@krooton:
Hmm, you do understand that the P42C3 in question has a 4:3 (1024x768) resolution in a 16:9 frame...? This is quite common in low-end plasmas. In essence, it's basically distorting the source image (1024x768 16:9 plasmas have rectangular pixels). Furthermore, 1024x768 can't actually even display a full 720p image, which would be 1280x720. Though it is quite close to it. But it will still need some sampling, dithering, scaling, etc, so it can fit it into its limited resolution. Simply put, the 1024x768 plasmas are technically standard definition TVs that can remix HD signals.
As for LCDs, the HD-readiness hasn't been a problem for quite some time. One of LCD's problems, however, was the common practice of using 1366x768 for HD-ready TVs, which while enough for 720p, didn't give 1:1 pixel perfection. Fortunately it has become increasingly easier to find FullHD counterparts. Nowadays FullHD is found even on the very small LCD sets.
And £300 is quite enough even for FullHD LCDs. For £400, you could have gotten for example the Toshiba
40RV753 (VA panel), which got very nice review in its time, while the
P42C3 got mediocre review. As for which one would have been better for your GF's parents, can't tell. Even SD material looks fine on a 42" from a few meters' distance. The fact that the P42C3 was a fitting choice for your GF's parents' arrangement is more of a proof to the fact that it was a good fit for a specific situation, not that it would have generally been a good option.
But considering they (the GF's parents) are of the older generation, then they more probably have worse eye-sight and thus no compelling need for higher definition. But going FullHD certainly wouldn't have deteriorated the image quality, either. But indeed, if the viewing angle is relatively wide, then yes, plasmas should be a better choice for that.
=====================
@sunama:
Yes, like I said, Panasonic has a history of using more reasonable pricing, especially the ST60.
But, as for LCD alternatives:
Sony KDL42W653
Panasonic TX-L42E6E/TX-L42E6B
Samsung UE42F5500
Samsung UE46F6400/UE46F6470
Samsung UE40ES6710 (possibly also Samsung UE40ES6740)
They're all about £100-£200 cheaper (except the last one, that one is about the same), but I wouldn't hold that against it.
Apparently you can't get better than the Sony KDL42W653 for gaming or computer usage, atm. Actually, I'm a little disappointed I bought my Philips 42PFL6907T before the Sony's review came out. I would have probably rather gone with that, even though I would have missed on some nice features. And even though I normally prefer Philips over Sony. The smaller brother,
KDL32W653, while also getting a very good review, has somehow managed to lose some of its gaming edge.
Another good alternative for gamers would be the Samsung UE42F5500. The rest of the list are more to the general usage scenarios (although the gamers' choices are also good for general usage, but have less features).
Note: I don't like to use digitalversus as a review source, as they have a bad habit of generalizing all the sizes of a specific model to be the same, and this isn't always the case. But unfortunately hdtvtest.co.uk doesn't have reviews of all of them... So you should always apply the results only to the exact model they are reviewing, and keep the results in mind for the other sizes with a small precaution. Also, some of the hdtvtest's better reviewed models get quite mediocre marks over at DV, so a little caution is indeed in order.
And as for the size limitation:
I would personally disagree on the "only" part.
(and actually, I think the plasma's size limitation nowadays is 42")
With regards to your sister's LCD:
Bad motion interpolation implementation, perhaps?
=========================
@3t3P:
The "disappear" notion made me think of Philips' Ambilight feature. You should try to see it in action, you might like it. If you do, you can implement it to your current plasma, too. There should be some self-assembly kits with "easy"-to-follow how-to's around the net. Though indeed, it requires a little bit of own assembly skill.
With regards to the stuff coming "out" of the image: I don't think that the contrast ratio alone can have the 3D effect you're describing. It might just be a case of good source footage.
As for the FG2421 and 3D:
The advertized "240Hz" is the lightboost-like black-frame-insertion feature, and it should be possible to disable for a regular 120Hz input. But it might be that the used VA panel was still not fast enough for an adequate 3D effect, because with 3D the next frame really needs to be there on time. For 2D, the real-life error tolerance is leaner. Although, they could have gone for passive 3D in that case. That would have given us the first 120Hz passive 3D, as well.
It might also be that the 3D compatibility (or lack of) might have something to do with licensing bringing the costs too high. Or maybe the active glasses themselves would have brought the price too high. As £450 is already quite borderline for a 24". Well, more competitors should follow. Hopefully with lower prices. I haven't yet checked the CES news, I hoped that it would bring more news of alternatives. Eizo will probably still stay as a good alternative, though, as Eizo is indeed generally considered as a premium brand, and will give some ease of mind for those who want it.
@Vega:
Yeah, I think I read somewhere that Panasonic's main reason for stepping out of plasma market was that the costs for bringing plasma to the impending 4k era would be too high. (in other words, research&development of a way to make plasma cells significantly smaller within reasonable manufacturing costs)
