• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

pioneer 46" vs ..... pioneer 50"

woolz

Active Member
hmm right. went to see these new lcd pioneers now the prices havent come down a bit. think i can get one for around 1500pounds the 46'' version. anyway went to see one working and next to it was the 50" pioneer plasma. only a couple of hundred more.

hmm tempting. the sales guy preferred the plasma but said the pioneer lcds were very very good. i said i think a 50" will be too big. so i measured up and the 50" is only around 19cms longer and 10cms wider! sod all really!

what do you guys think?
 

YellowSphere

Well-known Member
Even if they were exactly the same picture quality wise I'd say get the 50", and in my opinion (and most people's I would imagine) the 50" is better in all areas of picture quality.
 

woolz

Active Member
i understand how lcds work with regards to htz but does plasmas run on the same sort of lines in terms of 100htz or 200htz etc??
 

mjcairney

Distinguished Member
I'll leave this for someone better informed than me to answer, but I still say that Plasma gives a better picture than LCD.

Cheers,

Martin.
 

stuman

Active Member
Hz is not the be all and end all of frame rate ect.

The Hz that are advertised as 100 / 200 ect on screens nowadays is the scan rate / image processing speed for the image.

also to take into consideration is the pixel response time which is where plasma and LCD differ.

plasma technology has a response time of around 0.02ms VS an LCD at anywhere from 2ms to 20ms.

what this means is that each how long it takes for a pixel to make the transition from off to full open. In the end this means that a screen with a 8ms response time will be this in turn means that without blurring the screen can display 12.5 FPS. whilst plasma can cope with 500 before response time becomes an issue.

however i can talk about specs all day. get to an independent retailer with the kit set up properly and decide if you can see the motion blur.

ps. if i missed the mark with any of this please let me know as im still picking up bits myself.


stu
 

YellowSphere

Well-known Member
The Sony Z4500 and Pioneer 50" sets perform the same in motion resolution tests. However, the Pioneer achieves the result without resorting to processing, it can do it without the need for expensive technology that doesn't always get it right.

It is true that high contrast movement on the Pioneer might cause you to notice phosphor lag (a green trail behind the image), but this effect is not only not noticeable to most people, but should be minimal with most content when brightness and contrast are set correctly.

Also, stuman, you've made a slight mathematical error, 8ms allows for a theoretical maximum refresh rate of 125Hz, not 12.5 ;)
 

stuman

Active Member
had another look at the maths....

100 milliseconds in a second...

if it takes 8 of them to do a full refresh... 12.5 times 8 = 100

100Hz is 1ms response?

?????

i think??
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Guardians of the Galaxy Xmas Special, Strange World, Bones and All, and Cabinet of Dr Caligari in 4K
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom