mrmaxwell1503559518 Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 I'm looking for the best bang for buck 42" 1080p panel for under $2000. The Panny plasma's seem to be priced at the top end for 42", the LG's have better pricing but the picture doesn't look as good as the Panny. I haven't checked out Samsung's offering yet. I was impressed by the HiSense 47" panel going for $1698..I am usually a brand snob but this panel running Blu Ray looks very good for the money.
Owen Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 (edited) May I enquire why it must be 1080 or only 42”, what is your viewing distance? The reason I ask is because you would need to sit pretty close to make 1080 useful on a 42”. Edited December 23, 2008 by Owen
kulfi Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 mrmaxwell said: I was impressed by the HiSense 47" panel going for $1698..I am usually a brand snob but this panel running Blu Ray looks very good for the money. Branded panels work out to be cheaper than Hi-Shing once you factor in all the promo deals. Also, you're asking us about 42" panels but spruiking a 47" panel. What's up with that ?
diesel Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 I thought Panasonic were still the only ones witha 42" 1080p plasma still??
cstan11 Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 hi there I don't mean to hijack this post but i am looking for something similar. am in the market to get a LCD or Plasma around $1500. I was going for the hisense HSL4229HDIP until someone told me it doesn't make sense to get a 42' FULL HD because it doesn't make much difference. So here i am back to square 1 looking for an answer
diesel Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 If you have the room, get the Panasonic 50PX80A. A 42" is too small IMO
dlpnut1503560389 Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 (edited) cstan11 said: hi there I don't mean to hijack this post but i am looking for something similar.am in the market to get a LCD or Plasma around $1500. I was going for the hisense HSL4229HDIP until someone told me it doesn't make sense to get a 42' FULL HD because it doesn't make much difference. So here i am back to square 1 looking for an answer Just go for the TH50PX80A (panasonic 50 inch plasma), hd, and now it is getable for $1500 easy. Beats anything in its price range. If the size bothers you get the smaller brother 42inch for about $1000. Edited December 23, 2008 by dlpnut
cstan11 Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 so as a conclusion (all the lcd/plasma bias bs aside) Panasonic TH50PX80A is better than the Hisense 42' (i guess this one is abit obvious) and the other samsung/sony within the price range yes? I found a couple of myers receipt in the wiki so i can probably get them to do price match. I have a mediagate 350 HD (i know its old) and xbox360, planning to get a blu ray player however the lower resolution compatibility is desirable because I have tons of dvd and I don't plan to replace them to blu ray disc. One reason that hold me back on hisense 42 is due to the sub-performance on lower resolution. I just hope that is not the case for 50px80A. btw thanks for the quick replies!
dlpnut1503560389 Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 cstan11 said: so as a conclusion (all the lcd/plasma bias bs aside)Panasonic TH50PX80A is better than the Hisense 42' (i guess this one is abit obvious) and the other samsung/sony within the price range yes? I found a couple of myers receipt in the wiki so i can probably get them to do price match. I have a mediagate 350 HD (i know its old) and xbox360, planning to get a blu ray player however the lower resolution compatibility is desirable because I have tons of dvd and I don't plan to replace them to blu ray disc. One reason that hold me back on hisense 42 is due to the sub-performance on lower resolution. I just hope that is not the case for 50px80A. btw thanks for the quick replies! Read the other Pana related threads, just below this one, some places are alrady advertising them for $14??, I have one in sons bedroom and all the feedback, this is a good panel.
mrmaxwell1503559518 Posted December 23, 2008 Author Posted December 23, 2008 Owen said: May I enquire why it must be 1080 or only 42”, what is your viewing distance?The reason I ask is because you would need to sit pretty close to make 1080 useful on a 42”. A 50" panel is simply too big for my needs, and I don't believe 42" is too small to not notice the difference when it comes to 720p vs 1080p. I can see the pixels on 720p panels as my viewing distance is only about 2m. I have owned a 50" 1080p Panasonic panel and think they are one of the best displays out there, but now I am open to LCD mainly due to lower cost and improved picture quality the 1080p LCDs have reached in the most recent generation of panels. I only mentioned the 47" HiSense panel because of its great price...I am currently driven by price and size for this purchase (around $1500 and 42") I am thinking it is between the LG, Samsung LCDs or the Panny 1080p 42" plasma if I can get a good price.
kulfi Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 mrmaxwell said: I only mentioned the 47" HiSense panel because of its great price...I am currently driven by price and size for this purchase (around $1500 and 42")I am thinking it is between the LG, Samsung LCDs or the Panny 1080p 42" plasma if I can get a good price. $1500 should get you a Full HD 40"/42" Samsung/LG LCD with a bit of haggling. The Pana 42" plasma might be a bit of a stretch.
Owen Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 Ok that’s fare enough and I agree, 2 meters is to close for the 768 Plasmas as most people could see the pixels from that distance. 2.5 meters and above is normally fine for the 768 Panasonics. Your options are very limited for less then $2k with the 42PZ Panasonic being the stand out for picture quality for a 2 meter viewing distance, the LCD’s are not in the same class. Pity you could not find an extra half a meter viewing distance as the 50PX is insane value for $1500
ageha Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 (edited) I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p when I play a PS3 game on a 22" monitor but I can't see the difference when I watch a Blue-ray on a 50" screen. I mean movies are produced in 2k but they add so much artificial grain and dirt to their comps to make it look like film it doesn't really matter if it's HD or Full HD as long and the compression is good. Also the transfer is often really bad even on Blue-ray. Edited December 23, 2008 by ageha
kulfi Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 ageha said: I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p when I play a PS3 game on a 22" monitor but I can't see the difference when I watch a Blue-ray on a 50" screen. I mean movies are produced in 2k but they add so much artificial grain and dirt to their comps to make it look like film it doesn't really matter if it's HD or Full HD as long and the compression is good. Also the transfer is often really bad even on Blue-ray. When you're gaming on a 22" monitor, I'd presume you're sitting with your face planted 30 cm from the screen and at that distance, you would surely notice a difference. Nobody sits that close to a 50" TV - not even horny guys watching a porno film. I agree with your point about a movie having too much grain and dirt (not to forget shaky cameras to produce the "real effects"). To check out the BD difference between 720 and 1080, I'd recommend a Pixar cartoon (preferably new ones like Cars, Finding Nemo or Ratatouille made with better computers). It's a revelation - and that's why shops use cartoons on their display LCDs.
MickB...... Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 Ther are now two Panasonic 1080P 42" TV's on the market. Panasonic is the only manufacturer of 1080P 42" TV's sold in Australia. TH-42PZ800A TH-42PZ80A The 80 is the cheaper model. But you should be able to get both for under $2K
Owen Posted December 24, 2008 Posted December 24, 2008 ageha said: I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p when I play a PS3 game on a 22" monitor but I can't see the difference when I watch a Blue-ray on a 50" screen. I mean movies are produced in 2k but they add so much artificial grain and dirt to their comps to make it look like film it doesn't really matter if it's HD or Full HD as long and the compression is good. Also the transfer is often really bad even on Blue-ray. Movies are shot on film, scanned at 4k for editing and post production then scaled to 2k for Bluray mastering, grain is not artificial added unless CGI are mixed in with film. Cartoons look good on any TV, that’s why it’s a bad idea to use them for picture quality evaluation. Cartoon also compress very well because that have far less detail then real world images and no film grain. As for resolution, well you won’t ever get 1920x1080 visible resolution from cinema film transferred to BluRay, all you can ever get is 1920x1080 pixels which is not the same thing at all. Only computer generated images created at 1920x1080 can achieve that visible resolution and they will look harsh, digital and unrealistic if not filtered.
ageha Posted December 24, 2008 Posted December 24, 2008 Owen said: Movies are shot on film, scanned at 4k for editing and post production then scaled to 2k for Bluray mastering, grain is not artificial added unless CGI are mixed in with film. Post in 4k? Which movie?
Owen Posted December 24, 2008 Posted December 24, 2008 You would have to ask the individual production houses what they used for each movie, but the available budget would no doubt be a factor. 4k is probably not justifiable most of the time given the source limitations.
ageha Posted December 24, 2008 Posted December 24, 2008 (edited) Owen said: You would have to ask the individual production houses what they used for each movie, but the available budget would no doubt be a factor. 4k is probably not justifiable most of the time given the source limitations. I can tell you movies like Australia, X-Men: The Last Stand, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix or 10.000 B.C. to name only a few are all produced in 2k. 4k is a myth. Edited December 24, 2008 by ageha
Sabor Posted December 24, 2008 Posted December 24, 2008 ageha said: I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p when I play a PS3 game on a 22" monitor Any games in particular or just in general? The reason being id I'd be kidding myself if I could say with conviction that I could see the difference with PS3 games toggling between a 768p and a 1080p screen (50" and 46" screens respectively). With the exception of WipeoutHD and GT5:Prologue though (Wow!!).
ageha Posted December 24, 2008 Posted December 24, 2008 ponlesabor said: Any games in particular or just in general?The reason being id I'd be kidding myself if I could say with conviction that I could see the difference with PS3 games toggling between a 768p and a 1080p screen (50" and 46" screens respectively). With the exception of WipeoutHD and GT5:Prologue though (Wow!!). No, no game in particular but it's even noticeable with upscaled PS2 games on the PS3.
mrmaxwell1503559518 Posted December 24, 2008 Author Posted December 24, 2008 Owen said: Pity you could not find an extra half a meter viewing distance as the 50PX is insane value for $1500 Yes this thought has been jumping around my head don't worry...I was looking at these sets yesterday trying to convince myself I could not see any pixels! I really couldn't see any pixels in fast-moving dark action scenes MickB...... said: Panasonic is the only manufacturer of 1080P 42" TV's sold in Australia. You mean the only manufacturer of 'plasma' 1080p 42" TVs? There are plenty of 1080p 42" LCDs.
Owen Posted December 24, 2008 Posted December 24, 2008 mrmaxwell said: Yes this thought has been jumping around my head don't worry...I was looking at these sets yesterday trying to convince myself I could not see any pixels! I really couldn't see any pixels in fast-moving dark action scenes A good way for people to check how visible pixels are and there visual acuity is to display a still image, walk right up to the screen so you can see the individual pixels, then step away to a distance where the pixels blend together, that’s the limit of your vision for that pixel density, more pixels are a waste as you cant see them.
mrmaxwell1503559518 Posted December 24, 2008 Author Posted December 24, 2008 Owen said: more pixels are a waste More pixels are never a waste...NEVER!
kulfi Posted December 24, 2008 Posted December 24, 2008 mrmaxwell said: More pixels are never a waste...NEVER! It depends on what you want to do with the panel. If you want to use it as a part-time monitor and PC desktop (I do), then it makes sense to have more pixels. A 50" 1366X768 desktop PC looks horrible. If you want to watch FTA TV and DVDs from 3m away, the 50" TV is just fine.
Recommended Posts