mybrains Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 Now we have all heard the arguments that you need a high resolution panel, but there may be counter arguments Not to buy one. As we are all genuine ppl Without axes to grind (lol), I thought I would start off a thread to offer both sides..... (member to keep it fun guys) Reasons you would by a 480 42" plasma panel is: 1. You just cant see any difference in the shops between a well set up 480 & HD panel on regular TV broadcasts 2. the price is right! 3. The pixels are much bigger which means brighter and better PQ than a high res panel 4. you buy the latest dvds off amazon.com for $15 a piece (and they are NTSC) 5. most OZ TV broadcasts are still in low res (so why bother right?) 6. your xbox/playstation/game console outputs low res anyways 7.... add yours...
DavoNogo Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 mybrains said: 1. You just cant see any difference in the shops between a well set up 480 & HD panel on regular TV broadcasts depending on the location, some retailers will show decent HD material2. the price is right! for around the same price you pay for an SD plasma, you can get a much superior HD CRT with arguably better PQ than a lot of displays currently on the market 3. The pixels are much bigger which means brighter and better PQ than a high res panel larger pixels mean the blocks will be bigger, so pixellation is a lot more noticable on such displays 4. you buy the latest dvds off amazon.com for $15 a piece (and they are NTSC) with an up-converting DVD player, you'll get superior quality on any display 5. most OZ TV broadcasts are still in low res (so why bother right?) the stations that do broadcast in a higher res (9, WIN, TEN, SC10, NBN, 7 Darwin) will look awful on an SD display, compared to a HD one 6. your xbox/playstation/game console outputs low res anyways next generation consoles (XBox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo Revolution) will support 720p as a MINIMUM, so the display would either need to support that or would have to drop to a lower display mode, giving visual quality that's not much better than the current generation consoles 7.... add yours... coupled with a HTPC, a HD display will give you much superior picture quality than any SD display could hopefully achieve, regardless of the material used <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All in good fun
Muzzer Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 One major reason going for the purchase of a HD plasma is Bluray. If you've seen an HD Plasma running from a Bluray player, as I have (last week), you'll understand why getting a HD Plasma will "future proof" you on your purchase of a plasma. It's absolutely stunning! My guess is that Bluray players will be available within a year in Australia and if you have a look at the Bluray web site ( www.bluray.org )you'll see that the battle against HD-DVD is virtually over and Bluray has won. Really guys, the only limiting factor to a good quality HD plasma is the quality of it's input. If all you can see yourself sticking with is todays Digital TV and DVD's and you can't afford a High Definition Plasma then buy SD but if you want to stay really pleased with your purchase a year from now then go for a HD unit as I plan on doing. One unexpected suprise I got when I saw the Bluray player's output was that all the arguments about viewing distance seem to go out the window as even a metre from the plasma, in this case a 50" HD panel, I couldn't see anything but perfect picture without pixalization or lines. Go for HD if you can as you'll see what I mean when you've had the same demo.
boxall Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 My take, is buy SD now. Save $1500 and when you need HD, go and buy it then. At that stage HD will be MUCH cheaper and MUCH better. HD to me is just not worth it.
Owen Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 At close viewing distances, under about 2.5-3 meters, SD Plasmas are unacceptable due to there visible pixel structure. However, if your never going to sit close enough to SEE the resolution difference between a HD and SD Plasma (less then about 3.5 meters for a 42”), then a HD model is a waste of time and money, no matter what the video source. A good HD model may still offer a superior image due to other aspects of performance, like better black levels, better video processing etc, but NOT because of it’s higher resolution. The importance of high resolution is HIGHLY overrated. Most, if not all SD Plasma’s accept 1080i input and will work just fine with a Blu Ray player. No Plasma can resolve 1080i, and even if they could, you would need to sit less then 2 meters from a 42” screen for your eyes to be able to actually resolve that resolution. So in the end, the screen size-viewing distance ratio is the major determining factor in wether a HD Plasma is worthwhile or not.
Guest EZYHD Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 I bought a new 42" SD plasma recently. I sit back 4M, picture is beautiful, I think if you sit a fair distance back like we do there is not a lot of difference in picture Q between SD & HD. Then if you wait long enough for enough quanitity of HD broadcasts over next few years, you can upgrade then. So many friends walk into our Ht room (with Pj as well) look at our plasma and say "gee what beautiful picture!".
Mister_Q Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 Sticking with the theme of the original post: SD plasma is good as most people happily watch badly misadjusted displays anyway. What's the point in a HD display when they're going to: a. forget to change the STB options to HD output (assuming they've actually got a STB) b. use crappy composite connections (probably with leads borrowed from a 10 year old VCR) c. have the STB set to 4:3 output and the display to 16:9 (or stretch, or vice-versa)
Owen Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 At 4 meters, I would go so fare as to say that there is no visible difference at all between a 42” SD and 42” HD Plasma as fare as perceived resolution is concerned. No matter how good HD video gets in the future, it will never be noticeably better on a 42” HD model at 4 meters.
Darklord Posted August 14, 2005 Posted August 14, 2005 Pixels aren’t everything! One of the things I will say in some SD Plasma's defense is that they often do a better job displaying SD material over a cheaper HD plasma. Because there is less scaling involved they often look smoother with less artifacts. I've even seen some quality SD plasmas outperform cheap HD plasma displaying an HD source because of the superior scaling and processing they have onboard. Having said that, that issue is more a problem with the poor scaling of many cheaper HD plasma on the market, as there's no reason quality up-scaling and those extra pixels shouldn’t result in a superior picture. IT certainly does on quality HD plasmas. SD plasmas also often have superior contrast as they able to block light in dark areas of the screen more effectively. HD panels are certainly catching up in this regard though. At the end of the day I would much rather a quality SD plasma from NEC, Fujitsu or Panasonic commercial, over a cheapie HD plasma such as LG, Teac or Samsung.
Santa1503559644 Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 Muzzer said: One major reason going for the purchase of a HD plasma is Bluray.If you've seen an HD Plasma running from a Bluray player, as I have (last week), you'll understand why getting a HD Plasma will "future proof" you on your purchase of a plasma. It's absolutely stunning! My guess is that Bluray players will be available within a year in Australia and if you have a look at the Bluray web site ( www.bluray.org )you'll see that the battle against HD-DVD is virtually over and Bluray has won. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really?!? The Bluray site says HD-DVD is dead and Bluray has won?? It must be true!
cjason Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 Santa said: Really?!? The Bluray site says HD-DVD is dead and Bluray has won?? It must be true! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...funny that - still waiting for a decision between vhs and beta! HD-DVD is dead...yeh right! http://www.idealink.org/Resource.phx/vsda/...ef-criteria.htx ...maybe that will help make it clear as mud for some
boxall Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 Santa said: Really?!? The Bluray site says HD-DVD is dead and Bluray has won?? It must be true! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And when Blueray takes off, in a year or so, imagine how cheap a HD panel will be! Win for SD owners as far as I can see!
MELso Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 boxall said: And when Blueray takes off, in a year or so, imagine how cheap a HD panel will be!Win for SD owners as far as I can see! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't forget that you lose the utility of having an HD panel between now and when you choose to upgrade, and that may be worth the difference. In other words, while you may spend $2000 now on a SD plasma and $2000 on a HD plasma two years down the track, you're financially little better off than spending $4000 on a HD plasma now*, and of course you don't derive the benefits that flow from having HD in the interim.** _______________________ * EDIT WHILE BOXALL WAS POSTING - Yes, there is interest on the money saved, and you can resell the plasma, although the depreciation is high and there's time and effort involved. ** Of course, the plasma will have been used for two years, reducing its lifespan...
boxall Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 samuelowens said: In other words, while you may spend $2000 now on a SD plasma and $2000 on a HD plasma two years down the track, you're financially little better off than spending $4000 on a HD plasma now, and of course you don't derive the benefits that flow from having HD in the interim.*_______________________ * Of course, the plasma will have been used for two years, reducing its lifespan... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Only problem with the logic is that in 2 years time I will be able to sell my SD for a reasonable amount......and I will have a MUCH better HD panel as well then the current models.
MELso Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 boxall said: Only problem with the logic is that in 2 years time I will be able to sell my SD for a reasonable amount......and I will have a MUCH better HD panel as well then the current models. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Unless of course cheap HD panels have flooded the market in the interim, devaluing your SD panel... I'm not a futurist and hence I won't make any firm guesses on whether the improvements to HD panels are incremental or exponential. I suspect the former given that plasmas are still sold at the resolutions they were selling at 2-3 years ago...
boxall Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 samuelowens said: Unless of course cheap HD panels have flooded the market in the interim, devaluing your SD panel... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> VERY true, but I just sold my Pana 68cm for $450 and had at least 10 phone calls for it.....so...maybe not.
DavoNogo Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 boxall said: VERY true, but I just sold my Pana 68cm for $450 and had at least 10 phone calls for it.....so...maybe not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well there's a Panasonic 68cm still retailing for $649, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people wanted it for $450 or anything less than the retail price, but that's if they're the same tv... SD plasmas will have a LOT lower reselling value when HD plasmas become cheaper.. the reason is because with all the 4:3 tv's, there aren't much improvements getting one over the other, they're all practically the same, however a HD display has a major improvement over an SD display, especially when coupled with HD material (where the difference will be clear, literally)
Owen Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 DavoNogo said: however a HD display has a major improvement over an SD display, especially when coupled with HD material (where the difference will be clear, literally) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Come on Davo, that’s an exaggeration. No one will be able to pick a HD 42” from a SD 42” at 4 meters, even with the best HD source. Even at 3.5 meters the SD owners won’t be complaining. A major advantage of HD video is it’s significantly better colour resolution. You don’t need a HD display to take advantage of that at any viewing distance.
boxall Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 DavoNogo said: Well there's a Panasonic 68cm still retailing for $649, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people wanted it for $450 or anything less than the retail price, but that's if they're the same tv... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The TV was 5 years old!
Mr_Independent Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 "a HD display will give you much superior picture quality than any SD display could hopefully achieve, regardless of the material used" Bollocks !! 90% of my use for my standard res Fuji is DVD most of which is NTSC DVD. Standard or high the will be NO difference at all. I think in general there are also several other factors that will be visually instrumental and noticable in detirmining picture quality, for instance what sort of equipment and the quality of interconnects you use, viewing distance etc. This whole hi-def thing for most parts is purely another marketing ploy by big business and retailers to sucker in the average consumer, much to their detriment in a lot of cases I might also add. Also, always remember obtaining good picture quality is a lot more complex than resolution alone. Each to his (Or her) own I say, but for my money anyway a standard unit was a wise investment.
djOS Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 DrEv|l said: BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH blah, u guys seem 2 4get, erm xbox 360. 1900 by 1080 blu ray bahhhh lol an my plasma wont work, i dun care i have a perfectly good 1900 by 1080 crt suckers lolcheers n good luck 2 wish plasmanaughts <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dude, that kind of post is not warranted - as a noobi to this board, I suggest that you treat other forum members with some respect. This is supposed to be a light-hearted thread and you're being generally insulting for no apperent reason.
DavoNogo Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 (edited) okay, to be honest, I can't tell the difference between analogue and digital at 4 meters on a 36" screen, however upon closer examination, the analogue signal will be full of snow and the digital signal will be crystal clear. My point is why would someone choose to watch a 42" display at 4 meters? They should be going for a larger screen at that distance, as a 42" display will appear no larger than an 80cm 4:3 TV, and will probably look the same to them. I mean you've got a 57" display, and you're sitting at what, 3.5meters? I've only got a 36" display, but I'm sitting around 1.5 meters away (give or take a few feet). There is a huge, wait no let me rephrase that, there's a HUGE difference between SD and HD for me, and I think people should be opting for the same kind of results, especially those sitting at 4 meters away! (Certainly, if they need to sit that far away, their room should have the capacity to host a larger display, and maybe they ought to opt for a projector, instead of a plasma???) EDIT: I had to edit this as I didn't mean to direct towards you, so I've replaced "you" with "they" at the end Edited August 15, 2005 by DavoNogo
djOS Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 DavoNogo said: okay, to be honest, I can't tell the difference between analogue and digital at 4 meters on a 36" screen, however upon closer examination, the analogue signal will be full of snow and the digital signal will be crystal clear.My point is why would someone choose to watch a 42" display at 4 meters? They should be going for a larger screen at that distance, as a 42" display will appear no larger than an 80cm 4:3 TV, and will probably look the same to them. I mean you've got a 57" display, and you're sitting at what, 3.5meters? I've only got a 36" display, but I'm sitting around 1.5 meters away (give or take a few feet). There is a huge, wait no let me rephrase that, there's a HUGE difference between SD and HD for me, and I think people should be opting for the same kind of results, especially those sitting at 4 meters away! (Certainly, if you need to sit that far away, your room should have the capacity to host a larger display, and maybe you ought to opt for a projector, instead of a plasma???) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have a 90" Screen powered by my HS50 and it shows up every little flaw in SDTV and AnaDog TV is unwatchable *shudders*! on the other hand, HDTV Content looks flaming incredible @ 720p!
Owen Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 I agree that a 42” screen is WAY to small for 3.5-4 meters, however MANY people chose to view there 42” Plasma’s at 4 meters or more. People should not make generalised statements like: “however a HD display has a major improvement over an SD display, especially when coupled with HD material (where the difference will be clear, literally)” or "a HD display will give you much superior picture quality than any SD display could hopefully achieve, regardless of the material used" without mentioning viewing distance as a critical parameter. I view my 57” 1080i display from 2.8 meters, which is only just close enough to be able to resolve 1920x1080 resolution. The display can actually resolve about 1600x1080, and I have several movies of the same title in both PAL DVD (720x576 or less after Mpg compression) and US 1080i format (1440x1080 after compression). At 2.8 meters there is no doubt which is the HD version and which is the DVD, but if I move back to 4 meters, it is not easy to discern the difference between them. The main give away is the better colour of the HD version, NOT the resolution, and that’s on a 57” screen.
Owen Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 djos said: I have a 90" Screen powered by my HS50 and it shows up every little flaw in SDTV and AnaDog TV is unwatchable *shudders*! on the other hand, HDTV Content looks flaming incredible @ 720p! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You should see how much more detailed 1080 is compared to 720p. It's as big, if not bigger difference as between 576 and 720. Start saving for that 1080 projector dude.
Recommended Posts