3D better on Panasonic's Plasma HDTV than on Samsung's LCD HDTV says Consumer Reports

[bluflu]

http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2010/03/...ports-on-3dtv/

Panasonic 3DTV is far better than Samsung in many aspects, according to preliminary tests by Consumer Reports. For example, not only are black levels far superior on the Panasonic sets, but if you leave your 3D glasses on while lying on a couch to watch the TV, the glasses get darker and darker the more you recline until they go completely black. The Panasonic glasses deliver the same clarity regardless of the angle of your eyes or head.

[mallen600]

I work at BB and both demos are up. The Panasonic demo absolutely blows the samsung out of the water. I will be interested to see if it looks better on the Samsung 9000 LED.

[lghaze42]

Originally Posted by mallen600

I work at BB and both demos are up. The Panasonic demo absolutely blows the samsung out of the water. I will be interested to see if it looks better on the Samsung 9000 LED.

I am not surprised.Panasonic also won best of show for their 3D plasmas at the 2010 CES.I am also betting that Panasonic's 3D technology is superior to Samsungs.They even have the worlds first 3D camcorder coming out as well.

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

wonder how the sonys and that 72inch vizio will do ?

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

sounds like a glasses issue not the tvs issue also they dont talk about anything but the black level what about actual 3d ive seen both the sonys and the samsung in person and saw no light patches on either. the blacks looked great on both. havent seen the panny yet but will compare when i do.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by iwanttobeabmoviestar

wonder how the sonys and that 72inch vizio will do ?

I don't expect Vizio to match Panasonic or Sony in picture quality.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

I don't expect Vizio to match Panasonic or Sony in picture quality.

Back in the day, nobody expected Sony to match RCA, either.

While I agree that their low price point for a 72" television may indicate quality compromises, I really don't know what to expect. Perhaps it's time for someone to start busting down the walls between consumers, and common sense.

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

i just want first hand info from non biased source to give comparisions on samsung panasonic sony and vizio all side by side without any brand "loyalty" issues but i figure it will never happen . ive read on here people who hate plasmas , who hate lcd , led lcd, ect and all have their reasons. i am just aprehensive because of this and having a hard time deciding . i live in a small town and for electronics we have bb and sears , target and walmart and they all never know what im talking about when i raise questions brought up on here and from my own research. (ive had the managers ask me to work there, but i make more at MY low paying job without the drama)

[quetzalcoatl]

Originally Posted by iwanttobeabmoviestar

i just want first hand info from non biased source to give comparisions on samsung panasonic sony and vizio all side by side without any brand "loyalty" issues but i figure it will never happen . ive read on here people who hate plasmas , who hate lcd , led lcd, ect and all have their reasons. i am just aprehensive because of this and having a hard time deciding . i live in a small town and for electronics we have bb and sears , target and walmart and they all never know what im talking about when i raise questions brought up on here and from my own research. (ive had the managers ask me to work there, but i make more at MY low paying job without the drama)

I would think the best bet would be to find out if there is a non chain store in CO Springs. I know I will miss the one I had that was 90 mins away after I moved but I went back there to make my purchases because they treated me so well. And now that store is 11 hours away so it is not an option. But they had 3 dedicated viewing and listening rooms.

[doctorD]

Well, I checked out the Samsung 3D at one Best Buy store on Tuesday and the 3D was half in focus and half out of focus...it was weird and I wasn't impressed. But at a different Best Buy and same tv, the 3D tech looked pretty good.

I really want to see what the Panasonic looks like because from what I've heard, it was the best at CES. Can't wait for Sunday!

[STARSCREAM]

I'm probably gonna go with the 72" vizio due to it's size and the fact I currently have a vizio 47" and with the frame interpolation turned on I think it looks fantastic. Vizio seems to be the only manufacturer that is gonna release a 72" 3D tv and I want as big as I can get.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Back in the day, nobody expected Sony to match RCA, either.

when was that, I am just shy of 40, so it might go way back before I cared for anything or was ever born, but to my recolection RCA was always around a C+ (A=high end, B= normal, C= low end), while Sony A-/B+ and this going back to the late 70's early 80's.
.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

when was that, I am just shy of 40, so it might go way back before I cared for anything or was ever born, but to my recolection RCA was always around a C+ (A=high end, B= normal, C= low end), while Sony A-/B+ and this going back to the late 70's early 80's.
.

It began in the mid-70's. RCA and Magnavox ruled the television world with "consoles", big television cabinets that often included stereo record players and AM/FM radios. The television quality was actually quite good with these sets - they had connections for rooftop antennas, etc., and the quality of the stereo was also quite good.

The televisions gradually increased in quality for over the air broadcast, and slimmed down in size and weight. As RCA began doing offshore production through their Japan Victor Corporation, some components actually improved, but television picture tubes were still manufactured in the States.

Then came the box stores, replacing J.C. Penney and Woolworths, who were selling lower end units without all the fancy wood cabinetry. Emerson, Phillips, Westinghouse, and hundreds of off-brand names were slapped onto Japanese televisions...along with JVC, and many others. With them came Sony, more expensive, and the early models came with faux-wood cabinets and not much better quality.

Most Japanese sets were small. 13" color televisions were common amongst Japanese imports. Sony, however, almost pretentiously sold 19" televisions; and of course, everyone knew that Japanese products were notoriously inferior to American models.

In the mid-1970's, the top end was RCA, Magavox, and Motorola's Quasar. Curtis Mathes had a reputation for great quality, but they weren't anything special, and were hard to find. Then, around 1977, Sony began releasing their latest, modernistic 27" color set, and everyone went wild. The secret was that their sets ran in what is now contemptuously referred to as "torch mode", but without color bleeding found in other sets with the gain turned up that high. Eventually the phosphors would cook, and there would be a greenish cast to the picture that could never be removed - but on the showroom floor, nothing had the "pop" of the Sony. It became the new standard, especially among sports fans.

It was in 1977 that I purchased a Quasar, after spending a long time comparing the Sony and Quasar models. At that time, the Quasar was $800; the Sony, $900. This was big money, and a big difference, in 1977. I went with the Quasar (a console model, TV only). The reason? Once you got past the "look, the fire truck is really red" showroom intensity settings of the Sony, there was not really any difference in the image. It was clearly a high quality set, no question. But it did not exceed the quality of other top end units at all.

Perhaps Sony's image was enhanced by the fact that they had few models, but all were higher quality than their imported counterparts, and that American television brands had a large product line - with only their top models competing with Sony's quality. This really left the perception that overall, Sony was better, but it's like comparing a Lexus to a Cadillac - and a Chevy Cruze.

Since you were around, think back to that time, you'll remember how it was.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

It began in the mid-70's. RCA and Magnavox ruled the television world with "consoles", big television cabinets that often included stereo record players and AM/FM radios. The television quality was actually quite good with these sets - they had connections for rooftop antennas, etc., and the quality of the stereo was also quite good.

The televisions gradually increased in quality for over the air broadcast, and slimmed down in size and weight. As RCA began doing offshore production through their Japan Victor Corporation, some components actually improved, but television picture tubes were still manufactured in the States.

Then came the box stores, replacing J.C. Penney and Woolworths, who were selling lower end units without all the fancy wood cabinetry. Emerson, Phillips, Westinghouse, and hundreds of off-brand names were slapped onto Japanese televisions...along with JVC, and many others. With them came Sony, more expensive, and the early models came with faux-wood cabinets and not much better quality.

Most Japanese sets were small. 13" color televisions were common amongst Japanese imports. Sony, however, almost pretentiously sold 19" televisions; and of course, everyone knew that Japanese products were notoriously inferior to American models.

In the mid-1970's, the top end was RCA, Magavox, and Motorola's Quasar. Curtis Mathes had a reputation for great quality, but they weren't anything special, and were hard to find. Then, around 1977, Sony began releasing their latest, modernistic 27" color set, and everyone went wild. The secret was that their sets ran in what is now contemptuously referred to as "torch mode", but without color bleeding found in other sets with the gain turned up that high. Eventually the phosphors would cook, and there would be a greenish cast to the picture that could never be removed - but on the showroom floor, nothing had the "pop" of the Sony. It became the new standard, especially among sports fans.

It was in 1977 that I purchased a Quasar, after spending a long time comparing the Sony and Quasar models. At that time, the Quasar was $800; the Sony, $900. This was big money, and a big difference, in 1977. I went with the Quasar (a console model, TV only). The reason? Once you got past the "look, the fire truck is really red" showroom intensity settings of the Sony, there was not really any difference in the image. It was clearly a high quality set, no question. But it did not exceed the quality of other top end units at all.

Perhaps Sony's image was enhanced by the fact that they had few models, but all were higher quality than their imported counterparts, and that American television brands had a large product line - with only their top models competing with Sony's quality. This really left the perception that overall, Sony was better, but it's like comparing a Lexus to a Cadillac - and a Chevy Cruze.

Since you were around, think back to that time, you'll remember how it was.

I don't know if all the stuff you mention are right (but they don't seem to deal with PQ so irrelevent), but doing some search on Trinitron I found out Sony got a Tech Emmy for it in 1973 for the Trinitron (supposedly the first for a TV), On the other hand searching RCA and Emmy I found out they got several but none for TV sets.


Also according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitr..._note-shist-13

In comparison to early shadow mask designs, the Trinitron grille cuts off much less of the signal coming from the electron guns. RCA sets built in the 1950s cut off about 85% of the incoming signal, while the grille cuts off about 25%.

Don't get me wrong I don't have an issue with RCA, the first TV I bought (in 87) was an RCA when I left for University and so was my older sisters when she left a few years earlier. But neither was chosen because they where better but because they where cheaper.

[seigneur_rayden]

This makes me mad that there is no Magnolia in my city.

[dobyblue]

I think the biggest advantage to the Panny plasma would be the response time.
Plasma's response time was already much faster...but for the 2010 VT25 series they have the activation time of the pixel to luminance is 33% of what it took in 2009 and the decay time is 25% of what it was in 2009...for overall response time of about 1/12th of the 2009 panels.
That's allowing them to say they have 120Hz with ZERO crosstalk and I just can't see LCD technology equaling that...the early reports seem to agree.

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

Originally Posted by STARSCREAM

I'm probably gonna go with the 72" vizio due to it's size and the fact I currently have a vizio 47" and with the frame interpolation turned on I think it looks fantastic. Vizio seems to be the only manufacturer that is gonna release a 72" 3D tv and I want as big as I can get.

im curious what you think of vizio owning one compared to smsungs and sonys (their mid grade line) i really want the vizio as well as the size comparable models are waaay more expensive thanks

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't know if all the stuff you mention are right (but they don't seem to deal with PQ so irrelevent), but doing some search on Trinitron I found out Sony got a Tech Emmy for it in 1973 for the Trinitron (supposedly the first for a TV), On the other hand searching RCA and Emmy I found out they got several but none for TV sets.

A quick re-read may show I mentioned picture quality several times. Sony was able to build sets that had more intensity, via higher gain, and they were set up in what we now call "torch mode" in stores. Over time, this wound up damaging sets left in that mode - Sony owners from that period will tell you about how they eventually had a green cast to the image, if left that way.

The Trinitron was lionized at the time for its design, with the primary differentiator being that it Sony only made "solid state" sets. By the early 1970's, many manufacturers made sets that were nearly all transistorized, or completely transistorized, but tubes were around for a long, long time.

The big thing was to advertise "solid state" and "instant on", a huge difference from the old days when people had to be sure to warm up the television, and adjust it, before their favorite show came on. There was also variance in the picture even after a few minutes or hours of use, requiring adjustment during viewing - for tuning in the channel (see if you can remember the term, "tune in" from back then), color saturation adjustments, etc.

Solid state, i.e. fully transistorized sets didn't have such drawbacks, or at least they weren't as noticeable. American manufacturers didn't make the switchover immediately - their production lines weren't set up for it - and when they did start making transistorized sets, the components that were available for high-current color television weren't of high enough quality to make good sets.

Picture quality, once adjusted, was terrific with the standard manufacturers. But diddling around with setting was a headache. Trinitron sets were a dream for most folks, forcing the American manufacturers to spend more, and move to transistorized inner works. They never really recovered from the transition, and it threw the entire television support industry into a tizzy.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Don't get me wrong I don't have an issue with RCA, the first TV I bought (in 87) was an RCA when I left for University and so was my older sisters when she left a few years earlier. But neither was chosen because they where better but because they where cheaper.

I inherited several televisions before buying a high quality set in 1977. I really wanted a Sony - they were amazing - but it was a critical comparison of the picture, and overall build quality, that finally had me settle on Motorola's Quasar.

RCA, GE (another huge producer of sets), and their sub-brands were never in the running, because by that time they had really given up on quality production. Their higher end sets were primarily furniture - nice cabinets, but mediocre picture quality.

Their competition was from the Japanese, with Sony and JVC. Motorola was the only American company that was doing comparable electronics production, at least in their Quasar line.

Sony was doing many things to allow an intense picture, though I didn't understand (and still don't) how their various tricks with masking on the inside of the picture tube affected things. They certainly handled high power - tube televisions from that period had the intensity of a table lamp for light output - and while Sony was the benchmark, they actually did have competition for picture quality.

I've always liked Sony, and own two of them now.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by iwanttobeabmoviestar

im curious what you think of vizio owning one compared to smsungs and sonys (their mid grade line) i really want the vizio as well as the size comparable models are waaay more expensive thanks

We'll all have to wait and see. Vizio is still subcontracting their various models out to different Asian manufacturers, and you won't know about build quality until you see the final product. Some of Vizio's sets are very good, others definitely are not, and it's not based on the size of the television.

Hang in there until it comes out. I'm hoping their 72" set puts a real scare into the other manufacturers - I'm still ticked off about Sony marketing their 70" LCD for $20,000. I wanted to get it to replace my 70" SXRD rear projection unit, and never could, at that ludicrous price.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

A quick re-read may show I mentioned picture quality several times. Sony was able to build sets that had more intensity, via higher gain, and they were set up in what we now call "torch mode" in stores. Over time, this wound up damaging sets left in that mode - Sony owners from that period will tell you about how they eventually had a green cast to the image, if left that way.

you did not bother reading what I linked to. The brighter/sharper image was not due to brightness (torch mode), if it was, like most TVs the image would look brighter but worst not sharper. They invented what was named aperture grill instead of using a shadow mask like every other TV in those days. The issue with colour TVs is that you needed the electron beam for red to hit the "red" phosphors and the same for blue and green while missing the rest. A shadow mask used a perforated metal sheet and so the beams being at slightly different angles worked like
beam for blue\ /red phosphors
beam for red / \blue phosphors
for aperture grill fine wires are used. This meant, especially early on, that more phosphor could be used in an AG (brighter image), less of it was missing (shadow of the grill/mask or dead space) and that it was better defined. An other advantage was that AG sets could be flatter and did not need to be as curbed (so the image was less distorted).

I inherited several televisions before buying a high quality set in 1977. I really wanted a Sony - they were amazing - but it was a critical comparison of the picture, and overall build quality, that finally had me settle on Motorola's Quasar.

RCA, GE (another huge producer of sets), and their sub-brands were never in the running, because by that time they had really given up on quality production. Their higher end sets were primarily furniture - nice cabinets, but mediocre picture quality.

I don't know if Motorola had a better or equivalent TV in 77 to Sony, and I never said Sony had the best TV at any point in time so it is irrelevant. The issue was DetroitSportsFan said " I don't expect Vizio to match Panasonic or Sony in picture quality. " and you replied "Back in the day, nobody expected Sony to match RCA, either". I was curious when that day was because I don't recall RCA ever being considered as superior. I guess by what you say now, we agree, that if that day ever existed it was way before 1977 and the 70's which in effect is what I said (since I can't talk about sets in the 60's since I was not even alive back then). For me RCA was always quality value brand (which is why I said C+) while Sony quality premium brand (B+) and none of them really, for the most part, high end brands. And those reputations going back as far as I can remeber.