PLASMA TV's 42" any suggestions:

[savroulis]

hello there all, I am in the process of looking for a 42 Plasma TV, and my main problem is that I don't know much about them. One requirement is NO audio from the TV, then to be able to play globally (PAL BG, PAL I, SECAM DK, SECAM L, NTSC M, PALN, PALM I), and I think all of them now have input 110-240VAC so....


Sony FWD42V1 42" Multi-System Plasma TV: $2499.99
http://www.world-import.com/panasonic-plasma-th37pa20.htm

Sony PFM42V1 - 42" Multi-System Plasma TV : $2499.99
http://www.world-import.com/sony-pfm41v1.htm

Pioneer PDP-424CMV 42" Multi-System Plasma TV: $2299.99
http://www.world-import.com/Pioneer_PDP-424MV.htm

whats up with the contrast ratio??the higher the better?
the pixels sound very low to the above selections 852 (H) x 480 (V)?

doesn't 1080i mean 1080x 1080?

[edtyct]

The first panel on your list is actually a 37" Panasonic--a stroke of good fortune, because Panasonic should be represented. I'm confident that Panasonic also has a 42" pro monitor that would meet your requirements, though it might cost a bit more. In my experience, Panasonic and Pioneer make the best plasmas, at least in terms of grey scale, though they are good in other respects, too. Sony, which has dropped out of the game altogether at this point, was never as strong.

By and large, the higher the contrast ratio, the better looking is the display. However, contrast ratio in video is a little bit like power measurement in audio in that the numbers often refect, to be gentle about it, the manufacturers' best-case scenario. A large ratio might have nothing to do with how the panel performs in real world conditions--in other words, with complex pictures that need to bright and dark at the same time. But what I said before applies, Panasonic and Pioneer deliver deep, rich blacks, with almost no perceptible false contouring. That's where I'd go, though one distinct drawback on the Pioneer is the absence of a digital video input (DVI with HDCP), which the others have. If anything kept me away from the Pioneer, that might be it, not only for potential picture quality but also for the delivery of certain kinds of HD content, which might only be available digitally. Before you buy any such monitor, make sure that its DVI input carries HDCP copy protection.

As for pixel count, all of the panels on your list, hovering at 852x480, are ED monitors, which means that they fall short of the pixel count of HD resolution, the minimum for which on flat panels is 1280x720, though 1920x1080 is technically the state of the art in consumer HD at the moment (ALiS panels use a process reminiscent of interlacing to achieve 1024x1024, which qualifies as HD as well; none of your plasmas is an ALiS panel). ED monitors can downconvert HD resolutions to their native 480 counts with great success, but in a head to head comparison with true HD monitors, the difference is evident. One advantage that ED monitors have over HD monitors, however, is with standard DVDs. Since the current DVD format matches the native resolution of ED monitors, it tends to look as good as it can when displayed on them, since the signal doesn't need any processing to fit the pixel demands of the panel.

Which brings me to a another important point about your plan. All of the monitors above, as pro units without tuners or speakers, are geared for commercial or broadcast use. The quality is often better, if only because they are free from consumer bells and whistles that tend to compromise picture quality and the inputs (especially the BNCs) are heavier-duty. But they also lack on-board deinterlacing, either for video or for film (as 3:2 pulldown), which is a drawback in your case. It means that visible, distracting artifacts will plague the movies and TV that you watch--jagged lines, motion disjunction, blurring, etc.). You can certainly compensate by buying your own outboard video processing, which is normally superior to anything included with a display, but your total cost will rise. If you go this route, you might look into the DVDO iScan processors, which rival the finesse of much more expensive ones at a reasonable price.

What I neglected to mention, and it's important, is that all DVD players nowadays have their own film/video processing, ranging from highly competent to acceptable, and it's usually better to use than a panel's (if it has any). So presumably, you'd be covered just by using the progressive feature on your DVD player when playing DVDs. You wouldn't be covered, however, otherwise; cable, satellite, OTA would all still require outboard signal deinterlacing. Moreover, the DVDO outboard option most likely would also be better than your DVD player's.

Ed

[jnov]

Just a suggestion, and I'm not sure if these models meet your requirements, but 42" Panny ED plasma monitors (no audio, no tuner) can be had for ~$1200 these days. Great deal.

[vxaudio]

After research i first discovered that LCD is a much better route. LCD can be used with video games or a computer and has no burn in effect. The flat panels are pricey and the best resolution is only perfected for 37" or smaller. However, I opted for a 55" Sony LCD rear Projection, with awesome resolution 1300x900. This is higher than HD. this model is only 76 pounds and was about 3300. This was a much better deal and also has hdmi plugs and a ton of features you cant find on flat panels. i got a 1080i upconverting dvd player and i havent seen better resolution anywhere, period. Unless you just have to have a flat panel, consider what i did. And if you decide for the flat panel, i would highly recommend the lcd. From what im told, the plasma screens are going to stop production soon, because there technology is obselete. hope this helps.

[edtyct]

I agree that the Sony LCD rear projectors are good ones, and that staying away from plasmas might be a good idea for incorrigible gamers. But I don't agree that LCD is an absolutely "much better route." There are lots of good reasons to choose something else; they are all over this board in various discussions. The flat panels may be pricey, but I'm not sure what you mean about the "best resolution is only perfected for 37" or smaller." Is that an oblique reference to the screen-door effect on LCDs? If so, it's a bit of a strong statement. The resolution of the 55" Sonys that I know is 1366x786. No resolution, by the way, is higher than HD. The consumer state of the art is 1920x1080, which very few displays can achieve in entirety at this point, The Sony scales all resolutions to its pixel count, which is still HD, but is not 1920x1080. In fact, the baseline actual HD of which it is capable is 1280x720; the rest is extrapolation.

For many people, your recommendation on price and features will be valuable, but not for everybody, and not for the reasons that you've given. You may be right that plasma's days are numbered in ways that may never have occurred to anyone a few years ago, when they were all the rage. But every kind of display now made is headed for the scrap heap, some sooner than others. Pioneer, Hitachi, and Panasonic still have plasma high on their priority list for the time being. If you want to lament the demise of a great technology, shed tears for CRT.

Ed