Thinking about making the jump and this seems like a really good deal and its gotten some great reviews, just wanted to see what you all thought... thanks.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000F4CTUK

4/12/2007 4:05:41 PM

while i havent used that particular model personally, most of the reviews are favorable

I WOULD however recommend pricing it at places like Sam's Club, Costco, etc

4/12/2007 4:24:24 PM

do you have a plasma?

4/12/2007 4:28:34 PM

Plasma is only a better option if you can guarantee a VERY dark room to watch it in. Any windows or ambient light kill its advantages over LCD.

I would consider one of these before that plasma:

Phillips 47 inch LCD (1080P maybe), @ Costco $1,799.00
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/messageview.php?catid=18&threadid=720670&highlight_key=y&keyword1=costco

Sharp Aquos 46" 1080p LCD HDTV $2,000 after $300 off @ Costco B&M/On-line
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/messageview.php?catid=18&threadid=717694&highlight_key=y&keyword1=costco

Sharp 42" 1080P LCD - $1499.99 at Costco.com
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/messageview.php?catid=18&threadid=717602&highlight_key=y&keyword1=costco

4/12/2007 4:45:28 PM

I have that plasma and it works good. It's the older model Panasonic though, they have newer ones out.

I don't know what ^ is talking about though, light affects any TV, and plasma and LCDs have different properties depending on what you look for. The only reason not to get a plasma is if you play lots of video games or are planning to buy some Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movies (then you'd want a 1080p TV which are $texas in plasmas), otherwise they'll generally look better than LCDs.

[Edited on April 12, 2007 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2007 4:48:22 PM

Quote :

"Plasma is only a better option if you can guarantee a VERY dark room to watch it in. Any windows or ambient light kill its advantages over LCD."

This isn't true at all.

As far as the TH-50PX60U, it's definitely a quality TV, however I think if you look around you might be able to get it a bit cheaper either right now or in a few weeks, since Panasonic's new plasma's are starting to come on.

I have the TH-42PX60U (the 42" version of the TV you linked) and I absolutely love it. The picture quality is incredible. Panasonic makes very, very good plasmas. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

[Edited on April 12, 2007 at 6:13 PM. Reason : .]

4/12/2007 6:13:33 PM

How does it look on SD?

4/12/2007 8:55:01 PM

On my 42" it looks about as good as SD is going to look on a non-native resolution in my opinion.

4/12/2007 11:29:54 PM

^ translation, it looks terrible like all SD on a HDTV

4/12/2007 11:46:31 PM

It honestly could be much, much worse. It looks better on the plasma than it does on the SeXRD, I think.

Then again, the SXRD is about 18" bigger so I'm asking a lot more of it

4/12/2007 11:50:57 PM

Plasmas generally look better than other technologies (except CRT) for SDTV. I'm not sure why this is.

4/12/2007 11:54:53 PM

Because they focus on picture quality rather than raw pixel count?

And I mean, it's a lot easier to scale something from 640x480 to 1024x768/1366x768 than to 1920x1080. Plus, everything is getting scaled on them anyway, so logic would dictate that there's a good scaler in there.

4/13/2007 12:04:06 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "Plasma is only a better option if you can guarantee a VERY dark room to watch it in. Any windows or ambient light kill its advantages over LCD." This isn't true at all."

Actually, yes it is. Go to any good AV forum and people will repeat it. Black levels, contrast, and color saturation advantages in Plasma are nullified by lighting. Unless you are putting money into something like a Pioneer Elite Plasma, it just makes more sense to go LCD to get bang for your buck.

Hell, here is a Plasma TV paper published on Panasonic's own website that mentions it:
ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/Drivers/PBTS/papers/Plasma-WP.pdf

Quote :

"Daytime Viewing: A second perceived deficiency of plasma TVs that is discussed more within the industry than by customers is the degradation in contrast when the screen is viewed in bright ambient light. For example, if a set is facing a window on a bright afternoon, the reflection of the outdoor scene interferes with the TV image. This effect was even worse for CRTs and so we are all used to closing shades when we want to see a high quality image during daytime or positioning the set so that annoying reflections do not occur. Nevertheless, if one really likes to watch afternoon movies in a very bright room, most (but not all) LCDs suffer less from this type of reflectance. PDP manufacturers are well aware of this problem and are now taking significant steps to reduce the reflection of ambient light. One solution gaining attention is to change the structure of the optical filter that is added to PDPs by the TV set assembler. This has traditionally involved a separate sheet of glass. Panel manufacturers have now realized that incorporation of the filter into the basic panel through the addition of optical films can reduce the weight and thickness of the complete set, as well as significantly reduce the reflectivity of the TV and significantly improve bright room contrast."

Quote :

"LCDs can fill the screen with brighter images than PDPs, CRTs or RPTVs. This can certainly be an advantage for public information terminals outdoors or in bright indoor lighting. However, for home entertainment applications, its value is limited to daytime viewing in unshaded rooms. In other situations, viewing screens that are too bright can result in eye-strain as well as unnecessary power consumption. This is recognized in top-of-the-line LCDs and PDPs, which have built-in ambient light detectors, so that the brightness can be turned down automatically when high levels are not needed. Nonetheless, PDPs do continue to get brighter, with peak brightness measurements (1% - 5% window prior to applying the front filter) increasing from 750 nits in 2002 to as high as 1500 nits in 2005 on the latest generation panels. In addition, switching to film filters should also improve viewing in bright indoor lighting."

4/13/2007 12:13:24 AM

well mine would be on a wall perpindicular to the windows... think that will be enough to not worry about it?

4/13/2007 12:37:40 AM

I'm not familiar enough with what is out there to say that it is your best option. However, I bought the 42 inch version about a year and a half ago and love it.

4/13/2007 12:42:03 AM

and does anyone that has an HDTV also have Direct TV? got a few questions for you...

4/13/2007 12:43:47 AM

Quote :

"For example, if a set is facing a window on a bright afternoon, the reflection of the outdoor scene interferes with the TV image. This effect was even worse for CRTs and so we are all used to closing shades when we want to see a high quality image during daytime or positioning the set so that annoying reflections do not occur."

Does not mesh with this claim:

Quote :

""Plasma is only a better option if you can guarantee a VERY dark room to watch it in. Any windows or ambient light kill its advantages over LCD.""

LCDs colors shift at the slightest angle off center, so if color accuracy is your thing, you're especially not going to be worried about it on a consumer LCD tv. And LCDs have reduced color range compared to plasmas to begin with.

Neither technology though is wholesale better than the other, and both are better in a lot of areas than TVs people already have.

4/13/2007 1:58:24 AM

Quote :

"Actually, yes it is. Go to any good AV forum and people will repeat it. Black levels, contrast, and color saturation advantages in Plasma are nullified by lighting. Unless you are putting money into something like a Pioneer Elite Plasma, it just makes more sense to go LCD to get bang for your buck." "

No, it's not. The issue with plasmas is that unlike (most) LCDs, there's a piece of glass on the front of them. So yes, there can be glare. Is it that terrible? Not really. It's not like you're going to get a decent black when an LCD TV has the sun shining in on it either. It's certainly not as though spending something like $2,000 more on a Pioneer Elite is going to fix the issue of "bright light onto glass".

Lets put it this way, I have a plasma, an SXRD, and two LCD monitors and every single one of them goes pretty much equally to shit when the sun is shining directly on them. People have watched CRTs for years and years and they have the same issue.

Also, I think it's hilarious that you fully admit that the plasma has numerous advantages over LCD TVs, yet because someone wouldn't want to close a blind they should get something that has an all around worse picture. And don't even bring up "bang for your buck" and talk about any LCD larger than about 40". They're horribly priced for anything you'd actually want to own.

4/13/2007 7:48:30 AM

I have noticed no difference in viewing a plasma over any other tv in the dark/light. You arn't going to find a single forum on the internet, cnet article, or expert that can tell me a televsion technology can completly absorb ambient light being cast on it. LCDs dont glare because they put a hazy film over the entire front surface. Have you noticed the number of LCDs with this "feature" removed and how people swear its better?


PS : Have you ever even tried to use a laptop outside?

[Edited on April 13, 2007 at 8:16 AM. Reason : there is a reason there are entire companies designed around over bearing backlights for outdoor LCD]

4/13/2007 8:14:51 AM

Quote :

"Also, I think it's hilarious that you fully admit that the plasma has numerous advantages over LCD TVs, yet because someone wouldn't want to close a blind they should get something that has an all around worse picture. And don't even bring up "bang for your buck" and talk about any LCD larger than about 40". They're horribly priced for anything you'd actually want to own."

This was what I was thinking.

I mean sure, the great advantage of a plasma over LCD gets nullified a little bit by the Sun. Like if an LCD gets a 5 versus a Plasma 10, and bright light knocks them down to 2.5 and 5, durrr, 5 still better than 2.5. Guess I should buy an LCD.

4/13/2007 10:21:15 AM

I have that model and works great. I think the HD out of the air is better than TWC's. The newer model of that one seems nice too.

4/13/2007 1:46:16 PM

Quote :

""Also, I think it's hilarious that you fully admit that the plasma has numerous advantages over LCD TVs, yet because someone wouldn't want to close a blind they should get something that has an all around worse picture. And don't even bring up "bang for your buck" and talk about any LCD larger than about 40". They're horribly priced for anything you'd actually want to own.""

The point was that for how most people watch TV, these advantages of Plasma are nullified. When you compound this with burn-in issues and resolution/price I would give the edge to LCD for most consumers. I highly doubt you can readily find a Plasma that matches the price/performance of one of the Sharp Aquos 1080p LCD's I listed for $1500 to $2000. My sister's Pioneer Elite does look great, but she also went ape shit when thye started having burnout problems on an $8,000 TV. Because of the shape of my living room, anything larger than 42" is way too big for me (almost returned my 42"), perhaps that is why I'm so partial.

4/13/2007 1:54:29 PM

Quote :

"The point was that for how most people watch TV, these advantages of Plasma are nullified. "

Most people watch TV with sun glaring in on their TV so that it is hard to see?

4/13/2007 2:07:18 PM

Quote :

"The point was that for how most people watch TV, these advantages of Plasma are nullified."

Most people do not watch television in heavily windowed room under direct sunlight with no blinds. In fact, I'd go so far as to assume that most people watch TV at night, considering large portions of the population have things like jobs and classes to occupy their mid-day hours. And, again, it's not as though the LCD is remarkably better under the same conditions.

Quote :

"When you compound this with burn-in issues and resolution/price I would give the edge to LCD for most consumers. "

You know, even with how paranoid I am about getting burn-in, I'm completely and utterly convinced that you have to fuck up on the same level that you would with a CRT to get burn-in at this point in time.

Quote :

"I highly doubt you can readily find a Plasma that matches the price/performance of one of the Sharp Aquos 1080p LCD's I listed for $1500 to $2000."

Lets be reasonable here. We're talking about TVs, so that the performance is picture quality and not pixel count. You're confusing the two. What good are 2 million plus pixels if they can't display the proper color?

4/13/2007 2:10:06 PM

Quote :

"You know, even with how paranoid I am about getting burn-in, I'm completely and utterly convinced that you have to fuck up on the same level that you would with a CRT to get burn-in at this point in time. "

It depends on the TV manufacturer.

At best buy, the Pioneer and the Samsungs have noticeable burn in, where the other brands do not. The pioneer rep claimed it was because the contrast was set too high, but if setting the contrast too high would damage the tv, then they shouldn't let it be set that high.

4/13/2007 2:58:34 PM

Quote :

"The pioneer rep claimed it was because the contrast was set too high, but if setting the contrast too high would damage the tv, then they shouldn't let it be set that high."

Use your head. It isn't the setting too high alone, it is the setting too high + static images.

4/13/2007 3:28:01 PM

^ Use your head. The Best Buy in store loop is the same for all TVs (a normalizing factor) and has very few static images.

4/13/2007 3:33:06 PM

I like plasma

[Edited on April 13, 2007 at 4:03 PM. Reason : d]

4/13/2007 4:03:26 PM

^ um, thanks for the input...


on a side note... Direct TV's customer service rules...

I had just got a DVR receiver ($100) about 2 months ago before I knew about the move to Atlanta where my condo will have HD Direct TV so I called about switching and technically I would have to get an HD DVR receiver ($299) and the $100 SD DVR would be worthless but they are giving me $15 off for 12 months, and free HD access $9.99 for 12 months which totals $299

made my day

[Edited on April 13, 2007 at 4:05 PM. Reason : d]

4/13/2007 4:05:03 PM

burn in (Madden haha) scared me away... think I am going to go with this LCD:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000GDEZLG/sr=1-16/qid=1176780566/ref=dp_cp_ob_title_0/104-5334250-8470321?ie=UTF8&qid=1176780566&sr=1-16

4/17/2007 1:27:22 AM

any thoughts?

4/17/2007 4:52:42 PM

thats what i have and i have never had a problem with it
the color is great the image is great the blacks are awesome if you turn energy savings on high.
if you turn energy savings off the lcd is bright as hell and can be seen through any glare.

the ONLY thing i didn't like about it is the speakers suck.... but i now have a nice surround sound setup so it doesn't matter.

4/17/2007 4:58:28 PM

I think you're overly concerned with burn-in to the point where you're getting something smaller, more expensive, and with an arguably worse picture.

Though I get the feeling that you're overly concerned with burn-in in part due to me, but I would imagine -- even with Madden -- you're fine. If I remember correctly, the scoreboard on that would be your biggest nemesis and I think that disappears when you select a play or when the quarter ends.

The main thing you want to look out for is when something never, ever, ever, ever changes. Like if you were to watch all 3 Lord of the Rings Extended Edition movies, back to back to back without a break and without a DVD menu coming up, you might have some image retention, but chances are that'll go away the second you start displaying 16:9 content on it again.

In this day and age you seem to have to screw up really bad to get burn-in on quality plasmas. Run the burn-in DVD for a hundred hours or so after you get it and it should be smooth sailing.

4/17/2007 5:04:11 PM