The real difference between the new 12 series Panasonic plasmas & a Sony BVM CRT

[Michael Totten]

I know CRT monitors and high end LCD's like eCinema & CineTal have been the choice for color reference/grading in the past... but at this point what is the real difference?

For instance, I understand the soon to be released 12 series Panasonic panel is going to be significantly better than the 11 series (which is currently used for color grading in several post facilities here in LA).

Also, I recently had a conversation with a guy who does professional monitor calibration for a living who says that he can get the 11 series within " 5% of a Sony Master Series CRT".

Furthermore when you're using scopes you're getting even more accurate.

Finally regardless of what monitor a piece may have been graded on, by the time it reaches the millions of different television sets, CRT , plasma, lcd, led, rear projection, computer screens, internet, broadcast ect...... the point is everybody's monitor looks different (and surely this is the biggest X factor which nobody will ever have control over).

So my question is:

Taking all this into consideration, beyond price, what is the difference between the top end ($20$-40K) and then monitors like either the Panasonic Pro Plasma 12 series monitors or the newer Panasonic BT-LH2550?

thank you,
Michael

 

[M Most]

Also, I recently had a conversation with a guy who does professional monitor calibration for a living who says that he can get the 11 series within " 5% of a Sony Master Series CRT".

Furthermore when you're using scopes you're getting even more accurate.....

So my question is:

Taken all this into consideration, beyond price, what is the difference between the top end ($20$-40K) and then monitors like either the Panasonic Pro Plasma 12 series monitors or the newer Panasonic BT-LH2550?

About $18K.
And about 18 inches in screen size.

Seriously.....
If you're talking about CRT's as the comparison, that's not really sensible now that CRT's are basically out of production. If you're talking about high end LCD's, the difference is really in stability and shelf life. Plasmas in general will take a bit more attention if you want them to be as close to perfect as possible all the time (not a lot more, but more) and their shelf life is probably a bit lower, perhaps a year or two when used in facility conditions. But the advantages (accurate image, true blacks, no off axis viewing issues, and a very low price) far outweigh the disadvantages, which is why so many of the major post houses have gone to plasmas as their CRT replacement.

 

[Michael Totten]

About $18K.
And about 18 inches in screen size.

Seriously.....
If you're talking about CRT's as the comparison, that's not really sensible now that CRT's are basically out of production. If you're talking about high end LCD's, the difference is really in stability and shelf life. Plasmas in general will take a bit more attention if you want them to be as close to perfect as possible all the time (not a lot more, but more) and their shelf life is probably a bit lower, perhaps a year or two when used in facility conditions. But the advantages (accurate image, true blacks, no off axis viewing issues, and a very low price) far outweigh the disadvantages, which is why so many of the major post houses have gone to plasmas as their CRT replacement.

Yeah I guess the only reason I mentioned CRT is because for the longest time they were the standard and they are still widely used. I was just in a grading session at FotoKem and they were using a CRT. It's pretty obvious that they're going the way of the dodo bird though.

 

[Tom.Wong]

lcd's have pretty much reached their limit though, they just can't get blacks and saturation perfect, not like a CRT. i think once OLED technology is perfected and prices go down that's gonna be everything we use for monitoring and critical color correction

 

[Michael Totten]

lcd's have pretty much reached their limit though, they just can't get blacks and saturation perfect, not like a CRT. i think once OLED technology is perfected and prices go down that's gonna be everything we use for monitoring and critical color correction

Right, but OLED is probably 2-4 years away from where it needs to be to enter the market in a realistic way. So the question is (if LCD has reached it's limits) then that leaves plasma. So in the next few years what kinds of improvements will we see in plasma, and which plasma is the best? My guess is the panasonic 12 series.
Also, I'm curious to know why if plasma has better blacks and higher contrast ratio then why does panasonic, ecinema and cinetal still use lcd's for their flagship production monitors?

 

[M Most]

Right, but OLED is probably 2-4 years away from where it needs to be to enter the market in a realistic way. So the question is (if LCD has reached it's limits) then that leaves plasma. So in the next few years what kinds of improvements will we see in plasma, and which plasma is the best? My guess is the panasonic 12 series.

As I pointed out in another thread, the current plasmas are generally seen as a temporary solution until a better, permanent CRT replacement technology is firmly in place. One of the advantages of the plasmas is that they get you 95% of the accuracy, but the cost is so low that you could replace them yearly and it would still be a lot more economical than replacing tubes in CRTs every 4 years or so.

Also, I'm curious to know why if plasma has better blacks and higher contrast ratio then why does panasonic, ecinema and cinetal still use lcd's for their flagship production monitors?

1. Cheaper to manufacture
2. Lower power requirements (always good for production)
3. Brighter, which is good in the generally higher ambient light of location production.
4. Generally more stable
5. In the case of some monitors - Cinetal in particular - some of these monitors allow user supplied LUTs, which allow for more accurate previewing of the final image, especially when shooting with cameras that are outputting and recording with log curves.
6. LCDs in general are a bit more rugged, well suited to the needs of production to constantly move them around. They are usually lighter as well.

Those are the ones that come immediately to mind. In general, production monitoring is not about color perfection, it's about being able to see a representative image in a reasonably accurate way, but in a portable unit that can stand the rigors of typical production abuse. LCD's fill that role fairly well.

 

[jake blackstone]

lcd's have pretty much reached their limit though, they just can't get blacks and saturation perfect, not like a CRT. i think once OLED technology is perfected and prices go down that's gonna be everything we use for monitoring and critical color correction

Actually, not really, The new LCDs with RGB LED backlight with local dimming is a huge improvement in blacks and contrast over the old fluorescent backlit technology.

 

[M Most]

Actually, not really, The new LCDs with RGB LED backlight with local dimming is a huge improvement in blacks and contrast over the old fluorescent backlit technology.

While I don't disagree, I also feel that it is unlikely that any transmissive approach (i.e., backlight through a filtration layer, as in LCD's) is going to be able to achieve the purity and control over very dark and near dark values that an emissive technology can (i.e., CRT's and plasmas).

I'm sure Martin Euradjian would dispute that, though.

 

[jake blackstone]

While I don't disagree, I also feel that it is unlikely that any transmissive approach (i.e., backlight through a filtration layer, as in LCD's) is going to be able to achieve the purity and control over very dark and near dark values that an emissive technology can (i.e., CRT's and plasmas).

I'm sure Martin Euradjian would dispute that, though.

At first I was also skeptical, until I realized, that better blacks are achieved with an actual dimming of the backlight source and not by the properties of the transmissive media. As this technique becomes more mature, as it's crazy as it sounds, I can see the emergence of true or truer blacks in LCD. There are too many manufacturers, that invested a lot of R&D and plants money to just to abandon LCD and move onto OLED.

 

[Michael Totten]

As I pointed out in another thread, the current plasmas are generally seen as a temporary solution until a better, permanent CRT replacement technology is firmly in place. One of the advantages of the plasmas is that they get you 95% of the accuracy, but the cost is so low that you could replace them yearly and it would still be a lot more economical than replacing tubes in CRTs every 4 years or so.



1. Cheaper to manufacture
2. Lower power requirements (always good for production)
3. Brighter, which is good in the generally higher ambient light of location production.
4. Generally more stable
5. In the case of some monitors - Cinetal in particular - some of these monitors allow user supplied LUTs, which allow for more accurate previewing of the final image, especially when shooting with cameras that are outputting and recording with log curves.
6. LCDs in general are a bit more rugged, well suited to the needs of production to constantly move them around. They are usually lighter as well.

Those are the ones that come immediately to mind. In general, production monitoring is not about color perfection, it's about being able to see a representative image in a reasonably accurate way, but in a portable unit that can stand the rigors of typical production abuse. LCD's fill that role fairly well.

nice. So my bases are covered as I've got the Panasonic 8.4" and 26" for on set stuff and I'm pretty sure I'm going to get one of the Panasonic 12 series when they're available. The question is which one? I've heard that certain screen sizes somehow are better matched with the resolution (1920x1080p). I think I read the 42" was the magic number... but I can't remember.
Is there any validity in this ?
Also, in terms of getting the signal into the plasma.
I've got a Kona 3 card (HD-SDI) , AJA Hi5 non 3g version (HD-SDI to HDMI) and am going to be getting the RED Rocket™™™ soon. This gives me a bunch of different options for feeding the plasma monitor. I'm just not sure which one is best?
I'm looking for the most accurate image ... when I'm working with Red/.r3d files then it'll be RED Rocket™™™ ( DVI I guess ? ).. but when I'm working with non-red files then I can use the Kona.

This brings up another question. Do I really need the Kona 3 ? I'm not ingesting our laying off to decks much anymore (I really only use it for 10-bit HD-SDI monitoring)... but I can't quite figure out what Kona will do that RED Rocket™™™ won't. I'm afraid there is going to be some kind of "gotcha" if I sell the Kona 3.

 

[Jason H]

cinetal told me that feeding the plasmas with hdmi has an underscan of 2-3% I fogot the actual number though. So you might have to buy the hdsdi board. an extra 1,400.00

 

[Michael Totten]

cinetal told me that feeding the plasmas with hdmi has an underscan of 2-3% I fogot the actual number though. So you might have to buy the hdsdi board. an extra 1,400.00

thanks for the info. yeah I don't mind making the extra investment if it's the best method, I'm just not sure if red rocket supports SDI. Does it? Currently it's two DVI out's correct? I guess the breakout box will have HD-SDI.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Actually, not really, The new LCDs with RGB LED backlight with local dimming is a huge improvement in blacks and contrast over the old fluorescent backlit technology.

Yes, it is an improvement, but only partially because there is a cost. The cost of local dimming at the current level of LED backlight technology is that you get halos around small areas with high contrast, due to low LED resolutions. For consumer purposes it may be "good enough", but that cannot qualify as a reference monitor you can trust.
Theoretically, until you have same LED resolution as LCD array resolution this will stay that way.

Now, with OLED on the horizon, it is questionable whether developing LED backlight to that level makes any sense.

 

[David Rasberry]

About $18K.
And about 18 inches in screen size.

Seriously.....
If you're talking about CRT's as the comparison, that's not really sensible now that CRT's are basically out of production. If you're talking about high end LCD's, the difference is really in stability and shelf life. Plasmas in general will take a bit more attention if you want them to be as close to perfect as possible all the time (not a lot more, but more) and their shelf life is probably a bit lower, perhaps a year or two when used in facility conditions. But the advantages (accurate image, true blacks, no off axis viewing issues, and a very low price) far outweigh the disadvantages, which is why so many of the major post houses have gone to plasmas as their CRT replacement.

Plasma stability and life are not the issue they use to be. First gen panels had a 10,000 hour life expectancy to half brightness, about the same as a CRT. Current gen panels anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000 hours with much better burn in resistance. Given their decline in the consumer market in favor of LCD's though, I wonder how long they will continue to be made.

 

[Jeremy Newmark]

thanks for the info. yeah I don't mind making the extra investment if it's the best method, I'm just not sure if RED Rocket™™ supports SDI. Does it? Currently it's two DVI out's correct? I guess the breakout box will have HD-SDI.

The RED Rocket™ also has dual-link HD-SDI. The breakout box will have 4 HD-SDI connectors for feeding a full 4k signal. But if you are simply looking to feed a 2k or 1080p image to your Panasonic via HD-SDI, then you don't need the breakout box.

 

[Jeremy Newmark]

This brings up another question. Do I really need the Kona 3 ? I'm not ingesting our laying off to decks much anymore (I really only use it for 10-bit HD-SDI monitoring)... but I can't quite figure out what Kona will do that RED Rocket™™™™™™ won't. I'm afraid there is going to be some kind of "gotcha" if I sell the Kona 3.

If you have a Kona 3, then my guess is that you are editing with FCP. If that's the case, you will still need it (or some other video card) to monitor out while editing. The RedRocket does not currently let you monitor your video out of FCP or Adobe or Avid for that matter. Is it something we'll see in the future? Who knows, but right now you'll need another video card to do so.

 

[Michael Totten]

The RED Rocket™™ also has dual-link HD-SDI. The breakout box will have 4 HD-SDI connectors for feeding a full 4k signal. But if you are simply looking to feed a 2k or 1080p image to your Panasonic via HD-SDI, then you don't need the breakout box.

thanks Jeremy: )

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Plasma stability and life are not the issue they use to be. First gen panels had a 10,000 hour life expectancy to half brightness, about the same as a CRT. Current gen panels anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000 hours with much better burn in resistance. Given their decline in the consumer market in favor of LCD's though, I wonder how long they will continue to be made.

I don't think plasma displays are going anywhere anytime soon. They're starting to regain favoritism in the consumer market for the reasons you list above. They are also very price competitive with LCDs, especially for the larger 50"+ sizes and produce overall better color range and a more cinematic picture with better abilities to use different frame rates due to the high pixel cycle rates (over 600Hz) on the newer models.

Plasmas have also got a lot lighter over over years too. A 50" no longer weighs 135lbs.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

cinetal told me that feeding the plasmas with hdmi has an underscan of 2-3% I fogot the actual number though. So you might have to buy the hdsdi board. an extra 1,400.00

...All depends on the display and the HDMI source. Typically this isn't too far off the mark, though. Most HDTVs, LCD or plasma, do not display the full image raster, but actually stretch and give a slight overscan effect. The big thing to look for on any monitor for pro use is to be sure it has a "native pixel" mode. Which most good ones do these days so they can be used as a display for a home theater computer.

Be sure the HDMI source outputs the full raster as well, most actually do.

 

[M Most]

Plasma stability and life are not the issue they use to be. First gen panels had a 10,000 hour life expectancy to half brightness, about the same as a CRT. Current gen panels anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000 hours with much better burn in resistance. Given their decline in the consumer market in favor of LCD's though, I wonder how long they will continue to be made.

Well, that was part of my point. It almost doesn't matter because the cost is so low they can almost be thought of as a throwaway, at least from a facility's point of view.