rebel1 Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 As I only get Standard definition from Foxtel and I have no reception I am wondering but the panasonic 60A 50" save about $700 and put towards another TV in 2 years(a hd TV) when foxtel starts HD transmission. Anyone have any thoughts?
pgdownload Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 As I only get Standard definition from Foxtel and I have no reception I am wondering but the panasonic 60A 50" save about $700 and put towards another TV in 2 years(a hd TV) when foxtel starts HD transmission.Anyone have any thoughts? Save even more and get a smaller TV. 50" of poor Foxtel picture quality (they compress the signal a fair bit more than standard FTA digital) will look pretty damn average IMO. Whatever you're looking at Foxtel now on is 'improving' the PQ by making the image smaller - same way if you make a movie clip someone's emailed you full screen it looks attrotious, but at 6 cm by 4cm it looks pretty good. I wouldn't recommend going much over 42" for SD, let alone Foxtel. Should save you a fair bit NB Like the TV you've chosen,just knock it down a peg (IMO) Regards Peter Gillespie
50mxe20 Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 Save even more and get a smaller TV. 50" of poor Foxtel picture quality (they compress the signal a fair bit more than I wouldn't recommend going much over 42" for SD, let alone Foxtel. Should save you a fair bit Where's Panasung? He'll agree with this 110%
Doug1503559538 Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 Save even more and get a smaller TV. 50" of poor Foxtel picture quality (they compress the signal a fair bit more than standard FTA digital) will look pretty damn average IMO. Whatever you're looking at Foxtel now on is 'improving' the PQ by making the image smaller - same way if you make a movie clip someone's emailed you full screen it looks attrotious, but at 6 cm by 4cm it looks pretty good.I wouldn't recommend going much over 42" for SD, let alone Foxtel. Should save you a fair bit NB Like the TV you've chosen,just knock it down a peg (IMO) Regards Peter Gillespie FOXTEL on my 50" Plasma looks absolutely fine. I use s-video and whilst it is not as clear as HD FTA it is nowhere near as bad as many people seem to think. This forum is fairly critical about picture quality - if you also need the best PQ then Peter is correct, if not then I think you'll be more than satisfied. I am glad we go the extra 50" and only possible question is that i didn't get a 55".
Owen Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 I agree, no problem watching Austar on a 70” screen at 3 meters, its definitely not as bad as people would have you believe (depending on the channel) and the majority of free to air content is no better. A 50” is not big unless you view it from under 2 meters. What viewing distance will you be using?
rebel1 Posted March 22, 2007 Author Posted March 22, 2007 Thanks everyone for all the responses. I will be sitting about 3 metres away. At the end of the day , the cost will not be the deciding factor, I just dont want to pay out for something i will get no use for. How bad is the picture on a 50"?? Surely it would have to be better than my 68 cm crt we have at the moment? This is getting more confusing every day. I appreciate alll the different opinios, I am not a fanatic with PQ but just want it look good. Maybe I should go to an LCD 40" but the guy from HN said I was wasting my time because of the foxtel feed. thanks again I agree, no problem watching Austar on a 70” screen at 3 meters, its definitely not as bad as people would have you believe (depending on the channel) and the majority of free to air content is no better.A 50” is not big unless you view it from under 2 meters. What viewing distance will you be using?
PanaSung Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 How bad is the picture on a 50"?? Surely it would have to be better than my 68 cm crt we have at the moment?This is getting more confusing every day. I appreciate alll the different opinios, I am not a fanatic with PQ but just want it look good. Maybe I should go to an LCD 40" but the guy from HN said I was wasting my time because of the foxtel feed. thanks again Yes it will be worse than your 68cm CRT{I have a Sharp 68cm and it's PQ for Fox is excellent}. I recently watched the Mundine fight on a 40in Samsung LCD and was unimpressed with the PQ on the sports channel....the PQ did improve on the movie channels, but nothing to get excited about. Anything 40inches or over must have at least FTA/DVD quality.....otherwise it will look ordinary{Foxtel is below both}. You do have the option of buying a SD plasma[DVD's and FTA will look great on it}, and Foxtel will be "okay" due to the TV's lower resolution, ie, 850x480 vs 1368x768 for 50in Plasma. Obviously a large TV has the advantage of impact, but you might quickly regret it for Foxtel. I think that the current state of affairs is a joke WRT HDTV.....you really need to buy a 101 HD devices to feel as though you're getting value out of your HDTV. If I was you....I'd ring up my local shopping centers and ask if they have a Foxtel kiosk......Browns Plains has one, and they have 3 LG Plasma's displaying Fox sports, and the PQ was just okay. I'm bored with Foxtel anyway.....to me, HD panels are for the occasional FTA broadcast, Bray and PS3 games.
Zacspeed Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 When people ask its generally my opinion to go for HD. But as you say you will only ever use SD sources, so why by something that you wont use. Ive a friend that has the 42PA60 which is SD as he lives in a rural area. For DVD's and SD TV its ideal, but will you be viewing any HD content, plus getting a HD screen is future proofing to some extent. Although you say youre going to get a new TV in 2 years so by then 1080p would be commonplace and they'd have ironed out the common bugs.
Owen Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 Thanks everyone for all the responses. I will be sitting about 3 metres away.At the end of the day , the cost will not be the deciding factor, I just dont want to pay out for something i will get no use for. How bad is the picture on a 50"?? Surely it would have to be better than my 68 cm crt we have at the moment? This is getting more confusing every day. I appreciate alll the different opinios, I am not a fanatic with PQ but just want it look good. Maybe I should go to an LCD 40" but the guy from HN said I was wasting my time because of the foxtel feed. thanks again Stay away from LCD for Foxtel. LCD’s are less forgiving then a good Plasma and blacks are inferior. You will have to make your own mind up on size and cost, but I recommend a 50” Panasonic Plasma, or a 42” if the 50” is too pricy. You may also be able to get away with an SD 42” at 3 meters, so take a tape measure with you when you go shopping so you can audition at the distance you will use at home.
Owen Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 When people ask its generally my opinion to go for HD. But as you say you will only ever use SD sources, so why by something that you wont use.Ive a friend that has the 42PA60 which is SD as he lives in a rural area. For DVD's and SD TV its ideal, but will you be viewing any HD content, plus getting a HD screen is future proofing to some extent. Although you say youre going to get a new TV in 2 years so by then 1080p would be commonplace and they'd have ironed out the common bugs. Unless you get a much bigger display or sit a lot closer, a 1080 display will never be of value at a 3 meter viewing distance, no matter what the video source.
rebel1 Posted March 22, 2007 Author Posted March 22, 2007 So am I reading the info right. I am probably better off buying a 42" sd panasonic or equivilent because of the sd foxtel feed? i will save dollars as well quote name='Owen' date='Mar 22 2007, 06:13 PM' post='623295'] Unless you get a much bigger display or sit a lot closer, a 1080 display will never be of value at a 3 meter viewing distance, no matter what the video source.
PanaSung Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 So am I reading the info right. I am probably better off buying a 42" sd panasonic or equivilent because of the sd foxtel feed?i will save dollars as well Yep.....and you can update later on when there's more HD content around. Your Foxtel will also be your SDTV tuner and you can use your existing VCR/DVD player/recorders.
Anton-P. Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 So am I reading the info right. I am probably better off buying a 42" sd panasonic or equivilent because of the sd foxtel feed?i will save dollars as well Basically you're reading it right. However if you go for 42" Pana SD I strongly recommend you get its HD sibling, only ~$300 more. It may not make foxtel look better but it will make dvds (those with good quality picture) look better.
pgdownload Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 Basically you're reading it right.However if you go for 42" Pana SD I strongly recommend you get its HD sibling, only ~$300 more.It may not make foxtel look better but it will make dvds (those with good quality picture) look better.Yep, a good 42" SD should be fine. If the cost difference isn't all that much then I'd also go the HD version as Anton says. This will mean you can probably go 2-5 years without feeling a strong need to upgrade. The key thing here is that poorer quality Foxtel broadcasts will look increasingly poor as you blow them up. Same way as if someone emails you a little video it looks nice at 4x4 cm until you click on the FullScreen button and then it looks very blah! Foxtel won't be that bad of course - As mentioned some posters are very fussy on PQ. I'm not one of them but I find even on 68cm most Foxtel channels look appreciably 'shabby' compared to watching a DVD. Either way, you've done well getting some outside advise which can only help when you visit the store (feel free to post further queries if sales staff start throwing around the jargon - as you see we're not short of opinions here) End of the day get down to the store and do some eyeballing on serveral screen setups - only you know what you think is a good image Regards Peter Gillespie
stinga1503560195 Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 So will the picture quality be any different when looking at Foxsports on a screen from 3.5m on a 42" SD vs HD?
Owen Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 So will the picture quality be any different when looking at Foxsports on a screen from 3.5m on a 42" SD vs HD? No
pgdownload Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 NoAgree, no difference. As a comparison maybe try watching ABC HD on such a store HD STB and TV at 3.5m and switching to ABC SD. Regards Peter Gillespie
Anton-P. Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 So will the picture quality be any different when looking at Foxsports on a screen from 3.5m on a 42" SD vs HD? Even no I'd still recommend getting the HD @ $300 extra. 120% more pixels for 20% more $$, where else do you get better value for money? The extra pixels have gotta come in handy at some stage.
PanaSung Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 Even no I'd still recommend getting the HD @ $300 extra.120% more pixels for 20% more $$, where else do you get better value for money? The extra pixels have gotta come in handy at some stage. LOL.....look, if someone buys a HDTV, they also require a HDTV tuner, they also require a PVR to record HDTV signals....so when you add it all up, it's a heck of a lot more than $300. The FACT is, everything's getting better and cheaper, so if you bought a SD plasma and just hung out in the SDTV world for 3 or so yrs, you could sell, move or dump the SD plas and then go full steam into HDTV, including HDTV camcorders if you're inclined. Think about how great it will be "if" FTA and Fox are mainly HD, and HD camcorders drop to $900....yeah, yeah.....well that should happen within a few yrs.....so the SD plasma is a great stepping stone, but the HD is a waste if you're not going to use it, and if you do use it, it will significantly up the bill.
Owen Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 At a viewing distance of 3 meters I would definitely recommend the HD 42” model over the SD 42” model, but at 3.5 meters plus the advantages of the HD model will be very minimal.
stinga1503560195 Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 Thanks guys for the straight answer, the way prices are plumeting, I might just wait another couple of months till I can get a 42HD PX600 for 2k and be done with. I am assuming on 42" panels Plasma is still the way to go watching sport on Fox..... Cheers Al
Muzzer Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 There is no such thing as a 50" SD Panasonic plasma BTW. The 50" is HD (1300 by 768) and I've got one and am using it with Foxtel Digital and although the picture quality is nowhere near as good as FTA HD, on a good channel and show, it's ok quality at 3 metres viewing distance. One extra bit of advice I would give is to connect the Foxtel box to the TV via a component video cable and definitely not composite video or S-Video if you can avoid it.
liveonimpulse Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 I think HD is better as even though there is not much programming, the prime time shows on 9 and 10 are fantastic at full hd resolution
sam2can Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 LOL.....look, if someone buys a HDTV, they also require a HDTV tuner, they also require a PVR to record HDTV signals....so when you add it all up, it's a heck of a lot more than $300. I dont understand why you keep adding the cost of a HD PVR to any conversation, but dont factor in the cost a an SD PVR when flying the SD flag. Arent toppy 5000's still $650? Cant the Teac HD PVR be had for not much more than that?
Recommended Posts