What do you think of the Panasoning 42" Plasma for gaming monitor?

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Ran across this on sale at Newegg for $750; with 800 Hz, and Plasma's good blacks and fast graphics, I wondered if this is as good a pick for a gamining monitor as it sounds like. Rarely see plasmas discussed.
 

Rhoxed

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2007
1,051
3
81
I have the 42G10 i use daily for gaming, just watch static images for burn-in (although these TVs are very good about not receiving burn in)

I also have a 56" Toshiba DLP and i have to say the plasma is much better for gaming.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
I can't speak for the particular model you are considering, but I prefer plasmas over other comparable sized displays in general, for gaming or otherwise. I use a 50" Panasonic as my primary monitor, and used a 42" model before it. Granted, that is in a living room environment, viewed from the couch. In a desktop situation I wouldn't want such a large display.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,144
1,322
126
In general a good plasma tv is much better than an LCD, especially if you compare cost of the plasma vs lcd and quality of image. Plasmas display true deep blacks and have a better pq than LCD, they are the home theatre enthusiasts choice, the pioneer elite series are still the very best big screen tv you can buy, discontinued unfortunately.

That said, for gaming they will suffer from image retention for static images, and every game has some sort of hud that is static. They're also hot, heavy and need to be used in a low light situation to show their strength, so in the daytime in a bright room they're not the best.

Have to weigh your options :) The panasonic G10 is a fantastic screen though, better pq than a sony xbr and cheaper.
 

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,298
23
81
Any comments on the older series of plasmas (PX850U specifically) versus todays lineup (G10, G15, etc)? Amazon has the 46" PX850U for like $950 shipped and looks like an awesome deal - just have to wonder if the new generation are that much better or not.
 

Rhoxed

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2007
1,051
3
81
The G10 will outperform the 850 in every category (higher black levels, better colors, more shades of gradation, better processing, lower energy consumption, etc).

Only buy the 850U if the G10 isn't in your price range, and you aren't willing to save.
 

Pooptacular

Member
Sep 3, 2005
126
0
0
I just bought a Panasonic 42S1 for what I thought was dirt cheap and so far it has been excellent. Using it to play Xbox360 and Playstation 3 so far and I have no complaints. I will use it as my primary pc monitor when I build my new pc in March or so.
 

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,298
23
81
The G10 will outperform the 850 in every category (higher black levels, better colors, more shades of gradation, better processing, lower energy consumption, etc).

Only buy the 850U if the G10 isn't in your price range, and you aren't willing to save.

Noticeably outperform or just a bit? Really just curious how much improvement has occured in the last year.
 

Obsoleet

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2007
2,181
1
0
I went with the new Samsung plasma instead of the Panasonic due to the feature set (24P on all models being one). And while I don't use it as a primary display, it makes all LCDs look disgustingly terrible. I almost can't stand LCDs now besides when forced.

The newer plasmas are the way to go though, I wouldn't invest in an older model. You want the latest panel tech, which uses less power and the units are lighter weight.
Compare a 2009 plasma to a 2009 lcd tv, there's not much difference in weight. I think I found it to be 10lbs or so.

I have the Samsung PN50B650 and it's amazing. I'd buy the Panasonic too, and I'm curious to get one in my living room to try out. The Samsung doesn't get all the hype but it is Consumer Reports best pick for a 50" HDTV and you can get the tv I paid 1350 for on launch for about 1000 today with 24P support, DLNA and everything else you could ask for.

I don't like the idea of using a Windows desktop on a plasma to read webpages, but I do use mine for gaming. I ran a 50' HDMI cable from my computer room to my plasma, and then use it for videos and games that I can use my 360 gamepad for Windows. I don't use a wireless keyboard or mouse because I don't want to leave that desktop up there for long periods of time, even though 2009+ plasmas are safe from burn in due to pixel shift. But you can use a 360 pad to control your tv to play videos ect by downloading xpadder.

Just giving you ideas as to what you can do, I like my setup as it gives me 1 PC to maintain as a HTPC/gaming/browsing machine. I use my work laptop (someday I'd like an Ion) to VNC to my main machine to do more complex tasks.

People rant and rave about OLED but I'm very happy about my plasma. I'll never buy another LCD unless it's for a smaller size than 40" (I also own a 25.5" Asus LCD for my desktop and a 20.1" Dell LCD).
The best part about plasmas is that I've never seen a tv do such a good job with SD content. It's better than any CRT I've seen and one of my sticking points about LCDs.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
...I don't want to leave that desktop up there for long periods of time, even though 2009+ plasmas are safe from burn in due to pixel shift.
What people call "burn-in" is really just uneven phosphor wear, the phosphors loosing brightness with use, and those displaying brighter colors loosing that brightness faster than those displaying darker ones. So, for instance, if you watched nothing 4:3 video with black sidebars for long enough, and then put up an all light color image that covers the whole screen, you'd find the part of the display where the sidebars are somewhat brighter than the part where the video was displayed. That can be easily corrected in all but the most extreme cases though, simply by running content that evenly uses the full screen long enough to even out the phosphor wear, because the rate of wear slows down the more the phosphors are used. You can get even quicker results from displaying images with inverted color to that which caused the uneven wear, for instance running white sidebars to get rid of the uneven wear from black sidebars.

As for pixel shift, that just moves the image around slightly to spread the uneven wear around a bit to slightly blur the distinction rather than actually doing anything to stop uneven wear. Also, pixel shift is nothing new, even the model I got back in 2004 had the option. I've always turned it off though, as I'd rather uneven wear is as easy as possible to spot, so I can correct it quickly.

I've never had an issue past the first ~1000 hours though, and that is with lots of desktop use as my primary monitor, though of course plenty of games and movies and such too which helps keep the wear from getting visibly uneven. Put simply the whole "burn-in" thing mostly paranoid nonsense, largely based on very old plasma technology which was more prone to uneven wear because they had a had a fraction of the half-life current models do.
 
Last edited:

MDE

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
13,199
1
81
I'm using a 42" Panasonic plasma (not sure about the model )with my TiVo\360\HTPC and it's pretty awesome. Got it in February or March for about $1000 at Fry's, and I couldn't be happier with the TV.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
Plasmas are BAD for gaming. I myself have a 52" Sammy - but i use it for movies mainly.

The reason is that Plasmas suffer from "screen retention" (temporary burn-in) - so i would NOT recommend them for gaming really. It would burn in your HUDs and whatever and you would have a hard time to get rid of those after-images again. If i have the desktop on my plasma for some time - i see the icon's "after images" later on watching a movie one dark/bright BG and it takes a while til they're gone again.

The other factor for me is that they use a LOT of power and i wouldnt want to use a big-screen Plasma as monitor sitting there 18hrs/day....at least not here in EU where utlitities are insanely high.

LCD would be WAY better fitted as a monitor.
 
Last edited:

dflynchimp

Senior member
Apr 11, 2007
468
0
71
Plasmas are BAD for gaming. I myself have a 52" Sammy - but i use it for movies mainly.

The reason is that Plasmas suffer from "screen retention" (temporary burn-in) - so i would NOT recommend them for gaming really. It would burn in your HUDs and whatever and you would have a hard time to get rid those after-images again.

The other factor for me is that they use a LOT of power and i wouldnt want to use a big-screen TV as monitor sitting there 18hrs/day....at least not here in EU where utlitities are insanely high.

plasmas are fine for gaming, if you're using consoles and don't keep it in the menu screan for too long. For a PC display that spends alot of time in the desktop area or with stationary bars for long periods of times plasma will eventually get permanent burn ins.

In general I just don't like plasmas, period. LCD's are still the way to go.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
plasmas are fine for gaming, if you're using consoles and don't keep it in the menu screan for too long. For a PC display that spends alot of time in the desktop area or with stationary bars for long periods of times plasma will eventually get permanent burn ins.

In general I just don't like plasmas, period. LCD's are still the way to go.

dfly, you have an idea how many hours i waste each day playing WoW? :)

Most games have some kind of HUD or stationary images...and its just not good to have this on for hours.
 

shangshang

Senior member
May 17, 2008
830
0
0
I wouldn't get plasma. Get LED LCD. Deep black, better color contrast. I find most plasmas (other than the Pioneer Elite) have a dull color. LCDs have brighter colors. But the plasma guys will say that "dull color" is "natural color". I guess I prefer bright colors of LCDs.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
I totally disagree, Plasmas are usually taken BECAUSE they have the better blacks, "brighter" colors and better viewing angles.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
I went with the new Samsung plasma instead of the Panasonic due to the feature set (24P on all models being one). And while I don't use it as a primary display, it makes all LCDs look disgustingly terrible. I almost can't stand LCDs now besides when forced.

I have that PS50A476(PN something in the states), series 4, so its not that old either.

I dont know about 24p, even if mine has this 24p option i am trying for weeks already to see a difference respective trying to output 24p on my HTPC and see a difference. (I dont have a bluray player tho)

But also if i set a resolution of 1920x1080/24p on the PC i dont see any difference in regards of that "telecine judder", subjectively it looks better at native PC resolution with 60hz. Or this "ominous" 24p mode is only active with blurays?

I had countless test videos running with MPC-Honecinama and watched whether i see a difference with 24hz...nada...
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Plasmas are BAD for gaming. I myself have a 52" Sammy - but i use it for movies mainly.

The reason is that Plasmas suffer from "screen retention" (temporary burn-in) - so i would NOT recommend them for gaming really. It would burn in your HUDs and whatever and you would have a hard time to get rid of those after-images again. If i have the desktop on my plasma for some time - i see the icon's "after images" later on watching a movie one dark/bright BG and it takes a while til they're gone again.

The other factor for me is that they use a LOT of power and i wouldnt want to use a big-screen Plasma as monitor sitting there 18hrs/day....at least not here in EU where utlitities are insanely high.

LCD would be WAY better fitted as a monitor.[/QUOTE]
What is the model number of your Sammy? Samsung had some issues with their image processing on their plasmas a few years back which I'm guessing you are mistaking as a problem inherent to plasmas. I use my plasma as my primay desktop, displaying webpages and gaming and such much of the day nearly every day, and have done so for years without any such issues, and the same goes for my previous plasma before it.

Also, the amount of power a plasma uses depends on how bright of image it is displaying, so their power usage figures can't rightly be compared to LCDs which have their backlights on full brightness regardless of what image is displayed. In practice, LCDs do still generally use less power, but the difference isn't nearly that of what one might assume by looking at the specs.
 

CoinOperatedBoy

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2008
1,809
0
76
I wouldn't get plasma. Get LED LCD. Deep black, better color contrast. I find most plasmas (other than the Pioneer Elite) have a dull color. LCDs have brighter colors. But the plasma guys will say that "dull color" is "natural color". I guess I prefer bright colors of LCDs.

It's not a matter of "dull" or "natural". It's a matter of accuracy. Plasmas tend to be better at accurately displaying color data from the source, which is usually very important to enthusiasts. If you don't like how accurate color reproduction looks, that's your personal preference, and the deficiencies of LCD in that regard don't affect you.

Brightness is a different measurement entirely, and it's true that LCDs typically have an advantage in bright ambient settings, but as you've noted black levels usually suffer. LED is definitely a step up, but at a premium price. Comparing an LED LCD with a Kuro plasma would be about as close as you can get to a fair showdown.

Edit: Also, I should mention that I game on my Pioneer plasma and have had no issues whatsoever. I much prefer the picture to the Samsung LCD I had previously. Image retention has gotten much better in newer plasmas and I don't worry so much about it, but to be fair, most of the games I've played haven't had persistent HUDs or status displays and the like. A lot of newer games make health bars, etc. fade automatically, probably to address these concerns.

All of that said, I would never use a plasma for a PC monitor.
 
Last edited:

shangshang

Senior member
May 17, 2008
830
0
0
I totally disagree, Plasmas are usually taken BECAUSE they have the better blacks, "brighter" colors and better viewing angles.

What plasmas are you referring to? When I went to Costco and checked out the plasmas they have there from Samsung and Panasonic, it's clear to my eyes that plasmas don't have brighter colors.

And for gaming, which is that the OP is doing, he doesn't need color accuracy. Color saturation is more important than accuracy for gaming.

Except for the Pioneer Elite series, I find plasmas to be dimmer than equivalently priced LCDs.
 

shangshang

Senior member
May 17, 2008
830
0
0
It's not a matter of "dull" or "natural". It's a matter of accuracy. Plasmas tend to be better at accurately displaying color data from the source, which is usually very important to enthusiasts. If you don't like how accurate color reproduction looks, that's your personal preference, and the deficiencies of LCD in that regard don't affect you.

Brightness is a different measurement entirely, and it's true that LCDs typically have an advantage in bright ambient settings, but as you've noted black levels usually suffer. LED is definitely a step up, but at a premium price. Comparing an LED LCD with a Kuro plasma would be about as close as you can get to a fair showdown.

Edit: Also, I should mention that I game on my Pioneer plasma and have had no issues whatsoever. I much prefer the picture to the Samsung LCD I had previously. Image retention has gotten much better in newer plasmas and I don't worry so much about it, but to be fair, most of the games I've played haven't had persistent HUDs or status displays and the like. A lot of newer games make health bars, etc. fade automatically, probably to address these concerns.

All of that said, I would never use a plasma for a PC monitor.

I think for gaming, color saturation (even if artificially saturated like in most LCDs) is more preferable for color accuracy. You're not going to sit there and analyze each color pixels in gaming do you? In fact, many games would go to the extreme to make sure their graphics are over-saturated with color.

Kuro Plasmas are still quite expensive! A 42" Kuro costs over $2000 out the door (when it's on sale). Yesterday I saw a Samsung 46" LED LCD at Costco for aroung $1900. And LED LCD are coming down in price rapidly too. The same can't be said of Kuro series. In 6-12 month time, there is even less incentives to get plasmas (maybe except for a series Kuro for a video hardcore) over LED LCD.

I would not bother with the lower priced plasmas, e.g., the 42" plasma in the $600-$800 range. They just don't look bright and tend to look dull. Gotta go for Kuro plasma or might as well go LCD
 
Last edited:

CoinOperatedBoy

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2008
1,809
0
76
I think for gaming, color saturation (even if artificially saturated like in most LCDs) is more preferable for color accuracy. You're not going to sit there and analyze each color pixels in gaming do you? In fact, many games would go to the extreme to make sure their graphics are over-saturated with color.

Sorry, but you don't really know what you're talking about. If the designers intended a game to look saturated, they would create it that way based on accepted color standards. Again, if you prefer an oversaturated look and don't care about the developer's intentions, that's up to you and you can adjust your TV to achieve that. But it doesn't change the fact that what you're describing is utterly subjective and separate from accurate reproduction.

Some would say that a TV's quality is based primarily on its ability to display an accurate picture. Others, like yourself apparently, value brightness and saturation. I don't think you can assume that gamers all prefer the same qualities in a TV. For gaming in particular, I would say the main concern is input lag and ghosting, both of which are not huge concerns for any modern TV from the major players. The rest depends on taste and ambient conditions.


Kuro Plasmas are still quite expensive! A 42" Kuro can cost over $2500 out the door. Yesterday I saw a Samsung 46" LED LCD at Costco for aroung $1900. And LED LCD are coming down in price rapidly too. The same can't be said of Kuro series. In 6-12 month time, there is even less incentives to get plasmas (maybe except for a series Kuro for a video hardcore) over LED LCD.

I don't understand your point. Mine was that for the past year, pricing has been similar for both of these niche products, beyond what is typical for lesser LCDs and plasmas. I also don't think you can safely say that LED will utterly trump plasma for quality in any given timeframe, although I wouldn't rule out the possibility. Without a doubt, this technology is narrowing the PQ gap between LCD and plasma.

Anecdotally, a couple months ago, I had the opportunity to buy a 50" Pioneer Kuro for $1999 or an Elite for $2499. At the time, MSRP on a smaller Samsung LED LCD was even higher. The Kuro line is a special case because it's not only considered the best widely available plasma ever created, but it's now a discontinued product. LED is expensive because it's emerging technology and represents a leap in LCD quality.
 
Last edited:

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
What plasmas are you referring to? When I went to Costco and checked out the plasmas they have there from Samsung and Panasonic, it's clear to my eyes that plasmas don't have brighter colors.

You make your decision by comparing screens at walmart or costco? :) Besides your term "brighter colors" really confuses me.

Maybe you should play with screens in a more "professional" environment and not a neon-lit walmart with their screens set to "store mode" - i really dont know what else to tell you. But the Sammies have great colors/blacks/contrast. Maybe not as great as Kuros, but awesome nevertheless.

Maybe the plasmas appear "duller" to you since its known that plasmas are not ideal for bright environments.

There are some issues i COULD complain about my Plasma...but its not contrast, colors or anything related what you mentioned...i am also convinced you can adjust all this in the settings to your liking. "Dull colors", no way..at least not here.
 
Last edited:

CoinOperatedBoy

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2008
1,809
0
76
Yeah, the "brighter colors" thing kind of throws me for a loop too, but it's clear he's just comparing panel brightness in a retail environment. Obviously your typical LCD in torch mode will look more vivid than a plasma under harsh fluorescent lighting.