It's well beyond the minimum distance to see HD detail (which is what HD is), sure you get a better quality 'SD' picture (due to the higher bandwidth used for HD), but you could get that by giving a little more bandwidth to the SD broadcasts and not bother wasting money on HD cameras, HD recorders, HD broadcasts, HD TV's, better quality sets, and better quality make up

Certainly an HD Ready Plasma is perfectly fine for watching HD programming at too far away to see HD, but if you try and actually watch HD on it at a reasonable distance it's VERY disappointing HD 'should' make you go 'WOW!!' - and doesn't on an HD Plasma.

In fact I disconnected my HD Freeview box last week, as I never use it - no point on my old Plasma.

Plasma is more than capable of producing/showing the same amount of detail (which as you say is HD) as LCD, whether it be HD Ready or Full HD.

If you are referring to the overall look, then that depends if you are drawn to the overly bright, the over saturated colours of an over processed image of LCD or to a more natural image of plasma - bright and colourful doesn't always mean its best.

I have three lcd's and one plasma, the plasma is only HD Ready (1366x768) and it's more than capable of giving the wow factor even to me, and I've been acclimatised to HD for eight years - it has better blacks and its better at handling fast motion.

Don't forget the benchmark for the best overall picture quality still goes to the Pioneer Kuro plasma, pretty sure it was only HD Ready too - resolution is not everything.

Not in my experience, with comparing HD Ready Plasma's from my old Hitachi Vestel Plasma (1024x1024), the old HD Ready Sony Plasma's, up to a 2013 Panasonic HD Ready Plasma last year.

Switching from BBC1 to BBC1 HD makes sod all difference, yet on an LCD (HD Ready or otherwise, and including cheap crappy LCD's) the difference is startling.

Incidentally, the absolute worst Plasma's I've seen were Pioneer ones - although to be fair it's quite possible they weren't even HD Ready (so 'could' have been SD only), but in the first weeks of Sky HD I fitted a LOT of Sky HD boxes, and the only two Pioneer sets were absolutely useless on HD (but like I said, they might not have been HD sets - the reason for the HD Ready label been created).

I've just cast my mind back, and bizarrely (I hadn't realised before) they were BOTH wall mounted in old vicarages, and both had Media Boxes

Well 1024 x 768 HD Ready plasma provides about 45% greater resolution detail horizontally and 33% more vertically than SD TV (nearly twice as many pixels) and it's all visible at 10 feet, with no visible compression artifacts and better colour. It's a chalk and cheese situation, there is no comparison.

Full HD looks no better on a 50 incher at that (pretty common) viewing distance and I don't intend to waste my money on going full HD or UHD unless and until I can get a 65 inch screen or larger, at no greater weight and no more than twice the £400 that this one cost me, with no smearing or movement lag.

I suspect that I may be waiting for quite a long time and that will be no problem at all because I am entirely happy with what I've got (and bought this year).

There is a massive difference between BBC1 and BBC1 HD on my HD Ready Panasonic plasma, it's worlds apart and I'm sure my experience is normal.

Yes the improvement is likely to be much more on cheap LCDs but that is because they can be so poor at SD.

If you're happy with what you have, that's ALL that matters

I'm impressed you can see pixels at 10 feet though, you obviously have 'super vision' - presumably you can read small newsprint at that same distance? - no?, so you can't even see clumps of pixels at 10 feet, never mind individual ones.

Are you suggesting LCD can resolve/show more detail than plasma?

Switching from SD to HD is obvious on my HD Ready plasma, you must see some crappy calibrated TV's.

The two Pioneer plasmas that come to mind are the PDP-435XDE and PDF-434HDE,from 2003/4 iirc, both had media boxes and were HD ready, both winning awards for best pq and recognised as market leaders by the TV industry.

What you probably saw was early SD plasma, because if they were not, your opinion of how bad the pq was would go against the vast majority of the TV industry.

I'm not 'suggesting' anything - I'm stating it as fact

Everyone claims SD is better on a Plasma - and (as far as I know) I'm the only person here to suggest why that is. Pixels on a Plasma aren't as sharp as an LCD, this 'blurs' and disguises the SD artifacts. But the less sharp pixels mean it's no where near as sharp on HD.


Why would any TV require calibration to give an acceptable picture, other than that done in the factory during manufacture?


So 'good' they no longer make TV's

Presumably at that time their awards were mainly for SD?.


Considering I suggested that TWICE in my post, it's certainly a possibility.

That's a bold claim.

Sharpness doesn't mean better HD - I've seen plenty of content where post processing has added grain or made the picture softer, the detail still comes through.

Probably why the images on LCD look too clinical/over processed/unnatural. Plasma will show as much detail but naturally softer. To me it looks like you prefer an overly sharp picture with overly bright colours.

Simple, to get the best out of it - but I was referring to user controls/test disc calibration. I've been to many a household where the picture just screams at you because they have either got it on the dynamic setting or just maxed out all the user settings because they think bright and colourful is the best.

A real shame they pulled out because there's no one now to set a decent standard.

I don't think there was a TV released that didn't win an award, SD or HD,

Should have still given the best possible picture going......

Not all the pixels, all of the (1024 x 768) resolution improvement, you are being obtuse!

I can see the individual picture elements at 8 feet though, on a 50 inch 1024x768 plasma - and so could you if you looked. But I prefer to sit a foot or two beyond that, where all you see is the picture and no dots (on HD channels).

You're making an assumption that the reason (if true) that SD on a plasma is better than on an LCD is because of less sharp pixels that blur and disguise compression artefacts. If that assumption is incorrect then your conclusion is invalid from the start.

Samsung are ending their Plasma production from November. Pretty soon it will be totally consigned to the tech bin. I guess it'll be OK as novel discussion item for the nostalgic soon enough, a bit like CRT's.

How could an SD set have a better picture than an HD one?, there's no comparison.

Obviously it can't, just as you can't expect a Pioneer SD plasma to produce HD.

It's obviously been heading that way for a long time - I can't believe they've kept it 'limping along' for such a long time.

Presumably they lose money on every Plasma they sell?, you can certainly buy 50/51 inch Plasma's for VERY little money, and as there's a LOT more inside a Plasma TV than an LCD one, presumably manufacturing (and certainly distribution) costs are higher?.

Yes, they quote spiralling production costs and falling sales for Plasma as the reason for shutting it down.

I have just ordered a Samsung UE55 F 6400 tv.

I have a Panasonic SC PT 850EBK Surround System, would this be work with the Samsung?

Many thanks in anticipation.

I see no reason why not....

HDMI from Panasonic to Samsung for Bluray playback.

If you want the audio from the TV over the sound system that should just be a case of connecting the TV to the sound system by optical - good idea to check manual to see what audio is produced from external devices, is it just stereo or multichannel.

I saw Avatar on our 3D TV (bluray) and it was amazing

The Panasonic is 5.1 if that makes sense.



Key Features:
• 1000W Power Output
• 4 Tower Speakers
• HDMI for Connection with HD Panels
• Full HD 1080P Up-Conversion
• Viera Link for Intuitive Operation in a Panasonic AV Set-Up
• USB Port for Digital Audio Player Playback
• Auto Callibration
• Optical Input
• DVD-Audio Playback
Power Output, Home Theater Mode (DIN):
Total Power: 660W
Front: 80W x 2 (1kHz, 3ohms, 1percent THD)
Center: 170W (1kHz, 6ohms, 1percent THD)
Surround: Center Section 80W x 2 (1kHz, 3ohms, 1percent THD)
Subwoofer: 170W (100kHz, 6ohms, 1percent THD)
Surround Enhancer: Yes
Center Focus: Yes
Super Surround: Yes
EQ: Yes (4 preset)
Auto Speaker Setup: Yes
Digital Synthesizer Tuner: Yes

The system will playback DVD's in 5.1 providing the discs carry that information - not all systems will play 5.1 from equipment connected to it, the manual should explain this.

I did originally put Bluray playback, it should have been DVD playback.

Edit:

Looks like the unit will decode DD5.1 and PCM over optical...page 40 of the manual.

The following quote from the BBC article makes me laugh. Or cry:


Pathetic. Utterly pathetic, if true - I don't give a flying fleck about UHD, uber-thin or 'stylish' TVs. I shall seek out one of the last plasmas on sale to keep me going for another 5 years or more as my previous ones have done, and hopefully by then something better than LCD (maybe OLED, maybe not) will come along at a sensible price.

Does anyone know exactly when Panasonic will stop production of Plasmas? 2014 is all I've seen.

As far as I know Panasonic closed its factory in December 2013 and sold its last plasma in March 2014.

BBC article.......


Took two minutes to find a plasma thinner than the equivalent LED - who writes these articles......

Sony 50" LED depth 64mm

LG 50" plasma depth 56mm

Unfortunately it's the market that's dictating the position. I guess the major TV manufacturers aren't going to take your preferences into account when figuring out how to make money.
I'm thinking that you may be right, once they crack the cost of OLED production, they'll ramp that up and pitch it against LCD.