It seems to me that after looking at TVs in a local retail store, I was looking at various televisions that I'd be picking up during the fall season, around my birthday. I came across the 46" A650 LCD from Samsung, and it was sitting right in the middle of all sorts of Panasonic plasmas. Looking at the A650 and the PQ, and the motion of that, I was like... Is LCD finally on par with plasma now that I'm looking at this? It seems to me that the black levels were DARK on the A650, and looked even darker than the Panasonic next to it. That was really a shock to me. I'm wondering if this is a sign of things to come when it comes to LCDs this year.

Although LCD has improved significantly in recent years, it seems to me that LCD is still 2~3 years behind Plasma. I currently have a Samsung HP-S4253 which has deep black and great color. I plan to upgrade to a bigger TV in a few months and had my eyes on the Samsung LN52A550. I went to BB, CC, and Fry’s to check them out and I was soon turned off by a few LCD’s shortcomings.

A550 and A650 looked quite good with very deep black, but they can’t beat a Samsung or Panny Plasma in terms of picture quality. Fast-moving video was handled well, I didn't notice any blur on both. The color on both LCD still looks a little too “pop” and “bright” for me, I prefer the more natural color on plasma. The other major issues that really bother me are LCD screen has uneven brightness, some areas are slightly brighter than others. When viewing a A550 or A650 off center, the color and contrast are somehow affected (black is not as deep and color fades).

I want to by a LCD but just couldn’t find the reason to convince myself after extensive reseach and comparison viewing. Until LCD catches up in a few years, Plasma is still the way to go.

What about 24p content like movies. I looked at the specs for the A650, and it doesn't say anything about 24p support.

What about 24p content like movies. I looked at the specs for the A650, and it doesn't say anything about 24p support.

It is 120 hz TV, so it'll do a 5:5 pulldown.

I don't know about the 650's power usage, but comparing a 46" XBR4 to a 46" Panasonic plasma (80U), it's like 250W vs 450W. That's pretty significant.

CNET just gave this model the "editor's choice" award.

I haven't seen the 650, but in stores the 750 looks very impressive from a pq standpoint. I find the red on the samsung tvs to be hideous, but even with it the styling is better than last year's models. I would love for a 650 or 750 to be reviewed so we can see how far black level has come on this year's lcds. I really wish I could see the 750 series in a home environment. But seeing as how I have only had my 1150HD for a couple of months I'm not buying another tv, or "renting" one from a b&m to test one out. What draws me to lcds is how clean the images are, but then the black level and motion blur always kills it for me. I even have issues with the amount of motion blur on plasmas :).

I want to by a LCD but just couldn’t find the reason to convince myself after extensive reseach and comparison viewing. Until LCD catches up in a few years, Plasma is still the way to go.


I don't know where you compared them, but in a home environment the A650 is pretty much perfect in terms of black levels.
Right now it's about 9 p.m. with the room is dimly lit & having the backlight at 3, there is no difference between the TV being off & the TV being on with an all black screen.

I don't know where you compared them, but in a home environment the A650 is pretty much perfect in terms of black levels.
Right now it's about 9 p.m. with the room is dimly lit & having the backlight at 3, there is no difference between the TV being off & the TV being on with an all black screen.

At this point though I think the 650(and possibly the 81?) are the only ones up to par. I believe his comment may have just been stated as in general. I saw the XBR4 in a semi-darkened environment yesterday and black levels were bad even on power save with the backlight turned down.

I haven't seen any bench testing but I find it hard to believe it would have a black level lower than .008 ish, probably higher.
So good, but not perfect by any stretch.

I'd like to see a comparison between the 650 LCD and Samsung's plasma counterpart. I assume the plasma has better blacks right? I have been looking at the PNA550, Samsung's plasma, but CNET's review of the 650 LCD suggest it may have even deeper blacks and a better overall pitcure--I didn't think that would be the case.

Don't forget the fact that LCD's often look nice and black from straight on, but the black turns to gray as you view at an angle. This is very important to many folks who watch TV from an angle.

Not every seat in most living rooms are straight in front of the TV. (This is the main reason I'm returning my LCD for a Plasma.)

Don't forget the fact that LCD's often look nice and black from straight on, but the black turns to gray as you view at an angle. This is very important to many folks who watch TV from an angle.

Not every seat in most living rooms are straight in front of the TV. (This is the main reason I'm returning my LCD for a Plasma.)

I agree, that is a major draw back of LCD...frankly, I'm a plasma guy all the way, but after deciding that about a year ago, I haven't kept up witch LCD tech...I'm just surprised it seems to have caught up in many regards.

I agree, that is a major draw back of LCD...frankly, I'm a plasma guy all the way, but after deciding that about a year ago, I haven't kept up witch LCD tech...I'm just surprised it seems to have caught up in many regards.

Agree, the Samsung A650 LCD's look stunning with the right material, from the right location.

That said, I'm a huge sports fan, and LCD's just can't match Plasma for motion yet.

"I had the opportunity to calibrate my first Samsung A650 today. The results of which are attached.

Based on what I saw this is the best LCD I have ever worked on. The colors post calibration were very close to what a Pioneer Elite plasma is capable of. The resolution was fabulous and the processing was also excellent. The blacks were also very good. I liked the 71 series that proceeded this, but the A650 is even better."

umr

I just got my 40A650. I must say that the picture is not that good out of the box, its way too bright. So you have tone it down. There are a lot of pq controls which are necessary if you want to get the picture dialed in. It just takes a lot of time to get it right.

Plasmas, in my opinion, are much more ready to watch out the box than LCD, including the 650. So if you don't have a lot time on your hand to play with the settings or don't want to spend $$$ on pro cal, you might be better served getting a ready to watch Panasonic plasma.

The blacks are good as well as shadow detail. I love deep blacks but I don't like crushed blacks as trade off.

The viewing angles on this set and LCD's are not as good as plasma and I don't believe they ever will be. This set, like all LCD's picture tends to vary a bit when view from certain angles.

lcd's have always been brighter than plasma's. with the new samsungs and sonys the black levels have gotten significantly better. in a bright environement lcd's absolutely obliterate the plasma counterparts. in a completely light controlled dark environment plasma might be better at the darkest scenes. but only by a hair. so you pick your poison.

That's a huge oversimplification of the debate but unfortunately the way the general public sees it too. May the brighter display win :rolleyes:

CNET just gave this model the "editor's choice" award.

That means nothing. Cnet gives multiple editors choice awards out each year. last year the Pioneer PDP5080, the Sony XBR4, and the Sony rear projection SXRD all got editors choice awards.
The thing to look at is the score.
But who says Cnet is always right anyway?
Last year they only reviewed one Pioneer Kuro and it was the non-elite non-1080p model (5080). And the 5080 got the best score last year, but just imagine what the Elite 1080p versions would have gotten if Cnet would have reviewed them.
And if anyone thinks the Samsung LCD got a good score from CNet, Just wait and see the score they give the Pioneer 9th generations a month or two from now.

There is still no question that Plasma beats LCD in just about every category.
And IMO, Last years Samsung LNTXX81F is still the best LCD ever made, even better than the 650. I don't understand why Samsung didn't keep on track with the LED backlighting.

Don't forget the fact that LCD's often look nice and black from straight on, but the black turns to gray as you view at an angle. This is very important to many folks who watch TV from an angle.

Not every seat in most living rooms are straight in front of the TV. (This is the main reason I'm returning my LCD for a Plasma.)

Well, don't forget that the stand can swivel on the A650, whereas the A750 can't, so if you can swivel the LCD, you don't have the same off-angle trouble as you would with other brands of LCD HDTVs.

While LCD picture quality has improved, so has plasma. Plasma will always stay steps in front of LCD.

It seems to me that after looking at TVs in a local retail store, I was looking at various televisions that I'd be picking up during the fall season, around my birthday. I came across the 46" A650 LCD from Samsung, and it was sitting right in the middle of all sorts of Panasonic plasmas. Looking at the A650 and the PQ, and the motion of that, I was like... Is LCD finally on par with plasma now that I'm looking at this? It seems to me that the black levels were DARK on the A650, and looked even darker than the Panasonic next to it. That was really a shock to me. I'm wondering if this is a sign of things to come when it comes to LCDs this year.
Bob, I have thought the same thing before. It was the Sharp 92 series that was on display in the middle of a bunch of plasmas (Panny, Hitachi, Pio) and was on par or better than all of them. I think the 650 could be better than the 92 (slightly). For me it is not the darkness level (how black is black, a complete load of crap that is), but it is black detail. The 650 has better black detail than most, if not all of the LCD's out there.

Year after year, model after model, LCD is closing the gap, but it is also forcing formerly lazy plama makers to push the envelope, everybody wins. Lets face facts here, LCD and Plasma are really not competing against each other, but are trying to reach what the best CRT PQ is and was.

Now with OLED being experimental, that's probably expected to make BOTH technologies obsolete in due time. However, with LED-backlit LCDs becoming more known in what they can do, that probably may bring forth some of the best image qualities that we may ever see from ANY flat panel TV in the short term.

The 650 has better black detail than most, if not all of the LCD's out there.

I agree. I guy in the plasma forum laughed out loud when I mentioned that.:(

I agree. I guy in the plasma forum laughed out loud when I mentioned that.:(

It doesn't beat the 81f I don't think. I think thats the LCd champ.
But either way, the blacks are still bad on both compared to the almight KURO

Well, don't forget that the stand can swivel on the A650, whereas the A750 can't, so if you can swivel the LCD, you don't have the same off-angle trouble as you would with other brands of LCD HDTVs.

Yeah, that would work great...if ONE person is watching TV. :p

The one thing I don't understand is that whenever someone comments on an lcd, you always get a few stray (until they all coming rushing in) talking about the Pioneer Elite. We all know that the Elite is the best panel ever made (including myself). But imo, it is unfair to throw CNET's review under the bus, when they compliment something other than a plasma. I've read so many posts, on different topics (but all pertaining to lcd/plasma), and all you ever see is "CNET amongst others voted the Pioneer Panel of the year" not in those exact words obv, but I'm sure I make my point. I personally have never understood why people dub themselves as "fanboys". Aren't we all adults (or atleast for the most part)?

I truly do apologize for the post. I sincerely don't mean to ruffle anyones feathers, nor do I intend to start any kind of a flame war. Just stating an opinion from pure observation on my part.

As to the poster regarding PDP making strides alongside LCD. While this is true, it is undeniable that the strides that LCD has made in such a short period of time (in comparison to the strides that plasma made during it's reign as the leading technology) are quite impressive. Where plasma, while making improvements, have been minute. Could this possibly be that while still producing a superior picture (on the Pioneer only IMO), there just isn't that much more room for improvement, due to the technologies capabilities/limitations?

I personally have been blessed with the opportunity to have owned both. i have an ISF calibrated 5271 in my living room, and a crappy XBR5 in my bedroom (which I'm selling to pick up a Kuros!! Yeah!!). Which the only reason I bought a Sony over a Sammy or Kuros to begin with, was due to my initial thought of glare being an issue. Fortunately, there isn't as much ambient light in the room as my gf and I had originally thought (new house).

As for the 650, Auditor is right, the colors out of the box are almost blaring to the eyes. But after some tweaking, the panel really is pleasure to watch. I personally would pick up the 750 (even though you basically get the same thing, just a different shell), considering there hasn't been many reports concerning the actual hardware. My friend has the 750, and it is spectacular.

Yes, I did see the vibrance of the A750 with the color saturations, for an LCD, it looked too much like a plasma to me. Anyway, I've been reading up on the legitimate competition for this, and see that the upcoming Sony Bravia Z Series will probably be using nearly the same features and about the same picture quality will be present, without all that gloss. However, the thing about Samsung, is that their LCDs almost look like plasma as far as color and motion is concerned. However, Sony always seems to go more for a crisp, clean and accurately defined picture, but the motion always seems to go for smearing (at least that was the case in the XBR4), but will the next-gen MotionFlow technology correct this, would be the 64,000 dollar question. AMP coupled along with the 4ms response will probably bring Samsung's LCDs closer to plasma as far as performance and PQ, I have a hunch. Might give Sony a chance, but I have no idea how that Z Series will handle, that's going to be interesting to see.

I got a chance to look and A750 yesterday and it had awesome PQ IMO (including blacks)........That is until you move from the centre position a mere 10 degrees either vertically or horizontally and a large jump in black level and non-uniformity rear it's ugly head. In fact it was pretty brutal IMO. And what is with the fisher price bezel and back casing? The bezel looks like it has wrapping still on it. The back looks like a kids toy with that crappy plastic shell. Overall, big thumbs down on this one. Although, dead straight on it has the best PQ I've seen on an LCD.

Cheers

It doesn't beat the 81f I don't think. I think thats the LCd champ.
But either way, the blacks are still bad on both compared to the almight KURO

The Kuro still doesn't fade to black.

The one thing I don't understand is that whenever someone comments on an lcd, you always get a few stray (until they all coming rushing in) talking about the Pioneer Elite. We all know that the Elite is the best panel ever made (including myself). But imo, it is unfair to throw CNET's review under the bus, when they compliment something other than a plasma. I've read so many posts, on different topics (but all pertaining to lcd/plasma), and all you ever see is "CNET amongst others voted the Pioneer Panel of the year" not in those exact words obv, but I'm sure I make my point. I personally have never understood why people dub themselves as "fanboys". Aren't we all adults (or atleast for the most part)?

I truly do apologize for the post. I sincerely don't mean to ruffle anyones feathers, nor do I intend to start any kind of a flame war. Just stating an opinion from pure observation on my part.

As to the poster regarding PDP making strides alongside LCD. While this is true, it is undeniable that the strides that LCD has made in such a short period of time (in comparison to the strides that plasma made during it's reign as the leading technology) are quite impressive. Where plasma, while making improvements, have been minute. Could this possibly be that while still producing a superior picture (on the Pioneer only IMO), there just isn't that much more room for improvement, due to the technologies capabilities/limitations?

I personally have been blessed with the opportunity to have owned both. i have an ISF calibrated 5271 in my living room, and a crappy XBR5 in my bedroom (which I'm selling to pick up a Kuros!! Yeah!!). Which the only reason I bought a Sony over a Sammy or Kuros to begin with, was due to my initial thought of glare being an issue. Fortunately, there isn't as much ambient light in the room as my gf and I had originally thought (new house).

As for the 650, Auditor is right, the colors out of the box are almost blaring to the eyes. But after some tweaking, the panel really is pleasure to watch. I personally would pick up the 750 (even though you basically get the same thing, just a different shell), considering there hasn't been many reports concerning the actual hardware. My friend has the 750, and it is spectacular.

You're absolutely right, you can't give praise to any other TV without some Kuro owner reminding you how much better its is than any other display.

It seems the moderators won't stop the Kuro fanboys from doing constantly doing that. Its really annoying!! They're like the bully on the beach, always kicking sand in the faces of the 90 lbs weakling.:(

The Kuro still doesn't fade to black.

Wait until the 10G comes.
I had the 81F. I still preferr the kuro (even the 5080).
While the 81f does good with solid black, shadow detail was horrible. If there is a totally black screen the 81F has great blacks. But mix a little color and whites in there and thats where the Kuro shines.
I loved my XBR4 more than any other LCD I have ever had (even the 81F, never got the 650 becasue after getting a Kuro I have vowed to never buy another LCD) but I have realized that even with all the add-ons and enhansers (120hz, super clear panel, etc) LCD still doesn't come close to achieving what Plasma achieves naturally. I mean why deal with motion blurr, backlight bleedthru around the edges, clouding, smearing, flashlighting, and grey blacks if you dont have to?

I agree with most here that plasmas are generally better than lcds when it comes to blacks, shadow detail, motion handling, viewing angles,etc. I had a samsung 50A450 plasma for a while but had to return it because I was prone to the green phosphor lag issue. I found out that this issue was inherent in all plasmas so I now have a sammy 650 lcd. after spending more than week with the lcd, I'd have to say that I miss the plasma now.

sure, the 650's blacks looked unbeatable when the room is bright, but when the sun goes down and I see it in a dark, the blacks really got noticeably lighter and more greyish. in dark scenes, I noticed more crushed blacks also. fast moving images weren't as crisp and clear as I remembered on the plasma, although the 120hz AMP does help but I don't really like the effect because it looks fake. finally, the backlight uniformity and viewing angles are what I missed most about the plasma. on the 650 lcd, there are clouds, mura, flashlights all over the place, it looks terrible in the dark. and the blacks turn bluish or purplish if I watch it at 45 or 135 degree. it gets even worse at extreme angles.

if I weren't prone to those green phosphor trails, I would have not bought an LCD. the plasma was way less expensive too.

Wait until the 10G comes.
I had the 81F. I still preferr the kuro (even the 5080).
While the 81f does good with solid black, shadow detail was horrible. If there is a totally black screen the 81F has great blacks. But mix a little color and whites in there and thats where the Kuro shines.
I loved my XBR4 more than any other LCD I have ever had (even the 81F, never got the 650 becasue after getting a Kuro I have vowed to never buy another LCD) but I have realized that even with all the add-ons and enhansers (120hz, super clear panel, etc) LCD still doesn't come close to achieving what Plasma achieves naturally. I mean why deal with motion blurr, backlight bleedthru around the edges, clouding, smearing, flashlighting, and grey blacks if you dont have to?

I advise folks to wait until the 10g's come out before purchasing a plasma. I would not purchase a an 8 or 9g plasma, those are just intermediate displays.

I never bought into the hype of the 8g Kuro, the more I think it about I realize how flawed it is. Its does have better blacks than other plasmas, but at the premium asking price, they're not worth it.

You're absolutely right, you can't give praise to any other TV without some Kuro owner reminding you how much better its is than any other display.

It seems the moderators won't stop the Kuro fanboys from doing constantly doing that. Its really annoying!! They're like the bully on the beach, always kicking sand in the faces of the 90 lbs weakling.:(

Ah, but the 90lb weakling can be seen in a well lit room and the Kuro can not.

The 90lb weakling can sit on a static DVD menu all night and suffer no IR and the Kuro (or any PDP for that matter) can not.

The 90lb weakling can play the same video game with the same static HUD all day, can sit on the NFL Draft on ESPN all day and can sit on a PC/Mac login screen all day all without any worries and the Kuro can not.

I love PDPs and if all I ever did with my displays was watch full screen TV in a darkened room all day then a PDP would be great for me. Unfortunately that is not how most displays are used and that is certainly not how the primary display in my home is used. Videophiles versus LCD is the same type of thing you run into with audiophiles versus MP3s and Automotive Enthusiasts versus Automatic Transmissions. I would never own a car with an automatic transmission; they cost more to buy, they cost more to maintain, they don't accelerate as well, they offer less control, they add weight and they get worse gas mileage. Still NONE of that matters to the average consumer because convenience trumps all of those in the eyes of the average driver. I understand that even if I do consider it preposterous as a driving enthusiast.

I would love nothing better than to go out and drop my money on a nice 50' Kuro, but I don't feel like owning any TV that requires me to worry about content. I should be able to watch 2.35:1 films ALL DAY LONG and not worry about what color my letter-box bars are or feel the need to vary what I watch. I should be able to go to work (I work nights) and not worry if my kids left a film on the DVD menu all night. I should be able to mow my yard without running back in to see if my wife remembered to change the video signal after she checked her email. I know for some hardcore videophiles the concept of accepting less than perfect blacks and contrast is preposterous, but if I can put up with your right to drive a stinking automatic you can put up with my right to own an LCD.

It doesn't beat the 81f I don't think. I think thats the LCd champ.
But either way, the blacks are still bad on both compared to the almight KURO

The 81 has better black depth than anything, even an Elite Kuro. But the 81 is no better than last years 71 series in any other category besides black level, and in many cases worse than the 71, and that includes shadow detail, which is not the same thing as black depth/level.

I played Call of duty 4 on my 5080 Kuro for hours on end: No I.R. or Burn-in

I fell asleep numerous times with a static image displayed on my 5080 for more than 8 hours straight: No IR or Burn-in

I watched countless hours of widescreen movies with black bars and ESPN with the ticker on the bottom of the screen: No I.R. and No burn-in.

I always kept the orbitor on and For the first 200 hours of use on my 5080 I watched it normally with no resrictions and when I left for work I popped in the Plasma Break-in DVD and let it play anytime I was not watching the TV. Doing this was no hinderance or inconvenience in any way like the LCD fanboys will claim.

The Pioneer Kuro's orbitor does an amazing job. It moves the pixels around to prevent burn-in. I could never tell the difference with my eyes if it was off or on. It hides behind the scenes very good and does a great job.

I still have not found anyone with a Pioneer Kuro that has actual Burn-in.
So where are all these cases of Burn-in that you guys keep bringing up??

The only reason that Burn-in is a deciding factor for todays top-of-the-line plasmas is becasue the LCD fanboys keep bringing it up and spreading paranoia about it. I guess when Plasma beats LCD out in PQ, Black levels, color reproduction, contrast, and motion they have to think of something negative to say against Plasma so they so "burn-in" even though they have not done the research and its just not an issue with todays topline plasmas.





Ah, but the 90lb weakling can be seen in a well lit room and the Kuro can not.

The 90lb weakling can sit on a static DVD menu all night and suffer no IR and the Kuro (or any PDP for that matter) can not.

The 90lb weakling can play the same video game with the same static HUD all day, can sit on the NFL Draft on ESPN all day and can sit on a PC/Mac login screen all day all without any worries and the Kuro can not.

I love PDPs and if all I ever did with my displays was watch full screen TV in a darkened room all day then a PDP would be great for me. Unfortunately that is not how most displays are used and that is certainly not how the primary display in my home is used. Videophiles versus LCD is the same type of thing you run into with audiophiles versus MP3s and Automotive Enthusiasts versus Automatic Transmissions. I would never own a car with an automatic transmission; they cost more to buy, they cost more to maintain, they don't accelerate as well, they offer less control, they add weight and they get worse gas mileage. Still NONE of that matters to the average consumer because convenience trumps all of those in the eyes of the average driver. I understand that even if I do consider it preposterous as a driving enthusiast.

I would love nothing better than to go out and drop my money on a nice 50' Kuro, but I don't feel like owning any TV that requires me to worry about content. I should be able to watch 2.35:1 films ALL DAY LONG and not worry about what color my letter-box bars are or feel the need to vary what I watch. I should be able to go to work (I work nights) and not worry if my kids left a film on the DVD menu all night. I should be able to mow my yard without running back in to see if my wife remembered to change the video signal after she checked her email. I know for some hardcore videophiles the concept of accepting less than perfect blacks and contrast is preposterous, but if I can put up with your right to drive a stinking automatic you can put up with my right to own an LCD.

Ah, but the 90lb weakling can be seen in a well lit room and the Kuro can not.

That is untrue. I have a TON of ambient light in my living room and it works out well.
Unless your LCD has a 'matte screen' your advantage in ambient light is basically none.

That is untrue. I have a TON of ambient light in my living room and it works out well.
Unless your LCD has a 'matte screen' your advantage in ambient light is basically none.

Exactly, and how may matte screen LCD's have good black levels? The sony XBR4/5 has the best of the matte screens I think and the black levels of the sony are bad compared to pioneer/panny/samsung plasmas. And lets not even get started on motion, contrast, color reproduction/depth, viewing angles, clouding, backight bleedthru around the edges, artifacts, etc
To me the Kuro's have very good brightness.
Someone who knows PQ will not want the overbrightened look that they are bragging that LCD gives. It take away from the realistic look and makes it look artificial

Exactly, and how may matte screen LCD's have good black levels? The sony XBR4/5 has the best of the matte screens I think and the black levels of the sony are bad compared to pioneer/panny/samsung plasmas. And lets not even get started on motion, contrast, color reproduction/depth, viewing angles, clouding, backight bleedthru around the edges, artifacts, etc
To me the Kuro's have very good brightness.
Someone who knows PQ will not want the overbrightened look that they are bragging that LCD gives. It take away from the realistic look and makes it look artificial

Wow it sounds as if you like Pioneers

I just don't understand all the hype about Plasma panels, I owned two & found them overall to be slightly inferior to the LCDs I had.

More natural looking picture/more detail? Just turn off the extra processes & turn down the backlight & brightness on the LCD.
More accurate color? What a load of crap, unless you're doing a test with professional instruments, you don't know that. For that matter pretty much all TV's, regardless of which display, can be professionally calibrated.

Better black levels? In a dark room, yeah and in a dimmed room, maybe. In
everything else, no. If you can close the curtains for a plasma, you can turn on a light for an LCD.
Motion is debatable. Apparently most plasma owners are convincing themselves that the green trails don't exist.

The big deal breaker for plasma for me is the poor color gradation/posterization, PWN noise/dithering that every plasma has in one one form or another. Ruins the picture IMHO.
I have never seen a Plasma panel display a clean image as clearly as an LCD.

Just to throw in another curve ball here, even the Pioneer Kuro can't get a perfect pitch black level under ANY lighting conditions, but most LCD panels can get that perfect pitch black level under the right lighting conditions.

:eek:

Yeah, that's the thing... Samsung doesn't want you to even think their A650/750 is an LCD, since that would give the LCD shopper the wrong idea, since most who shop for that technology are shied away from glossy screens, usually. However, for those who don't care what technology they get, just so long as it's the best PQ they can get for the best bang for the buck price, then usually either a Panasonic plasma, or a Samsung LCD are the ones that sell, and usually the owner probably won't care what type of flat panel it is.

I just don't understand all the hype about Plasma panels, I owned two & found them overall to be slightly inferior to the LCDs I had.

More natural looking picture/more detail? Just turn off the extra processes & turn down the backlight & brightness on the LCD.
More accurate color? What a load of crap, unless you're doing a test with professional instruments, you don't know that. For that matter pretty much all TV's, regardless of which display, can be professionally calibrated.

Better black levels? In a dark room, yeah and in a dimmed room, maybe. In
everything else, no. If you can close the curtains for a plasma, you can turn on a light for an LCD.
Motion is debatable. Apparently most plasma owners are convincing themselves that the green trails don't exist.

The big deal breaker for plasma for me is the poor color gradation/posterization, PWN noise/dithering that every plasma has in one one form or another. Ruins the picture IMHO.
I have never seen a Plasma panel display a clean image as clearly as an LCD.

Just to throw in another curve ball here, even the Pioneer Kuro can't get a perfect pitch black level under ANY lighting conditions, but most LCD panels can get that perfect pitch black level under the right lighting conditions.

Problem is that most professional reviewers and videophiles who know picture quality would disagree with just about eveything you just said.
Do you work for best buy??

Problem is that most professional reviewers and videophiles who know picture quality would disagree with just about eveything you just said.
Do you work for best buy??

Exactly what do you disagree on?

Problem is that most professional reviewers and videophiles who know picture quality would disagree with just about eveything you just said.
Do you work for best buy??

Their have already been pro calibrators on here who've worked on 650/750's who've said they are pretty much dead even with a pioneer elite on all their calibrations aside from black levels. It's just an assumption on your part

Exactly what do you disagree on?

I would have to agree with what chadmak09 said. To answer your questions above, I would have to disagree with everything you said. :D

Its ok though, you know what you like and thats all that matters.

I may not be able to sleep tonight. There should be a law against laughing this hard.

Problem is that most professional reviewers and videophiles who know picture quality would disagree with just about eveything you just said.
Do you work for best buy??

Those professional reviewers and videophiles seem to disagree with you.

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/panasonic-viera-th-50pz800u/4505-6482_7-32886472.html
We also noticed that the TH-50PZ800U introduced even less false contouring than the superb Pioneer or even the PZ85U. In one scene where the Mexicans' pickup crests a hill near the getting place, for example, its headlights caused faint contours or step-like gradations on the latter two sets, which were most visible along the extreme edge of the light as it transitioned into darkness; the PZ800U, on the other hand, showed no such contours (and to be fair, neither of the LCDs did either).

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Pioneer-PDP4270XD/Picture-Quality.php
Video Artifacts


Shimmering pixels is an inherent noise of the plasma technology due to Pulse Width Modulation. It appears most often around the eyes and lips on pictures but it is not overtly distracting to me.

Try again.
The first link you provided was a link to the review of the 800u.
The key thing you need to look at is the first paragraph. It says and I quote "The Pioneer Kuro 5080 Is STILL the best weve tested outside OLED". Another thing to take note of is that review compares to LAST YEARS NON-1080p, NON-Elite Kuro. Imagine if Cnet would have reviewed sayyy the pro-110fd ??
And lets not even forget that they are not even comparing with any of the 2008 Kuros which are already being shipped. This years Kuro's have 5 times better blacks and other improvmnets.

You next link was to a reviiew of the 4270. That is not a Kuro. That is a 2006 model. So what was the point of that link??

Their have already been pro calibrators on here who've worked on 650/750's who've said they are pretty much dead even with a pioneer elite on all their calibrations aside from black levels. It's just an assumption on your part

How about off angle contrast?
Processing, including ability on SD tv programming?
Motion handling?
Black levels as you said.
With a gloss screen it lost the ambient light advantage LCD's used to have for some.
The color points 'may' be as accurate, but I have doubts.

Just to throw in another curve ball here, even the Pioneer Kuro can't get a perfect pitch black level under ANY lighting conditions, but most LCD panels can get that perfect pitch black level under the right lighting conditions.


I think you meant to say, if you want some misinformation, here is some 'more'.

Try again.
The first link you provided was a link to the review of the 800u.
The key thing you need to look at is the first paragraph. It says and I quote "The Pioneer Kuro 5080 Is STILL the best weve tested outside OLED". Another thing to take note of is that review compares to LAST YEARS NON-1080p, NON-Elite Kuro. Imagine if Cnet would have reviewed sayyy the pro-110fd ??
And lets not even forget that they are not even comparing with any of the 2008 Kuros which are already being shipped. This years Kuro's have 5 times better blacks and other improvmnets.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but those Elites add 1080p, better color accuracy out the box & more picture controls. I never read that they improved the PQ or black levels.
If you want to compare TV's not out yet, you might as well compare it to the Sony Triluminos LED LCD.


You next link was to a reviiew of the 4270. That is not a Kuro. That is a 2006 model. So what was the point of that link??

I don't want this to sound like a flame, but did you not read the part where it said "inherent to the technology"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those Elites add 1080p, better color accuracy out the box & more picture controls. I never read that they improved the PQ or black levels.
If you want to compare TV's not out yet, you might as well compare it to the Sony Triluminos LED LCD.


Why bother, it is an LED LCD. :)
Supposedly the black levels are lower on the Elites than the non.
Even if color accuracy was the only thing the Elites did better, would that not directly lead to better PQ?

How about off angle contrast?
Processing, including ability on SD tv programming?
Motion handling?
Black levels as you said.
With a gloss screen it lost the ambient light advantage LCD's used to have for some.
The color points 'may' be as accurate, but I have doubts.

Yeah but those things don't have anything to do with the actual picture quality the TV can produce, they're all things that are subjective to someones individual needs. I only sit dead on center to my TV so off-angle viewing doesn't matter to me. And for SD programming, I only watch 1 SD channel, all the others are HD so that doesn't matter to me either. Motion yes you're right, but again that doesn't pertain to picture quality/detail.

It does pertain to detail, considering you lose more of your resolution when things are in motion.
Processing also has a part in the presentation of any and all source material.

Also, I've only seen one line-up of LCD's, currently with below .08 black levels and they lose their black levels once anything other than black is on the screen.
LCD's are getting better with black levels and the best can rival some plasmas, but not the Kuros.

I think you meant to say, if you want some misinformation, here is some 'more'.

LCD in daylight lighting conditions:
http://i31.tinypic.com/2dhzb0h.jpg

Overexposed to the maximum to show if the blacks were being crushed by the camera:
http://i30.tinypic.com/nzm62e.jpg
The blacks still show no signs of anything other but perfect dark blacks.


Pretty much the best pictures I found of a Kuro in similar daylight lighting conditions without the camera crushing the blacks:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2zxw2z5.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/fom51y.jpg

Just face it, the Kuro will look better in a dark room, but not in those lighting conditions.

Why would I have to 'face' an innacurate assumption you are making based on pictures that will look different on are computers displays...not to mention ,who knows the settings on either t.v.
I go by bench tests and pro reviewers and also a select few very well educated self-testers with a ton of discretionary funds.
Also, I have seen with my own eyes a a750 several times with different sources at a friends home and I own an Elite.


But really, as long as the person who buys the set enjoys it that is all that matters....more HD consumers is good for everyone no matter what they choose.

Why would I have to 'face' an innacurate assumption you are making based on pictures that will look different on are computers displays...not to mention ,who knows the settings on either t.v.
I go by bench tests and pro reviewers and also a select few very well educated self-testers with a ton of discretionary funds.
Also, I have seen with my own eyes a a750 several times with different sources at a friends home and I own an Elite.


But really, as long as the person who buys the set enjoys it that is all that matters....more HD consumers is good for everyone no matter what they choose.

...but it's not an assumption that LCD get improved contrast & black levels in better lighted rooms.
Most of those bench tests and pro reviewers do tests in pitch black rooms to get their numbers, which is not indicative of different lighting conditions.

Depends on the level of ambient light and the individual display.
I agree that they do most of their tests in 'ideal' lighting conditions, but that is what I want as that is why I spend so much on a display....to get the best PQ possible.
If I just wanted a t.v. that looked good I would spend half as much.

http://gizmodo.com/336498/best-plasma-ever-vs-best-lcd-ever-verdict-plasma-wins

I just returned a current generation very expensive LCD in favor of a Plasma, and if you think LCD has a better overall picture, you are simply on crack. There is no other explanation.

You may throw out specs, a few things here and there where it has the edge, but overall it simply pales in comparison in a typical home environment, especially if you watch tv with scenes that actually have MOTION, lol.

I woke up this morning and I am still laughing.

Shimmering pixels is an inherent noise of the plasma technology due to Pulse Width Modulation

Not on the Kuro:D

http://gizmodo.com/336498/best-plasma-ever-vs-best-lcd-ever-verdict-plasma-wins

That's a bogus test though because the 81 is by no means the best LCD on the market.

That's a completely bogus test because the 81 is by no means the best LCD on the market.

what is the best LCD on the market right now?

what is the best LCD on the market right now?

I'd say between the 650/750 or the xbr5/6

Yes the 81 can produce the deepest blacks, deeper even then an elite kuro, but that's about the only thing it can do better than the other high end lcd's.

I woke up this morning and I am still laughing.

You know the plasma I previously owned was a Panasonic 600U, the TV everyone here were prasing like there was no tomorrow (before the Pioneer craze).
I also had a Sharp D40U LCD at the same time & the LCD edged out the plasma enough for me to return the plasma.

The new Panasonic plamsa panels I seen honestly don't look like a large step up from the previous models.

I just returned a current generation very expensive LCD in favor of a Plasma, and if you think LCD has a better overall picture, you are simply on crack. There is no other explanation.

You may throw out specs, a few things here and there where it has the edge, but overall it simply pales in comparison in a typical home environment, especially if you watch tv with scenes that actually have MOTION, lol.

btw the Costco/Sam's Club Olevia LCD is NOT comparable to any half decent mid-tier LCD.

lol

double lol and it's beginning to hurt

double lol and it's beginning to hurt
I'm laughing as well, but it is more about how all of you guys always seem to end up in some PDP vs LCD debate.

I don't care what type of tech it is, there are always going to be you fanboys out there who want to crush anyone who dares to disagree with you.

What happens if OLED does take off and is so much better than ANY LCD or even the almighty KURO that there is no debate?

I get endless hours of entertainment reading this stuff. Keep it up guys.

double lol and it's beginning to hurt

Why even bother with these guys we're way outnumbered in this debate :) Oh yes and LOL as well

What happens if OLED does take off and is so much better than ANY LCD or even the almighty KURO that there is no debate?

I'll buy it and have fond memories of the PQ plasma offered for it's time, not so much so with LCD ;)

Why even bother with these guys we're way outnumbered in this debate :) Oh yes and LOL as well

I have not yet went out to actually find the little Sony OLED set. I think that finding one to look at on display may be a chore.

I hear that it is almost that good, visibly better than any LCD or PDP. I will hold any of my opinions until I can see it in person.

If the blue led material lifetime problem can be solved then OLED may be the LCD/PDP killer.

Still though in the independent Display Search article, the lifetime of the display was quoted as 17K hours. That is over 9 years at 5 hours a day. I admit that it is not even close to the 40k-60K hours that PDP/LCD advertises, but really, 9 years? What are the chances that 9 years from now that you will have upgraded that A650 or 8G Kuro panel with something newer?

I really hope it does kill Plasma/LCD, I'm sick of each technologies inherent problems. At least with TVs we have a choice, computer monitors are stuck with LCDs and IMHO they are very poor especially compared to a decent TV, I tried many "pro" monitors and they all stink. Once OLED bests plasma/LCD with good screen sizes and decent pricing I'll be the first one in line to buy a TV and hopefully a computer monitor too.

I've seen the Sony, and it was very nice. Extremely clear and vibrant, but rather difficult to get a full sense of what it's it capable of when the screen is 11" 0.o.

Also, I was laughing at the olevia comment. How can you not find that funny?

I am not a fanboy ny any form. I'll leave that term for the teenagers who bicker and scream like cheerleaders when someone criticizes thier beloved investment. I am all about what looks good and performs.

I've seen the Sony, and it was very nice. Extremely clear and vibrant, but rather difficult to get a full sense of what it's it capable of when the screen is 11" 0.o.

Also, I was laughing at the olevia comment. How can you not find that funny?

I am not a fanboy ny any form. I'll leave that term for the teenagers who bicker and scream like cheerleaders when someone criticizes thier beloved investment. I am all about what looks good and performs.

It has nothing to with being a fanboy when you've been consistently letdown by a technology for the last 10 years. Find me a LCD panel with decent blacks comparable to this years top end plasma (considering the price you can only compare this TV with a KURO or 800/850U) , with perfect viewing angles and a 100% uniform screen that doesn't shift color temperature anywhere or leak light. The LNA650 can't do that, find me an LCD that can do all of those things right (the last 2 are particularly hard for LCDs) and I'll be the first to buy it. Oh and I don't want to return my TV 10 times to get the perfect one either. I know some of them can be pretty good but it's like playing a mini lottery, you have a chance of 1 in 10 of getting a decent one and still it's not perfect.

I'm a "fanboy" of good displays nothing else. I admit the current LCDs are very good but their defects are still too much for me as some may feel about plasma technology. However the general professional opinion is that they're still better and this TV isn't going to be the one to change that.

I'm a "fanboy" of good displays nothing else. I admit the current LCDs are very good but their defects are still too much for me as some may feel about plasma technology. However the general professional opinion is that they're still better and this TV isn't going to be the one to change that.Good post, honest with an explanation.

I feel much the same way about Plasma, not because I feel the are inferior to a LCD, but because there is more work involved owning one. Despite what people say, you should do a break-in peroid where you intentionally age the panel to help prevent burn-in later. You should watch what you view and try to avoid sidebars, letterbox bars, etc... Just good sense.

The proble with me is that I am lazy. I spend enough time dealing with technical issues 12 hours a day at work, I don't want to think about the TV when I get home, just turn it on and watch. Works for me.

As to the OP's original question, yes LCD is getting better. At the point just before the Kuro came out, there were 1 or maybe 2 sets that gave even the best PDP panels a good run. I think that the 650 is good, but still is a little behind on the black detail.

IMO ultimate black levels and CR is all a load of crap. I have seen plasma guys tell people on this forum that if they turn on a set with no signal and they see that it is anything but a complete black hole, that is proof of how plasma is better than LCD. All I can say is WOW, grow up.

For me it is the details in the folds of the material on a dark suit worn by someone in a dark scene. The small wrinkles on someones face in a dark room in a dark scarry movie. Black Detail, that is what it is all about.

For me it is the details in the folds of the material on a dark suit worn by someone in a dark scene. The small wrinkles on someones face in a dark room in a dark scarry movie. Black Detail, that is what it is all about.



Is what you described technically called a "shadow detail"?

Hi all,

Is "black detail" and "shadow detail" more or less the same thing? Thanks in advance.

Good post, honest with an explanation.

I feel much the same way about Plasma, not because I feel the are inferior to a LCD, but because there is more work involved owning one. Despite what people say, you should do a break-in peroid where you intentionally age the panel to help prevent burn-in later. You should watch what you view and try to avoid sidebars, letterbox bars, etc... Just good sense.

The proble with me is that I am lazy. I spend enough time dealing with technical issues 12 hours a day at work, I don't want to think about the TV when I get home, just turn it on and watch. Works for me.

As to the OP's original question, yes LCD is getting better. At the point just before the Kuro came out, there were 1 or maybe 2 sets that gave even the best PDP panels a good run. I think that the 650 is good, but still is a little behind on the black detail.

IMO ultimate black levels and CR is all a load of crap. I have seen plasma guys tell people on this forum that if they turn on a set with no signal and they see that it is anything but a complete black hole, that is proof of how plasma is better than LCD. All I can say is WOW, grow up.

For me it is the details in the folds of the material on a dark suit worn by someone in a dark scene. The small wrinkles on someones face in a dark room in a dark scarry movie. Black Detail, that is what it is all about.



There is not much work at all involved with plasma.
Just simply pop in the Break-in DVD when you are not watching it and let it run. How hard is that?
Thats all I did with my 5080hd Pioneer and I never had a hint or I.R.
And I left static images on the screen for sometimes 8 hours at a time. No problems.

The answer to the question of this thread is yes, LCD is absolutely closing the gap on Plasma. With each new generation of LCD displays they seem to be improving on of its flaws. For example, you can see dramtically improved black level on some of the top LCD displays.

It won't be long before LCD surpasses plasmas in most PQ categories. As PDP dies slow agonizing death, soon people will realize there is no longer a need for PDP.

It won't be long before LCD surpasses plasmas in most PQ categories. As PDP dies slow agonizing death, soon people will realize there is no longer a need for PDP.

by the time that happens, there would be no need for LCD too since OLED would've taken over.

by the time that happens, there would be no need for LCD too since OLED would've taken over.

You're probably right.

LCD in daylight lighting conditions:
http://i31.tinypic.com/2dhzb0h.jpg

Overexposed to the maximum to show if the blacks were being crushed by the camera:
http://i30.tinypic.com/nzm62e.jpg
The blacks still show no signs of anything other but perfect dark blacks.


Pretty much the best pictures I found of a Kuro in similar daylight lighting conditions without the camera crushing the blacks:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2zxw2z5.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/fom51y.jpg

Just face it, the Kuro will look better in a dark room, but not in those lighting conditions.

Very good visual demonstration. Here you give them mountain of proof and the "fanboys" refuse to accept it.

Very good visual demonstration. Here you give them mountain of proof and the "fanboys" refuse to accept it.

Good demonstration? If it were a good demonstration shouldn't both panels be calibrated to their best, sitting side by side in the same environment showing the same programming? I was under the impression by your own words that you're into the science end of things as opposed to just random testing? Besides, any display showing Jessica Alba will always win out despite the quality of the picture,lol.

Good demonstration? If it were a good demonstration shouldn't both panels be calibrated to their best, sitting side by side in the same environment showing the same programming? I was under the impression by your own words that you're into the science end of things as opposed to just random testing? Besides, any display showing Jessica Alba will always win out despite the quality of the picture,lol.

NO, because it is an already established and admitted fact that LCD's perform better than plasmas in bright conditions. Those pictures are visual demonstration of established fact.

NO, because it is an already established and admitted fact that LCD's perform better than plasmas in bright conditions. Those pictures are visual demonstration of established fact.

But isn't it just as important to know how much light a plasma can take before degradation of picture and what reasonable controls on lighting can be used to maximize the picture quality? It's all about having the best in each person's environment so blanket statements aren't really a good idea. By the way, that demonstration didn't tell me anything and I'm certainly not going to judge picture quality from a snap shot of a digital camera. That demonstration was about as unscientific as you can get.

different locations for each panel

different lighting conditions

different camera took each picture

It would slightly be more worthwhile if at least the same person made that judgement with live viewing of each set in thier respective environment

"CNET just gave this model the "editor's choice" award"

can someone post the cnet link?

But isn't it just as important to know how much light a plasma can take before degradation of picture and what reasonable controls on lighting can be used to maximize the picture quality? It's all about having the best in each person's environment so blanket statements aren't really a good idea. By the way, that demonstration didn't tell me anything and I'm certainly not going to judge picture quality from a snap shot of a digital camera. That demonstration was about as unscientific as you can get.

different locations for each panel

different lighting conditions

different camera took each picture

It would slightly be more worthwhile if at least the same person made that judgement with live viewing of each set in thier respective environment


Well, is there anyone here that had both in their own home that could do a test with various lighting conditions?

The locations, lighting conditions & the camera doesn't matter because both are all comparable in the pictures.
Both are in bright to bright enough rooms & the picture on the LCD overexposed to show if the camera was crushing the black levels, which it was not.
Obvioulsy the camera settings for the plasma were not crushing the blacks or else they would be pitch black (any TV can look like that) & overexposing the pictures would just show lighter blacks.

The pictures prove that an LCD can get perfect black levels under the right lighting conditions, there really is nothing to argue here.


It has nothing to with being a fanboy when you've been consistently letdown by a technology for the last 10 years. Find me a LCD panel with decent blacks comparable to this years top end plasma (considering the price you can only compare this TV with a KURO or 800/850U) , with perfect viewing angles and a 100% uniform screen that doesn't shift color temperature anywhere or leak light.


Find me a plasma panel with decent blacks that don't washout in bright daylight conditions comparable to this years top end LCD panels, without any dithering created by the panels inherent technology and viewing any type of material no matter what the hours without having to worry or later fix the IR?

Find me a plasma that do all of those things right and I'll be the first to buy it. :)

Find me a plasma panel with decent blacks that don't washout in bright daylight conditions comparable to this years top end LCD panels, without any dithering created by the panels inherent technology and viewing any type of material no matter what the hours without having to worry or later fix the IR?

Find me a plasma that do all of those things right and I'll be the first to buy it. :)Find me an LCD that doesn't have massive contrast shifts with viewing angle changes. Find me an LCD without mura and flashlighting that make star wars look like galaxy wars. And for the love of god find me an LCD that doesn't need 80-90% fake frames to reduce blur at the expenxe of butchering the original source.

Seriously though, these arguments are irrelevant as there is no perfect display. It all comes down to what flaws you are willing to live with.

Find me an LCD that doesn't have massive contrast shifts with viewing angle changes. Find me an LCD without mura and flashlighting that make star wars look like galaxy wars. And for the love of god find me an LCD that doesn't need 80-90% fake frames to reduce blur at the expenxe of butchering the original source.

Seriously though, these arguments are irrelevant as there is no perfect display. It all comes down to what flaws you are willing to live with.

Yeah, no display is perfect & plasma is without a doubt better with black levels in dimmed/dark rooms, but still the spatial dithering & green fringing is imho as bad or worse than the crap problems LCD have.

wow this is the funniest thread i've read in a while:)

both sides have their points and both can claim best pq give certain lighting conditions exist.

neither side can claim best overall performance.

there's something for everybody and maybe that's a good thing.

for now it seems we're stuck with these debates and hopefully it's good entertainment for us. i just feel sorry for the newbie who comes in to ask for some "simple" advice. lol!

now when is that 58" oled coming out?

It not an either or for me since I like both technologies for strengths they bring. I'm not happy with the flaws of both plasma and LCD that is why I'm a strong proponent of new technologies. However, the Samsung 650 LCD's (with its flaws) have really pushed the envelope for LCD's.

Overall, I prefer the picture quality of Plasma, but my 40A650 is no slouch, the picture is really good. Its a fun display as well, a tweakers dream. Its just a great display.

NO, because it is an already established and admitted fact that LCD's perform better than plasmas in bright conditions. Those pictures are visual demonstration of established fact.

Which models?
Since many have gone with glossy screens there advantage is?
This is an old argument based on matte screens.

Which models?
Since many have gone with glossy screens there advantage is?
This is an old argument based on matte screens.

All LCDs.
Brighter rooms, more light etc drown out the TV's own backlight that fades blacks. Glossy screens have made the blacks & contrast even better in bright lighted rooms.
In the dark, take a black sheet of paper & put a flashlight behind it, you'll see the light behind the paper. Now turn on the lights & the you won't see any light behind the black paper. That's pretty much how LCD tech goes.

Plasma on the other hand does not have black "coating" or whatever it is made of. When a bright light shines in front of it, any black that was shown will just show a light grey.

Very true.

What wtfer is saying is that lcds, regardless of what finish screen is, handle blacks much better under lit conditions. We aren't talking glare.

Just double check in term of PQ and fast moving movie.

In bright condition get LCD
In dark condition get Plasma

Am I right?

also...if money/budget is a concern then I need to get LCD? because I am comparing either 46" F81 or new 650/750 with 50" LX508A Kuro Pioneer Plasma. F81 46" vs 50"Plasma almost double the price (in AUS) and 52F81 25% less than pioneer.

Note sure the price for new 52 650/750 samsung one in Aus since not out yet but I am guessing still cheaper than plasma may be 25% less..

What do you think?

Is LCD bad in dark condition in term of PQ? sorry still own crt at the moment so no idea at all except reading the forum.

Thanks for your help.

Both displays have their problems. If I were watching in a room with a fair amount of light I'd get an LCD also. Most plasmas just don't have the brightness needed in rooms with a fair amount of lighting IMO.

And I do have to say the new 650 and 750 LCDs from Samsung look really good from what I've seen. The big issue for me is with LCD is how certain scenes can really pop one minute and the next minute the picture can look washed out. Plasmas seem to be more consistent in this area as the variation from scene to scene isn't as much.

LCDs are definitely catching up. However, if plasmas have 5 lumen technology next year it would mean a brighter picture for plasma. Which would likely mean brighter whites. And with infinite black Kuros (and possibly others), I wonder if this will sway the general public over to plasma.

Very true.

What wtfer is saying is that lcds, regardless of what finish screen is, handle blacks much better under lit conditions. We aren't talking glare.

Have you owned both?
Which models of plasmas?

I recently had both the 650 Sammy LCD and a Kuro 5080 side by side in my house. I had both hooked up to my Dish HD DVR & OTA antenna. I also used settings offered in the settings thread for both TVs.

I had the 650 in house first, and I thought the picture was awesome. It does have a great picture, and I probably would have been happy with it if I had just kept it and never tried anything else. Well, I kept reading about how great the Kuros were and that plasma was better (never owned plasma), so I went to Bestbuy and picked up a 5080 for a closeout price ($700 cheaper than the Sammy).

I watched A LOT of content on both at the same time. I came to the conclusion that the 5080 had better and more accurate colors. Skin tones were obviously better on the 5080. Contrast and black levels were much better on the 5080 as well. If I was picking between those two, even forgetting the price difference I thought the 5080 was better. The overall viewing experience wasn't a huge difference in favor of the 5080 (they were both great displays), but the 5080 was better. I returned both of those sets, however. I have a Kuro 6020 coming my way right now.

I have two other LCDs in the house, and I had never owned a plasma. I am a fanboy of neither. But the above is what my eyes saw. Take it for what it is worth.

I recently had both the 650 Sammy LCD and a Kuro 5080 side by side in my house. I had both hooked up to my Dish HD DVR & OTA antenna. I also used settings offered in the settings thread for both TVs.

I had the 650 in house first, and I thought the picture was awesome. It does have a great picture, and I probably would have been happy with it if I had just kept it and never tried anything else. Well, I kept reading about how great the Kuros were and that plasma was better (never owned plasma), so I went to Bestbuy and picked up a 5080 for a closeout price ($700 cheaper than the Sammy).

I watched A LOT of content on both at the same time. I came to the conclusion that the 5080 had better and more accurate colors. Skin tones were obviously better on the 5080. Contrast and black levels were much better on the 5080 as well. If I was picking between those two, even forgetting the price difference I thought the 5080 was better. The overall viewing experience wasn't a huge difference in favor of the 5080 (they were both great displays), but the 5080 was better. I returned both of those sets, however. I have a Kuro 6020 coming my way right now.

I have two other LCDs in the house, and I had never owned a plasma. I am a fanboy of neither. But the above is what my eyes saw. Take it for what it is worth.

Thanks for you review. The 650 does look like a nice display from what I've seen in the store. For the 650 to compete with a Kuro does say how much LCDs are improving. I wonder how Samsung's local dimming sets will fair this year.

I recently had both the 650 Sammy LCD and a Kuro 5080 side by side in my house. I had both hooked up to my Dish HD DVR & OTA antenna. I also used settings offered in the settings thread for both TVs.

I had the 650 in house first, and I thought the picture was awesome. It does have a great picture, and I probably would have been happy with it if I had just kept it and never tried anything else. Well, I kept reading about how great the Kuros were and that plasma was better (never owned plasma), so I went to Bestbuy and picked up a 5080 for a closeout price ($700 cheaper than the Sammy).

I watched A LOT of content on both at the same time. I came to the conclusion that the 5080 had better and more accurate colors. Skin tones were obviously better on the 5080. Contrast and black levels were much better on the 5080 as well. If I was picking between those two, even forgetting the price difference I thought the 5080 was better. The overall viewing experience wasn't a huge difference in favor of the 5080 (they were both great displays), but the 5080 was better. I returned both of those sets, however. I have a Kuro 6020 coming my way right now.

I have two other LCDs in the house, and I had never owned a plasma. I am a fanboy of neither. But the above is what my eyes saw. Take it for what it is worth.

That's also very subjective though, unless you do a professional calibration on both sets then you really can't say one is better than the other. Neither of the 2 tv's are going to look as good as they potentially can.

That's also very subjective though, unless you do a professional calibration on both sets then you really can't say one is better than the other. Neither of the 2 tv's are going to look as good as they potentially can.

The whole process we are dealing with is subjective because one picture may look more appealing to one person than other despite the measured color accuracy, contrast ratio, black levels, etc. Few people are paying for professional calibration (most people plug the set in and go). I would guess most on this site do what I did and try out different settings recommended by those more knowledgeable than themselves until they find the best settings for them. So I would care for about a comparison like what I offered.
Nothing against our great ISF professionals, but I am never going to pay for the service. I prefer not to spend the money, and I wouldn't even know where the closest certified professional is located (excluding Bestbuy :rolleyes:) because I live in a rural area.

The bottom line is that I have no dogs in this fight. I returned both TVs. I messed with the settings on the 650 to get the same detail in dark scenes as the 5080 but just couldn't do it without having overblown brightness in other scenes. I actually wanted to keep the 650, but I just kept seeing at least a slightly inferior picture. I watched a lot of different content from about 10' away. I can completely control the light but also watched with the lights on to get a feel for that settings as well.

People can argue all kinds of points, but the 650 does not look as good as a Kuro (8G and up). If it did I would still have it hanging on my wall and would have saved some money.

This was good to read. I just picked up a 52'" 650, and I love it so far, but I noticed that the blacks aren't black in a dark room. I'd heard people touting that they are, so I thought at first I didn't have it set properly, but it's good to get confirmation that this is just how it works. Of course, it only looks really bad when the screen is fully black, and honestly, who watches a fully black screen? Seems boring to me.

When I'm looking at black things when watching video material (a black car in daylight, for instance), it's very nice.

Seems like a lot of these arguments are based around how good black looks on a signal when there is nothing but black in the frame, which seems kind of silly to me. Granted, the better your black level, the better colors you'll have, but I don't think a black vs black comparison is really measuring what it should.

I thought about returning mine for a nice plasma, but I'm going to be using it as a computer monitor rather frequently, and while video games and movies don't seem to burn in much with newer plasmas, I would be worried that a computer image might, seeing as how static it is.

Not to mention that I'm hesitant to let this set go: no flashlights, clouding, mura or purple haze (and yes, I know what I'm looking for). I feel lucky. Not to mention, you can't beat this set's current price at Amazon, especially since it ships for free.

This was good to read. I just picked up a 52'" 650, and I love it so far, but I noticed that the blacks aren't black in a dark room. I'd heard people touting that they are, so I thought at first I didn't have it set properly, but it's good to get confirmation that this is just how it works. Of course, it only looks really bad when the screen is fully black, and honestly, who watches a fully black screen? Seems boring to me.

When I'm looking at black things when watching video material (a black car in daylight, for instance), it's very nice.

Seems like a lot of these arguments are based around how good black looks on a signal when there is nothing but black in the frame, which seems kind of silly to me. Granted, the better your black level, the better colors you'll have, but I don't think a black vs black comparison is really measuring what it should.

I thought about returning mine for a nice plasma, but I'm going to be using it as a computer monitor rather frequently, and while video games and movies don't seem to burn in much with newer plasmas, I would be worried that a computer image might, seeing as how static it is.

Not to mention that I'm hesitant to let this set go: no flashlights, clouding, mura or purple haze (and yes, I know what I'm looking for). I feel lucky. Not to mention, you can't beat this set's current price at Amazon, especially since it ships for free.


Absolutely! It is a great set, and you are getting a tremendous bang for the buck considering the amazon pricing.

Have you owned both?
Which models of plasmas?

I've had plasmas since they first came out. My first was a Sony, Hitachi, Phillips (when they were actually high end and still crap :P)and now an Elite.

As for lcd's, my first was the 5271, and then an xbr5 which I sold for the Elite

So yeah, I've been buying HD panels since thier release when a 50 ran you 18k heh

bah, another edit. I forgot to mention that my hobby is working at a home theater store.

Very true.

What wtfer is saying is that lcds, regardless of what finish screen is, handle blacks much better under lit conditions. We aren't talking glare.

Are you serious??
With the Sonys and thier Semi-gloss panel a percentage of the light is absorbed into the panel which makes the Blacks look grey and washed out. This throws off the color balance and shadow detail of the set. Also the field depth is compromised which gives it a "2D-paper" look instead of the 3-D effect.
With the Samsungs, The glare/refection is worse than any glossy screen I have ever seen. I still can't get over how they call it "super clear panel".
Why would you say they handle blacks better?? Do you mean Greys??
The PDP series Pioneers use screen filter technology that utilizes the advantages of a glass panel. But at the same time combating the weak spot of a glass panel (reflection glare) By cancelling out 80% of incoming light. So performance is maintained and glare minimized. So the black levels look as intended.

Are you serious??
With the Sonys and thier Semi-gloss panel a percentage of the light is absorbed into the panel which makes the Blacks look grey and washed out. This throws off the color balance and shadow detail of the set. Also the field depth is compromised which gives it a "2D-paper" look instead of the 3-D effect.
With the Samsungs, The glare/refection is worse than any glossy screen I have ever seen. I still can't get over how they call it "super clear panel".
Why would you say they handle blacks better?? Do you mean Greys??
The PDP series Pioneers use screen filter technology that utilizes the advantages of a glass panel. But at the same time combating the weak spot of a glass panel (reflection glare) By cancelling out 80% of incoming light. So performance is maintained and glare minimized. So the black levels look as intended.

You hit the nail on the head. This fairy-tale that LCD's are somehow immune to bright lights is quite amusing. Once bright light hits an LCD, which is already struggling to display decent black levels to begin with, they become even more purplish and washed out looking. And as you mention, Samsung is using as glossy a finish on their sets as any PDP.

What isn't mentioned much in this thread is how poorly LCD's handle moving objects. Once the action starts moving, forget about it. Motion blur, loss of resolution, and screen tearing are the bane of all LCD's.

Also I don't think it is fair to only compare LCD's to Pioneer PDP's. I mean, everyone agrees that Pioneer is in general the best performing HDTV set, so why not give the Pioneer a rest, let it enjoy it's Heavy-Weight Championship of the World belt, and let the young up-and-comer, the Panasonic, handle the light-work here, since every Panasonic PDP blows every LCD out of the water quite handily. Not to mention, at a much lower cost than a comparable LCD.

Also I don't think it is fair to only compare LCD's to Pioneer PDP's. I mean, everyone agrees that Pioneer is in general the best performing HDTV set, so why not give the Pioneer a rest, let it enjoy it's Heavy-Weight Championship of the World belt, and let the young up-and-comer, the Panasonic, handle the light-work here, since every Panasonic PDP blows every LCD out of the water quite handily. Not to mention, at a much lower cost than a comparable LCD.

Ok, so please show us the conclusive evidence of all the testing you've done to come to this obviously completely factual statement. Did you read that in a recent star wars comic book?

Ok, so please show us the conclusive evidence of all the testing you've done to come to this obviously completely factual statement. Did you read that in a recent star wars comic book?

Lol, I think zero and chad are the same person. They have to be!! They look at a westinghouse tv, or read one post of someone that completely fabricates an experience, and immediately are gravitated to it, choosing to ignore the plethora of reviews or statements being made, that completely nullify everything they want to believe. I also noticed something very intriguing. In another forum, the same exact people that are posting in this one, completely dismissed the phtos of comparison between the xbr8 and the 6020, shouting "eronious!..fabricated!". Yet, when Pioneer did the same exact thing, incuding other lcd panels, they jumped and rejoiced as if they've seen the Messiah. People should seriously learn to be unbiased, and just see things for what they are.

Panasonic? Please. That thing is a heaping pile, have you seen orange flesh tones on those things, even after attemptive calibration? The 650, which isn't even of the same genre as an elite in regards of classification, has already drawn comparisons to it. So, if by your own logic, the Panny is better than the Elite? Interesting observation I must say.

You guys need to get out of Mr Magoriums Wonder Emporium, it's diluting your your mind.

Overbrightened image with horrible viewing angles? In case you didn't notice, tvs have these things called menus, and in those menus have these cute little things called settings, these settings do nutty things like control color, brightness, backlight, OMG! Who would've thought!

You should try actually owning things, and comparing them for yourselves, before repeating something you heard.

Peace!

Are you serious??
With the Sonys and thier Semi-gloss panel a percentage of the light is absorbed into the panel which makes the Blacks look grey and washed out. This throws off the color balance and shadow detail of the set. Also the field depth is compromised which gives it a "2D-paper" look instead of the 3-D effect.
With the Samsungs, The glare/refection is worse than any glossy screen I have ever seen. I still can't get over how they call it "super clear panel".
Why would you say they handle blacks better?? Do you mean Greys??
The PDP series Pioneers use screen filter technology that utilizes the advantages of a glass panel. But at the same time combating the weak spot of a glass panel (reflection glare) By cancelling out 80% of incoming light. So performance is maintained and glare minimized. So the black levels look as intended.

sorry if you don't see the benefits of lcd in lit conditions.
i was just at best buy today and staring at the new samsung 650 sets next to the panny plasmas. both had reflective glass panels and as a result--reflections.

the samsung just provided a more pleasing picture because it was both brighter and darker without any loss of details. the reflections were much less annoying on the samsung glass even though the samsung glass was more reflective. seems the term "super clear" does actually describe the effect.

i'm sure if it were next to a pioneer plasma the result would have been similar. when comparing the sony xbrs next to a pioneer kuro the result was sonys looked clearer, brighter, sharper and with more contrast.

seems plasma whether compared to an lcd with glass or semi-matte panels is the loser every time in lit conditions.

blacks for plasmas in lit conditions=greys

blacks for lcd in complete darness=greys (during the darkest scenes)

They look at a westinghouse tv, or read one post of someone that completely fabricates an experience, and immediately are gravitated to it, choosing to ignore the plethora of reviews or statements being made, that completely nullify everything they want to believe.

Actuallly, you need to do your homework before spewing such nonsense.
The Majority of Reviews on Top LCDs all say ok thinks about LCD. But then at the end of most of them you see the same words: "But Plasma still wins" or something along those lines. Take a trip into S&V and Cnet and look at the reviews of the TOP LCD's. Most of them will say something like "although we enjoyed this LCD, it is STILL preferr the overall PQ of plasma." or "But its still no plasma killer" or something like that.


People should seriously learn to be unbiased, and just see things for what they are.
Knowing what is best is not being Biased. Its simply knowing whats best.

Panasonic? Please. That thing is a heaping pile, have you seen orange flesh tones on those things, even after attemptive calibration?

Heaping pile??
The 800u is one of the best flat panels out there. Definitly better than any LCD hands down IMO. The black levels, color accuracy, and motion handling are just superb.


The 650, which isn't even of the same genre as an elite in regards of classification, has already drawn comparisons to it. So, if by your own logic, the Panny is better than the Elite? Interesting observation I must say.
Ok, I thiink you are confused again. Pioneer makes Elite. Elite is not a company. Pioneer brands thier top model "Elite" becasue they have more settings, improved filter tech, and many other things. You can learn about this on the pioneer website if needed.


You guys need to get out of Mr Magoriums Wonder Emporium, it's diluting your your mind
????? lol

Overbrightened image with horrible viewing angles? In case you didn't notice, tvs have these things called menus, and in those menus have these cute little things called settings, these settings do nutty things like control color, brightness, backlight, OMG! Who would've thought!
You cannot fix viewing angle problems in any settings menu. Whoever told you that you can was probablly poking fun at you. Oh and you forgot Motion handling. Which is one of the biggest issues that Samsung has still not overcome.

You should try actually owning things, and comparing them for yourselves, before repeating something you heard.
Actually I have owned both the Sony XBR4 and the Samsung 71F. I loved those TV's until I watched a Kuro for a while. After that I started noticing clouding, ghosting, smearing, flashlighting, uneven backlighting, backlighting bleeding thru around the edges, Grey/Blue Blacks, poor color depth, and poor viewing angles much more thn ever before.
Trust me, these issues are not something I "want to believe" as you put it. I wish the LCD's I had didn't have these issues. It would have saved me alot of time and money with having to return /sell them.

sorry if you don't see the benefits of lcd in lit conditions.
i was just at best buy today and staring at the new samsung 650 sets next to the panny plasmas. both had reflective glass panels and as a result--reflections.

the samsung just provided a more pleasing picture because it was both brighter and darker without any loss of details. the reflections were much less annoying on the samsung glass even though the samsung glass was more reflective. seems the term "super clear" does actually describe the effect.

i'm sure if it were next to a pioneer plasma the result would have been similar. when comparing the sony xbrs next to a pioneer kuro the result was sonys looked clearer, brighter, sharper and with more contrast.

seems plasma whether compared to an lcd with glass or semi-matte panels is the loser every time in lit conditions.

blacks for plasmas in lit conditions=greys

blacks for lcd in complete darness=greys (during the darkest scenes)

I have said it before and I'll say it again,
Don't go by what you see in Best buy/Circuit city. This is not how it will look in your home.
Those TV's at Best buy (especially LCDs) are setup in Tourch mode to "POP" out at you.
That may look cool in the store but will look like total garbage in your home.
Also, These newer LCD's are packed with enhansers that degrade the picture. These enhansers are there to combat the weaknesses of LCD.
Like 120hz. It is supposed to be helping with motion but its still not doing much other than reducing judder which makes movies lose thier "FILM" look and start to look like home video's or soap operas. IT also creates terrible motion artifacts that look like a clear aurora-like haze around moving objects. Some referr to this as "120hz vapors". Anyone who owns a 120hz LCD and claims they have never seen this is either not watching thier TV much at all or is just flat out lying.
These LCD's use these enhansers and add-ons to mimic what Plasma achieves naturally.

Panasonic? Please. That thing is a heaping pile, have you seen orange flesh tones on those things, even after attemptive calibration? The 650, which isn't even of the same genre as an elite in regards of classification, has already drawn comparisons to it. So, if by your own logic, the Panny is better than the Elite? Interesting observation I must say.


Please tell me your under the age of 18 to make such an immature comment. I'm sure the only place you've seen an 800U is in Best Buy or some other big box. Get over it, the 650 isn't perfect and neither are plasmas. Some people have been accused of being fanboys but you take the cake by calling one of the highest reviewed TVs on the market a "heaping pile". You also mention skintones in a previous post and then mention working in an A/V store, obviously you must not have an important job there or you'd know a calibrator or you could do it yourself. Or are you just skimming threads for complaints to justify your own position? ;)

. People should seriously learn to be unbiased, and just see things for what they are.

At least there's one thing that makes sense in your posts, start reading up on display technology and get back to us. Every A/V publication chose Panasonic and Pioneer plasmas over LCD displays last year, are they biased too? At least we can admit LCDs have their advantages, (even though they don't outnumber the disadvantages IMHO) you're just ignorant

Actuallly, you need to do your homework before spewing such nonsense.
The Majority of Reviews on Top LCDs all say ok thinks about LCD. But then at the end of most of them you see the same words: "But Plasma still wins" or something along those lines. Take a trip into S&V and Cnet and look at the reviews of the TOP LCD's. Most of them will say something like "although we enjoyed this LCD, it is STILL preferr the overall PQ of plasma." or "But its still no plasma killer" or something like that.


Do you read the same reviews everyone else reads? Perhaps you should take your own homework advice.

from cnet
"Color accuracy: The TH-50PZ800U outclassed both of the other plasmas in our comparison in this department, and just about equaled the color accuracy of the Samsung LN52A650 LCD"

So idk, it seems to me that they're using the 650 as the reference for color accuracy, not a pioneer, or any other plasma, or is it my imagination?

from cnet:
"Black level: The Samsung LN52A650 reproduced one of the deepest shades of black we've seen from any LCD. It can't quite match the champ, Samsung's own LED-based LN-T4681F, but from what we remember, it's pretty dang close. The Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas got darker by a couple of hairs, although the Samsung solidly beat the two Sonys."

Who do they say the black level champ is? yes a samsung 81 series "LCD", so you can just quit it with kuro black levels already.

Knowing what is best is not being Biased. Its simply knowing whats best.

Again from cnet:
"Overall saturation, thanks to deep blacks and fine color balance, was equal to the superb Pioneer."

Does it clearly say, Plasma is the champ?
It looks to me like they say they're equal, but I don't know, maybe i'm just misunderstanding them and can't see the part that says, "we prefer the PQ of a plasma." as you say.

Heaping pile??
The 800u is one of the best flat panels out there. Definitly better than any LCD hands down IMO. The black levels, color accuracy, and motion handling are just superb.

As mentioned earlier, the panasonics are simply bad in skin tone color accuracy, their have been several pro calibrators who have already worked on the sets, and have stated that there's no way to fix the orange skin tones on those sets. They're not a heaping pile, but they're definitely not any better than the best LCD's

I already gave you the evidence that you're wrong in both black levels and color accuracy. Yeah you're right on motion handling, congratulations, you got correct 1 of the 3 categories.

Actually I have owned both the Sony XBR4 and the Samsung 71F. I loved those TV's until I watched a Kuro for a while. After that I started noticing clouding, ghosting, smearing, flashlighting, uneven backlighting, backlighting bleeding thru around the edges, Grey/Blue Blacks, poor color depth, and poor viewing angles much more thn ever before.
Trust me, these issues are not something I "want to believe" as you put it. I wish the LCD's I had didn't have these issues. It would have saved me alot of time and money with having to return /sell them.

I flat out don't know what you're talking about there. Perhaps you were looking at the XBR a lot more than the 71, because I had a 71 before, and I didn't have a single one of those problems you're talking about. Either way, we're comparing the 650/750 series, not the XBR or the 71, so all of that doesn't matter anyway

In conclusion, yeah, we would all love to own a Pioneer Elite, just because it's nice to say it. But you can go ahead and spend your 8K on it, I'll stick with spending half of that money on an LCD that has already been "proven" to be just as accurate if not better in most cases to the all mighty Pioneers. That way I can get my extra few grands and spend it on a Pioneer Elite receiver :-)

I have said it before and I'll say it again,
Don't go by what you see in Best buy/Circuit city. This is not how it will look in your home.
Those TV's at Best buy (especially LCDs) are setup in Tourch mode to "POP" out at you.
That may look cool in the store but will look like total garbage in your home.
Also, These newer LCD's are packed with enhansers that degrade the picture. These enhansers are there to combat the weaknesses of LCD.
Like 120hz. It is supposed to be helping with motion but its still not doing much other than reducing judder which makes movies lose thier "FILM" look and start to look like home video's or soap operas. IT also creates terrible motion artifacts that look like a clear aurora-like haze around moving objects. Some referr to this as "120hz vapors". Anyone who owns a 120hz LCD and claims they have never seen this is either not watching thier TV much at all or is just flat out lying.
These LCD's use these enhansers and add-ons to mimic what Plasma achieves naturally.

Just to let you know, and since you owned a 71, you should know this, but for some reason you don't. 120hz technology has nothing to do with the "film" look and motion artifacts that the tv creates. 120hz reduces judder to that of what a real motion is supposed to look like. It "does not" create any of those side effects you're talking about.

What you're talking about, is Auto Motion Plus, it is an extra enhancement to even further smooth out motion. That is what makes the film look like a video or soap opera, and as a side effect created all the artifacts. It is not a natural fault the TV has, it's an extra feature that you can turn on and off if you don't like the way the feature looks. It's no different than using something like dynamic contrast to enhance the picture.

This is directly from cnet:
"Black level: The Samsung LN52A650 reproduced one of the deepest shades of black we've seen from any LCD. It can't quite match the champ, Samsung's own LED-based LN-T4681F, but from what we remember, it's pretty dang close. The Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas got darker by a couple of hairs, although the Samsung solidly beat the two Sonys."

Who do they say the black level champ is? yes a samsung 81 series "LCD", so you can just quit it with kuro black levels already.

Please go back and read the satement carefully. Cnet says the 650 produces the best black OF ANY LCD. That does not include plasma. You only saw what you wanted to see in that statement. So go back and read it. And the only Pioneer that CNET reviewed was the non-elite non-1080p version (5080). This year the pioneers have 5X better blacks. This will destroy the 650.



"Overall saturation, thanks to deep blacks and fine color balance, was equal to the superb Pioneer."
Again, They reviewed the 5080. The elites have slightly better black levels. And this years Pioneers are much deeper again. If we are going to compare, compare the products of the same year. And The samsung isn't even better than last years Kuro (last years non-elite,non-1080p version]. And the 650's blacks may look ok when watching a still image or totally black screen but motion blurr is still inherit.

As mentioned above, the panasonics are terrible in skin tone color accuracy, their have been several pro calibrators who have already tested the sets, and have stated so. They're not a heaping pile, but they're definitely not any better than the best LCD's
Who were these professional calibrators?? Your 16 year old buddy from bestbuy??
D-Nice has already stated that the Panasonics have excellent color accuracy. Even better than the non-elite 9G Kuros's. I would believe him before your buddy at bestbuy.

I already gave you the evidence that you're wrong in both black levels and color accuracy. Yeah you're right on motion handling, congratulations, you got correct 1 of the 3 categories.
Sorry dude, keep trying though. It was a spirited effort.
Oh and by the way, an elite costs nowhere near 8K. Yet more FUD you are trying to spread.

here you go buddy:


http://www.gizmodo.com/336498/best-plasma-ever-vs-best-lcd-ever-verdict-plasma-wins

Please go back and read the satement carefully. Cnet says the 650 produces the best black OF ANY LCD. That does not include plasma. You only saw what you wanted to see in that statement. So go back and read it. And the only Pioneer that CNET reviewed was the non-elite non-1080p version (5080). This year the pioneers have 5X better blacks. This will destroy the 650.

lol, ok so tell me how this:
"The Samsung LN52A650 reproduced one of the deepest shades of black we've seen from any LCD"

"ONE OF THE DEEPEST SHADES"

Please tell me where it says it produces the deepest blacks period?

And, as I already posted but you read what you want and twist it to support your argument

"It can't quite match the champ, Samsung's own LED-based LN-T4681F"

So what are you gonna argue against now? That samsung paid cnet to say that?

Again, They reviewed the 5080. The elites have slightly better black levels. And this years Pioneers are much deeper again. If we are going to compare, compare the products of the same year. And The samsung isn't even better than last years Kuro (last years non-elite,non-1080p version]. And the 650's blacks may look ok when watching a still image or totally black screen but motion blurr is still inherit.

Ok, and? the 81 still has better black levels than an Elite, and it will still have better black levels than this years new Kuro's. And what does motion blur have to do with black levels? Now you're just brining up things that are completely irrelevant

Who were these professional calibrators?? Your 16 year old buddy from bestbuy??
D-Nice has already stated that the Panasonics have excellent color accuracy. Even better than the non-elite 9G Kuros's. I would believe him before your buddy at bestbuy.

No it was my 17 year old buddy at circuit city, get it right. You can search for it on here if you want, i'm not gonna do it for you I know what I read several times. I'm glad you're taking D-Nice's professional experience and his terminator-2 like eye accuracy as the ultimate word. You're obviously head over heels above me in backing up your arguments with facts.

And yeah, you're right, the Panasonics have better color accuracy than even the Pioneers, and guess what, the 650 has even better color accuracy than the Panasonics

from cnet
"Color accuracy: The TH-50PZ800U outclassed both of the other plasmas in our comparison in this department, and just about equaled the color accuracy of the Samsung LN52A650 LCD"

So idk, it seems to me that they're using the 650 as the reference for color accuracy, not a plasma, or is it my imagination?

Just to let you know, and since you owned a 71, you should know this, but for some reason you don't. 120hz technology has nothing to do with the "film" look and motion artifacts that the tv creates. 120hz reduces judder to that of what a real motion is supposed to look like. It "does not" create any of those side effects you're talking about.

What you're talking about, is Auto Motion Plus, it is an extra enhancement to even further smooth out motion. That is what makes the film look like a video or soap opera, and as a side effect created all the artifacts. It is not a natural fault the TV has, it's an extra feature that you can turn on and off if you don't like the way the feature looks. It's no different than using something like dynamic contrast to enhance the picture.

You are correct, its not the 120hz itself that is causing this effect I should have been more clear than that. It is the motion enhansers that the manufactures add to these 120hz LCD's have that cause this fake look. It is called frame interpolation. Basically just fake frames. You can disable AMP or motionflow, but then Motion blurr is even worse! I could never handle turning it off. But them when I turned it on I got artifacting like crazy and vapors pouring off of the actors.
Why go thru all this maddness?? Plasma achieves the overall goal naturally.

Patrick.;14038329]Please tell me your under the age of 18 to make such an immature comment. I'm sure the only place you've seen an 800U is in Best Buy or some other big box. Get over it, the 650 isn't perfect and neither are plasmas. Some people have been accused of being fanboys but you take the cake by calling one of the highest reviewed TVs on the market a "heaping pile". You also mention skintones in a previous post and then mention working in an A/V store, obviously you must not have an important job there or you'd know a calibrator or you could do it yourself. Or are you just skimming threads for complaints to justify your own position? ;)

What on earth do you speak of? unfortunately, I don't feel like going the extra mile of giving you conclusive evidence that the Panny does not handle flesh tones very well (unless you live in the Bahamas). Just surf the calibration/calibrator forums, or ask someone you know (if you know a professional ISF calibrator that has worked on the Pannys).

I will take back the comment about it being a heaping pile, that it definitely is not, and I can admit that it was rather immature.

Also, I never said the 650 was perfect, can you quote me ever saying that? Personally, I have no position, I but do feel that it's rather ammusing that people never refer to updated reviews of this years panels, they always revert to last years. But ok, you win, plasma is king, your investment is sound, etc etc.

As to the comment about being poked fun at, you should take your own advie about reading what is in front you, and not just what you want to see. When I made the comment about settings, did I ever mention anything that pertained to viewing angles? No I didn't, I mentioned things like backlight, brightness, color, contrast, etc. Good attempt at humor though. You're aallllmost there.



At least there's one thing that makes sense in your posts, start reading up on display technology and get back to us. Every A/V publication chose Panasonic and Pioneer plasmas over LCD displays last year, are they biased too? At least we can admit LCDs have their advantages, (even though they don't outnumber the disadvantages IMHO) you're just ignorant

Further solidifies my comment about people feverting to last years reviews, thank you for proving me right. A lil advice, get with the times, and read a lil more about what is going on this year fonzy.

lol, ok so tell me how this:
"The Samsung LN52A650 reproduced one of the deepest shades of black we've seen from any LCD"

"ONE OF THE DEEPEST SHADES"

Please tell me where it says it produces the deepest blacks period?

And, as I already posted but you read what you want and twist it to support your argument

"It can't quite match the champ, Samsung's own LED-based LN-T4681F"

So what are you gonna argue against now? That samsung paid cnet to say that?
LOL, you are still not getting it are you? Who cares if the 650 can't beat the 81F. We are talking about the new 650 vs the new Kuro. Cnet was not including the kuro when the said " our champ the 81F". They meant LCD CHAMP!!! please go back and read. Again.
And right below that it says in plain english that the Kuro and the panasonic went darker. Dude please go read the review again.
And if you still can't understand then go to the link I provided above where it says that they preferred the elite due to its ability to produce blacks.





No it was my 17 year old buddy at circuit city, get it right. You can search for it on here if you want, i'm not gonna do it for you I know what I read several times. I'm glad you're taking D-Nice's professional experience and his terminator-2 like eye accuracy
Your darn straight I take D-nices personal experience seriously. As well as hundreds (maybe even thousands) of other AVS members. I guess we are all stupid huh? I would take D-Nices review over David Kats anyday. I guess The AVS forum sponsors are sending D-Nice Televisions free of charge to do his reviews on them because he knows nothing right?? D-Nice's Pioneer 9G thread was the fastest growing thread in AVS history.
from cnet
"Color accuracy: The TH-50PZ800U outclassed both of the other plasmas in our comparison in this department, and just about equaled the color accuracy of the Samsung LN52A650 LCD"

So idk, it seems to me that they're using the 650 as the reference for color accuracy, not a plasma, or is it my imagination?
It says EQUAL not better than the panasonic. And didn't you just say the Panasonic had horrible color accuracy?? So does this mean the 650 does to??
I never said the 650 had bad color accuracy anyway.
And none of this includes this years 9G Elite which is more accurate than both and has many more settings to work with.

Both displays have their problems. If I were watching in a room with a fair amount of light I'd get an LCD also. Most plasmas just don't have the brightness needed in rooms with a fair amount of lighting IMO.

(...)

LCDs are definitely catching up. However, if plasmas have 5 lumen technology next year it would mean a brighter picture for plasma. Which would likely mean brighter whites.
(...)


How come LCDs have so brighter whites when plasmas claim to have brightness specs of 1000 cd/m2(LG) or 1200 cd/m2(Panny), compared to a "modest" 450cd/m2 for the LCD Samsung 81F ?

Theoretically plasma should have the brighter whites. Why it is not the case in practice ???

What this argument comes down to is this: the average LCD buyer is someone who walks into Best Buy, sees the brightest possible set burning in torch mode under fluorescent lighting, and walks away owning their first HDTV, thinking they have the end-all best number-one set there is. Then they come here, read a few articles on-line and in magazines, and cannot fathom why someone would not agree that their new purchase is the best thing since sliced bread.

The average plasma buyer, on the other hand, has been around the HDTV block a few times, knows the basics of calibration, and has probably owned more than a few HDTV's of varying technology's in the past. Rather than doing research in BB and walking out with a flat-screen, eye-searing LCD torch, they most likely listen to a few experts, do some research, and make a decision based on facts. Every major shoot-out, head-to-head, and mano e mano review has come up with the same result: plasma wins, hands down.

Take for instance HT Mag's 2008 technology shootout:
http://hometheatermag.com/lcds/208hdface/

"Our judges were HT former editor Maureen Jenson, the editor of our sister publication UltimateAVMag.com Tom Norton (now with Home Theater), and contributors John Higgins and David Birch-Jones (otherwise known as DBJ). Rounding out our panel was none other than Mike Nelson, our back-page Curtain Call contributor and the host of the classic Mystery Science Theater 3000."

I would say that qualifies as as much of an HDTV panel of experts as there is. Their conclusion: Plasma #1 (Pio followed by Panny), RP LCoS, DLP, and bringing up the rear: LCD.

Of the Panny: "Well, the only negative people could equate to the TH-50PZ750 was that it wasn't the Pioneer"....I'd say that hardly qualifies this TV as "junk".

LOL, you are still not getting it are you? Who cares if the 650 can't beat the 81F. We are talking about the new 650 vs the new Kuro. Cnet was not including the kuro when the said " our champ the 81F". They meant LCD CHAMP!!! please go back and read. Again.
And right below that it says in plain english that the Kuro and the panasonic went darker. Dude please go read the review again.
And if you still can't understand then go to the link I provided above where it says that they preferred the elite due to its ability to produce blacks.


Okay you're right, they're comparing the 81 to the 650 in that instance, that's my fault. But, that still doesn't mean the pioneers or the panasonics have the best blacks. The 81 still has deeper blacks than any tv period. And i'll tell you why because it's simple, the 81 series black levels are achieved by completely tuning off whatever part of the tv is black. In other words, it's impossible to get any blacker than the 81 because you can't get blacker than a tv that is completely turned off. The kuros and panasonics might be able to come very close, but none the less, they still emit light.

It says EQUAL not better than the panasonic. And didn't you just say the Panasonic had horrible color accuracy?? So does this mean the 650 does to??
I never said the 650 had bad color accuracy anyway.

I know you didn't say the 650 has bad color accuracy, but you did in fact say both the pioneer and panasonics have better accuracy than the 650/750, which is not true.

And no I didn't say it has horrible color accuracy at all. I said it has bad skin tone colors. Just because the primary colors are accurate it doesn't mean the skin tones are accurate also. And you can find proof of that by numerous pro calibrators on here who've worked on them.


And none of this includes this years 9G Elite which is more accurate than both and has many more settings to work with.

It should be better than last years model, but how much more is completely skeptical, those sets came out like a week ago and nobody's tested or reviewed them.

And the average expert always comes down with the torch mode argument.

Even in the vivid mode or the normal mode, LCD whites are still brighter than plasma. I'dont bother if expert consider it's good or bad, I just want to know why the plasma brightness is so dull even in its vivid mode.

Take for instance HT Mag's 2008 technology shootout:
http://hometheatermag.com/lcds/208hdface/

"Our judges were HT former editor Maureen Jenson, the editor of our sister publication UltimateAVMag.com Tom Norton (now with Home Theater), and contributors John Higgins and David Birch-Jones (otherwise known as DBJ). Rounding out our panel was none other than Mike Nelson, our back-page Curtain Call contributor and the host of the classic Mystery Science Theater 3000."

I would say that qualifies as as much of an HDTV panel of experts as there is. Their conclusion: Plasma #1 (Pio followed by Panny), RP LCoS, DLP, and bringing up the rear: LCD.

Of the Panny: "Well, the only negative people could equate to the TH-50PZ750 was that it wasn't the Pioneer"....I'd say that hardly qualifies this TV as "junk".

Yeah, but you didn't actually bother to find out what LCD they tested did you? A JVC? yes, a JVC, and Sharp, against a Pioneer Kuro?? If they wanted to make a complete joke of those tests they could've just gotten a Dynex and an Insignia instead. That entire review is completely bogus, I even think chadmak09 will agree with me on that one

What this argument comes down to is this: the average LCD buyer is someone who walks into Best Buy, sees the brightest possible set burning in torch mode under fluorescent lighting, and walks away owning their first HDTV, thinking they have the end-all best number-one set there is. Then they come here, read a few articles on-line and in magazines, and cannot fathom why someone would not agree that their new purchase is the best thing since sliced bread.

The average plasma buyer, on the other hand, has been around the HDTV block a few times, knows the basics of calibration, and has probably owned more than a few HDTV's of varying technology's in the past. Rather than doing research in BB and walking out with a flat-screen, eye-searing LCD torch, they most likely listen to a few experts, do some research, and make a decision based on facts. Every major shoot-out, head-to-head, and mano e mano review has come up with the same result: plasma wins, hands down.

That's complete nonsense, neither you nor anyone else knows what the average LCD or average Plasma buyer does.

And the average expert always comes down with the torch mode argument.

Even in the vivid mode or the normal mode, LCD whites are still brighter than plasma. I'dont bother if expert consider it's good or bad, I just want to know why the plasma brightness is so dull even in its vivid mode.

Because an LCD is always being lit by constant backlighting. So to get blacks, the set has to try to dim the bright light. On a plasma, each pixel is off, or dark, until it receives a signal to be lit. So the question becomes, why do you want bright whites? On my KDS60-A3000, for instance, I have the brightness of the set turned down to well under half of what the set could do, and even then it is too bright at times.

Yeah, but you didn't actually bother to find out what LCD they tested did you? A JVC? yes, a JVC, and Sharp, against a Pioneer Kuro?? If they wanted to make a complete joke of those tests they could've just gotten a Dynex and an Insignia instead. That entire review is completely bogus, I even think chadmak09 will agree with me on that one



That's complete nonsense, neither you nor anyone else knows what the average LCD or average Plasma buyer does.


If you bothered to read the article, they weren't testing the top model of each technology against each other. They set a specific set of parameters, and tested a range of sets matching those parameters. If you are going to pit technology vs. technology, why not take a cross-section of what sets there are and compare them? They compared mid-range sets and came up with a conclusive result. Take the Kuro (720P bottom line Kuro at that) out of the equation, and the JVC, Sharp, and Samsung (you left that model out), were still handily beaten by not only the Panasonic PDP, but also LCoS and DLP sets.

Because an LCD is always being lit by constant backlighting. So to get blacks, the set has to try to dim the bright light. On a plasma, each pixel is off, or dark, until it receives a signal to be lit.
So the question becomes, why do you want bright whites?
On my KDS60-A3000, for instance, I have the brightness of the set turned down to well under half of what the set could do, and even then it is too bright at times.

Because you dont answer my question in any way.

I know how LCD works. I know how Plasma works. And RP is not the point. And I always set my LCD to its very normal home mode setup and the brightness is just fine for me. And I dont want to buy a hdtv to please the experts, but i want a hdtv to be pleased.

That being said, i still want to know why plasmas, in spite of its marvelous brightness specs, can't give brighter whites than a LCD 81F (wich is not in a fluorescent ambient light, and not setup in its torch mode, wich have less than the halfof the plasma brightness specs) or any other good LCD (i used 81F because i know the specs).

Because you dont answer my question in any way.

I know how LCD works. I know how Plasma works. And RP is not the point. And I always set my LCD to its very normal home mode setup and the brightness is just fine for me. And I dont want to buy a hdtv to please the experts, but i want a hdtv to be pleased.

That being said, i still want to know why plasmas, in spite of its marvelous brightness specs, can't give brighter whites than a LCD 81F (wich is not in a fluorescent ambient light, and not setup in its torch mode, wich have less than the halfof the plasma brightness specs) or any other good LCD (i used 81F because i know the specs).


If bright whites are the most important feature in your HDTV, then be happy, you've found the right technology for you. I mentioned my RP-TV because it has similarly high brightness levels as an LCD, and that is an aspect of it that I don't care for, and in fact try my best to dim. My plasma certainly is not as bright, and it's not an issue, since it is more than bright enough.

If you bothered to read the article, they weren't testing the top model of each technology against each other. They set a specific set of parameters, and tested a range of sets matching those parameters. If you are going to pit technology vs. technology, why not take a cross-section of what sets there are and compare them? They compared mid-range sets and came up with a conclusive result. Take the Kuro (720P bottom line Kuro at that) out of the equation, and the JVC, Sharp, and Samsung (you left that model out), were still handily beaten by not only the Panasonic PDP, but also LCoS and DLP sets.

What mid-range, there's nothing mid-range about a pioneer 5080 or a panny 750, just because the 5080 is a 768p doesn't mean anything. Bottom line is they used the top plasmas against the lower quality of everything else. There's no if's and's or but's, it's right there, it's inarguable. The samsung they used isn't an LCD, it's a DLP

Anyway, who cares, that review is old, with old tv's that nobody's comparing, it's completely pointless to the entire discussion

If bright whites are the most important feature in your HDTV, then be happy, you've found the right technology for you. I mentioned my RP-TV because it has similarly high brightness levels as an LCD, and that is an aspect of it that I don't care for, and in fact try my best to dim. My plasma certainly is not as bright, and it's not an issue, since it is more than bright enough.
You still dont read me. I've noticed that **Plasma has far better brightness specs than LCD**. I'm just asking in pure objective considerations, why better specs dont give brighter results. That's it.


And now, in a more subjective consideration, i mentionned, as you did for your RP, that my lCD is set at just half its brightness and it's fine for me. But it's not the point. My point is the technical aspect mentionned above.

What mid-range, there's nothing mid-range about a pioneer 5080 or a panny 750, just because the 5080 is a 768p doesn't mean anything. Bottom line is they used the top plasmas against the lower quality of everything else. There's no if's and's or but's, it's right there, it's inarguable. The samsung they used isn't an LCD, it's a DLP

Anyway, who cares, that review is old, with old tv's that nobody's comparing, it's completely pointless to the entire discussion

The MSRP's of the 2 PDP's were within $200 of the LCD's, so all were in the same price class. With an original MSRP of $3300, I would hardly call either the JVC or Sharp low end models. With a published date of March 2008, I would hardly consider this shoot-out to be "old", either.

And the average expert always comes down with the torch mode argument.

Even in the vivid mode or the normal mode, LCD whites are still brighter than plasma. I'dont bother if expert consider it's good or bad, I just want to know why the plasma brightness is so dull even in its vivid mode.

Because you are looking at it in bestbuy next to an LCD in tourch mode. And torch mode looks horrible at home.

If you don't mind my asking, were they all 50-52?

And cristof, the reason you're not getting an answer is because they don't know, niether do I, but I'll just say I don't know lol, instead of dodging the question.

Okay you're right, they're comparing the 81 to the 650 in that instance, that's my fault. But, that still doesn't mean the pioneers or the panasonics have the best blacks. The 81 still has deeper blacks than any tv period. And i'll tell you why because it's simple, the 81 series black levels are achieved by completely tuning off whatever part of the tv is black. In other words, it's impossible to get any blacker than the 81 because you can't get blacker than a tv that is completely turned off. The kuros and panasonics might be able to come very close, but none the less, they still emit light.


It depends on how black your panel is when turned off also.
The 9G's Kuros are even more blacker than the 8G Kuro's when the TV is powered off.

And the bad thing about the 81F is that it uses local Dimming of the backlight LED's to achieve its "complete black".
The bad thing about local dimming is it is not local enough.
It is able to shut of the backlight for a specific area to make the blacks darker for that AREA. This hurts deatils in the blacks. Because instead of showing you shadow detail it shows you pitch black.
With plasma on the other hand, there is no backlight needed. The actual pixels/subpixels light up and turn off themselves. Which greatly improves shadow detail.
This is why plasma still has the edge over LED backlighting

At CC, it seemed that the LCD could go "down" in brightness, but the Plasma could not go up that much? Probably depending on the settings, both pictures were unreal. I think I'm leaning toward LDC.

At CC, it seemed that the LCD could go "down" in brightness, but the Plasma could not go up that much? Probably depending on the settings, both pictures were unreal. I think I'm leaning toward LDC.

I would definitly keep your mind open and not base your choice on what you see in bestbuy/CC.
Picture quality is what matters not a sets ability to burn retinas with brightness.

When I had my XBR4 I kept the brightness at about 60%
When I had my 5080 I kept the brightness at about 70%. There was sinply no need to go brighter than that and it washes out the picture.
Brightness is not that important. Contrast is.

I got conjuctivitis 3 times from playing PlS3 (Call of Duty 4) on my XBR4. The brightness would make my eyes water alot when playing at night. Which caused me to rub my eyes alot, and caused conjuctivitis from bacteria getting in my eyes when I was rubbing them.

I would definitly keep your mind open and not base your choice on what you see in bestbuy/CC.
Picture quality is what matters not a sets ability to burn retinas with brightness.

When I had my XBR4 I kept the brightness at about 60%
When I had my 5080 I kept the brightness at about 70%. There was sinply no need to go brighter than that and it washes out the picture.
Brightness is not that important. Contrast is.

I got conjuctivitis 3 times from playing PlS3 (Call of Duty 4) on my XBR4. The brightness would make my eyes water alot when playing at night. Which caused me to rub my eyes alot, and caused conjuctivitis from bacteria getting in my eyes when I was rubbing them.

And LCD's spread germs. I forgot that point. :eek:

And LCD's spread germs. I forgot that point. :eek:

lol.
No but they do cause eye strain which can make your eyes water. Or my eyes could have been watering from tryiing to focus on all the motion blurr.
The conjuctivits I got was from wiping away the tears from my eyes. There must have been bacteria on my hands.
The point I was trying to make is that the eyestrain from the LCD was what started the problem.
And the eyestrain stopped when I got the XBR4 out of my house and got a plasma.

So no, LCD does not spead germs, But they can cause nausia.j/k

What this argument comes down to is this: the average LCD buyer is someone who walks into Best Buy, sees the brightest possible set burning in torch mode under fluorescent lighting, and walks away owning their first HDTV, thinking they have the end-all best number-one set there is. Then they come here, read a few articles on-line and in magazines, and cannot fathom why someone would not agree that their new purchase is the best thing since sliced bread.

The average plasma buyer, on the other hand, has been around the HDTV block a few times, knows the basics of calibration, and has Veryprobably owned more than a few HDTV's of varying technology's in the past. Rather than doing research in BB and walking out with a flat-screen, eye-searing LCD torch, they most likely listen to a few experts, do some research, and make a decision based on facts. Every major shoot-out, head-to-head, and mano e mano review has come up with the same result: plasma wins, hands down.


Well said.
I think one of the main reasons there are so many people who come here and claim that LCD delivers the best PQ is because they go to Bestbuy to buy thier 1st HDTV and are told by the highschool BB salesman that LCD is superior. Then when they find out the truth, They are faced with buyers remorse and desperatly try to convince themselves and others that LCD is superior even though the facts show it simply is not. They looked at the contrast ratio advetised on the TV and immediatly thought that meant that it really had the best contrast.

i just wanted to make something clear. I never said lcd as a whole had better pq than the highest end plasma. I did say that one lcd in specific has made major improvements in pq, and from personal experience, professionally trained eyes, and certified ISF calibrators, that the 6/7 has surpassed the other plasma panels (aside from the Elite), and has really made major strides in regards to blur and off axis viewing angles (please don't go quoting last years reviews).

Also, please reconsider statements about blinding brightness, if you took the opportunity to view the 6/7 in a normal viewing enviornment after calibration, it would be blatanly obvious that the "brightness" you speak of is that of a B&M floor. Also, these B&M's don't tamper with the settings whatsoever. They come pre-manufactured that way. Think about it, if all tvs were at reference level, what would distinguish them from the rest? The reason they do this is to standout, as not everyone views things the same way. Some people like that overly tanned look, as though the people on the screen have spent 2 days baking in the sun, or lack of sun for that matter. One of the main reasons why people buy lcd's is because they are misinformed, and are still under the impression that IR is still an issue, that coupled with the fact that there aren't many options (especially now) when it comes to sizes. 50" plus does not accommodate everyone. Loyalty to a specific brand also plays a role, especially Sony. Does Sony make plasmas? No they do not, so yet another reason that some may be deterred from buying a plasma. Anyway, there are lot's of reasons why people go with lcd over plasma, not just the one reason you repeat over and over and over again.

I hope you realize Chad, that constantly referring to lcds as overbrightened, is much like people talking about burn in on plasmas, both false.

One more thing about the brightness, does this look ridiculously bright to you?

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm214/lcjrodriguez/rider006.jpg

This photo was taken with a rather subpar P@S camera, which crushes the blacks immensly, and oversaturates the picture, yet, the image still looks pretty darn good.

Hey guys, what are your opinions of the lna650 vs the panny pz85u?

thanks

Hey guys, what are your opinions of the lna650 vs the panny pz85u?

thanks

Not that this is the wrong place to ask, but considering the constant back and forth about that specific type of question, you are going to get tons of biased opinions. Check out what professional ISF calibrators are saying about both panels on these forums. Check them both out for yourself at a store if thats possible as well. Another thing, see if they will let you play with the settings, to see which one you think you can tweak to your liking, and take it from there.

If you don't mind my asking, were they all 50-52?

And cristof, the reason you're not getting an answer is because they don't know, niether do I, but I'll just say I don't know lol, instead of dodging the question.

Yes, that's what it looks like.

Thank you for your frankness.

Hey guys, what are your opinions of the lna650 vs the panny pz85u?

thanks

At least, as Cravenfan underlines too, we've learned that with a LCD A650 you can dim its "torch mode" by more than 50% and you will still be sure to have a bright picture (and whites).

With a PZ85U, be sure to like the brightness as you see it in store, because you can't go up in brightness that much.

A buyer must be advised on that specific aspect, if it finds it important for him.

At least, as Cravenfan underlines too, we've learned that with a LCD A650 you can dim its "torch mode" by more than 50% and you will still be sure to have a bright picture (and whites).

With a PZ85U, be sure to like the brightness as you see it in store, because you can't go up in brightness that much.

A buyer must be advised on that specific aspect, if it finds it important for him.

Several owners have commented that the PZ85 can be just as bright as an XBR4, which is very bright. I don't think that you need it much brighter than that.

Several owners have commented that the PZ85 can be just as bright as an XBR4, which is very bright. I don't think that you need it much brighter than that.

I agree with you: there's no need to be brighter than an XBR4. And it's interesting to know that several owners find PZ85 could be as bright as an XBR4. But what XBR4 settings are we talking about ? Generally speaking, good LCD's allow greater variation in brightness than good plasma (without insunuating that it's good or bad).

So I think the warning still remains. When you're shopping PZ85 or any plasma, just make sure the brightness you see in store is ok for you. Otherwise make sure to check if the upper limit of plasma brightness may suit your need, before going on. (if it's important for you). That's all.

How come LCDs have so brighter whites when plasmas claim to have brightness specs of 1000 cd/m2(LG) or 1200 cd/m2(Panny), compared to a "modest" 450cd/m2 for the LCD Samsung 81F ?

Theoretically plasma should have the brighter whites. Why it is not the case in practice ???

Post your question in the plasma forums and someone like xrox can probably provide all the specific technical facts as to why brightness is a limiting factor for plasmas. I believe it's a power consumption issue which is why text is brighter than an all white screen for example. Plasma is getting better. The new Panasonic plasmas brightness is now probably between something like last years TVs and a current LCDs.

Post your question in the plasma forums and someone like xrox can probably provide all the specific technical facts as to why brightness is a limiting factor for plasmas. I believe it's a power consumption issue which is why text is brighter than an all white screen for example. Plasma is getting better. The new Panasonic plasmas brightness is now probably between something like last years TVs and a current LCDs.
Very interesting points, xb1032. Thank you for your post.

Well said.
I think one of the main reasons there are so many people who come here and claim that LCD delivers the best PQ is because they go to Bestbuy to buy thier 1st HDTV and are told by the highschool BB salesman that LCD is superior. Then when they find out the truth, They are faced with buyers remorse and desperatly try to convince themselves and others that LCD is superior even though the facts show it simply is not. They looked at the contrast ratio advetised on the TV and immediatly thought that meant that it really had the best contrast.

You can't say the facts show the plasma is better, that's simply not a fact its an opinion. Personally I prefer the picture quality of plasma, however I realize that's my preference. Both techonologies have their strengths and weaknesses. Plasma generally has better blacks and LCD are brighter with cleaner whites. Both technologies are flawed and that is why I'm an advocated of new technologies that are vastly superior to LCD and PDP, including the Pioneers.

yeh both plasma and lcd have their issues, but still I think plasmas generally have the better overal picture quality; much more realistic and natural looking than LCDs.

however, I think both of these technologies will be replaced in 5-10 years though, because the future is OLED. I saw the sony 11" OLED at the sony store and it was unlike anything i've ever seen. it's miles beyond anything we have out now, no plasma or lcd can touch this thing; no clouds, no ghosting, no green trails, etc or any of the common drawbacks of LCD and plasmas. it's as close as it gets to being the perfect tv.

You should try actually owning things, and comparing them for yourselves, before repeating something you heard.

Peace!

Maybe you should find out who has owned various and numerous flat panels...then you will find you are talking to quite a few people who have made first hand comparisons in-home. ;)

Do you read the same reviews everyone else reads? Perhaps you should take your own homework advice.

from cnet
"Color accuracy: The TH-50PZ800U outclassed both of the other plasmas in our comparison in this department, and just about equaled the color accuracy of the Samsung LN52A650 LCD"

So idk, it seems to me that they're using the 650 as the reference for color accuracy, not a pioneer, or any other plasma, or is it my imagination?

from cnet:
"Black level: The Samsung LN52A650 reproduced one of the deepest shades of black we've seen from any LCD. It can't quite match the champ, Samsung's own LED-based LN-T4681F, but from what we remember, it's pretty dang close. The Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas got darker by a couple of hairs, although the Samsung solidly beat the two Sonys."

Who do they say the black level champ is? yes a samsung 81 series "LCD", so you can just quit it with kuro black levels already.



Again from cnet:
"Overall saturation, thanks to deep blacks and fine color balance, was equal to the superb Pioneer."

Does it clearly say, Plasma is the champ?
It looks to me like they say they're equal, but I don't know, maybe i'm just misunderstanding them and can't see the part that says, "we prefer the PQ of a plasma." as you say.



As mentioned earlier, the panasonics are simply bad in skin tone color accuracy, their have been several pro calibrators who have already worked on the sets, and have stated that there's no way to fix the orange skin tones on those sets. They're not a heaping pile, but they're definitely not any better than the best LCD's

I already gave you the evidence that you're wrong in both black levels and color accuracy. Yeah you're right on motion handling, congratulations, you got correct 1 of the 3 categories.



I flat out don't know what you're talking about there. Perhaps you were looking at the XBR a lot more than the 71, because I had a 71 before, and I didn't have a single one of those problems you're talking about. Either way, we're comparing the 650/750 series, not the XBR or the 71, so all of that doesn't matter anyway

In conclusion, yeah, we would all love to own a Pioneer Elite, just because it's nice to say it. But you can go ahead and spend your 8K on it, I'll stick with spending half of that money on an LCD that has already been "proven" to be just as accurate if not better in most cases to the all mighty Pioneers. That way I can get my extra few grands and spend it on a Pioneer Elite receiver :-)


I believe you are the one with some reading to do, sir.
CNET only reviewed the lowest Pio.
There are differences within the Kuro line-up of Elite and non-elites.
The 8G black levels are still .004, the lowest of all PDP's until the 9g's.
Also there is no raising of the blacks and there is no flashlighting as well.
Also, the last time a Kuro was close to 8K was the first month of the 8G 60" Elite. They quickly went down and the 9G elite will be nowhere close to 8K ;)
There is lots of reading out there that can be done to keep yourself from these types of situations in the future.

And as you agreed with, motion handling on LCD's is still very poor in my opinion.(friend owns Sam. 750)

Have yet to see what the XBR8 will be like in comparison with either a Pio or A650/750, since not only will the XBR8 have LEDs like the LN-T81F or A950 will, but it's going to have tri-colored LEDs, which they call Tri-Luminous. That should be something to see. Wonder if Pio and Samsung may have their work cut out for them after that speculation.

Maybe you should find out who has owned various and numerous flat panels...then you will find you are talking to quite a few people who have made first hand comparisons in-home. ;)

I am one of those people E-A-G-L-E-S. I'm sure I've mentioned before that I've owned plasmas since thier release, and still do own 3 plasmas and 2 lcds (although 1 of the 2 doesnt count, as its just a 26 incher in my sons room).

My plasmas are

A 42" Sony that I've had since 2001, and it's still kickin. Truly amazed of the build quality of this thing. I've never had to have it serviced (although it's due, as it suffers severly from degradation).

2 year old Hitachi, which still looks great.

42" 8g Elite.

A 5271 series Samsung.

The Pioneer and the Sammy are both ISF calibrated.

I've owned many other plasmas, but those are the only ones left.

yeh both plasma and lcd have their issues, but still I think plasmas generally have the better overal picture quality; much more realistic and natural looking than LCDs.

however, I think both of these technologies will be replaced in 5-10 years though, because the future is OLED. I saw the sony 11" OLED at the sony store and it was unlike anything i've ever seen. it's miles beyond anything we have out now, no plasma or lcd can touch this thing; no clouds, no ghosting, no green trails, etc or any of the common drawbacks of LCD and plasmas. it's as close as it gets to being the perfect tv.


Really diabolyte? I found it difficult to get an accurate assessment from the Sony, considering there really isn't anything to compare it to. The detail was fabulous considering the screen was so small, yet the detail was very visible. But wouldn't you think that the larger the screen, the more difficult it would be to conatin that clarity? Kind of goes back to the old thought process of 720p on smaller panels, as opposed to the 1080p on the larger panels. Really is difficult to notice a discernable difference between 1080 and 720 on the smaller panels. I dunno, guess we will have to wait and see.

Wonder if Pio and Samsung may have their work cut out for them after that speculation.


Samsung maybe,
Pioneer I highly doubt it Since some of the reviewers of the XBR8's little Panel display believe that the plasma they went up against wasn't even a Kuro but a non-kuro pioneer.
What happens when they go up against a 9th Gen Kuro???

Samsung maybe,
Pioneer I highly doubt it Since some of the reviewers of the XBR8's little Panel display believe that the plasma they went up against wasn't even a Kuro but a non-kuro pioneer.
What happens when they go up against a 9th Gen Kuro???

The guy who made that article confirmed in a email that it was a 9 gen Pioneer Kuro they tested the XBR8 against.

The guy who made that article confirmed in a email that it was a 9 gen Pioneer Kuro they tested the XBR8 against.

So was the 9g displaying a blue screen while the XBR8 was off (or a split feed with the XBR8 getting a black image and the 9g getting the blue screen), because I have never seen a plasma look like that in any lighting condition, even a Vizio plasma at walmart didn't display anything like that. (and how did they get a hold of a 9g before they were out?)

http://i26.tinypic.com/6q8vps.jpg

The guy who made that article confirmed in a email that it was a 9 gen Pioneer Kuro they tested the XBR8 against.

WOW!!

The guy who made that article confirmed in a email that it was a 9 gen Pioneer Kuro they tested the XBR8 against.

And that's how no Kuro has ever looked unless with a camera flash and set-up improperly on purpose....as you all know already.
I just took a shot of my Elite, which by the way is in my living room with a skylight, front door(mostly glass) and floor to ceiling extra large window.
It looks nowhere close to blue, just gray on a blank input screen with D-Nice's reference settings.

And that's how no Kuro has ever looked unless with a camera flash and set-up improperly on purpose....as you all know already.
I just took a shot of my Elite, which by the way is in my living room with a skylight, front door(mostly glass) and floor to ceiling extra large window.
It looks nowhere close to blue, just gray on a blank input screen with D-Nice's reference settings.

Well, why don't you post your pic.

Thanks
Auditor.

I don't have the connective cable yet.
I would love to, since you think you know so much. ;)

I don't have the connective cable yet.
I would love to, since you think you know so much. ;)

hmm, a likely story indeed.;)

I bought it from friend who bought a very nice camera, for the purposes of:
A. Taking pics of my install and remote set-up in the PS3, Apartment and Kuro threads.
b. To have a picture for future reference.
C. To prove enlighten people, like you ;), who have never owned one wrong on several fronts.
He didn't still have the cable or box or manual as it is now a few years old.
As soon as I get a chance tomorrow to run to Target I will buy one and get the pics up tomorrow evening courtesy photobucket;)



To answer the OP's original thread title question....yes LCD's are catching up.

Well, why don't you post your pic.

Thanks
Auditor.

Heres you a pic auditor.
This is my 6020 9G Kuro. wheres the blue in this??
One of these pictures was taken in the dark with the camera flash on, one was taken in the dark without flash. Looks totally black to me buddy.
And can you tell me where the screen ends and the bezel begins??

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/Picture016.jpg?t=1213406641
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/Picture017.jpg?t=1213406759


http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/Picture008-1.jpg?t=1213406809
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/Picture009-1.jpg?t=1213406827

The guy who made that article confirmed in a email that it was a 9 gen Pioneer Kuro they tested the XBR8 against.

thats strange. Since the 9G's were not availible when the article was made.
Its definitly not a XX20 model unless they made a custom stand. There is no speaker bar and no chicken legs either. I don't think its a 9G.

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/Picture049.jpg?t=1213471552

wow that's a deep black, it's pretty impressive. But damn is it really that gray when the lights are turned on?? in person??

wow that's a deep black, it's pretty impressive. But damn is it really that gray when the lights are turned on?? in person??

no its not.
That is just the effect of the camera flash being the only lighting at all.

Here is what it looks like in my living room during the daytime.
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/CopyofPicture071.jpg?t=1213554889

the problem with that pic i we can't see the image or did you forget to turn it on?

hahahah, I have that Voltron. Except mine is the giant sized metal one back from the 80's

the problem with that pic i we can't see the image or did you forget to turn it on?D-Nice tested the 9g Kuro with a 0% stimuli test pattern at 0FL after 30 seconds... Infinite on/off CR, Infinite Blacks, and the first step to black perfection.:rolleyes:Not bad:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Wow. Those pictures are amazing, I think they pretty much answer the thread title :D I'm sooo jealous ;)

Here is what it looks like in my living room during the daytime.

There's no shadow detail in your pics(except pics taken with flash). Check the camera settings.

http://i27.tinypic.com/28an5hd.jpg

D-Nice tested the 9g Kuro with a 0% stimuli test pattern at 0FL after 30 seconds... Infinite on/off CR, Infinite Blacks, and the first step to black perfection.:rolleyes:Not bad:rolleyes::rolleyes:

My iPod has similar feature. It turns the screen off to save energy.

Heres you a pic auditor.
This is my 6020 9G Kuro. wheres the blue in this??
One of these pictures was taken in the dark with the camera flash on, one was taken in the dark without flash. Looks totally black to me buddy.
And can you tell me where the screen ends and the bezel begins??

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/Picture016.jpg?t=1213406641
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/Picture017.jpg?t=1213406759


http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/Picture008-1.jpg?t=1213406809
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/Picture009-1.jpg?t=1213406827

I must agree, no blue on in your pics. No doubts, your blacks are deep and impressive.

There's no shadow detail in your pics(except pics taken with flash). Check the camera settings.

http://i27.tinypic.com/28an5hd.jpg

Where'd this picture come from? It appears it was some photoshop manipulation or something, which is pretty lame on your part. :rolleyes:

I recently had both the 650 Sammy LCD and a Kuro 5080 side by side in my house. I had both hooked up to my Dish HD DVR & OTA antenna. I also used settings offered in the settings thread for both TVs.

I had the 650 in house first, and I thought the picture was awesome. It does have a great picture, and I probably would have been happy with it if I had just kept it and never tried anything else. Well, I kept reading about how great the Kuros were and that plasma was better (never owned plasma), so I went to Bestbuy and picked up a 5080 for a closeout price ($700 cheaper than the Sammy).

I watched A LOT of content on both at the same time. I came to the conclusion that the 5080 had better and more accurate colors. Skin tones were obviously better on the 5080. Contrast and black levels were much better on the 5080 as well. If I was picking between those two, even forgetting the price difference I thought the 5080 was better. The overall viewing experience wasn't a huge difference in favor of the 5080 (they were both great displays), but the 5080 was better. I returned both of those sets, however. I have a Kuro 6020 coming my way right now.

I have two other LCDs in the house, and I had never owned a plasma. I am a fanboy of neither. But the above is what my eyes saw. Take it for what it is worth.

So you bought the sets only to try them out knowing you will not keep either. Its was just an in home trial all the time right? Thanks to that kind of practice, the costs is passed to us buyers who return sets for legit reasons. This is not a 20 dollar shirt you are returning on a whim.

So you bought the sets only to try them out knowing you will not keep either. Its was just an in home trial all the time right? Thanks to that kind of practice, the costs is passed to us buyers who return sets for legit reasons. This is not a 20 dollar shirt you are returning on a whim.

Oh I am sure Bestbuy will make a nice chuck of change selling it open box regardless.

I returned a 5080 about 6 months ago to bestbuy and about a week later I went to bestbuy and saw the same 5080 I brought back for sale open box. It was selling for 100$ more than I bought it for. In my case, they actually turned a profit. lol.
these "any reason" return policys are one of the reasons that they mark up the price so high compared to online dealers.
So your paying for the policy anyway.

The guy who made that article confirmed in a email that it was a 9 gen Pioneer Kuro they tested the XBR8 against.


So was the 9g displaying a blue screen while the XBR8 was off (or a split feed with the XBR8 getting a black image and the 9g getting the blue screen), because I have never seen a plasma look like that in any lighting condition, even a Vizio plasma at walmart didn't display anything like that. (and how did they get a hold of a 9g before they were out?)

http://i26.tinypic.com/6q8vps.jpg


WOW!!


OK so I took a picture of my 9th Gen Kuro and I combined the picture of the "so called" 9G kuro from Sony's comparison picture.
Now,
The picture I took of my Kuro was with a very bright camera flash. So the screen isn't as black as it would be in normal lighting conditions.
But one thing is FOR SURE! IT is nowhere near as Blue as the Picture sony is throwing around.
This leads me to believe it is not a 9G kuro.
Another thing, if you look at sonys "so called" 9G kuro picture you will notice there is no bottom speaker. Anyone who owns a 9G non-elite will tell you that without the bottom speaker the set stands on two long skinny "chicken legs". SO where are they in the picture??

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/compare.jpg?t=1213557179

The guy who made that article confirmed in a email that it was a 9 gen Pioneer Kuro they tested the XBR8 against.

Actually there was no confirmation in his email as he said he wasn't allowed to disclose what the panel was. He suggested for the person to come to their own conclusion. By the pictures alone it's impossible to say.

Where'd this picture come from? It appears it was some photoshop manipulation or something, which is pretty lame on your part. :rolleyes:

Camera pictures usually crush the black levels of a TV, using post processing like added exposure or more shadow detail can sometimes show how the picture really looked.

hahahah, I have that Voltron. Except mine is the giant sized metal one back from the 80's

Thats what this one is.
It is the original Matchbox voltron from the 80's made of diecast.
I collect transformers and stuff like that.
Heres a better picture of Voltron:
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/Picture073.jpg?t=1213312877
Voltron says: KURO ROCKS!

Thats what this one is.
It is the original Matchbox voltron from the 80's made of diecast.
I collect transformers and stuff like that.
Heres a better picture of Voltron:
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/Picture073.jpg?t=1213312877
Voltron says: KURO ROCKS!

Yeah i've had mine since I was kid, it looked smaller in the picture but I didn't realize it's just because it was next to a really big TV, lol

If a LCD has a reflective screen why not just get a plasma?

If a LCD has a reflective screen why not just get a plasma?

Because they're about 15 other things people need to consider when buying a TV other than a reflective screen

Because they're about 15 other things people need to consider when buying a TV other than a reflective screen

Only two things I considered when I made my purchase. My budget and what looked best to me within my budget.

If a LCD has a reflective screen why not just get a plasma?

Uhm, probably because you can pick up a Samsung ToC LCD for about the same price on some certain popular online retailer for around the same price of that of a comparable Panasonic or Pioneer, and better on the electric bill at the same token.

hi all,

i am searching for a flat screen, i have seen all new pana plasma models in action, they are amazing. the only think that i canßt handle is the flickering screen and the phosphor lag.

what about a lcd, for example the samsung 40" a656 ?

what i need is a very fast tv with no motion blur. what will be the best buy for me ?

regards
taubenspikes

hi all,

i am searching for a flat screen, i have seen all new pana plasma models in action, they are amazing. the only think that i canßt handle is the flickering screen and the phosphor lag.

what about a lcd, for example the samsung 40" a656 ?

what i need is a very fast tv with no motion blur. what will be the best buy for me ?

regards
taubenspikes

A 9G Pioneer plasma. If you want good motion resolution there are no options with LCDs

Uhm, probably because you can pick up a Samsung ToC LCD for about the same price on some certain popular online retailer for around the same price of that of a comparable Panasonic or Pioneer, and better on the electric bill at the same token.

If you are buying a $3000 TV and worried about not being able to pay your power bill your priorities are messed up. Power consumption would come in last out of dozens of other things to consider when buying a TV

Uhm, probably because you can pick up a Samsung ToC LCD for about the same price on some certain popular online retailer for around the same price of that of a comparable Panasonic or Pioneer, and better on the electric bill at the same token.

Better on the electric bill? and what amount are we even talking here?

A 9G Pioneer plasma. If you want good motion resolution there are no options with LCDs

ok thanks, i will buy the pana pz85 :D

ok thanks, i will buy the pana pz85 :D

Take a look at flesh tones of the panasonics because there's been tests stating the flesh tones are not very good and look orange, and that i can't be corrected

That's just wrong, the skintones are no where near as bad as what you describe. Quite a few people are satisfied with the color of the set and those that aren't have the 800U to look at which will give them pretty much perfect color. There's still no other LCD than the 81f that can touch any of the Panasonic or Pioneer sets in motion resolution, I find it funny that when this is brought up most LCD fans are silent.

That's just wrong, the skintones are no where near as bad as what you describe. Quite a few people are satisfied with the color of the set and those that aren't have the 800U to look at which will give them pretty much perfect color. There's still no other LCD than the 81f that can touch any of the Panasonic or Pioneer sets in motion resolution, I find it funny that when this is brought up most LCD fans are silent.

Okay, and? what's funny about it? You're not coming down the mountains with the stone tablets with that news. No one's disputing that plasmas handle motion better. And the 81's motion resolution is worse than even the older 71's anyway.

About the skin tone issue, some pro calibrators on this forum who have done the testing have said that. So if they're wrong and you know otherwise then argue it with them.

Have you seen this with your own eyes?
I ask because I have only seen the 85U's and in a showroom none the less, so I couldn't make 'any' judgements.

Okay, and? what's funny about it? You're not coming down the mountains with the stone tablets with that news. No one's disputing that plasmas handle motion better. And the 81's motion resolution is worse than even the older 71's anyway.

About the skin tone issue, some pro calibrators on this forum who have done the testing have said that. So if they're wrong and you know otherwise then argue it with them.

So the 71 series had more than 800 lines of motion resolution then? (the 81 series uses a LED pulse technique to introduce flicker and minimize sample and hold blur, most 1080p plasma sets have 900+ lines of motion resolution. (with some claiming zero resolution loss) As I understand it the 71 series had 600 lines of motion resolution.

Very interesting thread.

I have had the 85U, 800U, and A550 LCD in the house. I have also spent hours on end in front of A750 LCD and 800U at the same time in direct comparison. That and that alone told me the current plasma's are about 5-6 years ahead of LCD. As far behind as LCDs are, I think they will stop making them before they do catch up. Yes I know the vast majority of the population buys LCDs and most people have no idea how to driver either. Thats ok, I can live with that.

Now all the rubbish about the 85U not being able to make accurate skin tones, is just that - rubbish! It is very unfortunate that some "self proclaimed" professionals have determined the 85U has to much red push. Funny, I know a lot more average John Does that can take an 85U, and make it pretty darn close to the 800U THX mode, out of the box.

No technology is perfect, and they all have a long way to go to make them a lot better. The 2010 models appear to be another major step forward for plasma's (about 18 months). OLED appear promising; but currently they do not last and the price is insane. I have not seen anything big on the LCD front the last 12 months, and I am not aware of any major improvements within the next 2 years? With the one exception being the IPS Alpha panels which are amazing, but neither Samsung nor Sony use those or anything like it?

Now all the rubbish about the 85U not being able to make accurate skin tones, is just that - rubbish! It is very unfortunate that some "self proclaimed" professionals have determined the 85U has to much red push. Funny, I know a lot more average John Does that can take an 85U, and make it pretty darn close to the 800U THX mode, out of the box.



A certified ISF technician said that the 85u can NOT get accurate colors no matter what, there are a lot of TV panels like this out now, no need to get defensive about it.
Your eyeing a set isn't as good enough as someone who has years of experience & over $60,000 of equipment to test with.

Okay, and? what's funny about it? You're not coming down the mountains with the stone tablets with that news. No one's disputing that plasmas handle motion better. And the 81's motion resolution is worse than even the older 71's anyway.

About the skin tone issue, some pro calibrators on this forum who have done the testing have said that. So if they're wrong and you know otherwise then argue it with them.

Yeah and a few (calibrators) own it and don't seem to think it's as catastrophic as you think. I know I'm not wrong I've got the TV on next to me right now :p The colors may not be as good as the 800U but they are definitely not as bad as a few people that have said. As for the set being "good" enough for someone well I can't really answer that other than personally, obviously since I'm defending it you know the answer.

PENDRAG0ON is right, even us plasma guys know that the 81f beats the 71f with motion handling.

A certified ISF technician said that the 85u can NOT get accurate colors no matter what, there are a lot of TV panels like this out now, no need to get defensive about it.
Your eyeing a set isn't as good enough as someone who has years of experience & over $60,000 of equipment to test with.

How can he be so defensive? If I recall correctly he returned the thing for an 800U! If anyone would know how big of a difference there would be it would be him.

The only part that sounded a little inappropriate was when he said "some self proclaimed professional", because the person that actually said is regarded as one of the best ISF certified techs out there. While I can agree and atest to the fact that there are more winky dink ISF calibrators than there are actual professionals out there, Jeff from Accucal isn't one of them, he and Kevin Miller are definitely no slouches.

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/compare.jpg?t=1213557179

I think it's time for a summer cleaning!

I just don't get this whole, plasma is years ahead of LCD. I have seen many lcds and plasma tvs, and honestly, in anything but a VERY dark room, LCD to me produces the best picture. I don't like the dark picture a plasma produces and I notice a lot more grain in the picture. I agree that plasmas blacks are a little better and the color can be better. I also love the AMP(dejudder) processing on my Samsung. It looks weird sometimes, but other times it just makes things look so 3d and lifelike. My wife, who was against me buying the tv, and who will watch shows in SD instead of going to the HD channel, actually said, that the tv picture was amazing!! For her to compliment the tv, is close to a miracle.

I did so much comparing and research before I bought my A650, but I have not seen a tv with a better picture, aside from the A950. I looked at the Kuro and I thought the samsungs had a better picture. I guess everyone has their own idea of what looks good. To me, I think the newest lcds are better then plasmas, on top of the no worry factor that lcds have. My brothers Panasonic plasma also pumps out heat like crazy!! I just amazes me that people say things like years ahead, not even the same ballpark etc.. All current high end tvs are in the same ballpark, and all have amazing picutres, some just do things a little better.

I just don't get this whole, plasma is years ahead of LCD. I have seen many lcds and plasma tvs, and honestly, in anything but a VERY dark room, LCD to me produces the best picture. I don't like the dark picture a plasma produces and I notice a lot more grain in the picture. I agree that plasmas blacks are a little better and the color can be better. I also love the AMP(dejudder) processing on my Samsung. It looks weird sometimes, but other times it just makes things look so 3d and lifelike. My wife, who was against me buying the tv, and who will watch shows in SD instead of going to the HD channel, actually said, that the tv picture was amazing!! For her to compliment the tv, is close to a miracle.

I did so much comparing and research before I bought my A650, but I have not seen a tv with a better picture, aside from the A950. I looked at the Kuro and I thought the samsungs had a better picture. I guess everyone has their own idea of what looks good. To me, I think the newest lcds are better then plasmas, on top of the no worry factor that lcds have. My brothers Panasonic plasma also pumps out heat like crazy!! I just amazes me that people say things like years ahead, not even the same ballpark etc.. All current high end tvs are in the same ballpark, and all have amazing picutres, some just do things a little better.

You dug this hatefest back up, but i would like to say that i agree with pretty much everything you say. I'd also like to say (again) that i sold my panny pz80u for a 650, and the PQ of the 650 is just so much clearer.... just my opinion though:rolleyes:

The plasma vs LCD arguments are pretty useless. Some ppl like LCD, some like plasma, some like both. Ultimately, the market will decide.

Right now, it's deciding in favor of LCD, but it's possible that, with some clever marketing and good technology (such as Panasonic's Neo PDPs), plasma might be able to turn the tide some in its favor, and co-exist happily with LCD in the market for many years to come.

For me, it's more of a 'right tool for the right job' sort of thing. If you watch mostly movies in a controlled-lighting home theater room, get a plasma. If you watch mostly TV in a light-filled living room, get an LCD.

There is no one 'right' answer/tech to the plasma vs LCD question for all situations, much as the partisans of both technologies would like us to believe otherwise. :rolleyes:
.

...For me, it's more of a 'right tool for the right job' sort of thing. If you watch mostly movies in a controlled-lighting home theater room, get a plasma. If you watch mostly TV in a light-filled living room, get an LCD.

There is no one 'right' answer/tech to the plasma vs LCD question for all situations, much as the partisans of both technologies would like us to believe otherwise. :rolleyes:
.


Correct. Plasmas definitely give the better PQ, and can even do an acceptable job in bright rooms. On the other hand, there are other factors to consider; for example, you can leave an LCD with a static image on it for hours, without having to be concerned about IR or burn-in.

The plasma vs LCD arguments are pretty useless. Some ppl like LCD, some like plasma, some like both. Ultimately, the market will decide.

Right now, it's deciding in favor of LCD, but it's possible that, with some clever marketing and good technology (such as Panasonic's Neo PDPs), plasma might be able to turn the tide some in its favor, and co-exist happily with LCD in the market for many years to come.

For me, it's more of a 'right tool for the right job' sort of thing. If you watch mostly movies in a controlled-lighting home theater room, get a plasma. If you watch mostly TV in a light-filled living room, get an LCD.

There is no one 'right' answer/tech to the plasma vs LCD question for all situations, much as the partisans of both technologies would like us to believe otherwise. :rolleyes:
.

Both PDP and LCD are inferior to SED though.

Both PDP and LCD are inferior to SED though.

Actually they are superior in the fact that they exist while SED doesn't. :)

Correct. Plasmas definitely give the better PQ...

I'm not sure about that anymore.

I mean yeah, the Kuro is still the ultimate, at least in a dark room. But it's going away.

Just today, I finally saw a Sammy 7100 LED LCD in-person (in-store). It was pretty impressive, and definitely blew away the Panny 800U next to it. Admittedly, it was a fairly bright viewing environment, but still, the 800U is very well-regarded. I was kinda shocked that it wasn't closer.

I haven't seen the new Panny 'Neo' plasmas in-person yet, but it must be a bit scary to plasma partisans that a very good plasma from just last year can get spanked by an LCD.

What I think will come to plasma's rescue is cost.

The Neos, going by Chris' screenshots anyway, seem to be on par or slightly better than the new LED LCD Sammys- but, most importantly- they do it for quite a bit LESS MONEY.

In this horrible recession, that's a great thing.

Now Panny just needs to exploit that edge by marketing lots, and effectively. And they need to slay the misinformation and fear that's out there about plasma, such as burn-in. A lifetime burn-in warranty on their plasmas would be a really good idea, actually.

Takes away the fear of buying a plasma, which is probably the technology's biggest enemy right now.
.

Actually [LCD and plasma] are superior in the fact that they exist while SED doesn't. :)

Yup. Apparently Audie didn't get the memo that you can't beat something with nothing. ;)
.

I'm not sure about that anymore.

I mean yeah, the Kuro is still the ultimate, at least in a dark room. But it's going away.

Just today, I finally saw a Sammy 7100 LED LCD in-person (in-store). It was pretty impressive, and definitely blew away the Panny 800U next to it. Admittedly, it was a fairly bright viewing environment, but still, the 800U is very well-regarded. I was kinda shocked that it wasn't closer.

I haven't seen the new Panny 'Neo' plasmas in-person yet, but it must be a bit scary to plasma partisans that a very good plasma from just last year can get spanked by an LCD.

What I think will come to plasma's rescue is cost.

The Neos, going by Chris' screenshots anyway, seem to be on par or slightly better than the new LED LCD Sammys- but, most importantly- they do it for quite a bit LESS MONEY.

In this horrible recession, that's a great thing.

Now Panny just needs to exploit that edge by marketing lots, and effectively. And they need to slay the misinformation and fear that's out there about plasma, such as burn-in. A lifetime burn-in warranty on their plasmas would be a really good idea, actually.

Takes away the fear of buying a plasma, which is probably the technology's biggest enemy right now.
.

They'll never do that. In my instructions for my 50pz80u (which i sold) it specifically stated that burn-in and IR was NOT covered by warranty in any way shape or form. It kind of startled me to read that, as everyone else seems to insist burn-in doesn't exist anymore. And with that TV, i DID have a couple of scary experiences with IR (call of duty logos/gauges stayed on for days after a 6 hour gaming session). Not saying "plasma sucks" or anything, but i don't see them giving any kind of warranty for burn-in, especially for life.

They'll never do that. In my instructions for my 50pz80u (which i sold) it specifically stated that burn-in and IR was NOT covered by warranty in any way shape or form. It kind of startled me to read that, as everyone else seems to insist burn-in doesn't exist anymore. And with that TV, i DID have a couple of scary experiences with IR (call of duty logos/gauges stayed on for days after a 6 hour gaming session). Not saying "plasma sucks" or anything, but i don't see them giving any kind of warranty for burn-in, especially for life.

That's sad to hear. I think if the plasma makers can't remove the fear of buying plasma once and for all, then plasma is going to be niche quite soon, and perhaps dead not all that long after that.

It's just so holding plasma back, marketshare-wise. But if burn-in is still an issue for real, then they don't dare offer the warranty, as you say.
.

No it's not, plasma sales were up last year.

They'll never do that. In my instructions for my 50pz80u (which i sold) it specifically stated that burn-in and IR was NOT covered by warranty in any way shape or form. It kind of startled me to read that, as everyone else seems to insist burn-in doesn't exist anymore. And with that TV, i DID have a couple of scary experiences with IR (call of duty logos/gauges stayed on for days after a 6 hour gaming session). Not saying "plasma sucks" or anything, but i don't see them giving any kind of warranty for burn-in, especially for life.

I agree it would be foolish to offer a lifetime warranty for something that's typically caused by abuse or just pure carelessness. As for the warnings in the instruction manuals, both of my Samsung LCD's have the same warning in the front of their respective manuals.

I agree it would be foolish to offer a lifetime warranty for something that's typically caused by abuse or just pure carelessness. As for the warnings in the instruction manuals, both of my Samsung LCD's have the same warning in the front of their respective manuals.

...which could be a result of a simple cut-and-paste act by the manual editor in cooperation with a lets-cover-our-corporate-rear-end legal team. A quick call to the CS at Samsung will reveal that they do not support the notion of IR or burn-in being close when it comes to plasma and LCDs.

...which could be a result of a simple cut-and-paste act by the manual editor in cooperation with a lets-cover-our-corporate-rear-end legal team. A quick call to the CS at Samsung will reveal that they do not support the notion of IR or burn-in being close when it comes to plasma and LCDs.

could be a lot of reasons that I could also make up and speculate about but the bottom line the only fact we know is that it's in both plasma and LCD manuals which is what I stated.

PS, don't put a lot of stock into what CS people say. They are so far removed from the technical aspects and mechanical workings of their displays and if you're lucky now days, you even get one that speaks and understands English.

Now let's do this thread some justice and not nit pick what's in a manual and what it means.

No it's not, plasma sales were up last year.

IIRC, the 'really good' numbers for plasma were for commercial sales. Which is a small percentage of the market as a whole.

For the market as a whole, plasma sales grew year-over-year (again, IIRC), but not as fast as LCD did. CRT and RPTV dropped a lot, so plasma is taking share from there, not LCD.

Point being, plasma's competitive position vs LCD does not appear to be improving, even if its overall sales are rising a bit, at the expense of dying display technologies.

Additionally, plasma's market share is pretty small overall, though it does get better if you count only large set sizes.
.