1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

PD30 Verves PF2 A personal experience

Discussion in 'Televisions' started by bazzae123, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. bazzae123

    bazzae123
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    314
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    First of all, my apologies for starting yet another PD30 thread but the question of PF2 V PD30 is asked so often I thought it warranted one.

    These findings are based on my observations and are not biased in any way. Thanks to RS I was able to have both the PF2 and the PD30 at home on trial and believe me the results surprised me.

    Having first considered all other threads and magazine reviews I initially decided to buy the PD30 and it was delivered two weeks ago. Having set it up I was disappointed with the initial results when comparing from what I remembered from my previous Toshiba model. To quickly summarise, picture dull or to bright, terrestrial broadcasts very grainy and a generally darker picture. At this point you obviously ask yourself whether the PF2 is any better and you know your got to try it out. To cut a long story short the PD30 was taken back and the PF2 delivered. Right, I thought this must be better and having turned the thing on I was quite pleased as all input sources looked quite reasonable. It wasn't until I had watched the thing for a couple of days that I know something was not quite right. The picture was good but it lacked that something that I had noticed a couple of times on the PD30 and that something was clarity and vibrancy in the colures. To the wife's despair I had to look at the PD30 again.

    Now the good people at RS allowed me to take back the PD30 and have it along side the PF2 in my home for what we called "comparisons". Having taken back the PD30 yesterday and turning it back on, all my original settings were still the same, the picture immediately looked better and this was just on terrestrial. I immediately plugged the aerial into the PF2, which was sitting next to the PD30, and noticed straight away the difference. The PF2 was a lot more grainy. The next thing was to hook up Sky via RBG through IXOS cables. Again the difference was there to see. In fact the terrestrial picture on the PD30 looked better than the same picture on the PF2 via Sky. Even channel five looked quite reasonable on the PD30 via terrestrial.

    Now for the DVD. Having hooked up a Sony S735D player to component on one set and RGB on the other the results surprised me. The PD30 through RGB looked just as good, if not better, as the PF2 on component. Swapping the sources around so that the PF2 had RBG and the PD30 was on component made things look even better.
    A satellite source through a Humax 5400 via S-Video had much the same results. A lot clearer and shaper picture on the PD30.

    Other observations concluded that the geometry on the PF2 was terrible whereas the PD30 was not bad at all. Sound on the PD30 is not that brilliant but a separate sound system should always be on your shopping list if you want things to sound as good as they look. I don't like the setting menu on the PD30 as I like to have numbers not just sliding scales. One other thing about the PF2 which I don't like is the dark edge around the screen. Its very reflective and once you notice it you have to train your mind to ignore it. I suspect after a while it doesn't bother you but I found it annoying in the sort time I had the set. oh yes, and the PF2 made a lot loader buzz than the PD30.

    Having initially said this was a unbiased comparison test was a little untrue. I needed another stand to put the PD30 on as the PF2 was on my old Toshiba stand. Having to decide which stand to erect before the PD30 turned up was easy. I really thought that the PF2 would be better having considered my previous recollections of the PD30 I decided to erect the PF2 stand thinking this would be the TV I decided on. How wrong I was.

    Now, these finings are on my own experience, and, maybe the PF2 was faulty in some way but to me the PD30 had a sharper and more dynamic picture but without looking over processed. Skin tones for example looked more natural.
    Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying go out and buy the PD30 I'm just sharing my own experience with you and these were my conclusions. At the end of the day its you who has got to be happy and what I like from a TV may be completely different to you but all I can say now is I'm a happy man.

    I hope this has helped in some way
     
  2. kwangomango

    kwangomango
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    856
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +38
    Just out of interest, what settings did you use for the PF2?
     
  3. TVhomejs

    TVhomejs
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Denmark
    Ratings:
    +0
    bazzae123, thanks for sharing your precious comparison. :smashin:

    In your experience the picture on the PD30 has more "clarity and vibrancy" in the colors. It has a "lot clearer and sharper picture", not so "grainy".

    But what about fine details on the sets? Does the picture show
    faces with wrinkles, freckles and subtle expressions, hairs and stubble? Straws in grass which looks like grass, not a green carpet? Grains in wood and leaves? Are such details and fine shadings visible in dark areas?

    Is there a "natural" depth like I'm experiencing now, looking out from the window on the lawn with trees and bushes in different distance? And not the sort of "depth" you have when watching Gary Grant driving a car in the studio with filmed landscapes in the background, unless of course you're watching such a movie?

    I'm asking because my 12 year old 50Hz, 25", Finlux TV, indeed has a somewhat grainy picture, but nevertheless displays such details and that natural sort of depth, and I haven't come across a 100Hz set yet that beats it! :)
     
  4. kwangomango

    kwangomango
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    856
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +38
    We should really kill or merge this thread before it grows....
     
  5. rulocal

    rulocal
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,144
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +45
    Hi

    I have just compared these to sets albeit not to quite the extent that you have. I have decided to plump for the 32PD30 and am going to get John Lewis to price match. I have seen it for £1,128 at Techtronics. Has anyone seen it any cheaper?

    Thanks
     
  6. Demon

    Demon
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Messages:
    954
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Cheltenham
    Ratings:
    +56
    Its important like bazzae123 to demo these sets before buying,

    I've demo'd both in Comet with my Brother (He was after a big screen set, and in the end we both bought tosh 51WH36 RPTV' but lets not go there!) and after setting the Sets up with an AVIA DVD, it was clear that the Tosh looked a degree more natural with stunning detail levels, plenty of dark detail, and colour vibrancy and a controlled pallete. The Panny seemed good, but it did not look natural, and dark detail was poor IMO...
    as for normal TV< the poor SKy feed in the shop meant the Tosh initially looked bad, until we turned on the DNR, and just notching this to '2' improved it to the point that it was harder to tell any difference between it and the panny, except on SKY NEWS (The only other channel they had), looked better on the Tosh..

    I did find that with the salesmans low contrast settings, the Panny looked excellent in comparison to the Tosh with low contrast, and since I know a lot of people like a low contrast picture (around 30-40%).. so the Panny would defo suit them better...

    It seems that this months Home Entertainment also think the Tosh is that bit better then the rest.. and I suspect they set this up properly,a nd used PAL Prog sources, etc.. I bet if they had the typical salesman set the TV's up the results would be reversed..

    and surely thats the key.. its what suits people better.. All the sets are capable of excellence in there different areas, and we all like different things.. I find some people are hopeless at setting up TV's and always end up with some really unnatural looking picture, colour way up with low contrast, and a 'sheen' to the picture, just cos they think you have to be able to see all detail in dark areas, to the point that nighttime scenes like they were shot in daylight!!!! but then if thats what they like, the need to demo the sets, setup up to their tastes...

    We all place reliance on magazine reviews, praising those that agree with us, and dismissing those that don't... but at the end of the day, to them the reviews where accurate to what picture they like!!



    Always take peoples advice as guidance, but when spending this sort of money, ideally go and check that the set suits you, and not the reviewer..
     
  7. bazzae123

    bazzae123
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    314
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just to answer the two points above.

    kwangomango M8,

    The PF2 had contrast at 70, Brightness, 60 and colour 35. Sharpness varied but nothing seemed right. Personally, I thought these settings were a little on the high side but A couldn't get a decent picture with any thing else and the Avia disk backed up these settings.


    TVhomejs M8

    I know where your coming from when you talk about your old 50Hz set. When I got my first 100Hz model the clarity and sharpness didn't seem as good as the old set and I think we could talk for ever on the merits of 50Hz over 100Hz and vice versa. My comments in my original post were purely based on my own experience with the two sets sitting next to each other and me comparing them both with the same input source simultaneously. In my view the PF2 was a little out of focus compared to the PD30. As for clarity, yes I thought it was very good given a good clean source, but compared to anything else that I didn't have access to, who knows.
    At the end of the day I'm happy, if I could have purchased a better TV is a rout I don't really want to go down other wise I end up mad.

    Bazza
     
  8. TVhomejs

    TVhomejs
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Denmark
    Ratings:
    +0
    bazzae123

    Clarity, sharpness, focus. All surely important for a good picture, a good experience. But many details, fine shadings, natural depth, that what have to be there! In cinema and at home in front of the telly. If a 100Hz TV can deliver that at a reasonable price (max. 1000 - 1800 £), I would be delighted. I'm not religous about 50Hz, or any frequency. I want a TV that can get the most out of various sources to which I have or could have access. Cable, digital set top box, DVD player (progressive and not). What made me curious about your comparison was and is that you experience two sets sitting next to each other with different sources, and that these sets are widely spoken of (not always positively though) in this forum.

    Shortly I would like an evaluation like the one from Demon. But you can't always have what you want, so thanks anyway. :)
     

Share This Page

Loading...