Jump to content


Photo

2012 Led's With 2005/6 Black Levels.


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 TheFrog

TheFrog

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 08:10 PM

http://www.flatpanel...l&id=1332412080

After calibration I measured black level to 0.14 cd/m2, which is not very impressive. Unfortunately it is a characteristic of the IPS panel type used in ET5 but it is still much higher than in for example LG’s LW6500 TV that builds on a similar panel. A black color measured to 0.14 cd/m2 is visibly greyish.


Sad, just sad....

#2 davep

davep

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 3,517 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 08:53 PM

We can all cherry-pick reviews (but yes, reasonably disappointing from Panasonic):

After calibration I measured black level to 0.0 cd/m2, which is fantastic. We have measured the same on previous LG TVs with local dimming and it basically means perfect black depth. This is extremely rewarding in dark movies and games as it provides pictures with fantastic depth and dimension


http://www.flatpanel...l&id=1319111213

#3 re-boot

re-boot

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 372 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 02:45 PM

http://www.flatpanel...l&id=1332412080



Sad, just sad....


Yes, sad.

Sad that you posted again simply to LCD bash.

Now, to balance out your post, read on.

http://hdguru.com/pa...7619/#more-7619


"The black level is lower than any 2011 HDTV we tested, being one-half of the best level we tested on a Panasonic VT30 (0.004 ft lamberts). We like to emphasize this was with the LEDs on, not off, as other sets simply shut down the light source

"Three things made this TV stand out from every other LED LCD flat panel we’ve tested to date: the viewing angle, the black level and the signal processing. No matter if we stood up or sat, viewed straight on or at an angle, the WT50 produced a fine image with no color shift or increase in black level. This is a LCD first, with no need to sit at dead center for the best image. I’d even go so far as to say, in this regard, it made us forget we were watching a LED LCD and not a plasma, which are known for their outstanding viewing angle."

#4 mr-happy-pants

mr-happy-pants

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,470 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:09 PM

it made us forget we were watching a LED LCD and not a plasma, which are known for their outstanding viewing angle.


This is a big statement!
Colour shift at angles is the big reason I bought a plasma.

Interestingly, all the CRT TVs they replaced at the MCG for the punters to watch (who can't see the big screens) are LCDs.
IMO the colour shift is some of the worst I've seen.
A very small % of the punters will actually be in a good seating position to not get colour shift.

#5 TheFrog

TheFrog

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:51 PM

Yes, sad.

Sad that you posted again simply to LCD bash.

Now, to balance out your post, read on.

http://hdguru.com/pa...7619/#more-7619



You forgot to mention it was a $3000 TV.....

#6 Robbks

Robbks

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 211 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 07:40 AM

You forgot to mention it was a $3000 TV.....


So your point is, that you get what you pay for....?
Didn't we know this already?

Any chance at keeping the LCD bashing to a single thread.
that way it's much easier to ignore.

#7 TheFrog

TheFrog

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:36 AM

So your point is, that you get what you pay for....?
Didn't we know this already?


That suggests that a $1400 46in Samsung is better than the sub $1000 plasma's from Pana and Samsung, but it may not be the case at all.
You gotta love the truth....well not you, but in general!!!

#8 robertr

robertr

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 907 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 07:53 AM

That suggests that a $1400 46in Samsung is better than the sub $1000 plasma's from Pana and Samsung, but it may not be the case at all.
You gotta love the truth....well not you, but in general!!!


What is most galling is that The Frog continualy criticises LCD yet he apparently has a 5 year old 1366x 768 Panasonic Plasma as his primary display device.

He is delusional in the belief that his 5yo non HD plasma is superior to current LCD .

Talk about a grandstand jockey.

Edited by robertr, 31 March 2012 - 08:44 AM.


#9 Owen

Owen

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,961 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 08:29 PM

LCD native contrast ratio has not improved significantly is 3 or 4 years, they top out at about 2500:1 for the best Sharp and Samsung/Sony joint venture panels, the rest are worse. Plasma has improved little as over the same period as well but the good ones are still better and quite different in look to LCD due to the picture being created in a completely different way.

The full screen dimming used on most LCD's is pretty much useless, it provides darker blacks that look good in reviews at the expense of an artificially dim image, great if you like watching full black screens, but not very effective with real world content. The dynamic back lighting on my Samsung LCD was so aggravating I got into the service menu and disabled it, blacks are now nowhere near as dark but at least the picture is consistent with the source like it should be and dark scene detail is not lost as it was before.

Local dimming is an improvement over full screen dimming but its no substitute for high native contrast, the lighting cells are far too big on all models to date and there is significant dynamic distortion to contend with as all the pixels in a cell get dimmed when only some are supposed to be. This means the bright pixels in a dimmed cell loose their correct brightness relationship to other cells which is a form of distortion.
Unless high native contrast is available quality will always be compromised and thats something LCD does not have and probably never will.

LCD's look impressive in the showroom and make the Plasma's look dull and lifeless, but in a more normal domestic night time viewing environment when the display needs to be dimmed down for a non fatiguing picture its LCD that looks lifeless and flat.

I can understand the appeal of LCD as many people seem to like very bright TV pictures and LCD does that job best, but when a subtle and much dimmer picture is preferred LCD does not hold up well as far as I am concerned.

The only reason I own an LCD is because it must be viewed in a VERY bright sun room and during the winter months is in direct sunlight, no way a Plasma would cope. But at night I would swap the 240Hz 1080p LCD for a cheap 768p Plasma in a hear beat, even if the blacks on the Plasma where no better. The TV is not viewed close enough for 1080 resolution to be useful and I simply prefer Plasma image quality in non bright environments even a less than best model.

I have never owned a Plasma, but if I needed a new TV for primary viewing in a non bright environmnet I would only consider Plasma at this time. Others no doubt have different needs and preferences so there is no one TV that can be best for everyone. Plasma and LCD are quite different animals so you pay your cash and you make you choice.

#10 TheFrog

TheFrog

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 07:13 PM

What is most galling is that The Frog continualy criticises LCD yet he apparently has a 5 year old 1366x 768 Panasonic Plasma as his primary display device.

He is delusional in the belief that his 5yo non HD plasma is superior to current LCD .

Talk about a grandstand jockey.


Owen did a great job of placing your post in context, but I'll also say that I have no motion blur issues, ZERO screen uniformity problem, and even FTA's worst HD looks very good, though for example even The Soprano's at 10mbps was packed with depth and colour compared to my 1080p LCD which whilst looking sharper, was quite 2D looking.

Sorry if you bought a 3-4k TV loaded with issues.

#11 Lomu

Lomu

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • 22 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 07:28 PM

Sorry if you bought a 3-4k TV loaded with issues.
[/quote/]

Yeah, that's me. Paid $3450 about 3 years ago, nothing but trouble.
Flickering everywhere.
Dirty whites.
Rising blacks.
Buzzing.
Motion judder.
Phosphor smearing.
....I won't ever touch a Panasonic plasma again.

#12 TheFrog

TheFrog

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 03:26 PM

It's 2012 champ, get with the program.

#13 Lomu

Lomu

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • 22 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 07:23 PM

It's 2012 champ, get with the program.


Very observant of you.
My father-in-law's brand new VT65 cost him nearly 4 grand. And hey, it buzzes, it flickers, it has dirty whites....and it's barely 3 months old.
Get with the program, "champ".

#14 Owen

Owen

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,961 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 10:04 PM

I'm an LCD owner and no Panasonic fan, but I would take a Panasonic Plasma over ANY LCD that I have ever seen, no question.

The 3D Panasonic's are prone to flicker if run too bright and "dirty whites" are also a by product of running a Plasma too bright.

Running a Plasma at the correct contrast setting does not result in problematic flicker to my eyes or dirty whites, especially if its a Samsung which have less flicker and brighter whites. I have yet to see an LCD provide an image I would want to watch at any setting, especially in a dark room.

Edited by Owen, 07 April 2012 - 10:05 PM.


#15 jsmith

jsmith

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,998 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:49 PM

FFS not another one of these threads!

Oh Kermit... :rolleyes:

JSmith :ninja:

#16 digital doctor spock

digital doctor spock

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • 54 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:10 PM

I must confess that I have no idea what the reference to dirty whites mean!

I have a new 3D Panasonic 55" plasma and a new 3d Sony 55" Bravia LED LCD and I am surprised at how good LCD TVs have become. Both my new TVs produce stunning pictures but it does take some time to get the colour temperature brightness and contrast set to suit the room's ambient light. Bu then not all broadcast content has the same gamma.

Both are let down in some respects by the clumsy internet interface and poor content but at least the little Apple TV box is a blessing, what a fantastic little device, I can highly recommend Apple TV in lieu of an internet capable TV.

It is hard to imagine that we used to watch old fashioned analogue CRT TVs. What a vast improvement plasmas and LCD TVs are these days! :)

#17 TheFrog

TheFrog

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:52 AM

I'm an LCD owner and no Panasonic fan, but I would take a Panasonic Plasma over ANY LCD that I have ever seen, no question.

The 3D Panasonic's are prone to flicker if run too bright and "dirty whites" are also a by product of running a Plasma too bright.



2011 or 2012...?

#18 Owen

Owen

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,961 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 08:25 AM

I haven't seen any 2012 models yet, but since Plasma and LCD create an image in completely different ways and the technology has not changed in 2012, I dont expect the situation will change.

#19 BribieG

BribieG

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,866 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 10:38 AM

I gave my one year old LCD - 42" BigW - to my son when he moved out and just for a change bought a 50" Full HD Pana Plasma.
As far as black levels go, when you switch it to a blank screen it still looks greyish compared to the piano black bezel, there's still a bit of a glow going on there.

All in all I'm not very impressed, with 2 of us we don't really benefit from big viewing angles and the colours are very poor in daylight with all that horrible reflection. During the day we have to close all the curtains and set the colour mode to vivid to even see what's going on. Edit: when we go round to SWMBO's sisters and see their 47" LCD in action I know what the term "buyer's remorse" actually refers to :no:

If I can find a willing relly who can fit the thing in their lounge room, I'll go back to LCD and upgrade to a good name brand 47" LED. I expect if the dollar holds we could get a 50" for the same price next year.

Edited by BribieG, 14 April 2012 - 10:40 AM.


#20 TheFrog

TheFrog

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 10:20 PM

Which model Bribie?

#21 jliang70

jliang70

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 2,713 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 11:13 PM

I gave my one year old LCD - 42" BigW - to my son when he moved out and just for a change bought a 50" Full HD Pana Plasma.
As far as black levels go, when you switch it to a blank screen it still looks greyish compared to the piano black bezel, there's still a bit of a glow going on there.

All in all I'm not very impressed, with 2 of us we don't really benefit from big viewing angles and the colours are very poor in daylight with all that horrible reflection. During the day we have to close all the curtains and set the colour mode to vivid to even see what's going on. Edit: when we go round to SWMBO's sisters and see their 47" LCD in action I know what the term "buyer's remorse" actually refers to :no:

If I can find a willing relly who can fit the thing in their lounge room, I'll go back to LCD and upgrade to a good name brand 47" LED. I expect if the dollar holds we could get a 50" for the same price next year.


If your viewing time is in the morning and your TV is placed in a very well lit room it is never ideal to have a plasma. Plasma TV work best in dim viewing room and work well at night. Most of my own viewing were done in the night and I have yet see any LED/LCD TV produce the same PQ as plasma TV can. I am not a reviewer or a person good at writing reivews but LED/LCD TV lacks depth and that 3D look compare to a plasma. Like many have said LED/LCD will be very impressive in a well lit room and it does has impressive white and this is often direct result of pushing up the the blue, the colour reproduction on LED TV is not as natural as a good plasma and the plasma TV has the ability to produce more shades of colours with much wider spectrum of colour is quite evidence specially when i was looking at face of a person. On my own TV which is a Samsung 59 inch D8000 I can see almost every wrinkles and close up detail on a person's face and the Sony LED 55 inch 820 TV seemed to gloss over these fine detail and making everything looks flat and less life like.

#22 Owen

Owen

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 11,961 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:46 PM

Since the ST, GT and VT Panasonic's all have good anti reflective screen surfaces and LCD's are now typically full gloss with the associated reflections that creates it would seen it was a lower model.


Reflections aside, Plasma is not for everyone. Many people seem to like very bright TV images or want to view in very bright environments, my wife is one. I purchased a LCD for our sun room (my wife's favorite place) as it is bathed in direct sun light during the winter months so a Plasma was never going to cope. I have two display modes set up, a very bright one for day and a subdued one for night. My lady is very quick to grab the remote and set the TV to day mode but when night comes and the room lighting is dimmed she never reverts to night mode, she is perfectly happy to have her retinas singed and is bemused when the first thing I do is switch to night mode as I find day mode offensively bright at night. To each their own, my wife likes bright rooms and bright TV pictures while I prefer the man cave with dim lighting and a subtle relatively dim image about half as bright as a typical Plasma is capable of providing, LCD does not perform well in this scenario IMHO and is intolerant of poor quality source which is a major issue for me.


Having said all that, good Plasmas can be brighter than CRT TV's and have less reflections so they work fine wherever a CRT TV would. The viewing environment has to be pretty bright before the extra available brightness of LCD is required although many people seem to like their TV pictures as bright as possible, if that sound like you buy an LCD.

Edited by Owen, 15 April 2012 - 04:46 PM.


#23 MLXXX

MLXXX

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 5,370 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:33 PM

There is definitely a difference in look between Plasma and LCD. Plasma TVs of recent years seem to be set up to produce very dark shadow detail. I can remember seeing this in showrooms a few years ago with the famed Pioneer Kuro models. For me, with a lot of video input all this does is to make darker parts of the video so dark that little or no detail can be seen. I will explain that further.

Perhaps as a carry over from years ago when screen contrast was limited, it is commonplace for video that is broadcast or video that is encoded to Blu-ray, to contain expanses of video black even for scenes filmed in broad daylight. And a lot of the video in a frame is encoded just above video black.

At the other end of the scale, twilight scenes are often broadcast, or encoded to Blu-ray with full video white.

This continual use of the full contrast capability may be appealing to many viewers. It does little for me. You can calibrate a TV set all you like for accuracy of grey scale and colour, but to a large extent you remain at the mercy of what directors and producers have done.

I find that I can see more shadow detail with the average LCD display than the average Plasma display. Having said that, there are times (perhaps because of the high contrast, or the darker picture) that a plasma screen offers a more detailed and even a more natural look.

Flicker

There is another issue with Plasma: the very complex duty cycles for controlling the apparent brightness of subpixels. Plasma sets have always looked "busy" to my eyes. They lack the calmness of LCD, particularly in the darker areas of the picture. Plasma subpixels are either on or off: they need to be pulsed to simulate an intermediate brightness level.

The manufacturers of Plasma sets, wanting to prove an even clearer advantage over older model LCDs in relation to smear, decided to use phosphors with rapid decay times, and faster subpixel refresh cycles. In 2010, Panasonic took rapid phosphor decay even further with their 3D capable Plasma TVs, in order to minimise ghosting with shutter glasses. Watching my Panasonic VT-20 with a desktop refresh of 60Hz, I see flicker reminiscent of a 100Hz CRT television, though not quite as bad. I hasten to add that many people are barely conscious of this flicker, or cannot see it even if asked to look for it. It depends on the individual.

Shutter glasses

In terms of producing stereoscopic 3D, plasma sets are currently stuck at a maximum alternation rate of 120Hz. This is produced by a very complex set of pulses at a much higher refresh rate that has pushed plasma technology to a limit. Unfortunately, 120Hz falls below the alternation rate of 144Hz used at public cinemas for the latest 3D movies. For people like me, very sensitive to Left Right timing mismatch, it is distracting for 24fps 3D movies.

Some LCD sets (e.g. LG cinema 3D models) are able to provide a calm, simultaneous Left and Right view by using a fixed polarisation for odd screen lines, and a fixed opposite sense polarisation for even lines. There is a distracting venetian blind look at close viewing distances with this method, but the 3D is calm with no phase discrepancy between Left and Right. With the prospect late this year of a 3D movie being released at the cinema at 48fps, there are question marks over how shutter glasses screens are going to be able to deliver a full improvement in motion fluidity with a future Blu-ray or other home video media standard.

My own preferred solution currently for 3D viewing is to use a very cheap passive LCD screen TV. It provides plenty of brightness even with passive glasses, with calm, simultaneous, Left and Right views.

Colour

Five years ago I used to find the colour of both LCD and Plasma sets unsatisfying: it looked too much like cartoon colour to me rather than real life colour. I find current models much better in relation to colour. I find that Plasma sets, perhaps because they tend to produce a picture with darker, less distinct, tones can look more natural. LCD sets tend to provide a brighter picture which can look a little artificial in its colour.

However neither technology can currently create a completely natural (to the human eye) red colour. This is confirmed when you look at detailed tests by the review magazines plotting actual performance against the current colour standard. That current colour standard or “palette” offers only a subset of the colours human eyes are capable of perceiving. (This relates to the phosphors that were available when the original colour television standard was developed.)

Conclusion

I've only mentioned a few aspects in this post. There are many others to consider.

However, at the end of the day, it really is a matter of personal preference whether to choose a Plasma or LCD panel, or a projector technology.

Edited by MLXXX, 15 April 2012 - 07:43 PM.


#24 re-boot

re-boot

    AV Forum Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 372 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:09 PM

This is turning into another LCD vs Plasma thread.

But getting back on topic, as I've mentioned before, my Panasonic VT20 (supposedly the best plasma for it's time in 2010) has blacks that are on par with my Sony LCD which is 3 or 4 years older. I'd dare to say even worse.

I'm also talking about night time, in a dim viewing environment.

Edited by re-boot, 15 April 2012 - 07:24 PM.


#25 Chicken Man

Chicken Man

    AV Forum Member

  • Senior Member
  • 6,285 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:11 PM

There is definitely a difference in look between Plasma and LCD. Plasma TVs of recent years seem to be set up to produce very dark shadow detail. I can remember seeing this in showrooms a few years ago with the famed Pioneer Kuro models. For me, with a lot of video input all this does is to make darker parts of the video so dark that little or no detail can be seen. I will explain that further.

Perhaps as a carry over from years ago when screen contrast was limited, it is commonplace for video that is broadcast or video that is encoded to Blu-ray, to contain expanses of video black even for scenes filmed in broad daylight. And a lot of the video in a frame is encoded just above video black.

At the other end of the scale, twilight scenes are often broadcast, or encoded to Blu-ray with full video white.

This continual use of the full contrast capability may be appealing to many viewers. It does little for me. You can calibrate a TV set all you like for accuracy of grey scale and colour, but to a large extent you remain at the mercy of what directors and producers have done.

I find that I can seen more shadow detail with the average LCD display than the average Plasma display. Having said that, there are times (perhaps because of the high contrast, or the darker picture) that a plasma screen offers a more detailed and even more natural look.

Flicker

There is another issue with Plasma: the very complex duty cycles for controlling the apparent brightness of subpixels. Plasma sets have always looked "busy" to my eyes. They lack the calmness of LCD, particular in the darker areas of the picture. Plasma subpixels are either on or off: they need to be pulsed to simulate an intermediate brightness level.

The manufacturers of Plasma sets, wanting to prove an even clearer advantage over older model LCDs in relation to smear, decided to use phosphors with rapid decay times, and faster subpixel refresh cycles. In 2010, Panasonic took rapid phosphor decay even further with their 3D capable Plasma TVs, in order to minimise ghosting with shutter glasses. Watching my Panasonic VT-20 with a desktop refresh of 60Hz, I see flicker reminiscent of a 100Hz CRT television, though not quite as bad. I hasten to add that many people are barely conscious of this flicker, or cannot see it even if asked to look for it. It depends on the individual.

Shutter glasses

In terms of producing stereoscopic 3D, plasma sets are currently stuck at a maximum alternation rate of 120Hz. This is produced by a very complex set of pulses at a much higher refresh rate that has pushed plasma technology to a limit. Unfortunately, 120Hz falls below the alternation rate of 144Hz used at public cinemas for the latest 3D movies. For people like me, very sensitive to Left Right timing mismatch, it is distracting for 24fps 3D movies.

Some LCD sets (e.g. LG cinema 3D models) are able to provide a calm, simultaneous Left and Right view by using a fixed polarisation for odd screen lines, and a fixed opposite sense polarisation for even lines. There is a distracting venetian blind look at close viewing distances with this method, but the 3D is calm with no phase discrepancy between Left and Right. With the prospect late this year of a 3D movie being released at the cinema at 48fps, there are question marks over how shutter glasses screens are going to be able to deliver a full improvement in motion fluidity with a future Blu-ray or other home video media standard.

My own preferred solution currently for 3D viewing is to use a very cheap passive LCD screen TV. It provides plenty of brightness even with passive glasses, with calm, simultaneous, Left and Right views.

Colour

Five years ago I used to find the colour of both LCD and Plasma sets unsatisfying: it looked too much like cartoon colour to me rather than real life colour. I find current models much better in relation to colour. I find that Plasma sets, perhaps because they tend to produce a picture with darker, less distinct, tones can look more natural. LCD sets tend to provide a brighter picture which can look a little artificial in its colour.

However neither technology can currently create a completely natural (to the human eye) red colour. This is confirmed when you look at detailed tests by the review magazines plotting actual performance against the current colour standard. That current colour standard or “palette” offers only a subset of the colours human eyes are capable of perceiving. (This relates to the phosphors that were available when the original colour television standard was developed.)

Conclusion

I've only mentioned a few aspects in this post. There are many others to consider.

However, as the end of the day, it really is a matter of personal preference whether to choose a Plasma or LCD panel, or a projector technology.


" You can calibrate a TV set all you like for accuracy of grey scale and colour, but to a large extent you remain at the mercy of what directors and producers have done. "

Well that's it in a nutshell, unless of course you aspire to tinkering with technical shortcomings and not have 'an ear for music' .... so to speak.
I think we can be a little too analytical sometimes and not enjoy what we have at the time. Technologies come and go and they all have their limitations when greater demands are made upon them.

C.M

Edited by Chicken Man, 15 April 2012 - 07:15 PM.