# Panasonic eyes Plasma Exit



## Cholly

Bad news for plasma lovers as Panasonic may well be exiting plasma TV market.

http://www.techhive.com/article/203...-news-as-panasonic-eyes-exit.html#tk.nl_today


----------



## gov

I have a 65" Panny plasma in my living room. I was aware when I got it my living room was a little bright for a plasma and it has been an issue.

Also, 4:3 pictures have ever so slightly burned a bit on the screen, I have to look close to see it, but it's there. I am working on it, but it may be permanent.

I could see manufacturers wanting to coalesce on one technology, and since LCD is workable over such a wide range of sizes, it is logical that is where it's headed.

If they get the $$ down, OLED is great for such incredible thinness.


----------



## MysteryMan

Burn in issues was the main reason why I never invested in a plasma.


----------



## sigma1914

Hopefully, Samsung continues to make plasma because I'll never go back to LCD/LED.


----------



## txtommy

sigma1914 said:


> Hopefully, Samsung continues to make plasma because I'll never go back to LCD/LED.


Same here. Our living room Samsung is viewable from straight on to almost parallel to the screen which is important due to our floorplan. We couldn't do that with an LCD.


----------



## bobukcat

I can only hope this doesn't come to pass. It was bad enough when Pioneer bailed out but Panasonic leaving would be horrible - especially for those that are wiling to spend a little more for better picture quality.


----------



## dpeters11

MysteryMan;3196674 said:


> Burn in issues was the main reason why I never invested in a plasma.


It's really not a big issue, though don't know how Gov managed it. Actually, the one time I had the the issue was on an LCD panel. It was really image retention, but I had to watch the Super Bowl with it.


----------



## gov

Bright room, so I have panel a little brighter to compensate. Also have some householders that watch MeTV all day and I had format set for 4:3. They don't care if people are distorted so I generally leave it zoomed out now. And as noted, I can just barely tell it's burned a bit, no one else has noted it. 

I run the scroller weekly, and don't display 4:3 images in 4:3 when I am not here (LOL!)

If I had some more time to play with it, I might set the sidebars to light gray, set D* box to a blank channel, turn the brightness all the way up, and leave it on all night, see if I can even out the burn. And most of the time I don't see it, a fade to a white screen will show it, but any color in the picture and it becomes invisible.

I am surprised, that as much as I watch news channels with the scrolling ticker bar across the bottom, there is absolutely no sign of a horizontal band in that part of the screen. Go figure.

I've caught the issue very early, I won't let it get any worse, and I might get ahead of it at some point. 

I won't even try to take a picture of it, I'm not sure it would show.


----------



## coolman302003

Any thoughts on this Hoosier205?

I know you have been quite vocal in the past about how great the performance of Panasonic Plasmas are.



Hoosier205 said:


> I tend to despise LCD, but the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR-HX950 can compete with the Panasonic VT50. Behind those two...I wouldn't buy an LCD.





Hoosier205 said:


> When Vizio can compete with Panasonic, I'll listen.





Hoosier205 said:


> Watching it in glorious HD on my 65" Panasonic plasma.





Hoosier205 said:


> ...must not have seen a Panasonic plasma then.





Hoosier205 said:


> The Panasonic plasmas are the best displays available on the market today, without question.





Hoosier205 said:


> A Panasonic or Pioneer (if you can still find a Kuro) plasma is superior to every LCD/LED on them market today.


----------



## Steve

Another very happy Panny Plasma owner here, with a 65" and two 42"s.

I'm finally seeing some LED displays with PQ comparable to plasma, so I guess it's only a matter of time that plasmas will go the way of the CRT. The problem is the LEDs that look as good as plasmas currently cost 1.5x-2x what a plasma costs. The LEDs that cost the same still look very "digital" to me. :shrug:


----------



## dpeters11

Part of the issue with Plasma is that the LCD panels tend to look better to the average customer in the standard big box store. Many don't have the Magnolia type setup with more realistic home lighting.

Plus there are still misconceptions. I think there are still consumers that think the plasma runs out or that it needs recharged. Most likely, the electronics will fail or the user will upgrade before some of these modern sets will reach their half life (30 years @ 8 hours every day, which is very aggressive.)


----------



## BosFan

This news might finally push me over the edge to upscale the 42" LCD in the family room to 50" or 55" Panny plasma. Love the one I have in the living room.


----------



## damondlt

MysteryMan said:


> Burn in issues was the main reason why I never invested in a plasma.


Agree, or the so called acceptable "image Retention"

I had a 50" Panny Plasma, for about a month, Needless to say I hated every minute of it, The Glass screen reflected everything, and when you shut it off , all you saw were ghosted images in the screen. I had a tech from Panisonic come to the house , and they were forced to give me an entire refund. So I bought an LG 55" LCD smart TV instead. Love Panisonics customer service, Hate their plasmas!


----------



## Rich

MysteryMan said:


> Burn in issues was the main reason why I never invested in a plasma.


Over six years with my plasmas, never seen any evidence of burn in. My son leaves his 58" 720p Panny on all night, sometimes paused and it shows no sign of burn in at all. I've argued with him many times about burn in and he just turns on the TV and says, "Show me." He has absolutely no evidence of burn in on his set. Believe me, I've tried to prove it to him and lost the argument every time. That set is ~ 6 years old.

Rich


----------



## Rich

sigma1914 said:


> Hopefully, Samsung continues to make plasma because I'll never go back to LCD/LED.


I would buy a Sony. The last time I looked for a TV, they were, far and away, the best LCD LEDs out there. From what I've read, they use a lot of Panasonic technology in their sets. Can't supply a link to prove that statement, I've read the same thing in several places at different times.

Rich


----------



## Rich

bobukcat said:


> I can only hope this doesn't come to pass. It was bad enough when Pioneer bailed out but Panasonic leaving would be horrible - especially for those that are wiling to spend a little more for better picture quality.


Truth.

Rich


----------



## Rich

coolman302003 said:


> Any thoughts on this Hoosier205?
> 
> I know you have been quite vocal in the past about how great the performance of Panasonic Plasmas are.


The only thing I would disagree with him on is the part about the Sharp. I don't think the PQ on any of their sets compares well with a Panny Plasma. I watched a 70" Sharp at a friends house a couple weeks ago and the set was either out of wack or normal (don't know which, really) and I could not see any details on faces at all. Just smooth faces. Not what I see on any of my plasmas. I see scars and things like that on my plasmas.

Rich


----------



## Rich

BosFan said:


> This news might finally push me over the edge to upscale the 42" LCD in the family room to 50" or 55" Panny plasma. Love the one I have in the living room.


The 60" and 65" Panny plasmas are priced quite reasonably now. I'd look at them first.

Rich


----------



## Steve

damondlt said:


> Agree, or the so called acceptable "image Retention"
> 
> I had a 50" Panny Plasma, for about a month, Needless to say I hated every minute of it, The Glass screen reflected everything, and when you shut it off , all you saw were ghosted images in the screen.


Sounds like you have a bright room that requires you to crank up the display brightness to compensate for the ambient lighting. In my home, even during the day, the lighting is such I can use "cinema" mode for all my displays. As a result, I've never experienced image retention, even on the one I occasionally use for gaming.


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Sounds like you have a bright room that requires you to crank up the display brightness to compensate for the ambient lighting. In my home, even during the day, the lighting is such I can use "cinema" mode for all my displays. As a result, I've never experienced image retention, even on the one I occasionally use for gaming.


All 8 of mine are in Vivid mode and I don't see burn in at all.

Rich


----------



## Steve

Rich said:


> All 8 of mine are in Vivid mode and I don't see burn in at all.


That's impressive! I'd expect that from the newer models, but not from the pre-2009 or so models.


----------



## acostapimps

I know this is about Panasonic, but Samsung Plasmas been having problems with the 2011 and 2012 low end models lately, I've been having pink spots on the bottom of the screen but only visible on white background, They already adjusted the voltage but came back a short thereafter, I think one of the boards needs replacing, and this has been well documented on avsforums. But back on-topic this will be bad for Panasonic as they have one of the better black levels for Plasmas, And I'm not to fond for LCD's with their side angle viewing issue and expensive bigger size HDTV's.


----------



## damondlt

acostapimps said:


> I know this is about Panasonic, but Samsung Plasmas been having problems with the 2011 and 2012 low end models lately, I've been having pink spots on the bottom of the screen but only visible on white background, They already adjusted the voltage but came back a short thereafter, I think one of the boards needs replacing, and this has been well documented on avsforums. But back on-topic this will be bad for Panasonic as they have one of the better black levels for Plasmas, And I'm not to fond for LCD's with their side angle viewing issue and expensive bigger size HDTV's.


What viewing angle issues do LCD's have? Most LCD/LED"s have a 176 degree viewing angle. And I've never found myself in a situation where you watch TV at 90 degrees let alone 176.

Plasmas reflect everything for one so if there is a night light in the room, you will see it.

I will admit they do give a slightly nicer Picture and black levels are better.
But that rediculas 4 minute screen shift, and Image retention nonsence and the constant worry the kids will pause a game for 4 hours, poor viewing in any type of light , Don't dare Turn the contrast up with the threat of Burn in. 
I'm not sorry to see them go!


----------



## bobukcat

damondlt said:


> What viewing angle issues do LCD's have? Most LCD/LED"s have a 176 degree viewing angle. And I've never found myself in a situation where you watch TV at 90 degrees let alone 176.
> 
> Plasmas reflect everything for one so if there is a night light in the room, you will see it.
> 
> I will admit they do give a slightly nicer Picture and black levels are better.
> But that rediculas 4 minute screen shift, and Image retention nonsence and the constant worry the kids will pause a game for 4 hours, poor viewing in any type of light , Don't dare Turn the contrast up with the threat of Burn in.
> I'm not sorry to see them go!


The higher end Plasmas have anti-glare coating that really improves a lot of the issues with reflections. I have two Pioneer and one Panasonic. The Panasonic is usually watched in a dark room and the only reflection that is a problem is a hall light directly behind the seating area, if all the other lights are off and that is on it's bothersome. The lights on the side can be on with no problem whatsoever. The Pioneer upstairs is in a room with windows and glass doors on almost every side of it, I had to turn the brightness and contrast up SLIGHTLY from ideal to compensate. This is our main TV and glare is rarely if ever a problem. The bedroom Pioneer is viewed with the room lights off except for a reading light next to the side of the bed on. This light is right above / next to the "seating" position and never causes a problem with reflection. As for watching from an angle, we commonly view it from the bathroom at about 130 degrees angle in the morning while getting ready and it looks great.

The stated viewing angles for LCD/LED are what's ridiculous. You may be able to see the picture from that angle but the colors and contrast are completely out of whack.

Imagine retention can occur on LCD as well, BTW. However I play video games often, my wife almost never turns the other two off Food Network or The Cooking Channel so their logos are featured prominently for long hours at a time and I've never had a single scare with image retention on any of them. Even when she falls asleep with it on and it's been on Food Network of ESPN with the ticker at the bottom for 12-15 hours straight. The pixel orbiters are so good they are undetectable by the human eye.

Compared to the blooming effect you get in dark scenes with all but the very best LED/LCDs (and it's still there to some degree), weird Soap Opera effect on movies, poorer SD picture quality, inferior black levels and high prices for comparable performance I'd take a Plasma over LCD in almost any situation.

I respect that you prefer LCD over Plasma but these are my experiences and reasons for preferring Plasma.


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> That's impressive! I'd expect that from the newer models, but not from the pre-2009 or so models.


They range in age from 6 years to 1 year. The thing that really gets me is my son falls asleep every night with his 58" 720p (the most expensive TV I've ever bought at $2400) on NetFlix's home page. Just turned it off a half hour ago and...nothing even resembling burn in. I don't know what else to say about burn in on plasmas.

Rich


----------



## Rich

bobukcat said:


> The higher end Plasmas have anti-glare coating that really improves a lot of the issues with reflections. I have two Pioneer and one Panasonic. The Panasonic is usually watched in a dark room and the only reflection that is a problem is a hall light directly behind the seating area, if all the other lights are off and that is on it's bothersome. The lights on the side can be on with no problem whatsoever. The Pioneer upstairs is in a room with windows and glass doors on almost every side of it, I had to turn the brightness and contrast up SLIGHTLY from ideal to compensate. This is our main TV and glare is rarely if ever a problem. The bedroom Pioneer is viewed with the room lights off except for a reading light next to the side of the bed on. This light is right above / next to the "seating" position and never causes a problem with reflection. As for watching from an angle, we commonly view it from the bathroom at about 130 degrees angle in the morning while getting ready and it looks great.
> 
> The stated viewing angles for LCD/LED are what's ridiculous. You may be able to see the picture from that angle but the colors and contrast are completely out of whack.
> 
> Imagine retention can occur on LCD as well, BTW. However I play video games often, my wife almost never turns the other two off Food Network or The Cooking Channel so their logos are featured prominently for long hours at a time and I've never had a single scare with image retention on any of them. Even when she falls asleep with it on and it's been on Food Network of ESPN with the ticker at the bottom for 12-15 hours straight. The pixel orbiters are so good they are undetectable by the human eye.
> 
> Compared to the blooming effect you get in dark scenes with all but the very best LED/LCDs (and it's still there to some degree), weird Soap Opera effect on movies, poorer SD picture quality, inferior black levels and high prices for comparable performance I'd take a Plasma over LCD in almost any situation.
> 
> I respect that you prefer LCD over Plasma but these are my experiences and reasons for preferring Plasma.


I've got a room where we do most of our viewing. The room juts out from the back of the house and has windows on three walls, 9 windows in total. On a bright sunny day, I do have to put the blinds down, but most of the time we watch with some of the blinds up and I have no problem with glare. I've had 3 Panny plasmas in that room, each with the glare reducing screens and we are just not bothered with glare.

Show me something better and I'd buy it.

Rich


----------



## machavez00

It also depends on what flavor of panel you get. (IPS, PVA, TFT etc.)


----------



## Steve

machavez00 said:


> It also depends on what flavor of panel you get. (IPS, PVA, TFT etc.)


Ya. And that's the rub. To get a panel with comparable PQ, you have to spend a lot more than you would for a plasma in the same size. I would have thought by now, with economies of scale, LEDs would be cheaper. Makes me wonder if there's some collusion on pricing going on.


----------



## CCarncross

The last several models of Panny plasmas have been rated among the best....my GT50 is fantastic....


----------



## dpeters11

My only slight regret is getting the 55" VT50 instead of the 65" GT50. But I don't let it get to me, it was still an upgrade from my 42" Toshiba LCD.


----------



## damondlt

bobukcat said:


> The higher end Plasmas have anti-glare coating that really improves a lot of the issues with reflections. I have two Pioneer and one Panasonic. The Panasonic is usually watched in a dark room and the only reflection that is a problem is a hall light directly behind the seating area, if all the other lights are off and that is on it's bothersome. The lights on the side can be on with no problem whatsoever. The Pioneer upstairs is in a room with windows and glass doors on almost every side of it, I had to turn the brightness and contrast up SLIGHTLY from ideal to compensate. This is our main TV and glare is rarely if ever a problem. The bedroom Pioneer is viewed with the room lights off except for a reading light next to the side of the bed on. This light is right above / next to the "seating" position and never causes a problem with reflection. As for watching from an angle, we commonly view it from the bathroom at about 130 degrees angle in the morning while getting ready and it looks great.
> 
> The stated viewing angles for LCD/LED are what's ridiculous. You may be able to see the picture from that angle but the colors and contrast are completely out of whack.
> 
> Imagine retention can occur on LCD as well, BTW. However I play video games often, my wife almost never turns the other two off Food Network or The Cooking Channel so their logos are featured prominently for long hours at a time and I've never had a single scare with image retention on any of them. Even when she falls asleep with it on and it's been on Food Network of ESPN with the ticker at the bottom for 12-15 hours straight. The pixel orbiters are so good they are undetectable by the human eye.
> 
> Compared to the blooming effect you get in dark scenes with all but the very best LED/LCDs (and it's still there to some degree), weird Soap Opera effect on movies, poorer SD picture quality, inferior black levels and high prices for comparable performance I'd take a Plasma over LCD in almost any situation.
> 
> I respect that you prefer LCD over Plasma but these are my experiences and reasons for preferring Plasma.


Well said and I respect that.


----------



## CCarncross

dpeters11 said:


> My only slight regret is getting the 55" VT50 instead of the 65" GT50. But I don't let it get to me, it was still an upgrade from my 42" Toshiba LCD.


I thought the 65" anything was a little too big. At current resolutions, I prefer displays at or below 60" so I got the 60". When we get to the next res(4k), I'll be ready for a bigger screen. SO you dont think the VT was worth it over the GT?


----------



## Rich

dpeters11 said:


> My only slight regret is getting the 55" VT50 instead of the 65" GT50. But I don't let it get to me, it was still an upgrade from my 42" Toshiba LCD.


I wish I would have gotten the 65" model last year, too. I did get a 60", but I really should have planned better than I did.

Rich


----------



## dpeters11

Not really sure it is, actually, especially if it won't be professionally calibrated. Differences are that the VT50 has an "Infinite Black Ultra" filter instead of "Infinite Black Pro", different bezel, can do 24p @ 96 hz and 48 (GT can only do 48hz) and advanced calibration options. So it does have slightly better black levels, but is it something someone can really tell without them side by side, when you are not a professional calibrator?

I'm still happy with it, and the wife probably would think 65" is too big.


----------



## Steve

Rich said:


> I wish I would have gotten the 65" model last year, too. I did get a 60", but I really should have planned better than I did.


I bought a 65" 1080p S1 back in 2011. I knew I was going to calibrate it, so I was able to save a few bucks by going with it instead of a more expensive model. The picture quality is almost "3D", with really deep blacks that still show lots of detail.

We generally sit about 12' away. It only took a couple of days before it no longer seemed "big" to us.


----------



## CCarncross

I guess I'm the only one that thinks that 1920x1080 isnt enough resolution for tv's bigger than 60"? :shrug:

I much prefer the crispness of 1080 on a 46-50" set, but I wanted as big as I could stand. To my eyes, the smaller the tv the sharper the same resolution looks on it all other things being relatively equal. But I'm also very used to 1080 on a 24" pc monitor as well.


----------



## Steve

CCarncross said:


> I guess I'm the only one that thinks that 1920x1080 isnt enough resolution for tv's bigger than 60"? :shrug:


Depends on seating. If you've got 20/20 vision and are sitting closer than 8', you're probably right, according to this guy. Over 8', 65" is OK, according to his calculations.


----------



## CCarncross

I dont think anyone's getting my point....its not about viewing distance at all. Take a low res image or video, lets say 360x200 pixels, roughly the digital equivalent of 16:9 VHS....and display it on a 9" portable screen, looks fine, in fact it probably looks pretty good. Now playback that same image/video on a 70" screen, it looks absolutely terrible, like watching a bad youtube video. It has nothing to do with viewing distance. To me, when you start getting over 60" screens, 1080 resolution doesnt cut it anymore.


----------



## bobukcat

CCarncross said:


> I dont think anyone's getting my point....its not about viewing distance at all. Take a low res image or video, lets say 360x200 pixels, roughly the digital equivalent of 16:9 VHS....and display it on a 9" portable screen, looks fine, in fact it probably looks pretty good. Now playback that same image/video on a 70" screen, it looks absolutely terrible, like watching a bad youtube video. It has nothing to do with viewing distance. To me, when you start getting over 60" screens, 1080 resolution doesnt cut it anymore.


I see what you are saying but with that logic a projection screen in a theater would need to have some outrageous resolution. I'm no expert on this but viewing distance has to be factored into the equation at some point. My example is that as you get closer to a large screen you can see individual pixels and things may look like crap, but as you move away those pixels appear to be closer together and the picture looks fine. Obviously more resolution would be desirable but I certainly don't find 65" plasma too big for 1080P at 8-10' viewing distance. It may look poor with SD content, particularly if it is heavily compressed, but with a good source it looks excellent.


----------



## gov

I've seen the 4K Sony 84" set and was amazed at how rapidly with distance the picture quality (detail) became indistinguishable from the current HD standard.

4K TV sets are going to have to be BIG for my (and quite a few of the rest of you, LOL) 55 year old eyes at a 'regular' seating distance (at my house ~15 feet).

4K set for me would need to be 140" minimum, and could go 160" easy.

Not sure how I get it home, get it in the door, and then set it up , but I ALREADY want one!!

there is a sports bar nearby with, IIRC, the panasonic 105", I need to go look at that beast!!


----------



## CCarncross

bobukcat said:


> I see what you are saying but with that logic a projection screen in a theater would need to have some outrageous resolution. I'm no expert on this but viewing distance has to be factored into the equation at some point. My example is that as you get closer to a large screen you can see individual pixels and things may look like crap, but as you move away those pixels appear to be closer together and the picture looks fine. Obviously more resolution would be desirable but I certainly don't find 65" plasma too big for 1080P at 8-10' viewing distance. It may look poor with SD content, particularly if it is heavily compressed, but with a good source it looks excellent.


If I were to put in a projection system in a theater, it would have to have expensive line scalers again because 1080 "just dont cut it" above 60" for me. Anyone remember back in the days of LD's and projection systems and the Faroudja line doublers/ etc...? I would need the modern equivalent of that in the digital world.


----------



## coolman302003

*A few updates:*

Panasonic's restructuring plan will let it keep making TVs, for now

Panasonic stays in TV business, chairman resigning

UPDATE 2-Panasonic falls short of announcing job cuts in business plan

Panasonic to Pare Unprofitable Units (Subscription required to read)

http://e.nikkei.com/e/ac/TNKS/Nni20130328D2803F04.htm (Subscription required to read)


----------



## hdtvfan0001

CCarncross said:


> If I were to put in a projection system in a theater, it would have to have expensive line scalers again because 1080 "just dont cut it" above 60" for me. Anyone remember back in the days of LD's and projection systems and the Faroudja line doublers/ etc...? I would need the modern equivalent of that in the digital world.


While there is some truth to that...there is also another truth...there comes a tipping point where the image reproduction gain exceeds the ability of most people to recognize the difference and/or accept the costs to produce it.

As one who routinely views images on a quality 116" HD projection system...I always need to remind myself that most folks don't have the obsession for perfection that others do at DBSTalk when it comes to video, audio, and related technology.

Having seen 4K resolution firsthand with 4K content...the imagery is clearly better than 1080p. Yet, the cost to produce it exponentially exceeds 1080p's best image production at time. For that reason alone...it's years away.

Circling back to the topic at hand...

Plasma displays have been dying a slow death in the market for some time. Panasonic is not the first manufacturer to head out the door on plasma. Folks sometimes forget that tech moves on.


----------



## sigma1914

Just got the new Panasonic 50" ST60... this set is phenomenal. Early indications are hinting it's equal to and possibly a tad better than the highly touted VT50 from 2012.

At only $999, it's a steal.


----------



## Steve

sigma1914 said:


> At only $999, it's a steal.


It is. I just read this excellent review of the 42ST60, which sells for the equivalent of $1380 (£900) in the UK. Sounds like your eyes are in for a real treat. Enjoy!


----------



## satcrazy

sigma1914 said:


> Just got the new Panasonic 50" ST60... this set is phenomenal. Early indications are hinting it's equal to and possibly a tad better than the highly touted VT50 from 2012.
> 
> At only $999, it's a steal.


sig,
Mind me asking where you purchased from?

thanks


----------



## sigma1914

satcrazy said:


> sig,
> Mind me asking where you purchased from?
> 
> thanks


Best Buy... ordered online and picked it up about an hour later.


----------



## bobukcat

Panasonic just keeps making their plasmas better and better but consumers are largely ill-informed, so we're faced with the prospect of them abandoning the technology (and possibly the entire product sector) because of poor sales. Every time someone comes to me for a TV recommendation and I tell them to start with Panny Plasmas I hear the same thing "I was told LED is better" "they'll have burn-in (incorrect terminology)", "they're too heavy", etc. Despite the fact that I'm widely accepted as the "Technology Guy" (or more commonly geek or nerd) by my friends and family it takes a lot to convince them otherwise. I'm often successful but not always as the amount FUD seems almost overwhelming.

I know there are other good choices, but you really can't get close to the same picture performance with LED/LCD unless you spend a LOT more money.


----------



## lparsons21

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Circling back to the topic at hand...
> 
> Plasma displays have been dying a slow death in the market for some time. Panasonic is not the first manufacturer to head out the door on plasma. Folks sometimes forget that tech moves on.


Yeah, tech does move on. But usually it is something better and at least price competitive, which is not the case right now.

Plasma is on the way out, that seems a forgone conclusion, but yet a 'better' tech isn't really there yet. OLED seems to be the next big thing, yet after lots of years still isn't ready for the consumer market, or any other market it seems.

And no, LCD/LED isn't a 'better' tech, imo.


----------



## Steve

bobukcat said:


> Panasonic just keeps making their plasmas better and better but consumers are largely ill-informed, so we're faced with the prospect of them abandoning the technology (and possibly the entire product sector) because of poor sales. Every time someone comes to me for a TV recommendation and I tell them to start with Panny Plasmas I hear the same thing "I was told LED is better" "they'll have burn-in (incorrect terminology)", "they're too heavy", etc. Despite the fact that I'm widely accepted as the "Technology Guy" (or more commonly geek or nerd) by my friends and family it takes a lot to convince them otherwise. I'm often successful but not always as the amount FUD seems almost overwhelming.


There's also FUD about power consumption. E.g., a 42S60 draws 109 watts average. Maybe more than a comparable LED, but not bad, IMO. Especially compared to what we were using with our CRTs 10 years ago.



> I know there are other good choices, but you really can't get close to the same picture performance with LED/LCD unless you spend a LOT more money.


At least 1.5x the price (or more), based on what I saw last time I was in the store.


----------



## dpeters11

Or the plasma leaks over time, etc. Of course there is a lifespan, but a person is going to upgrade before reaching the halflife. Or the electronics will fail.

Though, does Plasma still have an issue with altitude, like in Colorado (higher than Denver)?


----------



## bidger

dpeters11 said:


> Or the plasma leaks over time, etc. Of course there is a lifespan, but a person is going to upgrade before reaching the halflife.


The 2012 Panasonic plasmas have a half-life of 100,000 hours. I don't plan on upgrading until 4k is the norm.


----------



## dpeters11

Right, and 100,000 hours is 11 years if it's left on 24/7 the entire time. By the time you hit 100,000, 4k will have come and gone.


----------



## Rich

dpeters11 said:


> Right, and 100,000 hours is 11 years if it's left on 24/7 the entire time. By the time you hit 100,000, 4k will have come and gone.


I think Panasonic says 6 hours of viewing a day to get to their mark of 42 years of service.

Rich


----------



## spartanstew

Rich said:


> All 8 of mine are in Vivid mode and I don't see burn in at all.
> 
> Rich


Holy Crap, why?



CCarncross said:


> I dont think anyone's getting my point....its not about viewing distance at all. Take a low res image or video, lets say 360x200 pixels, roughly the digital equivalent of 16:9 VHS....and display it on a 9" portable screen, looks fine, in fact it probably looks pretty good. Now playback that same image/video on a 70" screen, it looks absolutely terrible, like watching a bad youtube video. It has nothing to do with viewing distance. To me, when you start getting over 60" screens, 1080 resolution doesnt cut it anymore.


Incorrect. That image on a 9" portable screen from 12" away will look exactly the same on a 70" screen from 20' away. It's all about viewing distance versus screen size.


----------



## bobukcat

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/12/panasonic-buries-rumors-of-plasma-tv-death/

I tried to find a link to the actual press release / statement but no luck so far. I just hope this is accurate and they continue to invest R&D dollars in the their plasma line.


----------



## Steve

spartanstew said:


> Incorrect. That image on a 9" portable screen from 12" away will look exactly the same on a 70" screen from 20' away. It's all about viewing distance versus screen size.


Bingo. Similarly, sitting 12' away from a 60" 4k screen isn't going to look any better than sitting 12' away from a 1080p (or even 768p) screen. It's all a marketing ploy by the hardware manufacturers to get you to replace perfectly good equipment.


----------



## satcrazy

spartanstew said:


> Holy Crap, why?
> 
> I was wondering the same thing[?]
> 
> I believe Rich and I have the same model and I like cinema. Of course I have seen some posters say they use game mode.
> 
> All personal preference


----------



## Rich

bobukcat said:


> http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/12/panasonic-buries-rumors-of-plasma-tv-death/
> 
> I tried to find a link to the actual press release / statement but no luck so far. I just hope this is accurate and they continue to invest R&D dollars in the their plasma line.


Me too. I was beginning to think this would be another massive mistake like Sony's Beta-Max snafu. Or Apple's mistakes in the middle-late 80s when they were (and still are) very worried that allowing processes to be run by Macs would be their ruin...and almost was.

Rich


----------



## Rich

satcrazy said:


> spartanstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Crap, why?
> 
> I was wondering the same thing[?]
> 
> I believe Rich and I have the same model and I like cinema. Of course I have seen some posters say they use game mode.
> 
> All personal preference
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, it is a personal preference. I've tried the Cinema mode and didn't like it. I've tried everything, I've used the calibration discs and I/we like the Vivid mode. All five of my 720p sets had what we considered perfect pictures when we bought them and they still have the same settings they had when they came out of the box. The 3 1080p sets I have, I did have to adjust some settings, tried all the modes and still use Vivid. Last time I had my 60" Panny in Cinema mode, my wife asked me what was wrong with the set.
> 
> I've also read articles (I have no links, you'll just have to take my word for this) by Panasonic people or on Panasonic sites that actually recommended Vivid in order to take advantage of the plasma's beautiful colors.
> 
> The last time I used a calibration disc, I ended up in Cinema mode and was told that it would take 6 weeks to get used to it. That was my last try using calibration discs.
> 
> I don't smoke, drink alcohol, use my cell phone in the car, eat broccoli. Just personal preferences, I don't try to force people to think they should follow my example.
> 
> Rich
Click to expand...


----------



## satcrazy

Rich:
I have to add that my livingroom where the tv is located is on the dark side. 

I would think vivid in a brighter room would be OK.

Like I said, all personal preference. If you looked at my settings, you might think they are a bit washed out. I think they look natural. 

Whatever is choosen, IMHO, panasonic plasma can't be beat. Would be a big loss if they exit.

Oh, and I like broccoli. It just doesn't like me!:lol:


----------



## sigma1914

For those who like Vivid or other presets... Have you ever tried a professional calibration (not BBs Geek Squad) or suggested settings from pros on AVS forum?


----------



## Rich

satcrazy said:


> Rich:
> I have to add that my livingroom where the tv is located is on the dark side.
> 
> I would think vivid in a brighter room would be OK.


I've got one 1080p set in a room that is very dark and another one that is fairly bright during the day. PQ is fine in both places.



> Like I said, all personal preference. If you looked at my settings, you might think they are a bit washed out. I think they look natural.


Yup, if it's in anything but Vivid, I'd think it was washed out. As I said, I've tried every setting. I don't use 3D at all because of the dimness of the picture. I bought that set because of the great PQ in 2D.



> Whatever is choosen, IMHO, panasonic plasma can't be beat. Would be a big loss if they exit.


Agreed.



> Oh, and I like broccoli. It just doesn't like me!:lol:


When I was a little kid cabbage family veggies were poverty food. But, wooden floors were a sign of poverty, too. Things change.

Rich


----------



## Rich

sigma1914 said:


> For those who like Vivid or other presets... Have you ever tried a professional calibration (not BBs Geek Squad) or suggested settings from pros on AVS forum?


I never considered a "professional calibration" and I've tried the settings on AVS. Still like them in Vivid. Why should you have to pay for calibration?

Rich


----------



## satcrazy

When I first bought my panny I was all about setting it up properly.

When I read the part [ on AVS forums] about running slides for 100 hours before applying the settings from their settings guru [ no offense to anyone there] I laughed out loud. Especially the part where you shouldn't bother to apply said "settings" if you didn't run the slides.

The more I read, the more my eyes started to bleed.

Jumped in with both feet and never regreted it. Just played with the settings until it appealed to me. I wasn't about to waste 100 hours of face time.

There are, of course, people who would do nothing less than calibrate, and I respect that.
It is in the eye of the beholder.

PS
My mother's stuffed cabbage was second to none. I grew up in a very modest enviroment.


----------



## dpeters11

I use d-nice's settings but without the slides. Sorry d-nice.


----------



## satcrazy

dpeters11 said:


> I use d-nice's settings but without the slides. Sorry do nice.


What do you think of D's settings? Any better than what you could do with some tweaking?


----------



## sigma1914

The slides isn't required, but it's so you'll get similar results as the pro.

I've never paid for calibration, but the results with this ST60 are amazing. I've never liked preset modes because they're either too dull or burn my rods and cones. :lol:

The last few years, manufacturers have given more leeway with more adjustable options instead of the typical contrast, brightness, etc.


----------



## satcrazy

Sig

They were pretty addimate about running those slides over at AVS. It was like "run the slides" or don't bother using my settings.


----------



## dpeters11

I like that board as much as anyone, but some members there are hard core. I'm satisfied.


----------



## klang

Taking the settings from one TV at AVS or anywhere else is really of limited value. No two TV's are the same. Perhaps a starting point but nothing more.

I've been through ISF training. Two 'identical' sets, calibrated side by side, will yield different settings. 

Actually, a properly calibrated display may look 'wrong' because most people haven't seen one calibrated correctly and are used to the out of the box settings.


----------



## sigma1914

satcrazy said:


> Sig
> 
> They were pretty addimate about running those slides over at AVS. It was like "run the slides" or don't bother using my settings.


Yeah some guys are adamant about it. Look at it this way...

I tell you that if you do ABC, then there's an extremely high chance you'll get XYZ. Then, you do DEF and you don't get XYZ and you come complain to me. Well, sorry I told you to do ABC so don't be mad at me. Now, if your DEF got you XYZ, then it's all good.

That was confusing. :lol:


----------



## satcrazy

Thanks for "adamant" [ I need spell check]

I think Klang is right about one thing though.

Starting point, OK.

However, no 2 tv's are alike. If you read avs forums, it prooves that.

So using someone elses idea of a formula for a good picture on a particular set is not 100%. accurate,imo.

Oh Oh. From the looks of it we are going through a site change starting tonight. Wonder if my desktop icon will still work.


----------



## Rich

satcrazy said:


> When I first bought my panny I was all about setting it up properly.
> 
> When I read the part [ on AVS forums] about running slides for 100 hours before applying the settings from their settings guru [ no offense to anyone there] I laughed out loud. Especially the part where you shouldn't bother to apply said "settings" if you didn't run the slides.
> 
> The more I read, the more my eyes started to bleed.
> 
> Jumped in with both feet and never regreted it. Just played with the settings until it appealed to me. I wasn't about to waste 100 hours of face time.
> 
> There are, of course, people who would do nothing less than calibrate, and I respect that.
> It is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> PS
> My mother's stuffed cabbage was second to none. I grew up in a very modest enviroment.


Oh, I realize the women could make a decent meal out of cabbage, I've just associated it with poverty all my life. Same as the wooden floors and rugs.

Rich


----------



## satcrazy

Rich said:


> Oh, I realize the women could make a decent meal out of cabbage, I've just associated it with poverty all my life. Same as the wooden floors and rugs.
> 
> Rich


We too had wood floors and throw rugs cause the floors were so damn cold.

In retrospect, those floor boards were solid oak, and probably worth a small fortune now.:lol:


----------



## Rich

satcrazy said:


> We too had wood floors and throw rugs cause the floors were so damn cold.
> 
> In retrospect, those floor boards were solid oak, and probably worth a small fortune now. :lol:


And all the rich people had wall to wall carpeting. I've got wall to wall carpeting covering oak floors now, just can't get past that paradigm.

Rich


----------



## Mike Bertelson

That would just suck. IMHO, ya can't beat the PQ of a plasma.

Mike


----------



## Rich

Mike Bertelson said:


> That would just suck. IMHO, ya can't beat the PQ of a plasma.
> 
> Mike


I don't think they'll go out of the plasma business. I hope I'm right. I also hope they come out with a 4K plasma soon.

Rich


----------



## Steve

Mike Bertelson said:


> That would just suck. IMHO, ya can't beat the PQ of a plasma.


This article has me dying to see the 2013 models.



> The new subfield technology also allows the panel to express 30,720 gray levels, compared to the 6144 levels in conventional PDPs (such as the one in Panasonic's own value-oriented S series). The comparison here between the ZT and the Kuro was dramatic.* In a close-up of the fur of a black cat, complex patterns in the fur and individual strands were easily seen, although the entire image was in dark levels. The cat's fur on the Kuro was largely undifferentiated.* Both the 3000 FFD and 30,720 gray levels are also available on the VT - the next series down in the range.
> 
> A new red phosphor, combined with a front surface filter redesigned so that it would not interfere with the purer red, allows the ZT and VT to produce *color gamut that covers 122% of the ITU standard (HDTV) and 98% of the DCI standard* (Digital Cinema).
> 
> [_*more*_]


----------



## RG6-Q

bobukcat said:


> The higher end Plasmas have anti-glare coating that really improves a lot of the issues with reflections. I have two Pioneer and one Panasonic. The Panasonic is usually watched in a dark room and the only reflection that is a problem is a hall light directly behind the seating area, if all the other lights are off and that is on it's bothersome. The lights on the side can be on with no problem whatsoever. The Pioneer upstairs is in a room with windows and glass doors on almost every side of it, I had to turn the brightness and contrast up SLIGHTLY from ideal to compensate. This is our main TV and glare is rarely if ever a problem.
> 
> I have a Pioneer PD-P5080HD which I was to sell this week so I could get the Panasonic TC-P50GT50 which is 1080P from last year's line up. The reason was that image of 768P could better ( my reasoning ) by getting a 1080P Panasonic. What is your opinion??? Is is very important to me and maybe shall break or make a deal. :rolling:Is this a real upgrade?


----------



## bobukcat

Y


RG6-Q said:


> I have a Pioneer PD-P5080HD which I was to sell this week so I could get the Panasonic TC-P50GT50 which is 1080P from last year's line up. The reason was that image of 768P could better ( my reasoning ) by getting a 1080P Panasonic. What is your opinion??? Is is very important to me and maybe shall break or make a deal. :rolling:Is this a real upgrade?
Click to expand...

That's a very tough question to answer, how far away do you sit from the TV and what is your primary sources for content. One of my Pioneers is a 50" 768 set and from 8 ft away with a sat HD feed I really don't know if the 1080 set would be any better. Unless you are getting a really good price for your Pioneer I think I'd hold on to it and wait for this next years Pannys to be on closeout, or even longer.


----------



## RG6-Q

bobukcat said:


> Y
> That's a very tough question to answer, how far away do you sit from the TV and what is your primary sources for content. One of my Pioneers is a 50" 768 set and from 8 ft away with a sat HD feed I really don't know if the 1080 set would be any better. Unless you are getting a really good price for your Pioneer I think I'd hold on to it and wait for this next years Pannys to be on closeout, or even longer.


I sit 9-10 feet from monitor. I watch TV though a 722K and always watch HD, cannot see SD. The blacks are great. My receiver is set to 1080i which fits perfect with a 768P. I also watch Blu Rays, but use the 722K 95% of the time. I really don't care about all the WEB features on the Panny mentioned. Will I see a better image on DISH with this GT series HDTV I am keeping the eye on??? That is my concern. :rolling:

So you think with the GT I would not say WOW in image quality????. I also wanted to mention that all I use is HDMI connections and I have calibrated the set myself for night use ( I don't watch during the day ). My setup does not put any reflection on the glass and I have a dimmed light behind set. The 5080 has about 10,000 hours or less of use.

Now that you have the facts, WITHOUT putting the money factor in between, what would you do. Thanks.


----------



## bobukcat

RG6-Q said:


> I sit 9-10 feet from monitor. I watch TV though a 722K and always watch HD, cannot see SD. The blacks are great. My receiver is set to 1080i which fits perfect with a 768P. I also watch Blu Rays, but use the 722K 95% of the time. I really don't care about all the WEB features on the Panny mentioned. Will I see a better image on DISH with this GT series HDTV I am keeping the eye on??? That is my concern. :rolling:
> 
> So you think with the GT I would not say WOW in image quality????. I also wanted to mention that all I use is HDMI connections and I have calibrated the set myself for night use ( I don't watch during the day ). My setup does not put any reflection on the glass and I have a dimmed light behind set. The 5080 has about 10,000 hours or less of use.
> 
> Now that you have the facts, WITHOUT putting the money factor in between, what would you do. Thanks.


That's a tough choice, you aren't likely to see a huge jump in PQ when fed from the 722K (or any other non-1080P source for that matter) so I would _probably_ just hang on to your Pioneer for now. If you did decide to buy a new Panasonic though I would probably wait until at least the new models are out and I would suggest you buy the VT series so you have more access to calibration controls which are lacking in the lower-end models.


----------



## RG6-Q

bobukcat said:


> That's a tough choice, you aren't likely to see a huge jump in PQ when fed from the 722K (or any other non-1080P source for that matter) so I would _probably_ just hang on to your Pioneer for now. If you did decide to buy a new Panasonic though I would probably wait until at least the new models are out and I would suggest you buy the VT series so you have more access to calibration controls which are lacking in the lower-end models.


I will keep it for now. Your input was very helpful. Thank you very much.


----------



## dpeters11

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/09/us-panasonic-plasmatv-idUSBRE99801720131009


----------



## bobukcat

Looks like Panasonic has confirmed it and it's happening very quickly. If anyone is in the market for a new TV larger than 40", particularly if you have a discriminating eye, you better plan on getting one soon or be prepared to wait a long time for something better. I guess the Sammy will still be around for some period of time, and their high-end plasma displays are pretty darned good, but this still stinks - even if we knew it was coming for a while now.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/31/5050038/panasonic-plasma-tv-production-end


----------



## Steve

Ya. We were also discussing it here. Apparently the theoretical power requirements for a 4k plasma would be prohibitive.


----------



## dpeters11

bobukcat said:


> Looks like Panasonic has confirmed it and it's happening very quickly. If anyone is in the market for a new TV larger than 40", particularly if you have a discriminating eye, you better plan on getting one soon or be prepared to wait a long time for something better. I guess the Sammy will still be around for some period of time, and their high-end plasma displays are pretty darned good, but this still stinks - even if we knew it was coming for a while now.
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/31/5050038/panasonic-plasma-tv-production-end


I wouldn't count on Samsung holding out much longer. I think this just brings the end to Plasma much closer.


----------



## Steve

Based on the Panasonic announcement, I pulled the trigger on a 65ZT, which was delivered today. It's waiting to be unboxed and set-up and will replace my calibrated 65S1, likely by the week-end. The S1 is going to my daughter's home.


----------



## dpeters11

I wonder if this guy's uncle ever opened his Kuro. Too bad we'll never know.
http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/201772-whats-so-good-about-this-tv/


----------



## Laxguy

dpeters11 said:


> I wouldn't count on Samsung holding out much longer. I think this just brings the end to Plasma much closer.


Maybe I missed the discussion of this part: Why are plasmas on their way out? Is LED at the point of a comparable picture? Or is OLED going to hit the market at affordable prices? Or.....?


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Maybe I missed the discussion of this part: Why are plasmas on their way out? Is LED at the point of a comparable picture? Or is OLED going to hit the market at affordable prices? Or.....?


Seems to be mainly because Panasonic is losing money or not making enough money on plasmas. Having seen a couple of their LCDs, a horrid experience, it seems like a blunder. Money rules tho. I'd guess that we should be waiting for the plasma patents to be sold to someone and then check out those plasmas. I cannot believe that just because Panasonic stops making them every manufacturer will.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Maybe I missed the discussion of this part: Why are plasmas on their way out? Is LED at the point of a comparable picture? Or is OLED going to hit the market at affordable prices? Or.....?


Oled is on the market now at ridiculously high prices that are starting to fall rapidly. A fourteen thousand dollar set was recently reduced to nine thousand and is now at eight thousand. I think it's an LG set. Still way too much money.

Rich


----------



## Steve

Laxguy said:


> Maybe I missed the discussion of this part: Why are plasmas on their way out? Is LED at the point of a comparable picture? Or is OLED going to hit the market at affordable prices? Or.....?


According to this, it's because energy requirements to drive a 4k plasma would be prohibitive.



> We asked Panasonic about 4K plasma a while ago, and it said that while it would be possible, it would have some monstrous power requirements. And for that reason it would probably never happen as modern eco rules and ratings simply make it impractical.


----------



## dpeters11

Rich said:


> Seems to be mainly because Panasonic is losing money or not making enough money on plasmas. Having seen a couple of their LCDs, a horrid experience, it seems like a blunder. Money rules tho. I'd guess that we should be waiting for the plasma patents to be sold to someone and then check out those plasmas. I cannot believe that just because Panasonic stops making them every manufacturer will.
> 
> Rich


I've still seen a lot of misconceptions on Plasma, and they don't demo as well in the standard big box store with it's lighting etc as an LED. Whether they are right or not, what consumers believe have an effect.


----------



## gov

I was just getting all weepy about VCRs and Blockbuster, and now this.

Argh.

FWIW, one of the very first plasmas I ever installed, a 42" Panny with no speakers or tuner is still working. The picture is disturbingly dim, and the set is now relocated to a garage (wall mount, HD satellite, and a modest JBL surround system) and is living out it's days as a weekend sports venue for the neighbors.

I believe small quantities of beer are involved too.




As the sign says, I know beer will change the world, I don't know how, but it will!


----------



## Rich

dpeters11 said:


> I've still seen a lot of misconceptions on Plasma, and they don't demo as well in the standard big box store with it's lighting etc as an LED. Whether they are right or not, what consumers believe have an effect.


They do look bad in our local Costcos compared to the LCDs. One of our local 6th Avenue stores used to have dark rooms where you could compare LCDs and plasmas fairly and the plasmas always looked better. Wasn't just my opinion, just about everyone in those dimly lit rooms was in front of a plasma.

Rich


----------



## dpeters11

Exactly. Best Buy does the same thing with Magnolia.


----------



## inkahauts

Plasma is better than LCD. Led is better than LCD (yes I know its light sourcing is what's really different) but it's still not plasma. With that said led do cost a heck of a lot less to run.


----------



## Steve

inkahauts said:


> Plasma is better than LCD. Led is better than LCD (yes I know its light sourcing is what's really different) but it's still not plasma. With that said led do cost a heck of a lot less to run.


I was pleasantly surprised by the energy sticker on my new 65ZT60 plasma.


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> I was pleasantly surprised by the energy sticker on my new 65ZT60 plasma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 65zt60.jpg


The heat thing is the only thing I don't like about them. You set is amazing low. Hmm.

Rich


----------



## machavez00

My 60" Sammy 5300 series has a similar energy rating.


----------



## CCarncross

Rich said:


> The heat thing is the only thing I don't like about them. You set is amazing low. Hmm.
> 
> Rich


But the whole thing is they dont get very warm at all anymore....they require much less energy to run than 5 years ago, in fact almost half of what they used to need, and they also reduced the heat footprint close to 50%. Truthfully my 60-GT50, is barely warm to the touch. I know you have lots of them Rich, but IIRC you have many older ones...I have a 46S1, and the 60GT50, the S1 is warmer than the GT50.


----------



## Rich

CCarncross said:


> But the whole thing is they dont get very warm at all anymore....they require much less energy to run than 5 years ago, in fact almost half of what they used to need, and they also reduced the heat footprint close to 50%. Truthfully my 60-GT50, is barely warm to the touch. I know you have lots of them Rich, but IIRC you have many new ones...


It's not even something I notice anymore. My older sets, the 720ps, run a lot warmer than the newer 1080ps.

Rich


----------

