Panasonic TH-37PD25U/P 37-Inch EDTV-Ready Flat Panel Plasma TV
Top performer
This Panasonic TH-37PD25U looks like an HDTV unit, but it is EDTV (standard 480 vertical resolution but implemented with progressive scan technology - hence \\"Enhanced Definition\\"). What it basically boils down to is that you actually get a near-HD quality on true HD signals (since this unit does process HD's 1080i and 720p signals by successfully down-converting them to its own 480 native resolution). On the other hand, you get best possible reproduction of 480i and 480p signals, because the signal actually matches this unit's native resolution (a true HD set needs to up-convert such signals, which results in some loss of quality - something you will not notice in your local electronics store, since all of them pump HD signals into the HD sets on display).    The manual is wrong in stating that 720p is not supported - I routinely receive 720p signals on cable, and these get down-converted.    I can receive a few digital 1080i and 720p broadcasts on my cable. Only occasionally do these include true HD programming in true 16:9 1080i, and this is reproduced by this TV in excellent fashion. Note that much material transmitted via HD signal is not actually recorded with high definition equipment, and you will see the difference right away - it simply looks like a cleaned up 480i footage.    You would be hard pressed to see much substantial difference when comparing this set to an HD unit, unless you come very close to the screen, in which case the difference becomes quite obvious - pixels are twice as big vertically. But this is an unrealistic test, of course, unless you spend your time sitting close to the display playing video games: this TV looks its best from about 10 feet away. True 1080i programming shows off what this set is cable of, and I am impressed. As an added bonus, the contrast and color definition is actually higher on this unit than on a sibling Panasonic HDTV set.    What it all boils down to is that this TV performs very closely to HD sets when it comes to displaying HD format, and it actually outperforms them when it comes to most broadcast and all DVD sources currently available. All this for $1500 less. Think about it.    I have recently watched a very poor DVD recording - very dark, with washed out and out of balance colors. After spending some time adjusting various display settings I made it perform as if the movie were \\"restored.\\" I came away impressed. The DVD was virtually unwatchable on my older conventional Sony TV's, despite their excellent Trinitron technology.    The problem with most DVD's is that, in addition to frequently poor original transfer, they do not utilize the highest possible MPEG-2 bit rate (12 MB/sec) but settle on 8 MB/sec or less in order to fit programs longer than 1 hour on a single disk, not to mention trying to fit all that extra material onto the same disk, such as interviews, trailers, etc.. Also, they do not offer true 16:9 format, but squeeze in the wide screen format into a letterbox within the 4:3 frame, thus wasting upper and lower bands of the available 480 lines of resolution. This causes a loss of fidelity when magnifying the wide image to fit the 16:9 display. Some decent quality DVD's that I recently watched (with a progressive scan player hooked up via Component interface) are \\"Frequency\\" and \\"Labyrinth.\\" The single-disk \\"2001\\" edition was a disappointment. And yet, on older non progressive scan TVs, the difference was not that noticeable. This TV will highlight quality recordings and uncloak substandard offerings.    Don't just pop in any old DVD to evaluate a TV set - most of the material out there is pretty poor. But some are gems: \\"Around the World in 80 Days,\\" for example, is a beautifully restored two-disk cinematographic tour de force that will make you forgive yourself for spending so much money on a TV. Just make sure that you are actually watching DVD's in progressive mode - most players do not automatically detect a progressive scan-capable TV and outputthe signal in the standard 480i format.    Something similar can be noted of cable broadcasts. Even on the same channel, there can be an enormous difference in broadcast quality between one program and the next. Recently I tested a new DVD recorder by capturing short samples of \\"Atlantis\\" in various modes: standard play, long play, etc.. The SDTV (480i) broadcast was very good and the 8 MB/sec (2-hr) standard play recording nicely matched the available signal quality. The 12 MB/sec fragment was an overkill for this level of signal. The 4 MB/sec degraded the quality noticeably, while the 2 MB/sec resulted in a poor old VHS-like footage. Next I tried the same with \\"Andromeda,\\" which immediately followed \\"Atlantis\\" on SciFi Channel. The quality of the broadcast was so poor that the standard mode recording appeared no better than the 2 MB/sec recording of \\"Atlantis\\".    This Panasonic plasma is very good. Quite exceptional, in fact, in all areas: image quality, ergonomics, aesthetic appearance, build quality, etc.. The remote is well thought out. The product is actually built in Japan rather than some offshore plant. There is nothing flimsy about it and the stand weights a ton for stability. There are many input terminals, so hooking everything up should be no problem.    Built in audio is fine, but understandably not what a true home theater system is capable of. I can play audio though my very good stereo system, and this is the way I prefer to watch DVD's. This unit has an \\"AI Sound\\" feature, which equalizes volume level when you get hit with annoyingly loud commercials. This has no effect on the output signal to your stereo, which is also non-variable: it cannot be adjusted with your TV's volume control. The PIP feature works well - you can watch two channels at the same time, but you cannot put a digital broadcast into the small PIP window.    One thing that is somewhat bothersome is the fact that the set tunes in signals very slowly: surfing the channels is more like a leisurely sail. The is also true when switching inputs.    Bear in mind that plasma displays are not well suited for viewing still images and computer generated content because they are subject to the so called \\"afterimage burn-in\\" - displaying such content for prolonged periods will damage the display. Ironically, this includes displaying any image that does not fill the display: for example, a 4:3 format. How serious is this problem with the newest Panasonic displays, I don't know. Supposedly they are more resistant to this than before, but the manual explicitly states that any damage resulting from burn-in is considered \\"normal\\" and is not covered by the warranty. Digital broadcasts cannot be manipulated with aspect ratio controls: they appear in the size and aspect ratio in which they are actually transmitted in.    All of this may be less of a practical problem that it appears. But LCD monitors have no such limitation. (On the other hand, a comparable in size LCD HDTV will cost twice as much.) Viewing 4:3 broadcasts in what Panasonic calls the \\"Just\\" mode is not always the most satisfactory experience - graininess and distortion increase as the image is stretched to fill the 16:9 screen, and poor signals appear really poor, despite this set's ability to convert 480i to 480p. Note that some signals are anamorphic (and sometimes partially anamorphic) - horizontally \\"squeezed in\\" to accommodate 16:9 displays, and these tend to reproduce nicely in the \\"Full\\" setting provided the signal quality is decent. Ultimately, it is not this TV's fault if a broadcast or a DVD recording is substandard - it tries to do as good a job as possible, and sometimes it is amazing what it can do.    A few additional thoughts about the \\"real world\\".    Currently, 480 still remains the overwhelming standard, and it's hard to say when HD becomes more commonplace. The vast majority of broadcasts are in 480i, all DVD's are 480 (p or i, depending on you DVD player's capability), and itis not yet possible for common folk to record in HD format. One should also note, that broadcast and DVD quality varies tremendously, with a plethora of stations and recordings carried out in a substandard fashion no matter what the signal type is, which includes the so called HD channels. This reality will most likely plague future HD broadcasts and recordings, just as it plagues today's 480i, the standard format which is capable of much higher quality than what you routinely get on cable. For a realistic consumer, spending 60% more on a comparable HDTV does not make a lot of sense, since the extra capability will be used infrequently for some time to come, while the currently prevailing standards are actually supported better by this unit. One should note that the vast majority of available HDTV sets actually do not support true HD resolution either - their horizontal resolution is usually quite less than the HD standard specifies, and thus they also down-convert the HD signals. This may improve in the future, but if you are buying a TV to finally live up to its capability five years from now, don't kid yourself - there will be better (and much cheaper) products available then.    The true and realistic viewing test would be to play a high quality 480p DVD and a high quality 1080i signal through HD and ED sets placed side by side and viewed from normal distance. You would be surprised that one of these sets supports only half the horizontal resolution of the other. What you see in stores nowadays is a horde of expensive HDTV sets displaying selected HD programming, and a few EDTV sets showing either standard channels or a DVD signal. A customer becomes convinced that shelling out $1500 more will get him a much better product. Don't fall into the \\"early adopter\\" trap unless you have a good reason for it - for example, frequent use of PC in conjunction with the TV display, or an unlimited bank account. Save your money for other things: a grand will buy you a lot ofcable or satellite subscription and a lot a DVD's.