Is a higher HDTV contrast ratio actually noticeable?

January 1, 2009 4:02 PM

After a few disagreements, the mister and I have decided to buy a HDTV. Question about contrast ratios inside.

The mister has narrowed it down to a 42" 1080p plasma screen TV from Panasonic. They make two models with a slight difference in contrast ratio and input ports:

1) TH-42PZ80U, which is cheaper but has a contrast ratio of 20,000:1

2) TH-42PZ85U, which is around $100 more, but offers an extra VGA port and a contrast ratio of 30,000:1. Currently we don't need the VGA port, but it might be useful if we ever change our set-up.

We've looked at both models in the store, but it's impossible to tell the difference in that environment. Really, is the higher contrast ratio actually worth $100? If there's any other comments on this model I'd appreciate those as well.

We usually watch TV in a low-to-dim light setting, occasionally in (very) indirect daylight. For the record, the mister is arguing that we should go ahead and get the "best picture" we can afford, while I'm arguing that $100 might be better spent on a high-def DVD drive for our media center...

posted by muddgirl to Shopping (14 answers total)

No. It is not worth it.

Also, you only get the extra contrast when the Contrast Auto Tracking System is activated on the 85, which changes the contrast of your TV based on how dark it is in your room. The CATS system is also probably the first thing you'll disable when you notice how annoying it is.
posted by Jairus at 4:43 PM on January 1, 2009

Without looking up the specs, those contrast ratios are probably dynamic, not static. It's the difference between a screen that's completely black and another screen that's completely white. It's not talking about the difference between a black pixel and a white pixel on the same screen. The static contrast ratios are probably almost the same.

So, to answer your question: it's probably not worth it. I think you're right that the extra $100 is better spent on a high-def source of some sort.
posted by Netzapper at 4:53 PM on January 1, 2009

Second not worth it. VGA ports are really not useful nowadays.
posted by katrielalex at 4:53 PM on January 1, 2009

Second Third
posted by katrielalex at 4:54 PM on January 1, 2009

I'd pay $100 for an extra VGA port - VGA is still a perfectly acceptable input format.
posted by ellF at 4:55 PM on January 1, 2009

I would definitely not pay $100 for a VGA port. If you should come to need it, an adapter can be almost certainly be found for a lot less than $100.
posted by mhz at 5:23 PM on January 1, 2009

For perspective, watching HDTV via an LCD projector, you're looking at a contrast ratio of 400:1. That's definitely lower than desirable, but once you're up in five digits... 20k vs 30k seems like splitting hairs to me.
posted by -harlequin- at 6:07 PM on January 1, 2009

Response by poster: Netzapper - those values are the native or static contrast ratio values, NOT the dynamic ones. I know well enough to ignore the so-called "1,000,000:1" dynamic contrast ratio that is published.
posted by muddgirl at 7:02 PM on January 1, 2009

Best answer: Ignoring the nitty-gritty and reading between the lines a bit: comparing the two choices (better contrast ratio vs. a blu-ray DVD player), you're getting better bang for your buck by upgrading your DVD setup.
posted by antonymous at 8:18 PM on January 1, 2009

Best answer: The main advantage of a VGA port over using a DVI-HDMI cable for pc-based input is laptops; they often have VGA-out only and no component capability (and composite or svideo are low quality), so lacking a VGA input will limit your ability to drive the TV with a laptop.

If that's not an issue now or likely to be in the near future, then go for the cheaper model, and put the difference towards a bluray drive. The contrast ratio is basically a wash, at those levels you're not going to see a difference in anything like normal use, unless you change your habits and start lighting your home with floodlights.
posted by ArkhanJG at 3:07 AM on January 2, 2009

Response by poster: Thanks all. We decided to go with the less expensive model and start investigating a blu ray-capable drive for our media center. The VGA port is tempting, but our current media center has a DVI output on the video card, and I imagine it won't be too hard to ensure that future ones do, as well.

Also, Jairus' information on the C.A.T.S. system tipped the scales, after I confirmed it with the cnet review of the product.
posted by muddgirl at 5:40 AM on January 2, 2009

Response by poster: Thanks all. We decided to go with the less expensive model and start investigating a blu ray-capable drive for our media center. The VGA port is tempting, but our current media center has a DVI output on the video card, and I imagine it won't be too hard to ensure that future ones do, as well.

Also, Jairus' information on the C.A.T.S. system tipped the scales.
posted by muddgirl at 5:47 AM on January 2, 2009

As for contrast ratios anything 6,000:1 or greater tends to be worth it these days. If you can get an added DVI or VGA port for minimal cost I'd say go for it as you can hook up a PC or laptop to it then.
posted by PetiePal at 12:37 PM on January 2, 2009

Best answer: FWIW, someone on the AVS Forum contacted Panasonic directly and confirmed that the 30K contrast is independent of C.A.T.S (the contrast measurement is done with CATS off); I've seen both units set up next to each other, and the difference is not significant.

You'll want to check out the break-in/calibration post (with recommended picture settings).

Some caveats: PC-DVI to HDMI only work reliably on HDMI 3. The analog inputs (VGA/Component) only do 1080i (1080p is limited to HDMI.)
posted by theclaw at 11:59 AM on January 22, 2009