PDA

View Full Version : *** Samsung vs Panasonic PLASMA TV ***



Mr.SoloDolo
09-19-2012, 11:21 PM
I get a upgrade from my last tv so I get the choice between these two:

both 1080, 600hz

51" Samsung: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+-+51%26%2334%3B+Class+-+Plasma+-+1080p+-+600Hz+-+HDTV/4846774.p?id=1218551142545&skuId=4846774&st=PN51E530A3FXZA&cp=1&lp=1

50" Panasonic: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Panasonic+-+50%26%2334%3B+Class+/+Plasma+/+1080p+/+600Hz+/+HDTV/4841493.p?id=1218541224061&skuId=4841493&st=TC-P5OU50&cp=1&lp=1

Mr.SoloDolo
09-20-2012, 03:08 PM
ttt

Serpent710
09-20-2012, 03:11 PM
dead set on plasma?

Mr.SoloDolo
09-20-2012, 03:15 PM
dead set on plasma?

It's a straight trade in so these are the only choices I have.... to upgrade to something else I'd for one have to pay out of pocket and two it would only get me a entry level LED with 120hz framerate
I like the plasmas 600hz personally

TheUnderFighter
09-20-2012, 03:15 PM
Well, we've had a Panasonic Plasma for the past 8 years or so and are still getting raving reviews from it when we have company over. We don't even have HD hooked up to it and people are always amazing by the picture quality. I love Panasonic's build quality and reliability, so I'll recommend it with my experience with them.
However, I'm curious why you're leaning towards Plasma? LED is the way to go... Much lighter. Much longer lifespan. Much more energy efficient. Equally fantastic picture quality. I just got an LED 32" Vizio and love it. I got it for half off retail price, so I couldn't really turn it down.



It's a straight trade in so these are the only choices I have.... to upgrade I'd have to pay out of pocket and my credit would be 699$

Where's the trade-in credit at? There's nothing wrong with Plasma, LED is just the better choice for the long run.

Serpent710
09-20-2012, 03:16 PM
with that said straight trade, panasonic all day.

SourDeez
09-20-2012, 03:31 PM
Well, we've had a Panasonic Plasma for the past 8 years or so and are still getting raving reviews from it when we have company over. We don't even have HD hooked up to it and people are always amazing by the picture quality.


You dont even have HD hooked up? You mean you are watching regular 480p **** on a 1080p display?

Sorry bro, but either your company is straight fooligans or really old people.

jockhater2
09-20-2012, 03:51 PM
why do you need 600hz?
Your eyes can't see more than 30-60. So 120 is more than enough.

Mr.SoloDolo
09-20-2012, 03:59 PM
why do you need 600hz?
Your eyes can't see more than 30-60. So 120 is more than enough.
So what is it I see when watching 120hz LED/ tvs and there is tremendous Motion blur... I have yet to see one that doesn't have this issue. Sure the picture looks great and it's statistically better but my plasma never had problem keeping up

Chriszle
09-20-2012, 04:02 PM
My vote is for the panasonic if those are my only 2 options.

SourDeez
09-20-2012, 04:03 PM
why do you need 600hz?
Your eyes can't see more than 30-60. So 120 is more than enough.


So what is it I see when watching 120hz LED/ tvs and there is tremendous Motion blur... I have yet to see one that doesn't have this issue. Sure the picture looks great and it's statistically better but my plasma never had problem keeping up

the term "Hz" has been thrown around like crazy, just like contrast ratio.

Plasmas and LCD's have a different method of determining refresh rate, thus the different numbers. They are on a completely different scale.

600hz on a LCD would not really ever be feasible or possible

Thats odd that some people notice it, I almost feel like its placebo.. I have a 120hz samsung led lcd and I really dont notice the difference. Plus most of the content is originally 60hz anyway, so really you are just adding extra frames.

Mr.SoloDolo
09-20-2012, 04:11 PM
the term "Hz" has been thrown around like crazy, just like contrast ratio.

Plasmas and LCD's have a different method of determining refresh rate, thus the different numbers. They are on a completely different scale.

600hz on a LCD would not really ever be feasible or possible

Thats odd that some people notice it, I almost feel like its placebo.. I have a 120hz samsung led lcd and I really dont notice the difference. Plus most of the content is originally 60hz anyway, so really you are just adding extra frames.

Refresh rate is very noticeable to me or maybe it was just the brand of LED tv I was watching it on. The aerial shots or simple panning left or right makes you noxious.. it's that slow.
I even fixed the settings to match the speeds but it only help slightly.

akheathen
09-20-2012, 04:54 PM
why do you need 600hz?
Your eyes can't see more than 30-60. So 120 is more than enough.

has not actuall seen the difference. so, yah, your eyes can only see so much, however what you cannot tell is when you perceive mid-frames to not be there, even though you are physically seeing them. 60hz is pretty good, but the added still pictures generated between frames that make that cool motion effect on 120, less obvious on 240, and nearly makes you forget that it is doing anything, just that the picture is so absolutely clear when you get to 480 and 960. i got the 8000 series smart tv the week they first released it, and can turn the motion all the way up to 960, or 480, when watching 3d. if you want a panasonic display, you can usually save a bit by going with a visio that sports it. when i think of panasonic electronics, i can only recall all the horrible failures i've seen and experienced through the years. imho, they are sketchy at best, but decent when working good. i give all brands their fair share and hve my experiences with them regularly. even if there has been prior problems, as companies do make a turn-around from time-to-time, but i have to say, samsung has really been a go-to product for years. the tv i replaced is also a led 8000 series, but that one was 60hz with led motion plus. released 2 years prior to 120motion and 3 before led was phasing in to mainstream. only problem i have with samsung is the piece of poo 3d player they gave me with the tv, but it's their bottom line 3d player, so i can't expect much. works fine, i just don't like the way it works. another factor: i'm not sure about panasonic, but samsung has nice anynet+ interaction with other brands.
honestly, what i would do is credit it toward a higher model samsung with internet and finance it to like $15/mo for 3 years with the purchase protection. plasma is real nice, but has it's downfalls, as well.

Boomsday
09-20-2012, 05:05 PM
Have had all samsung tvs in mine, and my parents home for about 6-7years now and no problems...

SourDeez
09-20-2012, 05:12 PM
has not actuall seen the difference. so, yah, your eyes can only see so much, however what you cannot tell is when you perceive mid-frames to not be there, even though you are physically seeing them. 60hz is pretty good, but the added still pictures generated between frames that make that cool motion effect on 120, less obvious on 240, and nearly makes you forget that it is doing anything, just that the picture is so absolutely clear when you get to 480 and 960. i got the 8000 series smart tv the week they first released it, and can turn the motion all the way up to 960, or 480, when watching 3d. if you want a panasonic display, you can usually save a bit by going with a visio that sports it. when i think of panasonic electronics, i can only recall all the horrible failures i've seen and experienced through the years. imho, they are sketchy at best, but decent when working good. i give all brands their fair share and hve my experiences with them regularly. even if there has been prior problems, as companies do make a turn-around from time-to-time, but i have to say, samsung has really been a go-to product for years. the tv i replaced is also a led 8000 series, but that one was 60hz with led motion plus. released 2 years prior to 120motion and 3 before led was phasing in to mainstream. only problem i have with samsung is the piece of poo 3d player they gave me with the tv, but it's their bottom line 3d player, so i can't expect much. works fine, i just don't like the way it works. another factor: i'm not sure about panasonic, but samsung has nice anynet+ interaction with other brands.
honestly, what i would do is credit it toward a higher model samsung with internet and finance it to like $15/mo for 3 years with the purchase protection. plasma is real nice, but has it's downfalls, as well.

The 480 and 960 on those samsungs doesnt mean refresh rate. It's not 960hz. it is Clear Motion Rate which is a combination of all random sorts of processing. It was a category samsung made up on their own and no one else uses it as far as i know.

Its still 240hz

Mr.SoloDolo
09-20-2012, 06:43 PM
so you guys are saying with 120hz LED tv's I won't see any lag or motion blur from the frame rate drop?
The sales person at best buy told me it would be a waste of money because with a several hundred dollar increase I would get the bottom dollar LED in a even smaller size.

akheathen
09-21-2012, 03:47 AM
my screen will still flash me 960 times per second. show me where that is not true. the problem with plasma is everyone has moved away from it, and they still need to sell the stock. the response/lag/latency/etc time is high in comparison, power consumption is high, etc. plasma is still a real nice pic that you would probably be satisfied with over a smaller tv, but be sure to have a good warranty with it.

SourDeez
09-21-2012, 12:25 PM
my screen will still flash me 960 times per second. show me where that is not true. the problem with plasma is everyone has moved away from it, and they still need to sell the stock. the response/lag/latency/etc time is high in comparison, power consumption is high, etc. plasma is still a real nice pic that you would probably be satisfied with over a smaller tv, but be sure to have a good warranty with it.

Show you where its not true? It just isnt true.. everywhere on the internet. 960 CMR is NOT your refresh rate. Samsung just started rating all their tv's that way this year. It's a marketing ploy and it has nothing to do with true refresh rate. Your refresh rate is 240hz. Not 960

Google is your friend.


An example of Samsung’s box is its UN46EH6050. It states “Clear Motion Rate 120,” however we learned this TV has true refresh rate of 60 Hz.

plugitin
11-20-2012, 03:52 AM
im late on this thread. but i just purchased a 70 inch sharp aqous with the 120hz refresh rate. It was a good deal, and i read all the CNET reviews, they tested all the versions. The next step up was with 3d and 240hz refresh rate. The plain out said, unless you want 3d, get the lower end of them. As nothing in their tests could determine the difference between the 120hz and 240hz

Better-Action
11-20-2012, 04:20 AM
I got a 60" LG plasma, love it.

My bluray is Panasonic..... and its a piece of ****. But could be I just got unlucky.

akheathen
11-20-2012, 05:25 AM
didn't realize there was a response. yah, that quote could've been said to low-end and old models, like the ones that were out when i bought my last tv. it was true 60hz, and had led motion plus, which flashed the screen backlight led grid 120hz to help get rid of the blur, but wasn't really like the 120's. the "look" of the old 120,240hz motion is not there, but it does look realistic, and zero blur. the native refresh of the screen phosphors may be 240hz, but i am still seeing 960 different images from the display per second. go to a store with good video signal, and see the difference for yourself. even in 3d, it kills the display of the big, bad sharp. results are results. all i care is how it looks in person.