# size vs. quality



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

Hello all,

I'll be purchasing a new tv in the next month for my basement living room theater. Seating distance will be 8-9'. My budget is $2500 (somewhat flexible). I've had my eyes on the Panasonic P65ST50 (65") plasma but I am now considering a larger screen, which would mean a decrease in picture quality.

So my question is what would you do? Largest possible screen or best pq?

Thanks,

V


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Is there no option for a projector and screen? You have a great budget and you will get a really nice projector for that price.


----------



## hjones4841 (Jan 21, 2009)

The larger screen does not necessarily mean a poorer picture. Sure, you are "blowing up" the same number of pixels across a larger area, but other factors such as contrast ratio, brightness, internal video processing, etc. are equally important. I have seen great looking large screens and poor looking small screens.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

I've ruled out projectors because I don't like replacing bulbs and I like the extra lumens a flat panel provides for mixed use. It could also be moved upstairs when I upgrade.

I guess what I'm really asking is how you would prioritize, size vs. quality at this budget. I might be able to get a 70" LCD with less pq than the 65" plasma for same price.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

personally there is no substitute for a larger display. Plasma has its pluses at picture quality but LCD is getting so much better that I really think that you cant loose going larger.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> personally there is no substitute for a larger display. Plasma has its pluses at picture quality but LCD is getting so much better that I really think that you cant loose going larger.


Thank you! This is the kind of input I'm soliciting!

So far I've got one vote for size. Keep them coming please!


----------



## txredxj (Nov 13, 2012)

plasma has a better picture but uses alot more power and get hot compared to LCD. plasma also tend to have more glare from anything in the room and forget about watching with the sun shining on it. i went from a plasma to LCD and i do miss the picture quality of the plasma. but after messing with it i am more than happy with the performance while watching movies and i dont have to worry about glare as much


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

At 8-9 feet, a 65 inch display is just fine! I'd stick with the ST50. :T


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

So one vote for size and one for quality. This Is gonna be a tough decision...maybe 65" is big enough. Hmm... I could always get a mount that extends forward a foot or two.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Larger size does not mean a decrease in quality. Unless you go large to the point that you can see the matrix of the panel, the quality will be the same. You may see more of the limits in the source with the larger screen.


----------



## Anthony (Oct 5, 2006)

We have one of those Sharp mega screens at work in our conference room (which is pretty small). Even up close to it, the PQ is amazing. We were streaming HD Netflix to it and it didn't look like we could see pixels or motion artifacts and it was plenty bright.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

lcaillo said:


> Larger size does not mean a decrease in quality. Unless you go large to the point that you can see the matrix of the panel, the quality will be the same. You may see more of the limits in the source with the larger screen.


Thanks I understand this. I also tend to agree if talking about televisions of the same make and model. In my case, however, larger size does mean a decrease in pq to some degree and it has nothing to do with pixel visibility.

Here are my options:

A) Buy a large display with outstanding picture quality (I.e. 65" Panasonic plasma)

B) buy a larger display with good picture quality (I.e. 70" Visio or Sharp edge lit LED)

My viewing distance will be 8-9' and my budget is $2500.

I am asking whether one would choose the better blacks and screen uniformity of the panny at 65" or the added size of the Sharp/Visio 70" along with its pq drawbacks.

So far Tony's opinion is that he'd take screen size. Mech's opinion is that 65" is plenty large and he'd take the panny.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

Anthony said:


> We have one of those Sharp mega screens at work in our conference room (which is pretty small). Even up close to it, the PQ is amazing. We were streaming HD Netflix to it and it didn't look like we could see pixels or motion artifacts and it was plenty bright.


This sounds like a vote of confidence for the bigger screen. I've seen these in bestbuy but comparing them to other sets is so difficult in that environment.


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

Personally I don't think you'll see much of a difference between 65" and 70". When I bought my 55" it looked huge when I first set it up in the room and now I wish I had gone bigger. I would personally go with the largest screen you can afford. My next upgrade will be a screen and projector.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

If it were me making this decision, I'd look at the screen size/seating distance tables.... and let those govern how big I would go.

I'm more of a plasma fan, myself... if you are sitting roughly 10 feet away, a 65" flat panel would be more than sufficient.

If you are going to be sitting closer, definitely go with a smaller screen.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

If you can control the room lighting, say there are no windows or they can be blocked, I say go with the plasma.

If you do have some lighting, indoor or out, shining on or toward the panel it will wash out a plasma's picture. LCD works well in this instance.

My room is very bright, so I went with an LCD, but would have bought a Panny plasma if I could block out the light. LCD's have become good enough that unless you were to put the two panels side by side, I doubt you would favor one over the other. 

So, I'd say quality over size as long as the ambient lighting doesn't compromise that quality.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

vann_d said:


> Thanks I understand this. I also tend to agree if talking about televisions of the same make and model. In my case, however, larger size does mean a decrease in pq to some degree and it has nothing to do with pixel visibility.
> 
> Here are my options:
> 
> ...


I understand that your decision comes down to quality or size, but we need to be careful about propogating the common misconception that bigger means poorer quality. With fixed pixel direct view sets using the same technology, bigger means more expensive, not poorer quality, up to a point where the production of larger screens becomes the limiting factor.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
I absolutely adore my Panasonic TC-P60GT50. You honestly might be able to find a 65GT50 for close to $2500 and it really is a fantastic TV.

As for heat, while my GT50 no doubt runs hotter than an LCD, it has never felt hot to the touch. I do wish Panasonic offered a 70 inch in their Consumer Series. Sharp does offer a relatively no frills 70 inch LCD that can easily be found for under $2500.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

Thanks Jack. Bestbuy has the GT for $2500 I believe. I'm really leaning toward a plasma at this point. Just watched Brave at the in-laws twice, once on a panny plasma and once on a sony xbr lcd. The movie looked so much better on the panny. I know this isn't a rigorous example of an A/B comparison but I if I got the pq on a 65" that the little 42" from a couple years ago gets than I will be happy. I'm also thinking there won'tbe a big difference between the 65 & the 70. I don't think I can afford an 80" Sharp.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

We have the Samsung 60" 8000 LCD, if a 70" would have fit the space we would have probably got the Sharp 70".
Anyone can nitpick any picture because they all have one issue or another.
If you are a nit-picker then go with what you think is the higher quality picture.
If you will become accustomed to what you think is a lower quality picture and just enjoy it, go bigger.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

vann_d said:


> Thanks Jack. Bestbuy has the GT for $2500 I believe. I'm really leaning toward a plasma at this point. Just watched Brave at the in-laws twice, once on a panny plasma and once on a sony xbr lcd. The movie looked so much better on the panny. I know this isn't a rigorous example of an A/B comparison but I if I got the pq on a 65" that the little 42" from a couple years ago gets than I will be happy. I'm also thinking there won'tbe a big difference between the 65 & the 70. I don't think I can afford an 80" Sharp.


Hello,
It really is the black levels of the recent Panasonic PDP's that makes them so special. The VT50 Series beat out the massively more expensive Sharp Elite LCD and Sony's top tier LCD at Value Electronics HDTV Shootout.

Also, make sure to check out Amazon's pricing and other authorized dealers as BB is now price matching them. The 65GT50 would simply be an amazing TV.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## Yiannis1970 (Sep 2, 2012)

Personally, i would go all the way for quality and by quality i mean:

Black level/native real-active contrast in film content
Motion
Gamma
Scaler-Deinterlacer
Full CMS and RGB controls
Viewing angle and antiglare ability of the panel with some light on.


I believe that the viewing distance and the overall feeling can be easily arranged by moving our sofa couple of feet closer to the TV set. The lack of picture quality instead it can not be corrected wherever we seat to enjoy our movies or favourite sports/series.


----------



## KelvinS1965 (Feb 6, 2011)

Yiannis1970 said:


> Personally, i would go all the way for quality and by quality i mean:
> 
> Black level/native real-active contrast in film content
> Motion
> ...


I agree, thankfully for me gamma/scaler-deinterlacer/Full CMS and RGB controls have been taken care of by a wise decision to buy a Lumagen Video processor 2 years ago (mainly to use with my projector). By the addition of a HDMI splitter I get to use a spare memory to feed my TV, so I only have to consider black level/native contrast and good motion when I next change my TV, plus it doesn't have direct light on the screen and I sit square on, so I don't have to worry about viewing angle/antiglare.

Having a properly calibrated display makes all the difference IMHO, though often the kinds of displays that have all the above features will have a fairly accurate mode in anycase. I'd certainly put quality over quantity though.


----------



## Yiannis1970 (Sep 2, 2012)

KelvinS1965 said:


> I agree, thankfully for me gamma/scaler-deinterlacer/Full CMS and RGB controls have been taken care of by a *wise decision* to buy a Lumagen Video processor 2 years ago (mainly to use with my projector).



:T:T


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

As an update, I just pulled the trigger on a Samsung PN59D7000 from Crutchfield for $1400.

After much deliberation, I decided I didn't want to pay $100 per extra inch of screen on the 2012 Panny plasmas. Really, the 55" was totally affordable but it is basically $1100 more for a 65". I also thought more about my viewing distance and figured 60" should really be enough for now. At the least it will be a very noticeable increase from my 50" SXRD. I do have provisions to go with a projector in the future if need be.

I decided to go with the 2011 CNet pick in the Samsung PN59D7000 plasma. Maybe not quite as good as the ST50 but cheap enough that I could get 4 pairs of 3D glasses and still save $200. This Samsung is supposed to have excellent PQ. I hope it satisfies...


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

vann_d said:


> As an update, I just pulled the trigger on a Samsung PN59D7000 from Crutchfield for $1400.
> 
> After much deliberation, I decided I didn't want to pay $100 per extra inch of screen on the 2012 Panny plasmas. Really, the 55" was totally affordable but it is basically $1100 more for a 65". I also thought more about my viewing distance and figured 60" should really be enough for now. At the least it will be a very noticeable increase from my 50" SXRD. I do have provisions to go with a projector in the future if need be.
> 
> I decided to go with the 2011 CNet pick in the Samsung PN59D7000 plasma. Maybe not quite as good as the ST50 but cheap enough that I could get 4 pairs of 3D glasses and still save $200. This Samsung is supposed to have excellent PQ. I hope it satisfies...


Hello,
Samsung makes a very good PDP and I really think you are going to love it. Indeed going from a 50 inch to a 59 inch is a major upgrade in screen size.
Cheers,
JJ


----------

