Panasonic 42" or 50" Plasma?

There's big discount going on with these 2 model, the 42PH9UK and 50PH9UK. CostCo has it for $1299.99 and 2099.99(with 100 rebate). Essentially making it about 700 dollar after rebate. So I'm trying to decide which would be better? Is it worth to get 50", extra 8" for the $$$ display? My viewing distance is about 6 feet. Will the 50" be not as sharp as the 42", especially consider it's not in 1080p? I couldn't find any local store that carry this model in the show room that I can audition for it.

Has anyone upgrade from a 42 to 50? Can you give opinion on how the 50" upgrade fare up?

Thanks for any suggestion.

I recently purchased a 42" plasma, and my sitting distance is typically about 7' from the screen. For me personally, 42" is slightly sub-optimal. I experimented with a 50" at the same distance, and it was perfect for me, assuming the content was 16:9 as to use the entire screen area. By perfect, I mean that a larger size tended to be too large for me at that sitting distance. I should note that while the 42" is slightly sub-optimal size with 16:9 ratio material, it is substantially too small for 2.35:1 material which puts black bars on the screen, at least for my preference(s). OT: I wish that 2.35:1 was never used, or at least converted to 16:9 when converting to DVD in mastering -- why should I have to stare at black bars on a wide screen television? You can use a zoom on some DVD players with high quality upscalers in order to remove the bars, but the already deficient standard definition image just becomes fuzzier as it is enlarged further.

-Chris

Hey Chris,

Isn't 6 or 7 feet a little too close for a 42"? I have the Panny 42" ED, my viewing distance is 8'-6" from the screen to the center of the viewer's head, I find it just close enough, if I move in any closer the pixels become more pronounced. This is the reason I stayed away from the 50" Panny.

stratman said:

Hey Chris,

Isn't 6 or 7 feet a little too close for a 42"? I have the Panny 42" ED, my viewing distance is 8'-6" from the screen to the center of the viewer's head, I find it just close enough, if I move in any closer the pixels become more pronounced. This is the reason I stayed away from the 50" Panny.

Click to expand...

I have the HD version, which has smaller pixels, as compared to the ED version.

-Chris

Aaaah, didn't realize that. My brother in law bought the Samsung 50" hi-def, he's sitting about I'd say 10' away and it looks ok no biggie.

Question: pixels are smaller on high def sets then? So you can sit closer even if screen larger?

i'm about 8' from my 40" LCD myself ... i find it a bit small
but the bigger offerings show the pixels already at that distance,
perhaps when the HD formats are done, I can buy me a bigger TV

I have a pioneer 50 and sit around 10ft away looks great from that distance,
Below is what I seen on the plasmatv web site:
http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatv-distance.html
generally viewed the proper distances as 8 to 12ft. on a 42" plasma tv and 12 to 16ft. or more on a 50" plasma. Now, with the many improvements that have been made to the units, the latest 50" models can be viewed comfortably from 9ft.

avholics, I think at 6’ most people will find a 50” display too in your face for general full 16:9 output, but a 2.35:1 aspect ratio picture may be more acceptable.

stratman, yes, the higher the resolution means more and smaller pixels over the same area.

I sit 8-9 feet away from a 50" plasma. I'm very happy I didn't go smaller. The 42" TVs are significantly smaller than the 50".

I had this same dilemna when I bought my Panasonic. I went with the 50" and I'm glad I did. Get the 50 or you will wish you did.

AVRat said:

avholics, I think at 6’ most people will find a 50” display too in your face for general full 16:9 output, but like WmAx mentioned, a 2.35:1 aspect ratio picture will be acceptable.

stratman, yes, the higher the resolution means more and smaller pixels over the same area.

Click to expand...

I did not mean that 2.35:1 ratio was acceptable for me with a 50". At about 7', I meant that 50" was the perfect size for my preferences, with 16:9 ratio. 2.35:1 cuts off too much screen(I *HATE* 2.35:1) even with a 50" at 7', for me.

-Chris

I knew what you meant. My response wasn't well worded and reference to your post has been deleted. I respect your wealth of knowledge and contributions to this forum.

WmAx said:

2.35:1 cuts off too much screen

Click to expand...

I never understand this position.

1.77:1 cuts off a significant portion of the material as compared to 2.35:1.

jonnythan said:

I never understand this position.

1.77:1 cuts off a significant portion of the material as compared to 2.35:1.

Click to expand...

I should clarify: I do not care if the edges of the original film are cut off a little. It is more than worth [to me] the trade-off to fill my 1.69:1 ratio screen. I was also one that could never stand letter-boxed movies on a 4:3 ratio screen; I always preferred the pan & scan version.

-Chris

I don't get it. You'd rather throw away parts of the movie just to make sure you use all the pixels on your TV to watch it?

jonnythan said:

I don't get it. You'd rather throw away parts of the movie just to make sure you use all the pixels on your TV to watch it?

Click to expand...

Correct.

As for zooming in...unfortunately, being on DVD in standard definition, it is a poor choice to zoom in with the DVD player, as this increases blur. The 2.35:1 wastes the already few available pixels on DVD with static black bars. I would like to see the 2.35:1 cut to 1.69:1 in mastering, so that every available bit of resolution in the DVD format was used. I imagine that in high definition sources(HD-DVD and Blue-Ray), that the resolution consequence of zooming will not be such an issue.

-Chris

Taken from http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html

That's nice. But here is why I hate 2.35:1 letter boxing:



I will gladly give up the sides of the movie to have it fill the screen. My preference.

-Chris