Panasonic Beats Plasma Picture Quality with TC-AX800U Series - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-17-2014, 10:35 AM
Member
 
proyal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardoski View Post

If this new Panasonic is better then the Plasmas we should celebrate, progress is a beautiful thing, thanks for the article.


It's impossible !

stas3098 likes this.
proyal is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-17-2014, 10:37 AM
Advanced Member
 
cardoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Beyond The Wall.
Posts: 923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by proyal View Post


It's impossible !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcz_kDCBTBk
chirpie likes this.

James Reid:D
cardoski is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 10:38 AM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 358
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post


Only when the backlight shuts off. I can't vouch for your ST but both the 9th gen kuros and the VT/ZT deliver deeper blacks than the sharp elite in mixed content.


I meant sidebar-wise:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by proyal View Post
 


First, nobody believes you imagic. Who do you think you are anyway to talk like this ?

Everything in this world is either 1 or 0, black or white. Mathematically things are precise, language wise everything is interpretable and not precise.

 

The ZT60 is probably superior in all aspects. How can a panel with less contrast be able to show better details in the shadows ? And how can an ordinary LCD like the Panasonic be able to render better colors.

 

Dream on.


HP dreamcolor can render better colors than any plasma out there and it's from 2008...


....
stas3098 is offline  
Old 05-17-2014, 10:38 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,399
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1731 Post(s)
Liked: 3066
Quote:
Originally Posted by proyal View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
 

Except it is better than the ZT60 at rendering color and details in the shadows, without resorting to local dimming... so it's not as "black and white" as it used to be.


First, nobody believes you imagic. Who do you think you are anyway to talk like this ?

Everything in this world is either 1 or 0, black or white. Mathematically things are precise, language wise everything is interpretable and not precise.

 

The ZT60 is probably superior in all aspects. How can a panel with less contrast be able to show better details in the shadows ? And how can an ordinary LCD like the Panasonic be able to render better colors.

 

Dream on.

 

Interesting, I've read the comments and come to a different conclusion. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

Mark,

HDguru also wrote about having been given a demonstration by Panasonic.

http://hdguru.com/hands-on-panasonics-tc-l65ax800-4k-ultra-hdtv/

He appears to have formed similar impressions of the display to what you did. You have made it clear from the outset that these were subjective opinions by you, and that you intend to do follow up technical hands on evaluations, in the near future. Yes of course Panasonic invited you and HDguru for marketing purposes, but they still had to demonstrate that the panel looked impressive. i trust your initial judgement on that. Thanks for the report.
 

Thank you too!

RayWK likes this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 10:41 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,399
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1731 Post(s)
Liked: 3066
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post

I think the reason we're questioning you is that this was clearly a demonstration panasonic used to put their new flagship model in the best possible 'light' (no pun intended). I'd be shocked if the AX didn't look absolutely bonkers awesome-- because the demonstration was clearly designed and engineered to do exactly that.

Gotta give panny credit; they definitely invited the right person. Imagine how different this likely would have gone down if they invited a calibrator like dnice into the room to put the TVs through their paces?

 

It is what it is, a press event. You are right, they invited the right person. I can calibrate as well, but that's not what the event was for. The opportunity to do all that will come soon enough.

greenland likes this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 10:48 AM
Member
 
proyal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
 

 

Interesting, I've read the comments and come to a different conclusion. 

If you think your subjective experience makes us to believe and trust in your senses you failed as a preacher.

 

You can ignore the graph from http://televisions.reviewed.com/

But you can't ignore their math.

TC-65AX800U 4K

We measured a total viewing angle of 24°, or ±12° from center to either side within the Home theater picture mode.

 

Quote:
 Another weak area for the AX800U is in horizontal viewing angle. Viewing angle—or how far from center you can watch a TV before the picture begins to be washed out—is especially important for a larger TV like this one; as it stands, it's more prone to be wall-mounted, where viewing angle is especially important. We measured a total viewing angle of 24°, or ±12° from center to either side within the Home theater picture mode. This is a disappointing result to be sure, and something that buyers should consider prior to purchase.
 

 

 

Panasonic-AX800U-Viewing-Angle.jpg

The AX800U has a relatively narrow horizontal viewing angle.

proyal is offline  
Old 05-17-2014, 10:55 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,399
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1731 Post(s)
Liked: 3066
Quote:
Originally Posted by proyal View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
 

 

Interesting, I've read the comments and come to a different conclusion. 

If you think your subjective experience makes us to believe and trust in your senses you failed as a preacher.

 

You can ignore the graph from http://televisions.reviewed.com/

But you can't ignore their math.

TC-65AX800U 4K

We measured a total viewing angle of 24°, or ±12° from center to either side within the Home theater picture mode.

 

What's the threshold that determines when the viewing angle results in unacceptable quality? Purely measurement-based testing taken out of context can lead to erroneous conclusions. I'd just like to know what parameters they use.


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markabuckley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 19
took a look at an AX802 (think thats the model no.) in store today and not sure if it was the setup - but was also quite surprised at the narrow horizontal viewing angle (especially as a current Panasonic Pro Plasma owner)

have to say it did put me off a bit especially considering the premium price - need to get a better demo though

with my aged eyes it felt like the contrast suffered more than any colour shift - ie the colours only seemed to "pop" almost straight on

out of all the 4k sets I saw today (LOADS) - obviously all doing different store demos - so not a real test - the one set that jumped out at me out of all of them was a non 4K set - a Sony 55W905 - looked superb - and was half the price of the rest
proyal likes this.
markabuckley is offline  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:15 AM
Member
 
proyal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
 

 

What's the threshold that determines when the viewing angle results in unacceptable quality? Purely measurement-based testing taken out of context can lead to erroneous conclusions. I'd just like to know what parameters they use.

 

Please read very carefully.

 

http://televisions.reviewed.com/ethics

http://televisions.reviewed.com/how_we_test

 

Quote:
Viewing Angle

Our viewing angle test examines the contrast ratio and color shift of the display at different viewing angles. We measure the contrast ratio at 5 degree increments from 0 degrees (straight on) to ±85 degrees. Our scoring for this test is based upon the point at which the contrast ratio has fallen by 50 percent from the maximum we measured at 0 degrees. This means that our ranges of satisfactory viewing angles are very different from the ones the manufacturers publish, which are generally based on the angle at which the contrast ratio falls to 10:1. We feel that this is far too low, since most displays have a face-on contrast ratio of over 1000:1, making a 10:1 contrast ratio unwatchable.

 

Of course you are right as http://televisions.reviewed.com/ tested the same narrow angles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markabuckley View Post

took a look at an AX802 (think thats the model no.) in store today and not sure if it was the setup - but was also quite surprised at the narrow horizontal viewing angle (especially as a current Panasonic Pro Plasma owner)

have to say it did put me off a bit especially considering the premium price - need to get a better demo though

with my aged eyes it felt like the contrast suffered more than any color shift - ie the colors only seemed to "pop" almost straight on

out of all the 4k sets I saw today (LOADS) - obviously all doing different store demos - so not a real test - the one set that jumped out at me out of all of them was a non 4K set - a Sony 55W905 - looked superb - and was half the price of the rest
StinDaWg likes this.
proyal is offline  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
Phrehdd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Looks like Panasonic is moving in the right direction but alas, many of us are invested in Blue Ray and DVD. For myself (and maybe others), the real test is not in UHD media but 1080p or less. This would be the first comparison I would want to check out if I was there. Although I have read some thoughts that playing 1080p on a screen designed for higher resolution would have "issues," it also can be said it might possibly provide even better play and in some respects look sharper due to edge agency being interpolated to provide what dithering does but without the negatives of dithering.

I can't imagine how any LC/LED OLED offering will best a plasma on 23.9xx/24 playback.

If anyone has some thoughts or data on 1080p playback on TVs of this type please share your thoughts or suggested readings.
stas3098 likes this.
Phrehdd is offline  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markabuckley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 19
my last 2 displays (both Panasonic Pro Plasma) range have been superb, reliable, and faultless

I'd get a Panasonic Plasma (VT or ZT) but they're getting scarce on the ground, and even as a Plasma fan (die-hard!) -could I justify a 1080p Plasma over a 4K LCD

but then a 4K Panasonic over last years high-end Sony W905 for half the price - even with 1/4 the pixels

no clue

then theres the cheap Samsungs 6 series 4K sets which "look good" in the stores

looking forward to the detailed reviews on all these thats for sure
markabuckley is offline  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:33 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1011
Quote:
Originally Posted by stas3098 View Post


I heartily agree with you on this one, but I wish to point out the fact that Sharp Elite has better black levels than my ST60 and I guess, Elite even beats the lauded Kuro blacks...
True, but it doesn't beat the blacks of a tweaked Kuro. wink.gif
David Susilo likes this.
vinnie97 is offline  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Cal1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

What's the threshold that determines when the viewing angle results in unacceptable quality? Purely measurement-based testing taken out of context can lead to erroneous conclusions. I'd just like to know what parameters they use.

A real world question Mark. If you have 90" wide double recliner couch like I do and are sitting dead center, I'm sure that, like all LEDs, the image looks bright, with full contrast, deep blacks and excellent saturation. If you move to one recliner seat or the other which results in about a 20 degree shift from center, how would the picture look, especially at night with some moderate room lighting. That, to me, is the real test. I briefly had a Sony 55W900 and while it had a great picture from a center seating position, if I moved to a recliner side, there was a noticeable negative impact on the picture. It went back and I got 55VT60 which I am thrilled with. Unless Panasonic has made a significant leap in LED technology, I would tend to take the viewing angle charts seriously, but I would be interested in what you actually saw and the environment that the set was in.
herpderp likes this.
Cal1981 is offline  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:47 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,399
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1731 Post(s)
Liked: 3066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal1981 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

What's the threshold that determines when the viewing angle results in unacceptable quality? Purely measurement-based testing taken out of context can lead to erroneous conclusions. I'd just like to know what parameters they use.

A real world question Mark. If you have 90" wide double recliner couch like I do and are sitting dead center, I'm sure that, like all LEDs, the image looks bright, with full contrast, deep blacks and excellent saturation. If you move to one recliner seat or the other which results in about a 20 degree shift from center, how would the picture look, especially at night with some moderate room lighting. That, to me, is the real test. I briefly had a Sony 55W900 and while it had a great picture from a center seating position, if I moved to a recliner side, there was a noticeable negative impact on the picture. It went back and I got 55VT60 which I am thrilled with. Unless Panasonic has made a significant leap in LED technology, I would tend to take the viewing angle charts seriously, but I would be interested in what you actually saw and the environment that the set was in.

 

For most of the presentation, the AX800U was off to the side from where I was sitting, at an angle more extreme than what you describe, as if I was in a recliner that was set to the side of a couch.

 

Reviewed.com makes it quite clear its tolerances for viewing angle are quite tight.

 

"Our viewing angle test examines the contrast ratio and color shift of the display at different viewing angles. We measure the contrast ratio at 5 degree increments from 0 degrees (straight on) to ±85 degrees. Our scoring for this test is based upon the point at which the contrast ratio has fallen by 50 percent from the maximum we measured at 0 degrees. This means that our ranges of satisfactory viewing angles are very different from the ones the manufacturers publish, which are generally based on the angle at which the contrast ratio falls to 10:1. We feel that this is far too low, since most displays have a face-on contrast ratio of over 1000:1, making a 10:1 contrast ratio unwatchable."

 

I've read enough to know that a 50% reduction (from 5000:1 to 2500:1, for example) in measured contrast is not the end of the world. 


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,132
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 663 Post(s)
Liked: 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by proyal View Post

http://televisions.reviewed.com/ethics
http://televisions.reviewed.com/how_we_test
Quote:
Viewing Angle

Our viewing angle test examines the contrast ratio and color shift of the display at different viewing angles. We measure the contrast ratio at 5 degree increments from 0 degrees (straight on) to ±85 degrees. Our scoring for this test is based upon the point at which the contrast ratio has fallen by 50 percent from the maximum we measured at 0 degrees. This means that our ranges of satisfactory viewing angles are very different from the ones the manufacturers publish, which are generally based on the angle at which the contrast ratio falls to 10:1. We feel that this is far too low, since most displays have a face-on contrast ratio of over 1000:1, making a 10:1 contrast ratio unwatchable.

Of course you are right as http://televisions.reviewed.com/ tested the same narrow angles.
That is a somewhat misleading way to measure. For example, if you start with a VA panel that's 4000:1 dead center the viewing angle threshold is 2000:1 in their test, but yet they will compare it directly to an IPS panel that can't hit 2000:1 even dead center and declare the 1500:1 (dead center) IPS panel has larger viewing angles because it can get wider before getting to 750:1. If you use the same 750:1 threshold criteria for both panels does the IPS panel still have the larger viewing angle?
Stereodude is offline  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:52 AM
Senior Member
 
emcdade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 79
I think you're seeing some backlash due to the sensationalist thread title to be honest.
emcdade is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,132
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 663 Post(s)
Liked: 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcdade View Post

I think you're seeing some backlash due to the sensationalist thread title to be honest.
Of course. That was intentional I'm sure. He's trying to get eyeballs to the thread.
David Susilo, mo949 and stas3098 like this.
Stereodude is offline  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
saprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 3,453
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked: 275
Yeah, I'll believe it when I see a retail model.

You can't fixed problems that's inherent to LCD technology.
stas3098 likes this.

home theater addict
saprano is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:56 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,399
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1731 Post(s)
Liked: 3066
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcdade View Post

I think you're seeing some backlash due to the sensationalist thread title to be honest.

 

I can see that. It's provocative. However, there's plenty of room for interpretation—and in numerous image-quality parameters it's a true statement, especially when referring to plasma in general rather than focusing of the very best plasmas ever made.


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 12:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,596
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 883 Post(s)
Liked: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

True FALD does.

Isn't clouding backlight bleeding? Panasonic said was that local dimming was not used because it affected the accuracy of the rendition of shadows. However, it also had the effect of making the screen look very uniform, even in ultra-dark scenes. That's what set the AX800U apart, more than anything... rendition of shadow details. I understand what you mean though, with TVs that are very uneven, shutting off some (or all) of the backlights/edgelights creates a (relatively) smoother black background, if you can ignore the halos or flashlight artifacts and all the other distractions that creates.

the two samsungs I brought home were edgelit led, no dimming or anything fancy. d6300's. my understanding is that the problem is the panels being so thin. you can't reproduce a uniform backlight from many tiny point sources unless you have room to spread out that light. with edgelit models it's even worse because the led's aren't even aimed the right way, so they need to be focused enough not to cause flashlighting(the beam spreads and shines through the panel where it's not supposed to) yet it then needs to be turned 90* and then diffused evenly with only a fraction of an inch of space. it's like trying to light up an entire wall evenly with a few flashlights. it can be done easily if you hold the flashlights 10feet away, but it's impossible if they are only a couple inches away.

anyway, I thought the local dimming helped because clouding and flashlighting is only ever noticed against dark backgrounds. I know FALD models take this to another level, arguably the only level that really helps, but I have never heard anybody claim that local dimming made clouding worse. I guess that's what caught be my surprise, that they would claim the clouding is reduced by not having any dimming. to me that sounds like saying we don't have any clouding because we made sure the black levels were too high to see it. it's the wrong way to fix the problem.

anyway, this is an example of the clouding/flashlighting I got from the d6300's

I returned that set and opted for one that was twice as thick, had a proper diffuser, but unfortunately was of lower quality other than that.


but that's the difference an inch can make. if the top model was just thicker and had a proper diffuser, I would have kept it and probably loved it.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 12:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
prepress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 3,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked: 68
I may be considered weird, but based on how the set looks I have concerns about the on-board audio. One of the casualties of today's thinner sets is the audio. I guess the idea is most people will hook their sets up to an HT or stereo system for sound. I don't. One of the selling points of my PRO-111 was the excellent on-board sound system. TAD engineers were involved in its design. Sony's entry in last year's VE shootout also had a quality sound system.

I will keep an eye on this Panasonic, especially when reviews and specs are available. Even though I'm not in the market, I do like to keep up with what's available in case I have to replace my TV. I would need a smaller screen than 65," though.
prepress is offline  
Old 05-17-2014, 12:18 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,399
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1731 Post(s)
Liked: 3066
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

True FALD does.

Isn't clouding backlight bleeding? Panasonic said was that local dimming was not used because it affected the accuracy of the rendition of shadows. However, it also had the effect of making the screen look very uniform, even in ultra-dark scenes. That's what set the AX800U apart, more than anything... rendition of shadow details. I understand what you mean though, with TVs that are very uneven, shutting off some (or all) of the backlights/edgelights creates a (relatively) smoother black background, if you can ignore the halos or flashlight artifacts and all the other distractions that creates.

the two samsungs I brought home were edgelit led, no dimming or anything fancy. d6300's. my understanding is that the problem is the panels being so thin. you can't reproduce a uniform backlight from many tiny point sources unless you have room to spread out that light. with edgelit models it's even worse because the led's aren't even aimed the right way, so they need to be focused enough not to cause flashlighting(the beam spreads and shines through the panel where it's not supposed to) yet it then needs to be turned 90* and then diffused evenly with only a fraction of an inch of space. it's like trying to light up an entire wall evenly with a few flashlights. it can be done easily if you hold the flashlights 10feet away, but it's impossible if they are only a couple inches away.

anyway, I thought the local dimming helped because clouding and flashlighting is only ever noticed against dark backgrounds. I know FALD models take this to another level, arguably the only level that really helps, but I have never heard anybody claim that local dimming made clouding worse. I guess that's what caught be my surprise, that they would claim the clouding is reduced by not having any dimming. to me that sounds like saying we don't have any clouding because we made sure the black levels were too high to see it. it's the wrong way to fix the problem.

anyway, this is an example of the clouding/flashlighting I got from the d6300's

I returned that set and opted for one that was twice as thick, had a proper diffuser, but unfortunately was of lower quality other than that.


but that's the difference an inch can make. if the top model was just thicker and had a proper diffuser, I would have kept it and probably loved it.

 

The AX800U features edgelit local dimming; I want to make sure nobody thinks otherwise. I want to make sure I communicate this accurately. Panasonic's main concern in the demo I saw was maintaining accurate color levels, even in the deepest shadows. It came at the cost of ultimate black levels, but it also "worked" in the sense that it rendered a compelling image.

Panasonic did not make any claim that its approach reduces clouding. That was my own observation. I thought I was watching a AX900U at first, when I saw stable letterbox bars (no flashlighting) I asked about local dimming. Sorry if I confused the matter.


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 12:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,596
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 883 Post(s)
Liked: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post

That is a somewhat misleading way to measure. For example, if you start with a VA panel that's 4000:1 dead center the viewing angle threshold is 2000:1 in their test, but yet they will compare it directly to an IPS panel that can't hit 2000:1 even dead center and declare the 1500:1 (dead center) IPS panel has larger viewing angles because it can get wider before getting to 750:1. If you use the same 750:1 threshold criteria for both panels does the IPS panel still have the larger viewing angle?

I wondered about this as well. definitely complicates the comparison at the very least.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 12:22 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,399
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1731 Post(s)
Liked: 3066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by proyal View Post

http://televisions.reviewed.com/ethics
http://televisions.reviewed.com/how_we_test
Quote:
Viewing Angle

Our viewing angle test examines the contrast ratio and color shift of the display at different viewing angles. We measure the contrast ratio at 5 degree increments from 0 degrees (straight on) to ±85 degrees. Our scoring for this test is based upon the point at which the contrast ratio has fallen by 50 percent from the maximum we measured at 0 degrees. This means that our ranges of satisfactory viewing angles are very different from the ones the manufacturers publish, which are generally based on the angle at which the contrast ratio falls to 10:1. We feel that this is far too low, since most displays have a face-on contrast ratio of over 1000:1, making a 10:1 contrast ratio unwatchable.

Of course you are right as http://televisions.reviewed.com/ tested the same narrow angles.
That is a somewhat misleading way to measure. For example, if you start with a VA panel that's 4000:1 dead center the viewing angle threshold is 2000:1 in their test, but yet they will compare it directly to an IPS panel that can't hit 2000:1 even dead center and declare the 1500:1 (dead center) IPS panel has larger viewing angles because it can get wider before getting to 750:1. If you use the same 750:1 threshold criteria for both panels does the IPS panel still have the larger viewing angle?

 

That's exactly what I'm saying, After that initial drop in contrast from off-angle viewing, image quality still beat the IPS-based Panasonics in the same room. Watch the AX800U from the side and it looks like a normal TV. Watch it from a proper seating position for cinematic presentations, and you get something that special.


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 12:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,596
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 883 Post(s)
Liked: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by prepress View Post

I may be considered weird, but based on how the set looks I have concerns about the on-board audio. One of the casualties of today's thinner sets is the audio. I guess the idea is most people will hook their sets up to an HT or stereo system for sound. I don't. One of the selling points of my PRO-111 was the excellent on-board sound system. TAD engineers were involved in its design. Sony's entry in last year's VE shootout also had a quality sound system.

I will keep an eye on this Panasonic, especially when reviews and specs are available. Even though I'm not in the market, I do like to keep up with what's available in case I have to replace my TV. I would need a smaller screen than 65," though.

imho, with all the things we've sacrificed for 'thin' TV's, speakers should have been the first. I'm not saying everybody needs to buy home stereo systems, but if that's a concern for you, factor in the price of a 50dollar sound bar. and hey, if you want better sound, buy a 200dollar one. and if you upgrade your tv, reuse the sound bar.
herpderp and stas3098 like this.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 12:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,596
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 883 Post(s)
Liked: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

The AX800U features edgelit local dimming; I want to make sure nobody thinks otherwise. I want to make sure I communicate this accurately. Panasonic's main concern in the demo I saw was maintaining accurate color levels, even in the deepest shadows. It came at the cost of ultimate black levels, but it also "worked" in the sense that it rendered a compelling image.


Panasonic did not make any claim that its approach reduces clouding. That was my own observation. I thought I was watching a AX900U at first, when I saw stable letterbox bars (no flashlighting) I asked about local dimming. Sorry if I confused the matter.

this intrigues me, but reduces my optimism for sure. all manufacturers seem to skirt the issue of clouding when it's actually a huge problem. if I made a tv, and I honest to goodness fixed clouding/flashlighting, I'd go out of my way to point that out.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 12:29 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,399
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1731 Post(s)
Liked: 3066
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

The AX800U features edgelit local dimming; I want to make sure nobody thinks otherwise. I want to make sure I communicate this accurately. Panasonic's main concern in the demo I saw was maintaining accurate color levels, even in the deepest shadows. It came at the cost of ultimate black levels, but it also "worked" in the sense that it rendered a compelling image.


Panasonic did not make any claim that its approach reduces clouding. That was my own observation. I thought I was watching a AX900U at first, when I saw stable letterbox bars (no flashlighting) I asked about local dimming. Sorry if I confused the matter.

this intrigues me, but reduces my optimism for sure. all manufacturers seem to skirt the issue of clouding when it's actually a huge problem. if I made a tv, and I honest to goodness fixed clouding/flashlighting, I'd go out of my way to point that out.

 

Please allow this loose analogy... a beautiful image is the sum of different parts, as it is with a beautiful person (staying gender-neutral here). However, the parts that contribute to that beauty can vary in quality and proportion. Personal preferences and habits come into play. Sometimes, an overabundance of one element can truly make up for other deficiencies. 

 

If there was an obvious issue with clouding, it probably would have reared its head when a dark frame from Harry Potter was put on pause, playing off a regular Blu-ray... again, the L65WT600 on the right looked terrible compared to either the ZT60 or the AX800U.
 


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 12:56 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,399
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1731 Post(s)
Liked: 3066
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post

I think the reason we're questioning you is that this was clearly a demonstration panasonic used to put their new flagship model in the best possible 'light' (no pun intended). I'd be shocked if the AX didn't look absolutely bonkers awesome-- because the demonstration was clearly designed and engineered to do exactly that.

Gotta give panny credit; they definitely invited the right person. Imagine how different this likely would have gone down if they invited a calibrator like dnice into the room to put the TVs through their paces?

 

Well, D-Nice will be at the next VE shootout, helping run the show. He'll have his chance to show how inferior LCD is. However, take into consideration this quote from an email Robert Zohn sent me...

"It's getting exciting to see this year's flagship displays being included in our Shootout evaluation event.  I read one poster that was not excited to see the 4K Ultra HD TVs in the competition, but I assure you this year's edge lit and of course the direct back lit LCD/LED  displays are nothing like what we have seen in previous years.  All of the panels that we are putting into the Shootout are excellent performance TVs." Robert Zohn, regarding the 2014 Value Electronics Shootout


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 01:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 423
I'll wait to see objective data. Subjective impressions aren't enough.
David Susilo and vinnie97 like this.
RobertR is online now  
Old 05-17-2014, 01:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post


I can calibrate as well,

Oddly enough I've had some kids at best buy emphatically make this claim to me recently as well.
David Susilo and vinnie97 like this.
mo949 is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off