FX1 with Panasonic HD PLASMA at DVinfo.net

Greg Harris · November 8th, 2004, 07:38 AM

I heard the FX1 doesn't look like TRUE HD footy on a plasma HD TV. Shouldn't it look CRAZYY clear since both are HD equipment???? In your opinion, what is the best HD TV out right now. Im in the market to buy one. I want a plasma because they are thin. Below is a link of the Plasma I want. What do you guys think.

http://www.evsonline.com/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=TH42PHD6UY&Category_Code=2C2A5&Product_Count=4

Kaku Ito · November 8th, 2004, 08:14 AM

In my case with the plazma display that my company has, it's the first generation 42 inch plazma dispaly, it does not play back interlace right. So, I have both Plazma and Trinitron studio monitor running for checking. Can anybody tell me which plazma display has the circuit to recreate (don't know this is the right word) interlace?

Randy Walters · November 8th, 2004, 05:00 PM

Greg, here's your answer, from the product description:

"Resolution 1024 x 768 Pixels"

This screen, "HD" or not, simply doesn't have the 1920 x 1080 resolution to display full 1080i HD. Very few plasma or LCD screens do.

Check out a 34" CRT with native 1080i resolution; you'll save thousands, and you'll be watching real HD while your friends with the flat panels are just kidding themselves.

It's none of my business if you "want a plasma because they are thin", but really... isn't the quality of the image what's most important?

******
I re-read my post, and realized it sounded kind of snide. Sorry... I really didn't start out with that in mind.

I've been in discussions lately with people who have never really seen quality HD, and whose only point of reference has been the low-end feed that places like Circuit City and Best Buy run through their stores.

I hear the same thing over and over... they want the big flat panel 'cause it's that latest thang, without realizing that a CRT can deliver a far better image at a fraction of the cost.

It's kind of a sore point, so my apologies... I hope you find the screen that's best for you!

Boyd Ostroff · November 8th, 2004, 08:20 PM

Just looking at the Flat Panel Buyers Guide in the November issue of Home Theatre magazine. Most of the plasma screens max out at 1366x768 pixels. There is the LG MUS-71PY10 however, which is a 71" screen with native 1920x1080 resolution. No price given for this, I think it's a case of "if you need to ask then you can't afford it." ;-)

Mark Kent · November 11th, 2004, 10:39 AM

>> This screen, "HD" or not, simply doesn't have the
>> 1920 x 1080 resolution to display full 1080i
>> HD. Very few plasma or LCD screens do.

It's not just numbers that are important. Since
it is humans that are viewing the result it is
really the response of the human physiology to the
display that is important.

Many people, including VQEG people, have found
non-HD plasmas produce quite stunning images.

About the original thread topic, the first two
(at least) generations of the Panasonic 42" plasma
had an issue with the VGA input at 1080i.
Works OK with 720p.

See http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99035

-mark

Kaspar Stromme · November 11th, 2004, 12:14 PM

how do LCD's compare? Many of those have higher resolution, and supposedly much better contrast than earlier models ?

Steve Crisdale · November 12th, 2004, 02:11 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Kaspar Stromme : how do LCD's compare? Many of those have higher resolution, and supposedly much better contrast than earlier models ? -->>>

My first HDTV was a Panasonic 100Hz 76cm CRT which at the time was amazing for performance at the price.... I'd compared plasmas and early LCDs and found that the pixel matrix was far too evident.

I recently purchased a Sharp Aquos 82cm LCD HDTV, because it's image was superior in nearly every area. The pixels are very hard to spot even from a couple of inches, the viewing angle is greatly improved from earlier LCDs and despite not being a truly 1920x1080 device, 1080 material looks stunning!!!

Reproduction of subtleties in blacks was a problem for earlier LCDs but the Aquos doesn't suffer at all in that department.

For what it's worth....for true quality HD viewing on a scale larger than a computer monitor, I'd recommend either a DLP (if you've got the space).....or an LCD.

If you haven't tried to lug a CRT HDTV around, I suggest you try to do so.......they're heavy suckers and quite deep to the rear, so they can be awkward to place. The Aquos despite being a bigger screen area, is easy for one person to lift and finding somewhere to place it is heaps easier as well.....

November 8th, 2004, 07:38 AM	#1
Greg Harris Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Fairfax, VA Posts: 356	FX1 with Panasonic HD PLASMA I heard the FX1 doesn't look like TRUE HD footy on a plasma HD TV. Shouldn't it look CRAZYY clear since both are HD equipment???? In your opinion, what is the best HD TV out right now. Im in the market to buy one. I want a plasma because they are thin. Below is a link of the Plasma I want. What do you guys think. http://www.evsonline.com/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=TH42PHD6UY&Category_Code=2C2A5&Product_Count=4

November 11th, 2004, 12:14 PM	#6
Kaspar Stromme Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 36	LCD's? how do LCD's compare? Many of those have higher resolution, and supposedly much better contrast than earlier models ?

November 12th, 2004, 02:11 AM	#7
Steve Crisdale Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Katoomba NSW Australia Posts: 635	Re: LCD's? <<<-- Originally posted by Kaspar Stromme : how do LCD's compare? Many of those have higher resolution, and supposedly much better contrast than earlier models ? -->>> My first HDTV was a Panasonic 100Hz 76cm CRT which at the time was amazing for performance at the price.... I'd compared plasmas and early LCDs and found that the pixel matrix was far too evident. I recently purchased a Sharp Aquos 82cm LCD HDTV, because it's image was superior in nearly every area. The pixels are very hard to spot even from a couple of inches, the viewing angle is greatly improved from earlier LCDs and despite not being a truly 1920x1080 device, 1080 material looks stunning!!! Reproduction of subtleties in blacks was a problem for earlier LCDs but the Aquos doesn't suffer at all in that department. For what it's worth....for true quality HD viewing on a scale larger than a computer monitor, I'd recommend either a DLP (if you've got the space).....or an LCD. If you haven't tried to lug a CRT HDTV around, I suggest you try to do so.......they're heavy suckers and quite deep to the rear, so they can be awkward to place. The Aquos despite being a bigger screen area, is easy for one person to lift and finding somewhere to place it is heaps easier as well.....

November 8th, 2004, 08:14 AM	#2
Kaku Ito Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Posts: 1,382	In my case with the plazma display that my company has, it's the first generation 42 inch plazma dispaly, it does not play back interlace right. So, I have both Plazma and Trinitron studio monitor running for checking. Can anybody tell me which plazma display has the circuit to recreate (don't know this is the right word) interlace?

November 8th, 2004, 05:00 PM	#3
Randy Walters Tourist Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Bristol, RI USA Posts: 4	Greg, here's your answer, from the product description: "Resolution 1024 x 768 Pixels" This screen, "HD" or not, simply doesn't have the 1920 x 1080 resolution to display full 1080i HD. Very few plasma or LCD screens do. Check out a 34" CRT with native 1080i resolution; you'll save thousands, and you'll be watching real HD while your friends with the flat panels are just kidding themselves. It's none of my business if you "want a plasma because they are thin", but really... isn't the quality of the image what's most important? ****** I re-read my post, and realized it sounded kind of snide. Sorry... I really didn't start out with that in mind. I've been in discussions lately with people who have never really seen quality HD, and whose only point of reference has been the low-end feed that places like Circuit City and Best Buy run through their stores. I hear the same thing over and over... they want the big flat panel 'cause it's that latest thang, without realizing that a CRT can deliver a far better image at a fraction of the cost. It's kind of a sore point, so my apologies... I hope you find the screen that's best for you!

November 8th, 2004, 08:20 PM	#4
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Just looking at the Flat Panel Buyers Guide in the November issue of Home Theatre magazine. Most of the plasma screens max out at 1366x768 pixels. There is the LG MUS-71PY10 however, which is a 71" screen with native 1920x1080 resolution. No price given for this, I think it's a case of "if you need to ask then you can't afford it." ;-)

November 11th, 2004, 10:39 AM	#5
Mark Kent Tourist Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Los Altos, CA Posts: 1	>> This screen, "HD" or not, simply doesn't have the >> 1920 x 1080 resolution to display full 1080i >> HD. Very few plasma or LCD screens do. It's not just numbers that are important. Since it is humans that are viewing the result it is really the response of the human physiology to the display that is important. Many people, including VQEG people, have found non-HD plasmas produce quite stunning images. About the original thread topic, the first two (at least) generations of the Panasonic 42" plasma had an issue with the VGA input at 1080i. Works OK with 720p. See http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99035 -mark