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

[tk421-1138]

I needed to re-check the discussion topic. It says "3D better on Panasonic's Plasma HDTV than on Samsung's LCD HDTV". Why are we debating Sony vs RCA?

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

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.

yeah its hard when different experts have way different opinions , like i said cnet had a good review on the 55 inch model relesed at end of 2009 saying it had better blacks than some plasmas. the specs are beautiful but i know specs are "speculative" until real world use. the point i was making you made , its retail looks like 3400 which is comparable to samsungs 62 inch plasma 3d 3799 so do i go plasma a little smaller or do i go lcd led backlit at 72 if they are "fairly comporable? im just excited as i havent been able to shop for a new tv for me in almost 9 yrs .

[lghaze42]

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.

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.



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.

Quasar was made by Matshushita....now called Panasonic

[that1guystudios]

I set them both up in my Best Buy/Magnolia store nearly a week ago. I've had a week to play with both, and have a lot of impressions.

First the Panasonic blows the Samsung out of the water in 2-D mode. It's sharper, clearer, has blacks that rival the Pioneer Kuro, and much better refresh and response time. It also has 1080p lines of resolution in motion...which only Panasonic and Pioneer can claim to have.

Don't get me wrong, I own a few Samsung TV's.

The Samsung TV in 2-D is thin and sleek, with some interesting hookups to accomodate the thinness. But the LED tints the picture an unnatural blue, and the viewing angles are poor. Black level is great, but the colors seem off in just about every mode. The 2-D to 3-D conversion is almost unwatchable in most cases...and the glasses do not do well with elimanting crosstalk between 2 images. But an even bigger problem I had was this...
the Samsung can't do 3-D in 1080p, it cuts the resolution in half since it uses line-doubling. This means that in 3D the effective resolution is 540p, not much higher than DVD resolution.

The Samsung also displays only 30 fps, while the Panasonic does 60.

In short, I was very impressed with the Panasonic, but not with the Samsung. (And to top it all off the Samsung is more expensive!)

[STARSCREAM]

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

For some background I have owned in the past few years pretty much every single brand of tv and I think this Vizio is everybit as good or better than them. Now, I didn't own the top of the line sets and they didn't have 120hz or smooth motion either like this Vizio. I came from a plasma to this Vizio and am super happy with it. I paid less than $1,000 even after taxes on this 47" so bang for buck is outstanding. On some stuff there is some slight vertical banding but not too bad.

I have also owned many of the Panasonic projectors and I think the Vizio smooth motion works alittle better than Panasonics frame interpolation on the Panny 3000u and Panny 4000u.

In closing, I wouldn't hesitate at all to suggest to someone to buy one.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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.

Not to argue, I understand and agree with your statement. The point is, unlike present consumer patterns with reviews, showroom comparisons were the only way to select televisions. Needless to say, it was very subjective.

There was huge discussion about the aperture setup in Sony sets. In my early years, I was a radar tech - this interested me a great deal.

The aperture setup really allowed use of higher energy guns for the display, with reduced color bleeding. That was the secret, and it worked. Color intensity was far higher than other sets could handle, and folks were impressed.

Other sets looked very good - at lower intensity.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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).

Exactly, a very good description.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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.

You weren't around back then. The classic Trinitron sets were greeted with great skepticism early on - because the public used a different yardstick to measure quality. Expectations were low for Japanese products, and this wasn't based on anything but a poor perception of Japanese goods overall...cars, radios, etc.

Younger people were more accepting, but these weren't the folks spending $500 (a month's wages for a young family) on televisions. It took time, and a track record of reliability, for the Japanese to succeed in the American market. Don't look at today's criteria, largely based on technical excellence, to be the way sets were compared back then. There were more factos, and more prejudice, too.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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).

It was a different world, believe me.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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.

You could invert those grades for the late 1960's and early 1970's, but not on the basis of technology - public perception and acceptance were just different in that time. It was experience, and consumerism, that changed the way things were graded, as well as increased across-the-board affluence, allowing folks to by quality electronics they couldn't previously affort.

Bang for your buck overtook high status-fine living as the basis for comparison. It seems odd now...

[ascendedcobra]

Originally Posted by that1guypictures

I set them both up in my Best Buy/Magnolia store nearly a week ago. I've had a week to play with both, and have a lot of impressions.

First the Panasonic blows the Samsung out of the water in 2-D mode. It's sharper, clearer, has blacks that rival the Pioneer Kuro, and much better refresh and response time. It also has 1080p lines of resolution in motion...which only Panasonic and Pioneer can claim to have.

Don't get me wrong, I own a few Samsung TV's.

The Samsung TV in 2-D is thin and sleek, with some interesting hookups to accomodate the thinness. But the LED tints the picture an unnatural blue, and the viewing angles are poor. Black level is great, but the colors seem off in just about every mode. The 2-D to 3-D conversion is almost unwatchable in most cases...and the glasses do not do well with elimanting crosstalk between 2 images. But an even bigger problem I had was this...
the Samsung can't do 3-D in 1080p, it cuts the resolution in half since it uses line-doubling. This means that in 3D the effective resolution is 540p, not much higher than DVD resolution.

The Samsung also displays only 30 fps, while the Panasonic does 60.

In short, I was very impressed with the Panasonic, but not with the Samsung. (And to top it all off the Samsung is more expensive!)

Thanks for all the info. I have only seen the Samsungs and I got 2 different experiences. One by my house had a 55" and the image was superb. No cross talk at all, looks full 1080p (even if it isnt really) and color was excellent. At frys and another best buy I did see the cross talk you mentioned. The only difference in the set up was the one with the perfect picture had a tent over it. Do you think the florecent lighting causes the cross talk? I really am hoping that is the case because I wouldnt put up with any ghosting yet I really want to stay with LCD. I do a lot of gaming and sometimes will be playing for 3-4+ hrs straight. I also do all my web surfing from my PS3 so I have text on my screen for hours at a time. I dont want to feel like I am ruining a plasma every time I go on a gaming marathon or fall asleep for 2hrs with a web page on. I also like the brighter LCDs for games.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ascendedcobra

Thanks for all the info. I have only seen the Samsungs and I got 2 different experiences. One by my house had a 55" and the image was superb. No cross talk at all, looks full 1080p (even if it isnt really) and color was excellent. At frys and another best buy I did see the cross talk you mentioned. The only difference in the set up was the one with the perfect picture had a tent over it. Do you think the florecent lighting causes the cross talk?

I did not see the Samsung, guessing that the glasses are LCD shutter glasses and if they are the wireless kind then maybe RF interference (florescent bulbs can make some RF) but then a tent would not help. Could it be that the tent blocked light so the TV was dialed down in brightness and that made the difference? just grasping at straws. On the other hand maybe it was that the synchronization was better due to how it was set up? After all if the synch is 1/2 a period off then both eyes will get both images equally, and the better the synch the better at eliminating one of them it will be.

I really am hoping that is the case because I wouldnt put up with any ghosting yet I really want to stay with LCD. I do a lot of gaming and sometimes will be playing for 3-4+ hrs straight. I also do all my web surfing from my PS3 so I have text on my screen for hours at a time. I dont want to feel like I am ruining a plasma every time I go on a gaming marathon or fall asleep for 2hrs with a web page on.

why would a plasma be worst then LCD for gaming?

[Dr. Skill]

The Panasonic set is amazing! Beats the movie theater 3D experience. The future is here...NOW!

[tacomaprime]

I wonder if the fact that the plasmas have a better 3d picture will mean that plasma tv sales will make a resurgence?

I know I have been wanting to upgrade my 42" 720p panny plasma to something larger. I figure I will get a 3d tv to do that, so I guess if the plasmas show that stuff better, I will go with one. Ya know, for all the people who complain about burn in, after breaking my plasma in, I don't have any issues with that.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by lghaze42

Quasar was made by Matshushita....now called Panasonic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar_(brand))

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by tk421-1138

I needed to re-check the discussion topic. It says "3D better on Panasonic's Plasma HDTV than on Samsung's LCD HDTV". Why are we debating Sony vs RCA?

We're not. It's about perceptions of quality.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by iwanttobeabmoviestar

yeah its hard when different experts have way different opinions , like i said cnet had a good review on the 55 inch model relesed at end of 2009 saying it had better blacks than some plasmas. the specs are beautiful but i know specs are "speculative" until real world use. the point i was making you made , its retail looks like 3400 which is comparable to samsungs 62 inch plasma 3d 3799 so do i go plasma a little smaller or do i go lcd led backlit at 72 if they are "fairly comporable? im just excited as i havent been able to shop for a new tv for me in almost 9 yrs .

I had the same question, comparing a Mitsubishi to a Sony years ago - a Mitsubishi 73" to a Sony 70".

Went with the Sony. You actually have to see and determine for yourself which set to get. Make sure to see it first...