Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo

Just bought a Panny PT47wx42! Some questions.


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 of 24 OFFLINE   Jael

Jael

    Agent



  • 45 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 01 2002

Posted July 15 2002 - 02:56 AM

I just took the plunge and spent what I could on a RPTV. I have a few concerns that perhaps other owners of this tv (or the previous models) could address.

1. I understand that this TV locks into full mode from a progressive source. Does that mean that if I recieve a HDTV signal some time in the future I will be forced to view my material stretched? Or is it simply the ones that are still shown in 4X3 mode? I'm still a little confused on this subject but would like to know how much of a barrier or irritant this really is.

2. This being the cheapest High Def RPTV out there I have a few reservations about it's quality compared to other comperable sets. Could a few of you reassure me that I will be able to get a good picture out of my set? (consider it a license to appreciate your tvPosted Image )

Thanks for the feedback, I've learned more than I ever wanted to know from the members of this forum!
Digital dreams, analog world...

#2 of 24 OFFLINE   Dave Ringkor

Dave Ringkor

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 172 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 20 1998

Posted July 15 2002 - 03:23 AM

1. I have the Samsung OTA HDTV receiver, and it allows you to set your viewing preference -- zoomed or windowboxed.

2. I'm very happy with my set so far. Go to www.panny.tv and do some of the tweaks and you'll get a fine picture. NOTE: Try to avoid watching in 4:3 mode, as you will end up with burn-in. Use Just mode instead. You'll get used to it.

#3 of 24 OFFLINE   Jan Strnad

Jan Strnad

    Screenwriter



  • 1,004 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 01 1999

Posted July 15 2002 - 03:28 AM

From what I've read on this and other boards, you have a great TV! Enjoy! Jan
Jan Strnad

aka J. Knight,
author of Risen and Boo.

#4 of 24 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



  • 16,727 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted July 15 2002 - 04:02 AM

Yes, as Jan noted, this set is a genuine performer--don't let the low price fool you into thinking this is somehow a lesser set. Panny could have sold it for $500 more than the msrp and no one would have complained!

#5 of 24 OFFLINE   Kirk Gunn

Kirk Gunn

    Screenwriter



  • 1,612 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 16 1999

Posted July 15 2002 - 04:47 AM

Is the Panasonic PT-53WX52 receiving rave reviews as well ? Anyone know what the street price is ? Thanks

#6 of 24 OFFLINE   Jael

Jael

    Agent



  • 45 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 01 2002

Posted July 15 2002 - 05:31 AM

Wow, thanks for all the fast responses! I got the set in 30 minutes ago and have been doing the initial adjustments using THX optimode tools (Avia is on the way in the mail). It seems that I can keep the PICTURE down to around 25 (out of 63), but the brightness seems to want to remain up in the 53's or so. Is it okay to leave my brightness up a little or is it just as important as the picure(contrast)? Thanks for the replies, Jael
Digital dreams, analog world...

#7 of 24 OFFLINE   ollie_k

ollie_k

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 78 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2002

Posted July 15 2002 - 06:10 AM

out of the box my panny's brightness was waaaaaaaaay too hot, I think thats a factory setting if I'm not mistaken
Check out my review site
Dvd-Dweeb.com!

#8 of 24 OFFLINE   Louis C

Louis C

    Supporting Actor



  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 05 2002

Posted July 15 2002 - 08:39 AM

My local dealer has the 53WX42 on sale this week for $1888. I was going to buy it, but now I am going to wait for a DVI compatible model.

#9 of 24 OFFLINE   Jael

Jael

    Agent



  • 45 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 01 2002

Posted July 15 2002 - 09:10 AM

Hmm... With brightness down to 29 I lose detail in the image that is necessary for the complete experience. I don't mind watching regular television this way but when I throw in a DVD I want to be able to see the detail in the background and not have it washed out into darkness. Does anyone else simply keep their brightness down for regular viewing and then give themselves a little more for a good movie? Thoughts?
Digital dreams, analog world...

#10 of 24 OFFLINE   Chris PC

Chris PC

    Producer



  • 3,994 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2001

Posted July 16 2002 - 06:40 AM

So can you take a non-anamorphic letterbox DVD and make it fill the screen properly?
Going from projector to flatscreen for a while.... :P

#11 of 24 OFFLINE   Jael

Jael

    Agent



  • 45 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 01 2002

Posted July 16 2002 - 08:53 AM

Chris, It's my understanding that you will have the little bars on non-anamorphic DVD's there is no evident way to get rid of these bars on my display. Anyone please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm really having a problem with this brightness issue. My ideal brightness for watching a DVD seems to be up in the lower to mid 40's, but I'm responding to all the advice to keep the brightness down so as not to hasten burn in. I don't feel that it is unreasonable to want to see the detail in the shadows that are intended to be seen. I have no desire to hurry the wear on my set but it seems silly that I can't safely use this set to see a movie as it was intended. So this brings me to my questions: 1. Is the brightness on the panasonic especially poor compared to other RPTV's? 2. Are there others out there that turn up their brightness to the levels indicated by say the THX optimode tools (27 contrast, 40 brightness on my Panny) when they're watching a movie and back down for regular TV viewing. 3. Is this lack of detail something I 'should' get used to? That is to say am I being overly responsive to the lack of brightness coming from a direct view to a RPTV?
Digital dreams, analog world...

#12 of 24 OFFLINE   Jeffrey R

Jeffrey R

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 199 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 05 2002

Posted July 16 2002 - 09:48 AM

I don't have a Panny HDTV (I have a Sony HDTV), but I think you are getting too hung up on what you think you are supposed to set your TV at based on what other people say. In the end, it is your TV. Set the TV at whatever you need to enjoy it. Having said that, I have set my TV menu settings using Avia, and it definitely improves the picture. But, I am the only one on this site who lives in my apartment, with my windows, and the brightness of my living room. So, when I bumped up the contrast and brightness a bit on some of the picture settings, I didn't care that it was a little higher than what Avia says it should be. The contrast and brightness are still below 50% of maximum, and there is relatively little risk of burn-in at those levels. But, now I can actually see what's on the screen clearly. Yes, for DVD's in a dark room, I lower the brightness and contrast, but otherwise, I keep it wherever it needs to be for me to enjoy my TV. If you like your brightness at 40, leave it there. By the way, what is the maximum brightness setting? If 40 is high, maybe lower it a bit. Just my .02 cents.

#13 of 24 OFFLINE   Jael

Jael

    Agent



  • 45 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 01 2002

Posted July 17 2002 - 03:33 AM

Thanks for the feedback, this all helps. I'm going to be getting my Avia disks in a bit and I'll see what comes of that and follow up. I am starting to wonder if my set is 'dark' because to get a truly enjoyable image I need to bring the brightness up to the mid-upper 40's out of a 63 max which doesn't seem in line with what I've been hearing.
Digital dreams, analog world...

#14 of 24 OFFLINE   Bill Slack

Bill Slack

    Supporting Actor



  • 841 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted July 17 2002 - 10:31 AM

Why are 2.35 movies a bigger problem? Non-anamoprhic or anamorphic a 1.85 movie should just about fill the screen. a 2.35 movie, no matter if it's enchanced or not, should leave black bars on the top and bottom. Progressive scan and widescreen TVs don't 'get rid of blackbars' HDTV is 1.78:1, which is close enough to 1.85, with overscan, that it fills the screen. For real HD material, everything is 1.78 (though some things, such as upconverts may be windowboxed, and wider aspect ratio movies are still going to be letterboxed.) You have nothing to worry about in terms of stretching for HD material. If the set can zoom when in progressive mode, you should use that for non-anamorphic (1.85 and 2.35, and any other wide aspect ratio) material. If it can't, you should get one of the players from Panasonic, JVC or Denon that have built in scalers to compensate for this problem.

#15 of 24 OFFLINE   Steve_Tk

Steve_Tk

    Screenwriter



  • 2,833 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 30 2002

Posted July 17 2002 - 02:55 PM

Why would you want to zoom in on a 2.35 movie? doesn't that defeat the purpose of wanting a widescreen movie. If you are going to just zoom in and loose some of the image, then what is the point?

#16 of 24 OFFLINE   Bill Slack

Bill Slack

    Supporting Actor



  • 841 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted July 17 2002 - 05:07 PM

If it's non-anamorphic you want to 'zoom' it for the same reason you zoom a non-anamprhic 1.85 movie: It's designed for a 4:3 set, and you own a 16:9 set. You want to zoom it to fit a 1.85 set correctly so it is not-windowboxed, but retains all property geometry and picture information, while creating the biggest image as possible.

#17 of 24 OFFLINE   Steve_Tk

Steve_Tk

    Screenwriter



  • 2,833 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 30 2002

Posted July 18 2002 - 09:48 AM

I meant, why would you zoom an anamorphic 2.35 movie. Maybe no one does this and I just read it wrong.

#18 of 24 OFFLINE   Jael

Jael

    Agent



  • 45 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 01 2002

Posted July 18 2002 - 12:15 PM

Steve, I'm with you on that one. Give me small bars over picture loss any day! I do see the point in zooming but it just irritates me too much to know that there are things I'm missing that I shouldn't be. For the most part I'll suffer a stretch mode before I resort to zoom. Thankfully the volume of 4:3 material that I really feel merits geometric integrity is not so large.
Digital dreams, analog world...

#19 of 24 OFFLINE   EugeneR

EugeneR

    Second Unit



  • 263 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2000

Posted July 19 2002 - 10:45 AM

I just got one of these too and it is on the way. Posted Image Stupid question: what is 3:2 pulldown?:b I did a search, but didn't find a post that explained it.

#20 of 24 OFFLINE   Louis C

Louis C

    Supporting Actor



  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 05 2002

Posted July 20 2002 - 03:15 AM

Eugene,

This article has the answer...

What is 3:2 Pulldown?

Hope this helps!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users