Go To Latest Video ReviewsPanasonic Viera TX-P50X10 50in Plasma TV Comments
| Author | John Archer |
| Published | 26th Mar 2009 |
| Manufacturer | Panasonic |
| Price | £689.00 (Exc VAT) |
| as reviewed | £792.35 (Inc VAT) |
| Latest Price | Click here |
| Design |  |
| Features | |
| Image Quality |  |
| Sound Quality | |
| Value |  |
| Overall |  |
Comments for Panasonic Viera TX-P50X10 50in Plasma TV
Mikey_uk said on 26th March 2009
John McLean said on 26th March 2009
No 1080p on a 50" screen? No interest.
basicasic said on 26th March 2009
An overall 9 for a 50" screen with 1366 x 768 resolution. Gimme a break.
The reason you seem to get flooded with Panasonic kit is because of reviews like this. You keep puffing up mediocre kit like this they'll keep sending.
Hugo said on 26th March 2009
Newsflash people: resolution is NOT the be-all, end-all of image quality. Especially not with plasma displays.
Gordon said on 26th March 2009
@Hugo - agreed. The 42in first generation Pioneer Kuros were all 720p and there's still not a TV out there to touch them, 1080p or otherwise, apart from the Kuro second generation!
Andy said on 26th March 2009
I'd add, too, that the award is largely for value - as is highlighted in the verdict. Not saying people haven't, but scores are closely tied to the review, so looking at the scores without reading the review doesn't give you the whole picture.
Also, we're looking into adding a Value award in future...not a promise mind, but we have talked about it. If people feel strongly that this would be a good or bad thing, do let us know.
solus said on 26th March 2009
What's the big difference between 1080 and 720? Is it really noticeable? And yeah, personally think the value award would be a great idea.
basicasic said on 26th March 2009
@Hugo - Well why does anybody bother making 1080p sets then?
And how come nobody ever mentions how much juice these babies guzzle?
Riyad said on 26th March 2009
@basicasic - Hugo didn’t say that 1080p isn’t important, just that it’s not the only factor. As I always say, I consider black level response to be the most important factor in TV picture quality. This is why, as Gordon pointed out, the non 1080p first generation Pioneer Kuro sets still wiped the floor with everything else out there.
That said, the larger the screen, the more important a Full HD resolution is and I’m not sure that I would buy a 50in TV that wasn’t 1,920 x 1,080. But many people aren’t as critical as I am, and most of them wouldn’t pony up for a 50in 1080p Kuro like I did. What can’t be ignored is that this TV offers amazing value for money, and for a lot of consumers a 50in Panasonic plasma for under £800 is a dream come true.
Ohmz said on 27th March 2009
More unattractive Panasonics, guess design isn't that important. Shame...
Chocoa said on 27th March 2009
@Riyad
Yes your right. If 1080p is so important to someone then they would not be buying what is ostensibly a "value" set.
@basicasic
"why does anybody bother making 1080p sets then?" To be slightly cynical - marketing and the need for continued consumer aspiration. - The old ploy of providing what the consumer whats. But they (the consumer)can only want what we (the manufacturer) decide offer.
Otherwise, we would all be watching analogue B&W 425line(?)TV.
Steve32 said on 27th March 2009
I have a 50" Panny that is 1080p, but most of the HD content I watch is not 1080p and to be honest I don't really notice the difference. Sure, if you fire up 1080p and get closer and study the picture you can see the differences, but is nothing like as great as going from 480p to 720p. I got a 1080p because I thought I wanted it (don't believe the hype and all that!!). If you want 1080p, then go for it, but if you want to start enjoying HD content on a large TV, on a budget, then I would not hesitate in recommending a lower resolution one.
ian-in-northampton said on 27th March 2009
Here's a little story - make of it what you will... A long time ago, there was a manufacturer of a projection technology with very ambitious plans for it to become the dominant technology in projectors and screens. The manufacturer couldn't win on resolution - that was 'me too'. The manufacturer couldn't win on brightness - other technologies outperformed it at the 'typical' level (although the technology now powers the world's brightest projectors). The manufacturer couldn't win on colour saturation - others had it beaten. But the manufacturer discovered three areas where, notionally, it had an advantage: contrast ratio, pixel switching speed and the gap betwen pixels (the so-called 'screen door' effect). All that manufacturer had to do was to make people care about those three key contributors to image quality - and back then, they didn't (mostly because most projectors and displays were used for PowerPoint presentations). A major PR programme was put in place that talked over and over again about contrast ratio and pixel switching speed and perceived pixellation as being more important elements of image quality than resolution, brightness or colour saturation. And, there's an extent to which you can trace where we are today to back then.
Like I said: just a story...
Ash said on 30th March 2009
Can you do comparative review of which flat screen TV makes a good alternative to Computer screens? Or include this as one of the features you check in your normal reviews. Ta.
Add Your Comment
Add your comment
You must be logged in to comment. Login or register here.
I guess here we see Pioneer's problem. A 50" plasma for £800 with a good picture and specs. Not a 'great' picture that you get with a Pioneer of the same size and similar spec, but quite good enough for the mass market, and hundreds of pounds cheaper. It seems not enough of us are willing to pay the extra to get Pioneer's level of quality (I am one) - a shame.