Panasonic TH-42PX500U display defect?? loses half of 720p? do newer Panny's do this?

[ZZtop]

This terrible bug Home Theater mag found in the 42 panny where its dumping half the 720p info, really shocked me, and has me worried about the commercial 8th gen 50 inch Panny now.

Article link
http://hometheatermag.com/plasmadisplays/1205panasonic/index2.html '

The distubing information is:

Measured Resolution with the Leader LT-446 on the Panasonic TH-42PX500U Plasma HDTV in the December Home Theater Magazine issue:

480: 480 (per picture height)
720p: 380 (pph)
1080i: 680 (pph)

The right hand side are the actual number of lines of original data the display actually shows vs either total loss of information or some kind of line doubling.

Home Theater mag found in the 42 panny where its dumping half the 720p (testing showed 380) and has me worried about the commercial 8th gen 50 inch Panny now. 1080i (testing showed 680) isn't not quite working right either according to the article.


There is one long thread already on this issue about these panels.
Tested and Lost by Gary Merson thread link on here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=608670&highlight=zztop)
that has alot of posts, but I am starting a new thread to get this info out there a bit more in front of people in its own thread to see if I can dig up some more specifics from other folks who may not recognize that threads title or folks who have this 42 panny with the bug and hear what they have to say.

My other idea is to finally nail down whether the new commerical Panny 50 inch 8th gen has this bug, I cancelled an in stock panel I waited 3 weeks for due to this article! :mad:

It really got me concerned :( about how many of these manufacturers are taking in a certain xxx resolution but only showing a yyy (lesser) resolution.

Does anyone know for an absolute fact the newer 8th gen 50 inch commerical panels don't have the same implementation/chips that causet his bug?

It's completely stalling my Panasonic purchase in its tracks as I like the deep Panny blacks best, though the new Pioneer 5060hd's are supposed to be not far behind.

[Kevin C Brown]

Maybe we need to know the details of what "Leader LT-446" is.

I remember reading this review, and focussing on the DC restoration item (floating blacks!), but I completely missed the resolution thing. I wonder why they didn't comment on it in the review or the measurements section?

But ... I also remember reading that TPV article, and this is from the 2nd post of your Gary Merson AVS link:

In the units tested, all LG, Sharp, as well as some Sony (older LCDs as well as plasmas), Samsung (DLP) failed and threw away 50% of the vertical resolution. Passing were the newer Sony LCDs, Panasonic plasmas and LCDs, Fujitsu plasma, Samsung LCDs and some others.

So I'm wondering if HT mag got it wrong? Plus, CNet (among a lot of other magazines and web sites) has reviewed many Panny plasmas and has never said anything about this...

??

[D-Nice]

[QUOTE=Kevin C Brown]Maybe we need to know the details of what "Leader LT-446" is.

I remember reading this review, and focussing on the DC restoration item (floating blacks!), but I completely missed the resolution thing. I wonder why they didn't comment on it in the review or the measurements section?

But ... I also remember reading that TPV article, and this is from the 2nd post of your Gary Merson AVS link:



So I'm wondering if HT mag got it wrong? Plus, CNet (among a lot of other magazines and web sites) has reviewed many Panny plasmas and has never said anything about this...

??[/QUOTE]

CNet is a joke and NEVER should be taken seriously. Gary's test was for 1080i and was only looking to see if a display was doing bob-and-weave deinterlacing (540p from a 1080i signal).

[ZZtop]

Yes, CNET is not to be taken too seriously ever, I have found their reviews to have some useful information from time to time, but usually hopelessly out of date or on early revisions.

Still begs the question, what about the newer commerical Panny panels?

[sfhub]

[QUOTE=Kevin C Brown]Maybe we need to know the details of what "Leader LT-446" is.
...
But ... I also remember reading that TPV article, and this is from the 2nd post of your Gary Merson AVS link:
[/QUOTE]
Leader LT-446 is a professional pattern generator. Leader makes professional test equipment, similar to Fluke and Tektronix
http://tequipment.net/LeaderLT446.asp

Gary tested whether a display was doing Bob deinterlacing on 1080i. That is different sort of issue than what is being discussed in the Home Theatre article.

Of note, in the Home Theatre magazine testing, using the same methodology, apparently the Pioneer was able to resolve as much resolution as was possible for the native panel rez, so unless there results have errors, something must be different between the particular panny they tested and the particular pioneer they tested.

[Kevin C Brown]

CNet is a joke? Then why does everyone keep asking about Panasonics and whether they float blacks or not, but CNet has correctly reported that the 50PHD8UK and the 37PHD8UK and the 42PX50U all suffer from this? (Yup, these 3 models are all hopelessly out of date. Oh wait, the PX60's won't be out until March, and the gen 9 pro models probably not until Aug...) And HT mag is actually the only other reviewer out there that has spotted this, which means that most reviewers miss it.

And even still, for very good reason, CNet has consistently given Panny plasmas a Very Good rating? And that in general, at least for the LCDs I've compared against the Panny plasmas, that the Panasonics score higher and they usually correctly also note the different suggested applications of LCD (bright room, games) vs plasma (movies, home theater)? :)

But hey: CNet missed the resolution problem the current Panasonics have, so yup, CNet is a joke, and nothing they say about the displays they review should be taken into context when making a purchase decision. ;)

[SolarWind]

latest (February) issue of home theater mag has an article describing their measurments etc
If 'Leader LT-446' is only a pattern generator (I was hoping that it's something that would help counting # of lines displayed) then I can say that 50PHD8 doesn't have this problem as quite a few users here reported that they SEE more then 360 lines while feeding 720p to the panel, and the magazine says that they measured number of lines 'BY THE EYE' (see feb issue) so it's basically the same 'test' as users on this forum were performing - just feed a patern, look at it & try to determine how bad it is. After all - it's hard not to notice HALF lines missing right - then 720p would look worse then 480p from a DVD!

Besides - NONE of other panels reviewed had the problem including LCDs. PDPs, DLPs etc. Which almost makes me think it was a typo...

[Bushman4]

If CNET had it right the PQ would not be as good as it is!


CNET HAS IT FIGURED WRONG>

[Kevin C Brown]

SW, that's what I said. :)

So I'm wondering if HT mag got it wrong?

[D-Nice]

[QUOTE=Kevin C Brown]CNet is a joke? Then why does everyone keep asking about Panasonics and whether they float blacks or not, but CNet has correctly reported that the 50PHD8UK and the 37PHD8UK and the 42PX50U all suffer from this? (Yup, these 3 models are all hopelessly out of date. Oh wait, the PX60's won't be out until March, and the gen 9 pro models probably not until Aug...) And HT mag is actually the only other reviewer out there that has spotted this, which means that most reviewers miss it.

And even still, for very good reason, CNet has consistently given Panny plasmas a Very Good rating? And that in general, at least for the LCDs I've compared against the Panny plasmas, that the Panasonics score higher and they usually correctly also note the different suggested applications of LCD (bright room, games) vs plasma (movies, home theater)? :)

But hey: CNet missed the resolution problem the current Panasonics have, so yup, CNet is a joke, and nothing they say about the displays they review should be taken into context when making a purchase decision. ;)[/QUOTE]

If you would actually take the time to read what they say, you would understand why they are a joke. CNet is so far up Panny's ass their website has a brown tint to it.

How can they give the 42PX50u a 8 on performance and give the HP PL4200N a 7 when we all know the HP is a clone of the 42PX500u?

How can they give the Maxent MX-42X3 a 7 when everyone knows it has the same damn glass and most of the electronics as the PX50u?

On top of that they find the exact same flaws with the Maxent MX-42X3 and HP PL4200N as the 42PX50u...but rate it 1 point less?


Pure bias there buddy.

[SolarWind]

[QUOTE=Kevin C Brown]SW, that's what I said. :)[/QUOTE]


That's right, I just wanted to provide some reasoning. Here's a quote from one of the members in this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6946932#post6946932

[QUOTE=RichB] So far, I have concluded that the Panasonic does deliver much more than 380 lines with 720P, but the test that Home Theater Magazine used is probably not a good indicator of real world performance.
-- Rich[/QUOTE]

so the key here is that it was only VISUAL observation so anyone's pick would be as good as theirs, and there's just way too many posts that indicate that the difference between 1080i & 720p on 50phd8 is not VISIBLE which wouldn't be the case if HALF of the lines were dropped as per the magazine.

[gregmp]

The 720p resolution was only tested using the component input and that is where it suffers. The 720p over the cable/ant. input does not loose resolution on my 42 and 50"ers and the HDMI may not either...not used in my aplication. The commercial panels use cards that may better.

Remember this model year was the first for a 720p input on the comsumer panel...so obviously they included it just to look good on the spec. sheet. The panel is optimized for 1080i over component...so why not just use that resolution from whatever box. Works great!!

greg

[pezdoctor]

We don't know whether this issue applies to the commercial models, since HTM only tested one model. Here's an excerpt of what they said in their summary explanation on this topic:
"...tested a myriad of 1080i signals" using the "...opening of the Digital Video Essentials D-VHS....The analog-to-digital converter did an excellent job, as there was very little difference between the HDMI and component inputs...the HDMI was infinitesimally sharper, but it wasn't a blind test."
Then this:
"Just because the component input accepts it (i.e. 720p) doesn't mean it does a very good job with it. As you can see from the measurements box, the resolution drops significantly when I used 720p. With actual video material, this was noticeable. When I switched between HDMI and component using the 720p version of Digital Video Essentials, the component input was definitely softer. When I watched a 720p channel (like ABC or Fox), the image didn't appear soft."

All we can imply is that 720p via component 'appeared' softer----but no actual measurements are provided for component vs. HDMI at 720p---the assumption being that the recorded low measurement was component at 720p, and HDMI would have been higher, but no higher measurement was actually 'recorded' for HDMI at 720p by the tester.

*All I really know is that on my own 42PX50, I DON'T see that 720p provides a poor picture or a less-than-DVD picture via component, and 720p vs 1080 via component looks the same to me (and my eyesight for this type of thing is generally pretty good. [NOTE: I don't have any HDMI to test right now.]

Keith

[sfhub]

[QUOTE=SolarWind]latest (February) issue of home theater mag has an article describing their measurments etc
If 'Leader LT-446' is only a pattern generator (I was hoping that it's something that would help counting # of lines displayed) then I can say that 50PHD8 doesn't have this problem as quite a few users here reported that they SEE more then 360 lines while feeding 720p to the panel, and the magazine says that they measured number of lines 'BY THE EYE' (see feb issue) so it's basically the same 'test' as users on this forum were performing - just feed a patern, look at it & try to determine how bad it is. After all - it's hard not to notice HALF lines missing right - then 720p would look worse then 480p from a DVD!
[/QUOTE]
I doubt they were just counting the lines by eye. Most likely they were using a monoscope style test pattern which has resolution labels for lines that become finer and finer. This makes it easy to look at the pattern and see at what point stuff doesn't resolve anymore. It is more objective than you make it out to seem, especially for progressive fixed pixel devices.
http://www.high-techproductions.com/testpatterns.htm

[SolarWind]

[QUOTE=sfhub]I doubt they were just counting the lines by eye. Most likely they were using a monoscope style test pattern which has resolution labels for lines that become finer and finer. This makes it easy to look at the pattern and see at what point stuff doesn't resolve anymore. It is more objective than you make it out to seem, especially for progressive fixed pixel devices.
http://www.high-techproductions.com/testpatterns.htm[/QUOTE]

well - just look at the Feb edition, measurments article - it says (quote) "BY THE EYE"
even with your example you still LOOK at the pattern so it's still just visual observation right. Apparently the right patterm makes it easier, but the point was that no SPECIAL tools were used & so anybody who can feed similar pattern (and a few were posted here already) can reproduce the test.

[Shad0wz]

Ive got a 50px50u at home, I run both 1080i and 720p, there is virtually no difference between the two, there is no way in hell that 720p on the 50px50u is showing less lines than DVD...

SO either the problem does not affect the 50 inch due to its native resolution being 1,366 x 768 and bypassing the scalar, or their results were flawed in some way.

I would love to see the results on the 50 inch.

[SolarWind]

[QUOTE=Shad0wz]Ive got a 50px50u at home, I run both 1080i and 720p, there is virtually no difference between the two, there is no way in hell that 720p on the 50px50u is showing less lines than DVD...

SO either the problem does not affect the 50 inch due to its native resolution being 1,366 x 768 and bypassing the scalar, or their results were flawed in some way.

I would love to see the results on the 50 inch.[/QUOTE]

that just further proves my point.
but it's bot funny & sad how some confusing & questionable article, which wasn't even directly related to the model they had in mind (42 consumer vs 50 professional) made a lot of people cancel their orders on 50" Pannys they've been waiting for so long :)

[oldcband]

Maybe I'm missing something when I read this thread. Maybe one of you guys could correct me. When I read this article and being a 50 inch Onyx owner for three months till I couldn't take the dc restoration problem anymore. Its like putting the cart in front of the horse? I think the resolution lost is minor compared to floating blacks? Also there's so many names for it here like black level changing, horizontal banding, black level retension, floating blacks, flicker, and more I wish somebody would just come up with one name so we could all understand this problem when addressing it. I know of at least two members that have started a thred about this on just the first page of this thread. I would still own my plasma and I wouldn't complain about the rez thing here if not for the dc restoration thing.

[ZZtop]

[QUOTE=oldcband]Maybe I'm missing something when I read this thread. Maybe one of you guys could correct me. When I read this article and being a 50 inch Onyx owner for three months till I couldn't take the dc restoration problem anymore. Its like putting the cart in front of the horse? I think the resolution lost is minor compared to floating blacks? Also there's so many names for it here like black level changing, horizontal banding, black level retension, floating blacks, flicker, and more I wish somebody would just come up with one name so we could all understand this problem when addressing it. I know of at least two members that have started a thred about this on just the first page of this thread. I would still own my plasma and I wouldn't complain about the rez thing here if not for the dc restoration thing.[/QUOTE]


I have read a few things here and there, but can one of describe what exactly are the floating blacks here in the thread so we have it together with this resolution issue, in case they are related?

thanks

[Shad0wz]

BTW, Ive never witnessed floating blacks on my 50px50u. Got to note that my build date on the TV was Oct 2005 if it matters at all

[Phaid]

[QUOTE=ZZtop]This terrible bug Home Theater mag found in the 42 panny where its dumping half the 480i info, really shocked me, and has me worried about the commercial 8th gen 50 inch Panny now.

Measured Resolution with the Leader LT-446 on the Panasonic TH-42PX500U Plasma HDTV in the December Home Theater Magazine issue:

480: 480 (per picture height)
720p: 380 (pph)
1080i: 680 (pph)

The right hand side are the actual number of lines of original data the display actually shows vs either total loss of information or some kind of line doubling.[/QUOTE]

I assume here that you mean it's dumping half of the 720p info. Clearly, if it's displaying 480 lines with a 480p feed, it has no problem at that resolution.

Previous models of Panasonic plasmas couldn't take a 720p input at all. The new ones do, but obviously this capability was added on as an afterthought and it doesn't do 720p very well.

I have a TH-42PX50U. I read that article a while back, and I tried it out with my Oppo upconverting player which outputs 480p, 720p, and 1080i. Sure enough, 480p looks better than 720p. Since I keep the player at 1080i, I am not losing sleep over this. All of my external inputs are set to feed either 1080i or 480p. 720p HDTV broadcasts over cable still look great.

As far as 1080i, you can't expect a 1024x768 screen to display a 1920x1080 image without losing some resolution. The fact that it's displaying 680 lines of the test pattern seems reasonable. I certainly have no reason to complain about the way native 1080i feeds look on my plasma. Ideally it would display 768 lines (or "out to the limits of the 1024x768 panel" as Home Theater would say) but you will never be able to tell the difference unless you actually use professional equipment like the test did.

[Kevin C Brown]

D-Nice- Just because there is a relation between the HP, Maxent, and Panasonic, doesn't mean that, a) Panasonic doesn't cherry pick the best panels for themselves, and that, b) Panasonic could also have better electronics than those two. And Maxent? Come on. I've looked at a few of these, and you get what you pay for ...

Shadows- They all have it. I personally have seen it on a 37px50u, 42pd50u, and a 42px500u. Others have said that yours has it too. Look here for how exactly to see it. But note that it is much less visible on a properly calibrated display, and for whatever reason, some Panny's have it worse than others.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6398078&&#post6398078

[sfhub]

[QUOTE=SolarWind]well - just look at the Feb edition, measurments article - it says (quote) "BY THE EYE"
even with your example you still LOOK at the pattern so it's still just visual observation right. Apparently the right patterm makes it easier, but the point was that no SPECIAL tools were used & so anybody who can feed similar pattern (and a few were posted here already) can reproduce the test.[/QUOTE]
I think you are using "visual observation" as a substitute for saying it is not accurate or useful. dpreview uses similar patterns to evaluate resolution for 13megapixel cameras, so clearly people find these types of test patterns useful. There comes a point where the lines simply start merging into a blob. That point is clearly labelled on the chart. All you really need to do is look for the blob and read the # above it. So yes, anybody who can send the test pattern can reproduce the test. It think if their results bother you enough, you should ask them for a test pattern you can display on your particular model and see how it fares. Make sure you use component input because that is what they are complaining about. They seem to be saying HDMI is fine as is the internal tuner.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page31.asp

[D-Nice]

[QUOTE=Kevin C Brown]D-Nice- Just because there is a relation between the HP, Maxent, and Panasonic, doesn't mean that, a) Panasonic doesn't cherry pick the best panels for themselves, and that, b) Panasonic could also have better electronics than those two. And Maxent? Come on. I've looked at a few of these, and you get what you pay for ...

Shadows- They all have it. I personally have seen it on a 37px50u, 42pd50u, and a 42px500u. Others have said that yours has it too. Look here for how exactly to see it. But note that it is much less visible on a properly calibrated display, and for whatever reason, some Panny's have it worse than others.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6398078&&#post6398078[/QUOTE]

Kevin, the HP IS AN EXACT CLONE OF THE PX500U. The picture is IDENTICAL.

Bottom line, CNet is a joke. You can continue to follow their lame reviews if you want. Yoru preference. Enjoy.

[SolarWind]

[QUOTE=sfhub]I think you are using "visual observation" as a substitute for saying it is not accurate or useful. dpreview uses similar patterns to evaluate resolution for 13megapixel cameras, so clearly people find these types of test patterns useful. There comes a point where the lines simply start merging into a blob. That point is clearly labelled on the chart. All you really need to do is look for the blob and read the # above it. So yes, anybody who can send the test pattern can reproduce the test. It think if their results bother you enough, you should ask them for a test pattern you can display on your particular model and see how it fares. Make sure you use component input because that is what they are complaining about. They seem to be saying HDMI is fine as is the internal tuner.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page31.asp[/QUOTE]

your point is valid, and seems (based on some recent posts) that 42" model does have the described issue at least with some imputs.
but then again all I was saying was that 50"does not seem to have a problem based on multiple posts when people did look at patterns & confirmed that half of the lines isn't being dropped.

[sfhub]

[QUOTE=SolarWind]I was saying was that 50"does not seem to have a problem based on multiple posts when people did look at patterns & confirmed that half of the lines isn't being dropped.[/QUOTE]
I think it is perfectly possible a different model behaves differently. Personally I just don't like to put down a test methodology just because it gives different results than I see. I prefer to understand why the test came up the way it did and why my results differ. The Home Theatre magazine results just point at a potential area for more investigation, something to watch out for. It would be irresponsible to assume all Panny's behave the same as the test found for that one unit. More investigation would be needed to get to the bottom of what's going on.

[bluescreen]

[QUOTE=Kevin C Brown]Oh wait, the PX60's won't be out until March[/QUOTE] Which means CNET's review should come out in April/May --- 2007. ;)

And then retread again in June, July, August, September ... :p

[ZZtop]

Does anyone know the exact chips or parts that are in the TH-42PX500U that cause this problem so we can identify other Panasonic models that may have it?

[jsf2001]

[QUOTE=D-Nice]If you would actually take the time to read what they say, you would understand why they are a joke. CNet is so far up Panny's ass their website has a brown tint to it.

How can they give the 42PX50u a 8 on performance and give the HP PL4200N a 7 when we all know the HP is a clone of the 42PX500u?

How can they give the Maxent MX-42X3 a 7 when everyone knows it has the same damn glass and most of the electronics as the PX50u?

On top of that they find the exact same flaws with the Maxent MX-42X3 and HP PL4200N as the 42PX50u...but rate it 1 point less?


Pure bias there buddy.[/QUOTE]

D-Nice: What we do know about the HP is that they use Panasonic glass. We do not know that they use Panasonic electronics inside. Some people may assume that they do, but they - in fact - do NOT know that to be the case. The same holds true for Maxent. But, then again, we also know that Fujitsu uses Panasonic glass for at least one of its models and we know that other companies use glass made by other panel producers, as well. The bottom line is that the glass is only one element in a plasma's design. The electronics are also important. We all know that and respect that. So, it is not surprising to see a reviewer give different scores to displays using the same glass but bearing different manufacturing labels as the electronics may differ and that has a material impact on the score.

[Kevin C Brown]

Touche. :)

[D-Nice]

[QUOTE=jsf2001]D-Nice: What we do know about the HP is that they use Panasonic glass. We do not know that they use Panasonic electronics inside. Some people may assume that they do, but they - in fact - do NOT know that to be the case. The same holds true for Maxent. But, then again, we also know that Fujitsu uses Panasonic glass for at least one of its models and we know that other companies use glass made by other panel producers, as well. The bottom line is that the glass is only one element in a plasma's design. The electronics are also important. We all know that and respect that. So, it is not surprising to see a reviewer give different scores to displays using the same glass but bearing different manufacturing labels as the electronics may differ and that has a material impact on the score.[/QUOTE]

Wrong.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=585216&pp=60

They are exactly the same except for bezel color, stand, TV Guide and remote control codes.

Menus are the same (go d/l both manuals)
Back input panel
Speakers are the same
Dimesions for the panel are the same
They both have the EXACT same weight (minus the stand)
Input panel on the back is the same (except CC slot).

And a little heads up....

HP does not manufacture/assemble and COULD NOT manufacture/assemble plasma parts. It isn't cost efficient to buy glass from one place, buy electronics from another place AND have a third place assemble the plasma.

HP is not Fujitsu whom actually owns a plasma assembly plant. HP is doing the same thing Gateway did when they offered plasmas....just using a better vendor.

[Kevin C Brown]

HP is a computer company. They obviously don't do their own glass, but they certainly could do their own electronics:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6997591#post6997591

[Shad0wz]

[QUOTE=Kevin C Brown]HP is a computer company. They obviously don't do their own glass, but they certainly could do their own electronics:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6997591#post6997591[/QUOTE]

Oh yea, HP could easily do their own electronics... they do allot more than just build computers... they do allot of imaging equipment for the medical community, govt stuff, department of defence research... blah blah blah :) Dont mistake HP for a company like Dell :)

[D-Nice]

[QUOTE=Kevin C Brown]HP is a computer company. They obviously don't do their own glass, but they certainly could do their own electronics:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6997591#post6997591[/QUOTE]

Ok, maybe I should have been clearer....they don't have a factory to assemble plasmas....makes sense now?

And yes HP is a very good imaging company (their printers are my favorite), but that does not mean they make display parts...software...yes...parts???......hmmmm

The have fax machines....do you think they actually build those?


Have you actually taken the time to d/l and cross-reference the owner's manuals for both sets?

All the evidence points to the HP being no more than a rebadged Panasonic...period. Ford and GM does it all the time in the auto business.

[D-Nice]

[QUOTE=Shad0wz]Oh yea, HP could easily do their own electronics... they do allot more than just build computers... they do allot of imaging equipment for the medical community, govt stuff, department of defence research... blah blah blah :) Dont mistake HP for a company like Dell :)[/QUOTE]

Absolutely...but them making their own plasmas??? Come on. I never heard of HP having a plasma assembly plant.

Maybe an HP plasma owner can look on the back panel and see where it was assembled. We all know that Panasonic assembles their plasmas in Japan and Mexico. Does HP have a plasma plant in anyone of those countries?

[Shad0wz]

I never said they made their own panels... but they sure are more than capable of take differing electrical parts, ie scalars etc, from differing manufacturers and make them all work together.

All Im saying is HP is certainly more than qualified to build an HP plasma using panasonic panels along with a mix of other parts from other suppliers. :D

In other words, might not be exactly the same as a panasonic branded plasma...
Im not claiming this is the way it is, Im just saying its possible :D

[D-Nice]

[QUOTE=Shad0wz]I never said they made their own panels... but they sure are more than capable of take differing electrical parts, ie scalars etc, from differing manufacturers and make them all work together.

All Im saying is HP is certainly more than qualified to build an HP plasma using panasonic panels along with a mix of other parts from other suppliers. :D

In other words, might not be exactly the same as a panasonic branded plasma...
Im not claiming this is the way it is, Im just saying its possible :D[/QUOTE]

I hear ya man. There is a owner in the HP thread that just had his HP ISF'ed. They used a Panasonic remote to go thru the SM. Interesting.

[Shad0wz]

[QUOTE=D-Nice]I hear ya man. There is a owner in the HP thread that just had his HP ISF'ed. They used a Panasonic remote to go thru the SM. Interesting.[/QUOTE]

Indeed that is... could very well be that they use the same electronics, or share most of the same hardware / software

[jsf2001]

[QUOTE=D-Nice]I hear ya man. There is a owner in the HP thread that just had his HP ISF'ed. They used a Panasonic remote to go thru the SM. Interesting.[/QUOTE]

Clearly there are differences, even if they are subtle, between the HP and Panasonic panels. There are also lots of similarities. But, the existance of the uncontested and documented differences between the panels underscores the fact that some of the electronics in the 2 displays are different even if such differences may be subtle. It is also a fact that the only way to determine just how different the panels are would be to literally take them apart and compare the parts. Forgive me for using an automobile analogy, but we all kow that there are lots of similarities between certain Audi and Volkswagen models. In fact, several are made in the same factory. But, that does not mean that the cars are alike and that the driving experiences are the same.

To castigate a reviewer for scoring one panel higher than another when the panels are substantially the same ignores the possibility that the panels are also modestly different, or at the very least, that the 2 panels reviewed were different. If you read the article by the Panasonic exec recently quoted elsewhere on this forum, he made the point that no 2 panels are identical, even if manufactured by the same company in the same plant.

I apologize for not letting go of this issue, but it isn't fair to label a particular reviewer as being biased or unfair merely because one doesn't like what the reviewer has to say. Judging plasma picture quality these days is as much a subjective evaluation as it is an objective evaluation.

[D-Nice]

[QUOTE=jsf2001]Clearly there are differences, even if they are subtle, between the HP and Panasonic panels. There are also lots of similarities. But, the existance of the uncontested and documented differences between the panels underscores the fact that some of the electronics in the 2 displays are different even if such differences may be subtle. It is also a fact that the only way to determine just how different the panels are would be to literally take them apart and compare the parts. Forgive me for using an automobile analogy, but we all kow that there are lots of similarities between certain Audi and Volkswagen models. In fact, several are made in the same factory. But, that does not mean that the cars are alike and that the driving experiences are the same.

To castigate a reviewer for scoring one panel higher than another when the panels are substantially the same ignores the possibility that the panels are also modestly different, or at the very least, that the 2 panels reviewed were different. If you read the article by the Panasonic exec recently quoted elsewhere on this forum, he made the point that no 2 panels are identical, even if manufactured by the same company in the same plant.

I apologize for not letting go of this issue, but it isn't fair to label a particular reviewer as being biased or unfair merely because one doesn't like what the reviewer has to say. Judging plasma picture quality these days is as much a subjective evaluation as it is an objective evaluation.[/QUOTE]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7000873#post7000873

Have you actually read the reviews on ALL THREE panels? Have you seen that they reported the SAME flaws (color errors floating blacks, and noise in the blacks) for ALL THREE panels?

Of course no 2 panels are 100% the same. But the HP is a rebadged Pansonic... period.

You can continue to claim that they are not....your choice....facts are facts and they are the same.

Please read posts #644 and #647 as they contain hard evidence proving they are the same.

[ZZtop]

So the original question I have still seems to be out there, do we know if the Panny 50 inch commercial 8th gen has this defect?

[sfhub]

[QUOTE=ZZtop]So the original question I have still seems to be out there, do we know if the Panny 50 inch commercial 8th gen has this defect?[/QUOTE]
I think some people posting here are feeling it can't have that problem based on what they are seeing, but nobody has tested in the same way the magazine article has tested.

[ZZtop]

Anyone know yet? I am still leaning toward the 50 inch commercial Panny, but I would really like this answered.

[SolarWind]

[QUOTE=ZZtop]Anyone know yet? I am still leaning toward the 50 inch commercial Panny, but I would really like this answered.[/QUOTE]

I though this was already answered a few times. Just read the thread above.
BTW I have received my 50PHD8UK 2 days ago & it looks awesom!

[ZZtop]

[QUOTE=SolarWind]I though this was already answered a few times. Just read the thread above.
BTW I have received my 50PHD8UK 2 days ago & it looks awesom![/QUOTE]



Where has it been answered, the only thing I have seen is speculation its only affecting the component outputs on the later models. I haven't see links to any other professionally done reviews confirming the bugs arent there in later models or anyone on here saying they did a comprehensive test of the 50 inch commerical panel with the HQV or the avia disk.

[SolarWind]

well - you might have to wait for "professional" reviews or read the thread to understand the testing methodology used - once again - they just fed a pattern to a panel & visually accessed how it look.
The same test was done by MANY users on 50" models & non of them reported the same problem. that's why the answer for 50" model was pretty clear to me. There's NO clear cut unswer for 42" model yet though - that's what also a few users pointed out.
But if you still feel hesitant then just upload a few patters no a memory stick, walk to the nearest CC or BB that has 500U model on display, put the stick in & check what you SEE yourself. Sounds very simple to me & is definitely worth trying if you're so worried.

[Shad0wz]

[QUOTE=ZZtop]Anyone know yet? I am still leaning toward the 50 inch commercial Panny, but I would really like this answered.[/QUOTE]


Dont dwell on these threads too much... If the 50 panny plasma is what you've chosen just pull the trigger on it... trust me when I say this, you will LOVE the display.

[Oliver Deplace]

For the Panasonic Th-42PX500U:

Full-On/Full-Off Contrast Ratio—779:1
ANSI Contrast Ratio—364:1

Measured Resolution:
480: 480
720p: 380
1080i: 680

DC Restoration: Good (poor in Vivid and Standard modes)

Color Decoder: Average

Measured Color Points:
Red Color Point: x=0.661, y=0.328
Green Color Point: x=0.257, y=0.666Blue
Color Point: x=0.148, y=0.063

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Pioneer PDP-5060HD:

Full-On/Full-Off Contrast Ratio—611:1
ANSI Contrast Ratio—1,135:1

Measured Resolution:
480: 480
720p: 720
1080i: Out to the limits of the 1280 by 768 panel

DC Restoration: Excellent

Color Decoder: Good

Measured Color Points:
Red Color Point: x=0.641, y=0.331
Green Color Point: x= 0.232, y= 0.687
Blue Color Point: x= 0.153, y= 0.069

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They must really put an emphasis on the Full-On/Full-Off contrast ratio. The Pioneer is better in every other test category, yet it's tied (at 92pts.) with the Panasonic.
From the above test results, I would have thought the Pioneer would be the superior, not the equal.

The measured HD resolutions for the Panasonic are a huge sore-thumb.
I'm very surprised there wasn't a deeper examination of them.

The test results could be interpreted to mean that a high full-on/full-off contrast ratio is all you need. Ha!
They also could be seen as a testament to the ambiguousness of specs. and test results or an endorsement to do what people have been saying for years, "Get one and see for yourself".


That's why a in-depth explanation of their test results (for each sample) and how they affect the ratings, is important.

Their unexplained numbers have done a "mind-job" on ZZtop. They've only served to introduce FUD.

edit: The ratings are for performance only.

[Kevin C Brown]

O.D.- Maybe the rating also reflects relative cost. :)

[tolax]

So the problem relates to the internal scaler of the Panny 42? If I used an external scaler and fed the panny a native resolution (or as close as you can get with the panny) would this solve the issue?

olax

[Oliver Deplace]

[QUOTE=Kevin C Brown]O.D.- Maybe the rating also reflects relative cost. :)[/QUOTE]

Kevin:
The ratings in my above post are for performance. The overall ratings are Panasonic at 92pts. and the Pioneer at 90pts. The Pioneer takes a hit for it's higher price.

[ZZtop]

[QUOTE=tolax]So the problem relates to the internal scaler of the Panny 42? If I used an external scaler and fed the panny a native resolution (or as close as you can get with the panny) would this solve the issue?

olax[/QUOTE]


Good question, I am guessing the answer is yes?

[ZZtop]

Doesn't matter now for me now, I bought a Pioneer 5060hd yesterday :cool:

[ZZtop]

So it looks like there is a new article in one of the mags just out on all this. Anyone know the contents yet?

[xphan99]

Didn't see any resolution to the original question "Do newer Panny's do this?"

My 50PX60U had zigzag lines on some 720p OTA. Worst was KRON4 with logo "4" showing zigzag in 2x2 to 3x3 pixels. After firmware upgrade the zigzag is gone but the picture is extremely soft or fuzzy. Turning up sharpness made a lot of "clay face" but didn't improve resolution.

I knew something was wrong from beginning as my Dell plasma (4200HD) didn't (and still doesn't) have this problem. Had it checked by repair shop, saw the problem, but could do nothing since Panasonic didn't consider it a problem.