. - end of self-analysis, please continue…

I love my plasma! Hope you enjoy yours too for long time to come. OLED will not be here soon whether we like it or not.

It looks like I'm not the only one who held out with a CRT for long before going with plasma. I too was looking for my big screen CRT replacement, and while my Panasonic S60 doesn't directly replace my lovable CRTs, it comes about 80% so that's not too bad. Even with some of the faults, playing on a 65 inch screen is something I've never experienced with my CRTs.
post #41 of 78
^OLED *is* here, just not in sizes beyond 55" nor in a flat form factor, which is about to change (soon). tongue.gif
post #42 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post


The thing about 1080p displays vs. 720p displays with 240p sources is that,  on all the sets I have compared, the edges of the 240p image pixels are much sharper and thus harsher looking on 1080p displays, while the on the 720p display the edges are a bit softer, more interpolated looking.  This look more closely matches the original look of the games when played on an SD CRT.  This is why I went with the 4500 in the first place.  PS1 and N64 polygonal games look especially ugly on 1080p displays due to the increased edge sharpness/ staircase effect. 

As far as 480p content is concerned,  the 4500 has the best 480p output I have ever seen.  I have done a lot of research and comparisons on a lot of TVs, and it is the hands down winner.  I have seen Wii and Gamecube 480p over component on several 1080p sets (both LED and plasma), and the 4500 smacks them all down, looking better in fact than even my previous 2 native 480p CRT sets.  Wii 480p on 1080p sets, especially LCD/LED, looks very blurry/extremely over interpolated.  It wasnt nearly as bad on a 1080p plasma, but still not as good as the 4500.  Not exactly sure why this is, Im guessing its just due to the way the upscaling is handled.  Perhaps the 1024x768 resolution is better suited to upscale 480p than 1920x1080?

i'll buy that. i guess with a lower resolution source, some 'blurriness' might actually be beneficial.

i would still argue that this is a preference, not a rule. I've played n64 on my 1080p plasma(my old one, Samsung b530) and i felt it looked fine/good compared to what it looked like on the hitachi CRT RPTV i replaced. i preferred the crt for other reasons(better contrast/blacks) but thought it looked clear on the plasma and not more pixelated. though at the time, i definitely wasn't trying to see a difference either
post #43 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

i'll buy that. i guess with a lower resolution source, some 'blurriness' might actually be beneficial.

i would still argue that this is a preference, not a rule. I've played n64 on my 1080p plasma(my old one, Samsung b530) and i felt it looked fine/good compared to what it looked like on the hitachi CRT RPTV i replaced. i preferred the crt for other reasons(better contrast/blacks) but thought it looked clear on the plasma and not more pixelated. though at the time, i definitely wasn't trying to see a difference either

Not always. My Sony Trinitron BVM may only be capable of 480i resolution, but it's actually much sharper than my other Trinitron FW900 dishing out resolutions of 2304x1440. Heck, you as an F8500 owner should know even at the same resolution, the F8500 appear sharper than other 1080p displays.

Anamorphic 1024x768 resolution truly is an interesting resolution. For 480p output, the final resolution is actually 768x786, but the pixel is horizontally larger by 25%, so in essense, only vertical scaling is done by 1.5X. If I could reduce scaling on such display, I would output it in 640x480, and only allowing it to vertically scale it every two pixels.
post #44 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaFan63 View Post

Agreed, grab a Samsung before they're gone. Also, skip the future headaches and avoid Panasonic.

This seriously made me LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

Not always. My Sony Trinitron BVM may only be capable of 480i resolution, but it's actually much sharper than my other Trinitron FW900 dishing out resolutions of 2304x1440. Heck, you as an F8500 owner should know even at the same resolution, the F8500 appear sharper than other 1080p displays.

Anamorphic 1024x768 resolution truly is an interesting resolution. For 480p output, the final resolution is actually 768x786, but the pixel is horizontally larger by 25%, so in essense, only vertical scaling is done by 1.5X. If I could reduce scaling on such display, I would output it in 640x480, and only allowing it to vertically scale it every two pixels.

Jesus, someone with a still running GDM-FW900. That's dedication.

On that same token. If I wasn't so mobile with my living situation, I probably would have sought out a Sony KV-34XBR960 at some point but there's just absolutely no reason to expose one's back, friends, and furniture to 200lb of TV anymore, especially for that tiny size. Still, it's probably the best a CRT ever got and it was AMAZING. Of course, that's when you're not accounting for all the damn geometry issues, discolored green and purple spotting and other myriad issues on Trinitrons over the years. I loved them best, though. Even the little 5 inch KV-25th Anniversary portable Trinitron I had at one time.

That said, the 51F4500 I owned briefly can be singled out as one of those rare cases in the electronics industry where the product performs *SO* far beyond the price you paid that you simply can not believe what you brought home. In my case, it was an open box one that turned out to actually have ZERO hours on it when I turned it on (buyer's remorse over being 720P most likely), which I paid 380.00 for. Holy crap that TV that had an amazing picture with characteristics that I have no problem putting in company with the 141FD Kuro I have now. Obviously, Samsung doesn't CARE how good (or bad) their entry level 720P offering is because everyone will simply view it as entry level. So I think you actually get a product that 5-8 years ago would have been 3 or 4 times the price easily. And of course, because of the resolution, no major reviewer is going to gush about the PQ because they know it's not going to be soughtafter like the higher res product.

Now, having said all of that, realize that I said I *had* a 51F4500. But in the end, even at my roughly 9 foot viewing distance, the pixels were certainly visible and did degrade some content for me. Enough so that I went through about 15000 other TVs before I finally settled on my lightly pre-owned 141FD and the ZT60 Panasonic I still have.

So if you take that grain of salt about the resolution, the 4500 Series Samsungs are simply amazing for what they are, and far more so to me than the F8500 that I helped my brother get for their given price-points. Price does not always equal performance in A/V, and holy hell is the 4500 Sammy ever one of those cases. Just hope you never have to deal with Samsung customer service...

As for the Panasonic 42X60, those things are piled up all over the place as far as I know. The guy who said it might be hard to find one must have been thinking about the extremely rare 42*S*60 which was only made for a VERY short time.
Edited by Playdrv4me - 2/11/14 at 12:31am
post #45 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Playdrv4me View Post

This seriously made me LOL.
Jesus, someone with a still running GDM-FW900. That's dedication.

On that same token. If I wasn't so mobile with my living situation, I probably would have sought out a Sony KV-34XBR960 at some point but there's just absolutely no reason to expose one's back, friends, and furniture to 200lb of TV anymore, especially for that tiny size. Still, it's probably the best a CRT ever got and it was AMAZING. Of course, that's when you're not accounting for all the damn geometry issues, discolored green and purple spotting and other myriad issues on Trinitrons over the years. I loved them best, though. Even the little 5 inch KV-25th Anniversary portable Trinitron I had at one time.

That said, the 51F4500 I owned briefly can be singled out as one of those rare cases in the electronics industry where the product performs *SO* far beyond the price you paid that you simply can not believe what you brought home. In my case, it was an open box one that turned out to actually have ZERO hours on it when I turned it on (buyer's remorse over being 720P most likely), which I paid 380.00 for. Holy crap that TV that had an amazing picture with characteristics that I have no problem putting in company with the 141FD Kuro I have now. Obviously, Samsung doesn't CARE how good (or bad) their entry level 720P offering is because everyone will simply view it as entry level. So I think you actually get a product that 5-8 years ago would have been 3 or 4 times the price easily. And of course, because of the resolution, no major reviewer is going to gush about the PQ because they know it's not going to be soughtafter like the higher res product.

Now, having said all of that, realize that I said I *had* a 51F4500. But in the end, even at my roughly 9 foot viewing distance, the pixels were certainly visible and did degrade some content for me. Enough so that I went through about 15000 other TVs before I finally settled on my lightly pre-owned 141FD and the ZT60 Panasonic I still have.

So if you take that grain of salt about the resolution, the 4500 Series Samsungs are simply amazing for what they are, and far more so to me than the F8500 that I helped my brother get for their given price-points. Price does not always equal performance in A/V, and holy hell is the 4500 Sammy ever one of those cases. Just hope you never have to deal with Samsung customer service...

As for the Panasonic 42X60, those things are piled up all over the place as far as I know. The guy who said it might be hard to find one must have been thinking about the extremely rare 42*S*60 which was only made for a VERY short time.

A gamer has to be busy with his gears. :P I love playing games be it old or new, consoles or PCs, and I actually started investing seriously on audio before going with big display. It WAS comical surrounding my tiny 24 inch GDM-FW900 with four floorstanding speakers and dual 15 inch subwoofers. biggrin.gif

Since games come in various resolutions, I need to get displays that caters to each resolutions, but alas, it's much harder with non-CRTs. For 240p games and PS2, I like my BVM the most, but that 20 inch size now looks tiny compared to now big ass 65 inches plasma. I was interested in the XBR960 too, but I wanted one that could also handle 240p natively without too much scaling/deinterlacing, so I'm looking at the 32 inch BVM instead. It handles resolutions from 240p/480i,480p,720p, and 1080i natively so this can take care of all non 1080p games. I'd still like to get the H7000 and hopefully the input lag is reduced by its release.

It's amazing how much love the F4500 is receiving in this forum. I mean, doesn't it have same PQ and ABL as the F5300/F5500? The prices are close too. Input lag seems higher than the F5300 too...
post #46 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

A gamer has to be busy with his gears. :P I love playing games be it old or new, consoles or PCs, and I actually started investing seriously on audio before going with big display. It WAS comical surrounding my tiny 24 inch GDM-FW900 with four floorstanding speakers and dual 15 inch subwoofers. biggrin.gif

Since games come in various resolutions, I need to get displays that caters to each resolutions, but alas, it's much harder with non-CRTs. For 240p games and PS2, I like my BVM the most, but that 20 inch size now looks tiny compared to now big ass 65 inches plasma. I was interested in the XBR960 too, but I wanted one that could also handle 240p natively without too much scaling/deinterlacing, so I'm looking at the 32 inch BVM instead. It handles resolutions from 240p/480i,480p,720p, and 1080i natively so this can take care of all non 1080p games. I'd still like to get the H7000 and hopefully the input lag is reduced by its release.

It's amazing how much love the F4500 is receiving in this forum. I mean, doesn't it have same PQ and ABL as the F5300/F5500? The prices are close too. Input lag seems higher than the F5300 too...

I know man. It sounds crazy. I don't know what the secret sauce is that went into that 4500, and hell maybe the lower resolution just made some of the other aspects seem better, I really don't know. But what I do know is that for the few who have actually taken the time to review that low end set, the results have always been positive. Right out of the box (which is an important metric for me), the color saturation, accuracy and shadow detail performance was just very very good for such a cheap TV. It really makes it comical not so much compared to higher end plasmas, but what people get out there in an LCD for the same price, and LIVE with day in and day out.

The F5300, at least in the 51 inch size is also a very good TV but I never owned that one so I can't comment on it. One caveat with the 60 inch version of the F5300 is that it uses a pentile matrix which doesn't bug some, but does bother others. I could go either way on it but again, all my other TVs this time around were Sharps, higher end Samsungs, Pioneers and Panasonics.

What's an H7000?
post #47 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Playdrv4me View Post


What's an H7000?

A 2014 refresh product of the F8500. It will forego quad core SMART TV, built in camera, voice/gesture recognition, premium bezel for $700 cheaper price. Since quad core Cortex A15 will be downgrade to dual core, I'm hoping there will be substantial decrease in input lag.

Of course, I don't mind if they keep refreshing it to continue supporting plasma. A Samsung I5000 plasma that's really plain as far as features are concerned? That would be drool worthy as input lag will probably be even less.
post #48 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

A 2014 refresh product of the F8500. It will forego quad core SMART TV, built in camera, voice/gesture recognition, premium bezel for $700 cheaper price. Since quad core Cortex A15 will be downgrade to dual core, I'm hoping there will be substantial decrease in input lag.

Of course, I don't mind if they keep refreshing it to continue supporting plasma. A Samsung I5000 plasma that's really plain as far as features are concerned? That would be drool worthy as input lag will probably be even less.

Interesting. I didn't know that had already been given a model number since the last time I was on here.
post #49 of 78
Only time resolution and clarity is a problem on mine (last yrs budget sam)is when the screen has a lot of white.it goes dim and blurry(can look down right awful).The winter Olympics with white snow shows the blur and brings out the worst in the plasma.If there is a store that has olympics playing it would be a great way too compare tvs bright screen and blur performance, although the voltage issue on mine is causing part of this problem.it may be hard too see the difference,but if I was buying a new plasma that's how I'd compare tvs.You want the snow too be bright and luminous.Not dark,dim,dull,washed out.If I was buying I would consider the one that could make the snow appear the brightest/shiniest/luminous on the warmest setting on the tv like warm2.The color temperatures have too be the same color too be able too compare tvs
Edited by Vic12345 - 2/11/14 at 4:21am
post #50 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic12345 View Post

Only time resolution and clarity is a problem on mine (last yrs budget sam)is when the screen has a lot of white.it goes dim and blurry(can look down right awful).The winter Olympics with white snow shows the blur and brings out the worst in the plasma.If there is a store that has olympics playing it would be a great way too compare tvs bright screen and blur performance, although the voltage issue on mine is causing part of this problem.it may be hard too see the difference,but if I was buying a new plasma that's how I'd compare tvs.You want the snow too be bright and luminous.Not dark,dim,dull,washed out.If I was buying I would consider the one that could make the snow appear the brightest/shiniest/luminous on the warmest setting on the tv like warm2.The color temperatures have too be the same color too be able too compare tvs

Surprised the F5500 does that. First brightness pop and now this? While my S60 also has crappy ABL, it doesn't affect motion performance at all. For some reason, my plasma gives me a very gentle picture considering how severe its ABL is. It's not uncomfortable as my previous LG plasma.

As for ABL itself, your only choice is the F8500. I've watched hockey game and snows on all the plasmas in a store showroom (D8000,E550,E6500,E8000,F8500,GT30,U50,UT50,GT50,S60,ST60,VT60) and only the F8500 survived, with ST60 and GT50 coming after.
post #51 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

Not always. My Sony Trinitron BVM may only be capable of 480i resolution, but it's actually much sharper than my other Trinitron FW900 dishing out resolutions of 2304x1440. Heck, you as an F8500 owner should know even at the same resolution, the F8500 appear sharper than other 1080p displays.

Anamorphic 1024x768 resolution truly is an interesting resolution. For 480p output, the final resolution is actually 768x786, but the pixel is horizontally larger by 25%, so in essense, only vertical scaling is done by 1.5X. If I could reduce scaling on such display, I would output it in 640x480, and only allowing it to vertically scale it every two pixels.

my discussion was just in a 'general sense' of 720p vs 1080p.

the actual quality of the upscaling or display would make a huge difference
post #52 of 78
Somewhat similar situation as the OP. Debating as to whether I want to replace a 2003 42" ED commercial Panny plasma (42PWD6UY) with a newer plasma.

I don't want anything larger than 50" and I'm positive (based on +10 years of viewing experience) that a 42/43" is fine. Most of my viewing is either OTA (even balance of 720p and 1080i sources) or streaming from Netflix or Vudu. Seating distance is +10 feet.

Given my needs, I'm not willing to pay $1500-1700 for an F8500. I wasn't even willing to pay $1000 for a Panny 50ST60. At this point in the evolution of flat screens, I'm done with paying 4-figures for a TV. In the past, perhaps. But no longer. Especially when I consider the mediocre build quality of modern consumer models compared to that of my old commercial model. (And to think that the commercial models used to represent the less expensive route to buying a flat-screen display!)

My primary reason for getting a new display is to have HDMI inputs. I still have an older BR player with component out that I can use to stream Netflix (720) or Vudu (1080) but I would much prefer to use a Roku 3 (much faster and SuperHD support for Netflix).

The debate in this thread regarding a 1080p vs. 720p display will never be resolved. It's just an updated version of the old debate between ED and HD when a 480p commercial display was $2800 and a "720p" commercial display was $3800. Whether the PQ difference justified the price difference depended on one's own priorities. Many of us were very satisfied with the lower resolution. The same will hold true with this latest debate - that is proven by the many favorable reviews of the 43 & 51F4500's.

Thus, I recommend that the OP first decide between 43 and 51". If the smaller size works, get the $399 43F4500. If the 51 is preferred, I would go ahead and get the $649 51F5300 rather than the $499 51F4500. For the prices involved, it makes sense to get the higher resolution between the 2 51" choices. But, if the 43" is large enough, the added savings could certainly be used towards a smart device or updating an AVR.

And keep an eye out for sales. The 5300 was selling for $599 recently and the 43F4500 is currently on sale for $379 at BB.

Of course, if the OP would prefer a well broken-in 480p commercial plasma that ain't ever going to suffer from burn-in, just let me know. wink.gif
post #53 of 78
Having the white balance adjusted good makes a significant difference on the plasma here.more than crts.Mine out of the box showed gradation flaws and inaccurate grayscale on warm2(usually the most accurate setting).But as the pros know plasmas can't be made 100% accurate because of the abl.

Edit I have corrected some of the out of the box settings.Only thing you can't change is the abl....KOF that's valuable information for shoppers with lots of money if you are correct. 1) f8500 followed by ST60 and GT50 if you can find where they sell them.
Edited by Vic12345 - 2/11/14 at 4:35pm
post #54 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Playdrv4me View Post


What's an H7000?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post


A 2014 refresh product of the F8500. It will forego quad core SMART TV, built in camera, voice/gesture recognition, premium bezel for $700 cheaper price. Since quad core Cortex A15 will be downgrade to dual core, I'm hoping there will be substantial decrease in input lag.

Of course, I don't mind if they keep refreshing it to continue supporting plasma. A Samsung I5000 plasma that's really plain as far as features are concerned? That would be drool worthy as input lag will probably be even less.

 

I think the H7000 is still vaporware at this point. If it does materialize though and the motion is as good as the F5300, and it is has deeper blacks, then I'd be interested in it. I suspect it'll be too many $$$ for my budget though... if/when it appears.


Edited by ADU - 2/12/14 at 6:49pm
post #55 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic12345 View Post

Having the white balance adjusted good makes a significant difference on the plasma here.more than crts.Mine out of the box showed gradation flaws and inaccurate grayscale on warm2(usually the most accurate setting).But as the pros know plasmas can't be made 100% accurate because of the abl.

Edit I have corrected some of the out of the box settings.Only thing you can't change is the abl....KOF that's valuable information for shoppers with lots of money if you are correct. 1) f8500 followed by ST60 and GT50 if you can find where they sell them.

Well, my criteria was more of "Which plasmas can actually compete against LCDs on hockey games?" and if I wanted to be strict, I would say none, as even the F8500 showed slight darkening when shown a lot of whites, but still kept it relatively well. That dark showroom may have most of all the plasmas there but they also had a few Samsung, Sharp, LG LCDs and I don't think the F8500 can go brighter than any of the LCDs.

However, if we're only speaking of plasmas, the ST60's brightness was very satisfactory. The ST50 and the GT50 weren't half bad either. For Samsung, the rumor was correct and the E series were dimmer than the D series. I personally found the U50 to be the dimmest followed by "my" S60. I thought the E series plasmas, the UT50, and the S60 were pretty close in brightness.
post #56 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post


I think the H7000 is till vaporware at this point. If it does materialize though and the motion is as good as the F5300, and it is has deeper blacks, then I'd be interested in it. I suspect it'll be too many $$$ for my budget though... if/when it appears.

...Speaking of which, I wonder which Samsung plasma had the best motion performance last year. Is it the F8500 or the F5300/F5500?
post #57 of 78

I can't speak about other plasmas, but we set up our new PN51F5300 (a fortuitous new-at-open-box price since BB couldn't find the open box model they assured me they had before I made the trip) yesterday and are delighted with it. Of course, we were coming from an old Samsung 25" CRT. We simply have the picture set on "Standard" and haven't done any tweaking, but it's a keeper for us.

post #58 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

However, if we're only speaking of plasmas, the ST60's brightness was very satisfactory. The ST50 and the GT50 weren't half bad either. For Samsung, the rumor was correct and the E series were dimmer than the D series. I personally found the U50 to be the dimmest followed by "my" S60. I thought the E series plasmas, the UT50, and the S60 were pretty close in brightness.

CNET measurements show the S60's peak brightness 2 FTL's higher then the ST60's. However, with the both sets measured at the low level setting, most reviews show the ST as brighter. Neither of these sets are very bright, but they are brighter then the 2012 models.


Ian
post #59 of 78
If you want that CRT brightness or Brightness that can get somewhat close to an LED, than look no further than the sammy 8500. This would of been my set, had it not been crippled with 53ms of input lag. damn! tongue.gif
post #60 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaveBoy View Post

If you want that CRT brightness or Brightness that can get somewhat close to an LED, than look no further than the sammy 8500. This would of been my set, had it not been crippled with 53ms of input lag. damn! tongue.gif


Not to mention the buzzing. wink.gif


Ian biggrin.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Plasmas disappearing. Should this (aging 27" CRT) viewer get a 42" or 43" 720p soon? Pls comment.