Huge price difference in plasmas?

P

PKFGimpy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
313
I've been shopping around a little bit for a new plasma TV to replace my aging CRT HDTV.

One thing that I've discovered after gaming on an LCD for a few years is that I really do value black levels in my displays. I'm reluctant to replace my CRT HDTV seeing as how it has such incredible black levels. I can watch movies or game on it in a pitch black room and still can't make out the blacks.

So that's why this new Pioneer Kuro line of TV's has really caught my attention. The specs I've seen list them at 16,000:1 contrast ratio.

Now my friend just bought a new plasma TV: Panasonic TH-42PZ77U This TV is listed at 10,000:1 contrast ratio.

What I don't understand is the difference in resolution. The Kuro only has 1024x768 resolution while the Panasonic has full 1080p resolution. Regardless of whether or not you can actually see the difference on a 42" set, that's still a huge difference. And yet, the Kuro is a far more expensive display than the equivilent Panasonic.

Am I missing something here? How can Panasonic pull off resolutions at the 42" size at that price point? Can someone please clarify this discrepency? It's hard to justify purchasing the Pioneer Kuro over the Panasonic basd on the specs (despite how much I value black levels).
 
I can sell something at ANY price that I want

SomeTimes I raise the Price,
So that people will THINK that it is better than it really is
 
I work as a programmer in the custom install industry and in my opinion Pioneer (be it a 720p model or a 1080p model) screens are easily the best there are bar none. The image quality is just amazing compared to their rivals. Possibly a subjective point of view, but I am sure that the reviews pretty much any Pioneer screen will reflect this.
 
Pioneer's are the "BEST" PDP on the market, bar none! I just purchased a Pioneer 5080 (50" 720P) Yes...720P & it looks amazing! Remember...Don't be fooled with the 1080P nonsense. Yes...it's nice if you sit 5-6' away from the TV, but from 8'+ away you cannot decern the difference in resolution even with 20/20 vision.

Also...Best Buy for selling these @ $1999.99 last week & for a Pioneer to be that inexpensive I couldn't pass it up.
 
Kaldskryke said:
Where the heck did you read this? Kuros definitely have 1080p and 720p models. Certainly not 1024x768.
Click to expand...

It depends on the model dude.

Not ALL Kuro models are 1080p.

The only Kuros that are 1080p are the 508D, 5080D, 608D and 6080D.

All other Kuro models are 720p, including the 508XD, 5080XD, 428XD and 4280XD.

The OP is looking at the 42" by the looks of it. Again, its up to you, but IMO the Pioneer screens are MUCH better than their nearest rivals in my opinion.
 
UMASS said:
Don't be fooled with the 1080P nonsense.
Click to expand...
<rant>
After reading through coverage of this years CES I've been somewhat dissapointed with the direction the industry seems to be going.

This year almost every TV was 1080p. The most notable exceptions were the TVs running 2160p. How much further can the industry go before it becomes common knlowedge that we've already passed how much resolution the eye can see? One could argue that it all depends on things like panel size and viewing distance, but I'm not sure I'd want to sit close enough to a screen to discern pixels at 2160p. And what kind of media would we need to store content at such a high resolution? I was under the impression that cable and satellite providers are already troubled by the bandwidth cost of HD content.

The other trend at CES was all about panel thickness. I just don't get it. Depth is the least relevent dimension for a TV. Height and width, obviously, play a huge role in one's viewing experience, but 'depth' shouldn't even be visible when watching. Flat panels are already light and thin enough to wallmount, so how does making them thinner do anything?
</rant>
 
Kaldskryke said:
Certainly, but 720p is not 1024x768. Not even the same aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

no no, the panel may well be 1024x768.

In fact its what is listed in Pioneers own specs. Also the pixels can be different ratios as well.

I think the 42" is 1024x768 and the 50" is 13something x 768
 
Syphon Filter said:
no no, the panel may well be 1024x768.

In fact its what is listed in Pioneers own specs. Also the pixels can be different ratios as well.

I think the 42" is 1024x768 and the 50" is 13something x 768
Click to expand...
Is that so? I thought in order to have 720p you needed at least 1280x720. Surely, 1365x768 would work too, but 1024x768 would be too narrow. *shrugs*
 
So now that we've agreed that the 42" Kuro is indeed 1024x768... can anyone explain the reason that the Panasonic plasma at 1920x1200 is much cheaper than the 1024x768 Kuro? I mean, the difference is significant. We're talking 2.073 million pixels versus 0.786 million pixels. The Kuro has 38% as many pixels as the Panasonic!

Is there something different between the technologies used in these displays that prevents the Kuro from shrinking the pixel size down? I always thought that shrinking plasma technology was fairly difficult and expensive, so I don't understand how the Panasonic is pulling it off at that price.
 
PKFGimpy said:
So now that we've agreed that the 42" Kuro is indeed 1024x768... can anyone explain the reason that the Panasonic plasma at 1920x1200 is much cheaper than the 1024x768 Kuro? I mean, the difference is significant. We're talking 2.073 million pixels versus 0.786 million pixels. The Kuro has 38% as many pixels as the Panasonic!

Is there something different between the technologies used in these displays that prevents the Kuro from shrinking the pixel size down? I always thought that shrinking plasma technology was fairly difficult and expensive, so I don't understand how the Panasonic is pulling it off at that price.
Click to expand...
In plasmas, shrinking the pixel also has the negative effect of making the screen less bright because every pixel is lit up by its own phosphor cell.
 
The Pioneer is more expensive because it is a higher end product.

From what I have read, Pioneer plasmas are the top of the line. Resolution is second to other features such as contrast ratio, black levels, etc. The worst of the best is still better than the best of the worst (and I'm not saying that the other Plasma or LCD is bad).

That is why it is more expensive. The resolution really doesn't have that much to do with it.
 
I've also noticed how much more expensive Pioneers are. However, in a store with lots of choices side-by-side, the Pioneer 720p plasma sets are a lot "nicer" and "easier" to watch than larger, brighter, higher-res (and cheaper!) 1080p competition. Some of the crap out there that Joe Consumer is buying looks good for about 5 minutes then becomes annoying - super-saturated color, in-set sharpening algorithms to make the image look better than it actually is etc...
 
Pioneers have always been more expensive than comparable Panasonic models....however until this year (and the "Kuro" line) the price difference wasn't really justified. Most people believe that the Pioneer kuro Elites are the best widely available flatscreen tv's you can buy. Fujitsu once had the high end locked up with their super expensive plasma line but when they were faced with competeing with a superior performing Pioneer at a lower price...they bowed out of the plasma business altogether this past year.
 
Surly73 said:
I've also noticed how much more expensive Pioneers are. However, in a store with lots of choices side-by-side, the Pioneer 720p plasma sets are a lot "nicer" and "easier" to watch than larger, brighter, higher-res (and cheaper!) 1080p competition. Some of the crap out there that Joe Consumer is buying looks good for about 5 minutes then becomes annoying - super-saturated color, in-set sharpening algorithms to make the image look better than it actually is etc...
Click to expand...
That's the problem...the super bright lcd's win the eye catching battle on the showroom floors (vs plasma) of big box stores and then people are disappointed when they get them home. All of my friends who didn't heed my advice and went ahead and spent more money on an lcd....have buyers remorse when they come over and see what my calibrated plasma looks like.;)
 
If you go to Bestbuy, they sell both the Panasonic and Pioneer. Just compare both pictures. The Kuro far and away a better picture. There is nothing wrong with the Panasonic. They make nice plasmas at a good price point. The only negative with plasmas is that when shopping for them at the stores, the pictures tend to look less brighter than lcds and the Panasonics tend to look a little muted. Supposedly the 2008 Panasonics will address that issue, and its really not an issue when the tvs are in your house since many will lower the brightness on lcds.
As many others have said, don't get caught up in the pixel hype. At 42 inches, its doubtful you would see any difference. The Kuro line proves theres more to a tv than just pixels. Good luck.
 
So like I said before:

Pioneer image quality at even 720p is noticably better than say the Panasonic even though it may well be running at 1080p.

Pioneer have superior image quality, THE best IMO. I work day in day out with high end custom installations and Pioneer screens are THE de facto standard unless the client has specific requests or is limited by budget. Pioneer are probably the strongest advocates of plasma technology when many others have switched to or offer LCD alongside their plasma options, and when you see what Pioneer can do with plasma (50" @ 9mm thick as seen at CES) you understand why.

They're the best consumer screen on the market bar none, that quality comes at a premium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top