Pioneer's next-gen plasma: 20,000:1 contrast ratio

Not one to let LCD (10,000:1) and SED (50,000:1) HDTVs steal the spotlight, Pioneer has fired back at CEATEC with a 60-inch plasma featuring a 20,000:1 contrast ratio (on the left). Compare that to the 3,000:1 contrast ratio of the current (on the right) 1080p PRO-FHD1 / PDP-5000EX ,and you can see how that is kind of a big deal. Despite the distinct lack of pricing or other information, Pioneer hopes to have its next big thing in PDP on shelves in time for the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

[Jonathan @ Oct 6th 2006 11:43AM]

In the picture, the one on the right says "1000:1" not "3000:1"

Just thought I would let somebody know.

And otherwise, I don't think the 20,000:1 necessarily looks "better" except maybe in the images of the cityscape and the stars.

[Simon @ Oct 6th 2006 11:44AM]

while the blacks are blacker on the left hand image, the levels are completely crushed and as a result the detail is lost. the right side image is actually much more detailed, you can see her lips and individual strands of hair etc. nice deep blacks, but theres nothing i hate more than over crushed dark levels. so, this demo failss in my opinion. my panasonic plasma still rules. NEXT!

[Jonathan @ Oct 6th 2006 11:49AM]

Yes, I agree. Also, the color cast on the 20,000:1 panel is terrible, leaving a greenish hue.

[Wonderboy @ Oct 6th 2006 11:49AM]

Yeah, there's definitely a noticable difference, except that rather than looking better, it just looks more washed out. Looking at every example they give on the linked page, the only one that actually looks "better" is the night scene on the river (and that's only the sky that looks better, the water looks better on the right)...

To me the flesh tones in the above pic look better at lower contrast ratio, same with the flowers, the white spec firework-type-thing.

To me it looks like they didn't just increased the contrast ratio, but increased the contrast overall, which isn't necessarily good.

[qaq @ Oct 6th 2006 12:13PM]

So you are comparing images that you are looking at on 500:1 contrast ratio computer monitor
that were taken by unknown quality digicam at unknown sensitivity setting and think that it is an accurate enough representation of how it is actually performing when watched live??????

[Peter Clark @ Oct 6th 2006 12:07PM]

Is it just me or does the right look a lot better... the left looks like someone turned the contrast up too high in the settings.

[Lauge @ Oct 6th 2006 12:15PM]

But when it's clear that somebody took a picture of the set, it's a bit hard to be objective about. Especially if your screen hasn't got the 20.000:1 contrast ratio :P

[Chris Kalan @ Oct 6th 2006 12:17PM]

Funny, the number at the top of the right TV says 1000:1 - perhaps they just picked a really crappy TV to compare theirs to so they could inflate the difference??

[Florian Seroussi @ Oct 6th 2006 12:19PM]

Well I am pretty sure one can play with saturation and contrast on the 1000:1 to come to a better result than the optimized new plasma.
IMHO Ratio Price/Quality is not worth the difference.

[disciple83 @ Oct 6th 2006 12:22PM]

@qaq

When we are told to look at the pictures for a comparison, given no other forms of comparison to go, yes, we will use these images to judge, as the images are clear enough to see that the screen on the left does, in fact, produce better blacks, which, in some cases, like night scenes, horror movies, and other dramatic settings, will prove an enhancement. Although, as previously mentioned, it washes out livelier images.

I agree with Peter Clark, the right side looks a lot more natural, where the higher contrasted image makes it look like a studio photo shoot, which is fine if thats the case, but if the woman is simply trying to look downtrodden or depressed, higher contrast will not do the trick

[zargon @ Oct 6th 2006 12:33PM]

I really wonder how much longer plasma will be around, especially with the most recent news from SED based HDTVs. But also, on top of that the LCoS sets, DLP (especially the new LCD DLPs) and even LCD.

Plasma has never impressed me. From the beginning with all of its issue to even now, after it has worked a lot of those issues. The size has been its main selling point and probably until more recently, also the fact that it was a status quo to own one.

Either way, the TV market is more confusing than ever and is about to get worse with SED, OLED and Micro-Carbon (or whatever they are calling it).

[mlucas2006 @ Oct 6th 2006 12:54PM]

Nice set.

[number40one @ Oct 6th 2006 1:20PM]

the one on the left looks like crap to me. exactly how is this progress?

[Galley @ Oct 6th 2006 1:45PM]

Screw the contrast ratio; who's the hottie!

[Matthew Jackson @ Oct 6th 2006 5:08PM]

It doesn't look like there is more contrast. It just looks darker. Like the black is correctly calobrated. I can actaully see more lighting detail in the one on the right.

The one on the left has a darker black and mybe a brighter white but all the yellows look like they are quickly pulled toward the low end.

Perhaps they need to adjust the contrast contour or alpha or something.

[Matthew Jackson @ Oct 6th 2006 5:09PM]

Doh- Good point.

[Rick Lyon @ Oct 6th 2006 6:01PM]

Wow, yea sure better blacks, because they are crushed! THere is no shadow detail, there is only black! No thanks.

[jav0 @ Oct 6th 2006 6:41PM]

hmm

[Vasco @ Oct 6th 2006 8:09PM]

is it bad that I prefer the picture on the right (lower contrast) to the picture on the left (higher contrast)
?

[whatsaname @ Oct 6th 2006 9:17PM]

It just looks like someone turned up the brightness and that's it. Actually I would prefer watching tv from the one on the right.

[macserv @ Oct 6th 2006 11:09PM]

SED can do that... without crushing the levels. Sorry... until SED comes out, my current CRT continues to own all comers, image-quality-wise. :D

[Endoworks @ Oct 7th 2006 9:16AM]

Thats pretty

[pedro lopez @ Oct 9th 2006 2:23AM]

you guys have the most redundant comments every. congratulations.