[registered5x]

Many of you talk about the Panasonic 42 but as I recall that and most others only have 852x480 pixels. In my opinion, this is hardly enough for HDTV.


Has anyone seen the Sony PFM 42B1? It supposedly has 1024x1024 pixel count. A little more money but I saw for $5800 and am considering.

http://www.sonydisplaysystems.com/di...itors/6fp.html

 

[BigHat]

Welcome to the site. You have a lot to learn and this is the place to do it. Use the search function to review the exhaustive debate on this issue.


Bottom line: Pixel count isn't everything and 1024 x 1024 in the Sony isn't what you think it is. I'd rather have the panny and that's the prevailing opinion.


Good luck !!

 

[divvy]

Due to certain unique characteristics of plasma displays, resolution is only one of many factors that determines PQ and detail, even on HD content.

This *Has* been discussed in the past but it is hard to find unless you know what key words to look for.

I would suggest you search for ALIS (the way that Fujistu halves pixel height to get this fake 1024 vertical rez - Sony uses the same glass or technology) and maybe 852X480 or 1080i

This should bring up the past topics where ppl have said that a 1080i source on the Panny 43" plasma rivals that of a 1080i capable display.


Good luck

 

[registered5x]

Thanks for the input. I know nothing about Sony and certainly not promoting. Agree that pixel count is not an abolsute measurement of perceived quality. However, for a physically mapped display unit such as LCD as presumedly plasma, it seems pretty important for displaying detail.

 

[divvy]

Yes you would think so but in practise it seems to be less important than the ability to resolve blacks correctly for example. If you want to explore this further then please search with the key words that I have suggested.

I do not have a plasma yet so have no affinity myself with any brands (but have seen most of the 42" and 50" plasmas talked about here) but I am interested in ensuring that others that do not know go away with the wrong notions.

 

[rogo]

I would add that although the Panny is not "true HDTV" at 1024 x 512 (the truer resolution of the Sony), it's not much higher res than the Panasonic at ~850 x 480.


If you watch HDTV on those two panels, there isn't a comparison as some stores around here (SF Bay Area) let you see.


If you want more pixels, today you need a bigger display. The Pioneer 43 is excited because it will bring real 768 horitzontal-line res to a smaller than 50" form factor.


It's not due until next year, though... However, for those of us waiting forever for the Panasonic, we might yet wind up with it.


Mark

 

[Pete Putman]

I check out this section of the forum periodically and see that there's a lot of misinformation being circulated about plasma.


The most important attribute with plasma is its ability to reproduce a linear, smooth grayscale without false contours, or abrupt transitions between brightness levels. Not pixel resolution.


There are several standards for resolution. In the 42" size, Matsushita (Panasonic), Fujitsu, Samsung, LG, and Hitachi have all made panels with 852x480 pixel resolution.


Fujitsu panels have also been sold by Philips, Sanyo, and Sony.


32" and 37" panels have been made in the 16x9 ratio by Samsung, Hitachi, and Panasonic. These are also 852x480 pixel designs.


Hitachi makes a 37" 1024x768 4x3 panel.


NEC manufactures 42" glass with 853x480 pixels. They have also OEM'ed to Runco, Sanyo, JVC, Marantz, RCA, and DreamVision.


NEC is currently the largest manufacturer of PDPs in Japan.


The 42" 1024x1024 panel made by Fujitsu was designed because it allowed them to manufacture an "HD" panel on the same fabrication line as their Wide VGA (852x480) glass, rather than start up a new 50" line.


The true resolution of this panel is 1024x1024 non-square pixels, but an interlaced scan is used (Alternate Lighting of Surfaces, or ALIS) to illuminate 1024x512 pixels per frame. This applies with both interlaced video and progressive-scan video/RGB signal sources.


In the 50" size, Pioneer makes panels with 1280x768 pixels. They are also the only company to use a true pixel structure for their plasma, as opposed to the traditional crossed-rib structure seen on other plasmas.


NEC, Samsung, Panasonic, and LG all manufacture 50" glass with either 1365x768 pixels or 1366x768 pixels.


The Fujitsu PDS-5002 uses Panasonic's 1366x768 pixel PDP and marries it to Fujitsu's all-new driving electronics.


The Pioneer PDP-503 is substantially the same product as the PRO-1000HD, with a few minor (and I mean minor) exceptions. It has virtually the same performamce; slightly better black levels in video mode, and the same menu features.


Sony does not manufacture any plasma panels. They had a partnership with Fujitsu/Hitachi (who co-own a PDP manufacturing facility in Japan), but have pulled their money out of that partnership.


Sony needs to get a 50" plasma to market fast. Likely OEM source? NEC or Pioneer. Sony will not build this panel themselves.


There are no 1080 (1920x1080 pixel) plasma panels in existence. Panasonic showed a prototype of one many years back at NAB, but it never came into production.


For more info on plasma and in-depth reviews, go to www.projectorexpert.com and you can find out all you need to know. Other articles and reviews on plasma are in the archives.


Pete

 

[dwp888]

As mentioned in all posts - pixel count is not everything. Compare both in person before buying. I own a Fujitsu 4221, same glass as the Sony. Blacks and grays are muddy, shadow detail is poor and pixelation in dark scenes is very evident. I have not personally seen the Panny, so I cannot say if it is better, but the vast majority of this forum has concluded that it is.

 

[divvy]

Thank you Pete.

Hopefully registered5x will come back and read this and not make the mistake of buying the Sony

 

[registered5x]

Read. I don't have much confidence in Sony any more and doubt I'd buy one their products (although their WS rear projectors look better than the typical competition).


I simply stated that 853x480 didn't seem like enough pixels for that size screen. I would have to go for 1280x768. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait a few more months or the price to come down a little more - whichever comes first.


But in conclusion, I agree pixel count is not everything.

 

[registered5x]

What's the difference in these Pioneer models?


PDP-502

PDP-503

PDP-505

http://www.adistek.com/ has the 502 and 505 for $6995. Anybody have experience with them? Has anyone seen these at this price anywhere lese?

 

[divvy]

502 and 505 are previous gen Pioneer 50 inchers. 502 was industrial/commercial version of 505 which was consumer version. 503 is industrial/commercial version of PRO1000HD. 503/1000 by all accounts are substantially better than 502/505.


I found this thread that seems to answer your lingering doubts:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&highlight=505


You don't have to believe ppl like RetinalBurnout but it seems he did his research.

BigRed seems to have the same train of thought as you and I hope Pete Putnam's post makes it clear that even Big Reds arguments did not explain why a certain plasma would have a better PQ than another based on pixel count.


I would not go for the 502/505 and would settle on a Panny 42" for less money having seen the 505 and the last 2 version of the Panny.

If you really want the size and comfort zone of knowing you've got 1280X768 (edit: and do not want to spend over 10k) then I believe the 502/505 were the best 50 inchers before the latest Panny/Fujitsu/Pioneer 50 inchers that everyone loves so much, and still have that wow factor that plasmas have.

Ppl with the very inferior Sony 42" rate this very highly when fed an HD source so there is hope yet.

 

[registered5x]

Thanks for the thread url. Pixel count isn't everything as I stated before. But all other things equal, it means a lot. If you think it doesn't why not just use 240x427 pixels instead of 480x853?


But I'm beginning to settle for the Panasonic 43 instead of the 50. I don't think anyone really knows what these will look like in a few years. I'll probably want a bigger and better one in three years anywho. So, spend less now and be a little less satisfied seems to be a reasonable mantra.

 

[divvy]

Quote:

Thanks for the thread url. Pixel count isn't everything as I stated before. But all other things equal, it means a lot. If you think it doesn't why not just use 240x427 pixels instead of 480x853?

I never said it did not count. What I was really trying to say (but didn't) is that if you actually audition different 42" pdps as I did then you will see that there is something about the Panny that is so much better than the other 42 inchers, even though they are 1024X1024x0.5, that I could only conclude, and Pete Putnam described it better than I coud, that pixel count is less important than other factors in plasmas.

I guess that 852X480 *may* be the minimum that you can get away with rendering the 427X240 argument specious.

 

[Pete Putman]

Having had the Panasonic TH-42PWD3 (consumer version PT-42PD2) in for an extensive test last year, I can tell you it does a tremendous job with HDTV in both 720p and 1080i flavors.


It also makes a great display for 16x9 480i or 480p DVDs. With continued price drops, the consumer version of this panel is an excellent buy.


Remember that RPTVs with 7" tubes can't show much more than 640x480 resolution, either. Maybe 800x600 pixels if they are really tuned up. But 7" tubes - the majority of imaging engines in RPTV sets - don't have that much resolving power.


So - are you giving much up by watching downconverted HD on an 852x480 pixel display, or are you better off watching HDTV on what is essentially an SVGA display at best?


Remmeber too that the viewing angles will be much wider on the 42" plasma than a RPTV. That's due to simple physics and optics. And the black levels on the 42" Panasonic will appear to be lower - it's hard to maintain high black levels with transmissive screen material.


It's really a matter of tastes. But you won't get true HD in either case.


Pete

 

[registered5x]

Quote:

the consumer version of this panel is an excellent buy.

I was questioning if this enough - the 1280x720 would be but the 853x480? I'll find out soon enough as I ordered a 42MP3.


But for projection resolution, I think the best is LCD for which you can get 1280x1024 for likely less money. I've had mine three years and don't worry about burn-in, the screen is bright enough to have a room lamp on or windows. The downside is: dust and no pure blacks but blacks have never bothered me.


Still I wanted a CRT direct view for my living room (where the plasma is going) but finally gave up on the depth issue. Most of my tv viewing there is NTSC so I the resolution will be a non-issue.


In summary, you gave a rational and logical reason to buy plasma although jury is still out on reliability and cost.

 

[Greg099]

I've read posts ad infinitum trying to explain to folks why a 1024X1024 display is not necessarily better than one with lesser resolution. Having done numerous side-by-side comparisons before making my plasma selection, I noticed a couple of interesting differences I've not seen mentioned.


There are some advantages to the Sony/Fujitsu models. Having higher resolution means essentially more information can be displayed, resulting in more detail. One scene I compared over and over was the opening of "A Bug's Life." In the first scene, when the ants are gathering up their foods, on the Sony you could see a lot more detail in the rocks on the ground, the details of the leaves and the bark on the trees. However, there was all kinds of ghosting, false contouring, motion artifacts and other picture quality issues that made it a lot less pleasant to actually watch.


So do you want to be able to see more detail or have a better quality viewing experience?


Which would sound better, a perfectly recorded DVD-Audio disc played through a $5 boombox or a cassette tape played through a state of the art sound system? An exaggeration, yes, but I think the analogy holds. You may start with more information, but how that information is processed and presented to the viewer/listener is the critical link. For whatever reason, Panasonic has solved a lot of the video processing issues inherent in plasma displays and everyone else is playing catch up.


That being said, I opted for the new Pioneer 503cmx, because it offered the best of both (oh yeah, and I got tired of waiting for Dell to deliver my Panny). I believe Pioneer has almost caught up with Panny in overall PQ, and their HD performance is stunning.


Cheers,


Greg

 

[divvy]

I'm glad you're getting good quality info here Registered5x.

I just did not want you to go for a Sony or Fujitsu ALIS display based on pixel count and it looks like you understood that very early on.

As you have seen the Panny I am looking forward to hearing your comments on how the MP3 compares.