Official Panasonic VT60/VT65 Series Discussion Thread [No Street Price Talk] - Page 310 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #9271 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 07:10 PM
Member
 
Sargon 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric3316 View Post

I would be crazy to switch out a 65VT60 far a Samsung 75F6300 right? I so want to go bigger but not sure if size is worth it over PQ. Just throwing the idea out there in my head right now.

I sit about 14ft. from my TV and wondering if I would benefit more from size then PQ. I swear this site has ruined me with large size TV's and the want to keep going bigger. I thought originally going with a 55" inch TV that would be considered large but now a 65" TV to me is small. Lol

Eric buddy! You been drinkin my Christmas glog?eek.gif Friends don't let friends trade in their VTs, and you are on my short list of best friends on this thread. Here's Sargy's take on this: When it comes to LED, (and I have owned MANY) of them, 55 inch is the clearest. 60 inch isn't as clear but it is well worth the trade off because it is more immersive than a 55. I also find the 55 to be a bit too sharp. 65 inch LED tvs are a real trade off. You get that theatrical size, but because of the pixel spread, (they don't add extra pixels to the bigger sets), it really starts looking not as clear or rich and has a "cheap" look. Imagine what your 75 inch will look like!

Also, when you go past 55 inch with LED, you really start getting not just flashlighting, you get the dreaded patchy random clouding in dark scenes. It made the 8 flagship Samsungs I had and returned unwatchable. D series had this, the ES was worse, and people on Amazon are reporting that the F series has the same problems. It took a few years, models, and vendors for me to finally realize that Samsung is perfectly willing to sell tvs in this condition. Each one they sent me, had cloudy patches in different areas. Same problem; different places. This wasn't about being a plasma snob. I would have kept the FIRST tv if it had grey blacks, but not foggy patches smack dab in the center of the my screen. It literally blocked my field of view. "The gobblins always came out at night!". It must have to do with manufacturing difficulties with tvs this large and thin with edge lit technology. This is THE sole reason I started buying plasma tvs.

What I noticed with this 65 inch plasma, is that 1. it has no clouding or flashlighting, and 2. It is as freakin clear as a 55 inch led. Clearer in fact! Something to do with plasma tech. I guess. This just plain amazes me every time I watch my tv.

You know I hate 4k for it's lack of film-like look and completely unnecessary hyper clarity for movies. BUT, imagine having a 75-90 inch tv someday that, because of it's size, will be reduced in UHD clarity to only HD due to 4k pixel spread. I could live with that! You can also sit a lot closer to them and they stay clear looking for that cinema experience.
So, until then, keep your plasma and stay out of Sargy's glog.smile.gif
If you go for it though, I've got your back my friend. I just want you to know what your getting into with larger LED tvs in general and Samsung in particular. Read the negative Amazon posts about that tv and similar ones that have sold more before you proceed.
eric3316 and barbados11 like this.

Matey's, If ye liek me posts, I pander,
for two thumbs up when ye take a gander! Aaarh! - Sargy
Sargon 1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #9272 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 07:12 PM
Member
 
Codeman00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric3316 View Post

I would be crazy to switch out a 65VT60 far a Samsung 75F6300 right? I so want to go bigger but not sure if size is worth it over PQ. Just throwing the idea out there in my head right now.

I sit about 14ft. from my TV and wondering if I would benefit more from size then PQ. I swear this site has ruined me with large size TV's and the want to keep going bigger. I thought originally going with a 55" inch TV that would be considered large but now a 65" TV to me is small. Lol

You are in an interesting situation. Speaking from experience, your distance from the TV is too far for a 55" for sure. In fact, I think its too far even for a 65" although its much better than with a 55". A 75" would be great for your 14 ft viewing distance. However, it comes with a price. I went and looked at all of the LED TVs at HHGregg yesterday....with similar decision to make as yours. I quickly noticed (again) that I couldn't possibly live with an LED. They picture is far inferior the the Panasonic VT60 and the Samsung plasma. Its really not even close and real images look like a Pixar movie. I think we would all have a larger plasma than a 65" if it was possible and cost effective....But we're all stuck at 65". The decision lies whether or not you can live with the LED picture....the 75" part is a no brainer if its in your budget.
eric3316 likes this.
Codeman00 is offline  
post #9273 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 07:21 PM
Member
 
robnormal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by XBR11 View Post


Could you please elaborate on this? I am going from a 58" plasma to a 65" plasma, and I think I am noticing that phenomenon. But I could just be too critical. I think picture is not as sharp. Motion is more iterative. Is that what you are talking about?

By "larger," I mean the larger it looks to you, which is a combination of how big the screen is, and how close you are to it. I could have said, "The closer you are to the screen, the more you see PQ problems," and it would amount to the same thing. I do not mean that larger screens have different technology or more faults than small ones.

robnormal is offline  
post #9274 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 07:24 PM
Member
 
Codeman00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I just want to give a quick update on my situation. From pages back, I was not happy with my VT60 because the lack of panel brightness using DNice's settings after the 100 hr break in. The colors really weren't vibrant and the panel was dim overall...almost like my eyes were trying to pull light from it. Sports is where I really saw the issue...colors of darker uniforms wouldn't stand out, etc....just lack of detail...much like others have said. I found myself wanting to watch shows in my bedroom on my 54VT25 more than I wanted to watch them on my 65VT60 in the bonus room.

Well, I fixed my panel brightness issue by using CNETs settings entered in Cinema mode. I'm not sure what the setting difference is, but wow....the panel brightness is better and the colors are better too. In fact, I can finally see the how FREAKING AWESOME this TV is now!!! The detail is amazing....and not my VT25 looks worse if that's possible! Yes it is possible! biggrin.gif

I can't believe I contemplated sending the VT60 back. Try CNETs settings! You can have DNIce's on Prof1 and Prof2 and CNET on Cinema. If you need extra brightness, you can easily use the THX Bright Room too.
uh2 likes this.
Codeman00 is offline  
post #9275 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 07:26 PM
Member
 
Sargon 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by barbados11 View Post

Sargon, something really weird happened. My TV's ability to go into your standard glitch mode has vanished. I reset it to default in standard mode and switched back and forth quickly and nothing. I then tried to bring the contrast up to 100 and wait 25 seconds, 1 minute, several minutes and nothing. I'm bummed as I wanted to use it for hockey tonight. have you encountered this or anyone else? Any ideas here? I messed around with Home Theater, Vivid and Custom modes but not the same.

Barbados11, you forgot to pay me. Ya think my sharin this glich and the crap and ire I initially got for posting something out of left field was for free!!? I gave you the "demo" version. But if you start givin me more thumbs up . . . . biggrin.gif
Seriously, make sure your C.A.T.S. is turned off. Also try my method #2 -going in and out of Standard until it "pops" in all at once. It this doesn't help, let me know.

It's great hearing back from people who like my glitch, but now with you, those who need if for hockey and are bummed without it. I personally "need" it for the Victoria's Secret Pageant.cool.gif

I completely agree with posters who have found this glitch to be far from accurate. It's just that there are a growing number of people on this post that just like that extra brightness, extra sharpness, extra depth, and pleasant look in bright scenes.(It's the sole reason I shared what I discovered). It's not meant to replace people's calibrated modes. Rather, just a really nice and unique offering.
barbados11 likes this.

Matey's, If ye liek me posts, I pander,
for two thumbs up when ye take a gander! Aaarh! - Sargy
Sargon 1 is offline  
post #9276 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 07:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sillysally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,633
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by XBR11 View Post

SillySally - I read that you did a large sample calibration on your 65vt60. I presume you use those settings. Have you tried all the other posted settings, like cnet and dnice and hdtv and the shootout, etc? And are those close to yours or is yours much better? What manufacture month is your tv? What lighting conditions do you have? Not trying to be nosy, just want to learn, so that maybe I can use.

Any of the settings you will see are normal type of calibration, 10 Point grayscale, 6 point Gamut/CMS. Those type of calibration's simply can not compare to the type of calibration's I do, 10 piont grayscale and a 4913+ point Gamut/CMS LUT Cube calibration. The Large LUT Cube type of calibration is much more detailed in every way.

Below is what a 4913 and 9261 LUT Cube looks like. Images are courtesy of Ted's calibration disc.


Below is what a normal 6 point CMS/Gamut looks like.


Every dot represents a set color point.

I have a April or May Build 65VT60.

ss
sillysally is offline  
post #9277 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 07:48 PM
 
pg_ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysally View Post

and a 4913+ point Gamut/CMS LUT Cube calibration. The Large LUT Cube type of calibration is much more detailed in every way.

thats just overkill
you know...
from the real world
some like more saturated colors that pops more than the rec709 SRGB standard does.
then what should you do about with your fancy LUT CUBE?
the CUBE will explode! wink.gif

it looks cool in the chart but this is to much
try to focus on the things that people see any difference with
gamma and grayscale.

one more thing
SRGB is outdated
its time for rec2020
you need a bigger CUBE man! smile.gif

Silly!
pg_ice is offline  
post #9278 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 07:57 PM
Senior Member
 
XBR11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
SillySally - you have two settings in your first signature, custom and isf. Do they look the same to you, or do you use them for different conditions like dim and bright, or cable and movies, or such?
XBR11 is offline  
post #9279 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 08:10 PM
Member
 
barbados11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: NY & NJ
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargon 1 View Post


Barbados11, you forgot to pay me. Ya think my sharin this glich and the crap and ire I initially got for posting something out of left field was for free!!? I gave you the "demo" version. But if you start givin me more thumbs up . . . . biggrin.gif
Seriously, make sure your C.A.T.S. is turned off. Also try my method #2 -going in and out of Standard until it "pops" in all at once. It this doesn't help, let me know.

It's great hearing back from people who like my glitch, but now with you, those who need if for hockey and are bummed without it. I personally "need" it for the Victoria's Secret Pageant.cool.gif

I completely agree with posters who have found this glitch to be far from accurate. It's just that there are a growing number of people on this post that just like that extra brightness, extra sharpness, extra depth, and pleasant look in bright scenes.(It's the sole reason I shared what I discovered). It's not meant to replace people's calibrated modes. Rather, just a really nice and unique offering.

Cats was on. I forgot about that, Thanks Sargon! I have put a check in the mail:p. I really appreciate it. i will use it for Sunday morning or maybe check it out with a hockey game tomorrow night. Now to enjoy THX Cinema and a movie. have to go to pick it put. Thanks again bro. 

barbados11 is offline  
post #9280 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 08:59 PM
Member
 
robnormal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post


4k as a resolution alone is not noteworthy. The only reason currently to have an ultra high resolution display is for work: photos, editing and design work. You really don't need that level of detail in a display intended for entertainment. 1080p is more than enough resolution-- in fact it's more detailed than our eyes can make out.

I know this is from a while ago, but this sounds highly questionable to me. 35mm film is about 4k resolution. 70mm is twice that. If 1080 is all we can see, why did anyone ever use 70mm film?

robnormal is offline  
post #9281 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 09:19 PM
 
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: 999
It's worse than questionable, it's flat-out wrong (obviously). There's a distance limitation where 4K benefits will cease to exist, and this will depend largely on the visual acuity of the individual, but the benefit will exist all the same. However, in no way does increasing resolution alone make up for what is lost in all the other realms of PQ when the 4K set you're watching is saddled by the limitations of edgelit LCD technology.
KMFDMvsEnya and Sargon 1 like this.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #9282 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 09:19 PM
Senior Member
 
willieconway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by robnormal View Post

I know this is from a while ago, but this sounds highly questionable to me. 35mm film is about 4k resolution. 70mm is twice that. If 1080 is all we can see, why did anyone ever use 70mm film?

Highly questionable is putting it mildly. Unless of course you think that screen size and viewing distance are irrelevant.

Adjusting settings according to personal preference is not calibration.
willieconway is online now  
post #9283 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 09:28 PM
Member
 
Sargon 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post

There's a difference between capability and requirement.
4k as a resolution alone is not noteworthy. The only reason currently to have an ultra high resolution display is for work: photos, editing and design work. You really don't need that level of detail in a display intended for entertainment. 1080p is more than enough resolution-- in fact it's more detailed than our eyes can make out. . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by robnormal View Post

I know this is from a while ago, but this sounds highly questionable to me. 35mm film is about 4k resolution. 70mm is twice that. If 1080 is all we can see, why did anyone ever use 70mm film?

Hey robnormal, it's time to chime (in that is). I think that 4K is completely unnecessary and overkill for movies in a home environment IMHO. I think the companies know that the average person doesn' t know what good tv looks like = plasma. But they know that Martha WILL say, "Hey look, George, that tv is so clear!" and then buy it.

Most importantly, I find that no matter the resolution of the movie in a theater, by the time it travels through that little glass window, through the air of the theater, and then blown up, expanded, and diffused on to the giant screen, that resolution is lost. The last movie I saw in the theater, looked somewhere between 720 and 1080 - but not even 1080. I have NEVER seen a movie in a theater that didn't look way sharper on1080p blu-ray at home. When 4K is applied to a tv, even with the compression etc, hardly anything is lost. So it is overkill for me. I perhaps wrongly thought that the higher resolutions of film were created in part for the resolution loss that naturally occurs in a movie theater environment. I do like the idea of 4K for extra large tvs however. It will compensate for pixel spread. Just my take my friend.biggrin.gif

Matey's, If ye liek me posts, I pander,
for two thumbs up when ye take a gander! Aaarh! - Sargy
Sargon 1 is offline  
post #9284 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 09:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 377
I remember when people were saying upscaled DVD was all we needed and that 1080p/HD/Blu-ray disc was unnecessary.

However, aside from resolution, 4K will offer better (wider) color and superior compression among other things.

My only concern is what Vinny alluded to with LED. They've got to make better improvements with them to truly and fully appreciate the 4K benefits. What good is 4K with poor uniformity/clouding and poor black levels?
vinnie97 and Sargon 1 like this.

DavidHir is offline  
post #9285 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 10:01 PM
Member
 
Sargon 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

I remember when people were saying upscaled DVD was all we needed and that 1080p/HD/Blu-ray disc was unnecessary.

However, aside from resolution, 4K will offer better (wider) color and superior compression among other things.

My only concern is what Vinny alluded to with LED. They've got to make better improvements with them to truly and fully appreciate the 4K benefits. What good is 4K with poor uniformity/clouding and poor black levels?

Well said. At Best Buy, they put a 3D movie on their 4K Sony for just little ol me. Even though it was passive 3d (which I like), because of the 4K, the resolution wasn't cut below 1080 as with regular passive HD tvs. But my 65VT60 1080 active 3D blew it away! Reason? The black levels were typically LED terrible, so the resolution benefit as well as expanded color spectrum was completely "washed out" by the lackluster black levels. I tried to explain to them how I didn't like the new resolution being piggy-backed on a flawed edge lit technology and how it greatly compromised black levels. She said to me, "Well what impact does that have on the overall look of the tv? (She really didn't know). I replied, "Everything!" She then said, "Well that's your opinion" I guess I learned that black levels impact on color, contrast, and definition is just an opinion after all. Why didn't somebody here tell me? You made me look like a fool at Best Buy!.wink.gif
PS: I've had 65 inch passive 3D and bright 60 inch active Samsung LED. But this 65 inch 3D is the absolute best 3D I have ever seen - and plasma active doesn't hurt my eyes like Samsung's active. Yet reviewers consider our TVs 3D "a little dark, but pretty good".` Never trust your eyes!
DavidHir likes this.

Matey's, If ye liek me posts, I pander,
for two thumbs up when ye take a gander! Aaarh! - Sargy
Sargon 1 is offline  
post #9286 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 10:31 PM
 
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: 999
You should've retorted that your "opinion" mirrors that of the Image Science Foundation. wink.gif Black level (specifically in relation to its contribution to contrast ratio) has the biggest impact on PQ, and resolution comes in at a distant 4th.
Sargon 1 likes this.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #9287 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 10:35 PM
Member
 
Sargon 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

You should've retorted that your "opinion" mirrors that of the Image Science Foundation. wink.gif Black level (specifically in relation to its contribution to contrast ratio) has the biggest impact on PQ, and resolution comes in at a distant 4th.

Your comments are SPOT ON as usual Vinster.

Matey's, If ye liek me posts, I pander,
for two thumbs up when ye take a gander! Aaarh! - Sargy
Sargon 1 is offline  
post #9288 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 11:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
Chere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Hey everyone- I'm hoping that this isn't some kind of a price error but Walmart has Skyfall Blu ray disc for $4.96. I chose the ship to store option in order to avoid shipping charges which came out to $5.36 after taxes.

This is a reference level blu ray movie that I've seen mentioned numerous times on cnet and other professional reviews and If I remember correctly had jaw dropping overall PQ when I saw it from a redbox rental a while back. A fantastic BD to showcase our VT60s and a great flick on top of that too. 'Just hope it isn't a price mistake.



Edit: Just got the e-mail confirmation so It's legit. Grab one before it sells out biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif
vinnie97 likes this.
Chere is offline  
post #9289 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 11:02 PM
Member
 
robnormal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargon 1 View Post

Most importantly, I find that no matter the resolution of the movie in a theater, by the time it travels through that little glass window, through the air of the theater, and then blown up, expanded, and diffused on to the giant screen, that resolution is lost. The last movie I saw in the theater, looked somewhere between 720 and 1080 - but not even 1080. I have NEVER seen a movie in a theater that didn't look way sharper on1080p blu-ray at home.

Neither the air or the glass nor screen diffusion have an appreciable effect on the resolution. The only explanation I have for your observation is that the ratio of screen size to viewing distance is larger at the theater. Also, keep in mind that the last movie you saw in the theater (assuming you saw one in the last few years) was almost definitely 2k digital, which is like 16mm film. In other words, low-res for a theater-sized screen. Also also, your top-of-the-line plasma matches the best digital projectors in every way except resolution, and that's assuming the projectionist knows how to use the damn thing, which seems to almost never happen.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

You should've retorted that your "opinion" mirrors that of the Image Science Foundation. wink.gif Black level (specifically in relation to its contribution to contrast ratio) has the biggest impact on PQ, and resolution comes in at a distant 4th.

I agree with you (and Sargon, and the ISF) entirely. There is no reason to work on increasing the resolution when dynamic range and color depth can be improved instead. Even a standard-definition CRT looks better than some of these modern HDTVs. I feel the same about video cameras and projectors. They haven't even come close to matching the contrast ratio and color range of humble 16mm, and they can't be bothered trying - they're too busy trying to get "NOW IN 256K INFINITION!!!"

Sargon 1 likes this.
robnormal is offline  
post #9290 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 11:10 PM
Member
 
Sargon 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
robnormal, I didn't know that about the movie theater. Thanks for the correction- I will keep it in mind for future posts regarding this. The movie I saw was the Hunger Games-Catching Fire at a regular stadium theater. (I also found it interesting how awful the black levels were. Of course, I loved the film look, but I found myself looking forward to seeing what this movie can do on blu-ray on my VT.smile.gif

Matey's, If ye liek me posts, I pander,
for two thumbs up when ye take a gander! Aaarh! - Sargy
Sargon 1 is offline  
post #9291 of 14718 Old 12-27-2013, 11:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sillysally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,633
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by pg_ice View Post

thats just overkill
you know...
from the real world
some like more saturated colors that pops more than the rec709 SRGB standard does.
then what should you do about with your fancy LUT CUBE?
the CUBE will explode! wink.gif

it looks cool in the chart but this is to much
try to focus on the things that people see any difference with
gamma and grayscale.

one more thing
SRGB is outdated
its time for rec2020
you need a bigger CUBE man! smile.gif

Silly!

Have you ever seen what a large LUT Cube calibration can do to a display like the VT60?

rec709 SRGB standard has nothing to do with how colors pop or saturation. Think black level/contrast ratios for color pop and Gamut for saturation.

As I said in this post http://www.avsforum.com/t/1467563/official-panasonic-vt60-vt65-series-discussion-thread-no-street-price-talk/9240#post_24124643
"What you really want to do is setup the black level.
Black level is what made the 9G Kuros so good, and the same applies to the VT/ZT 60's.
Remember its all about contrast ratios, not how high you can get your white level."

You don't think Gamut is just as or maybe more important than grayscale/Gamma.?
Check out your post . http://www.avsforum.com/t/1507785/adjust-color-luminance-for-each-color-on-the-kuros#post_24120043
Your Gamut is way off non of your primary's or secondary's match up, and btw luminance is a big part of setting your Gamut as you are finding out. With a normal Gamut and if you display has the settings you are setting only 6 points for luminance, as when you do a LUT Cube you are setting many more than 6 points. That alone make a big difference.
As Mike replied to your post, use a processor, he is right and yes to do a LUT Cube calibration you need a processor like eecolor.

When you learn a little about what goes into a calibration, then you may comment. As it is now you know nothing about what you are talking about.

You may want to check out this post to see a reference calibration on a 9G Kuro. http://www.avsforum.com/t/1059491/signature-elite-141-owners-thread#post_14507494

Quote:
Originally Posted by XBR11 View Post

SillySally - you have two settings in your first signature, custom and isf. Do they look the same to you, or do you use them for different conditions like dim and bright, or cable and movies, or such?

I post the two sets of setting to give folks that have a VT60 a alternative for starting a calibration. Also to show how different modes need different contrast settings. .

ss
sillysally is offline  
post #9292 of 14718 Old 12-28-2013, 12:41 AM
Member
 
Dunday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codeman00 View Post

I just want to give a quick update on my situation. From pages back, I was not happy with my VT60 because the lack of panel brightness using DNice's settings after the 100 hr break in. The colors really weren't vibrant and the panel was dim overall...almost like my eyes were trying to pull light from it. Sports is where I really saw the issue...colors of darker uniforms wouldn't stand out, etc....just lack of detail...much like others have said. I found myself wanting to watch shows in my bedroom on my 54VT25 more than I wanted to watch them on my 65VT60 in the bonus room.

Well, I fixed my panel brightness issue by using CNETs settings entered in Cinema mode. I'm not sure what the setting difference is, but wow....the panel brightness is better and the colors are better too. In fact, I can finally see the how FREAKING AWESOME this TV is now!!! The detail is amazing....and not my VT25 looks worse if that's possible! Yes it is possible! biggrin.gif

I can't believe I contemplated sending the VT60 back. Try CNETs settings! You can have DNIce's on Prof1 and Prof2 and CNET on Cinema. If you need extra brightness, you can easily use the THX Bright Room too.


Anyone else can confirm this? I've always preferred Cinema mode for the extra detail

Dunday is offline  
post #9293 of 14718 Old 12-28-2013, 05:39 AM
Member
 
ghostdog4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codeman00 View Post

Thanks Jim. I hope I can get something worked out. It must only be my settings because everyone else seems very happy with the VT60. I was assured that the VT60 was just as bright at the VT25...but with DNice settings on the VT60, it isn't close to as bright, even with a contrast of 60.

Eric, thanks too for the info.


Perhaps you have done this but turning off C.A.T.S. (auto brightness) made a huge difference on my VT 65.
I mainly use the 'custom' setting with contrast at 85 and brightness at 5.
ghostdog4 is offline  
post #9294 of 14718 Old 12-28-2013, 06:16 AM
Senior Member
 
XBR11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Remind me, is cnet for custom, but this suggestion is to do it in cinema? Also I have the feeling that manufacture date is important to know. If the suggested settings are for a june date, but I have a sept date, the settings might not work. But i will try them anyway.
XBR11 is offline  
post #9295 of 14718 Old 12-28-2013, 06:42 AM
Member
 
Mike Baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codeman00 View Post

I just want to give a quick update on my situation. From pages back, I was not happy with my VT60 because the lack of panel brightness using DNice's settings after the 100 hr break in. The colors really weren't vibrant and the panel was dim overall...almost like my eyes were trying to pull light from it. Sports is where I really saw the issue...colors of darker uniforms wouldn't stand out, etc....just lack of detail...much like others have said. I found myself wanting to watch shows in my bedroom on my 54VT25 more than I wanted to watch them on my 65VT60 in the bonus room.

Well, I fixed my panel brightness issue by using CNETs settings entered in Cinema mode. I'm not sure what the setting difference is, but wow....the panel brightness is better and the colors are better too. In fact, I can finally see the how FREAKING AWESOME this TV is now!!! The detail is amazing....and not my VT25 looks worse if that's possible! Yes it is possible! biggrin.gif

I can't believe I contemplated sending the VT60 back. Try CNETs settings! You can have DNIce's on Prof1 and Prof2 and CNET on Cinema. If you need extra brightness, you can easily use the THX Bright Room too.
I like the CNET settings better also... You are aren't alone. I can't believe people just don't enjoy the TV. .
Mike Baron is offline  
post #9296 of 14718 Old 12-28-2013, 06:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eric3316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,702
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargon 1 View Post

Eric buddy! You been drinkin my Christmas glog?eek.gif Friends don't let friends trade in their VTs, and you are on my short list of best friends on this thread. Here's Sargy's take on this: When it comes to LED, (and I have owned MANY) of them, 55 inch is the clearest. 60 inch isn't as clear but it is well worth the trade off because it is more immersive than a 55. I also find the 55 to be a bit too sharp. 65 inch LED tvs are a real trade off. You get that theatrical size, but because of the pixel spread, (they don't add extra pixels to the bigger sets), it really starts looking not as clear or rich and has a "cheap" look. Imagine what your 75 inch will look like!

Also, when you go past 55 inch with LED, you really start getting not just flashlighting, you get the dreaded patchy random clouding in dark scenes. It made the 8 flagship Samsungs I had and returned unwatchable. D series had this, the ES was worse, and people on Amazon are reporting that the F series has the same problems. It took a few years, models, and vendors for me to finally realize that Samsung is perfectly willing to sell tvs in this condition. Each one they sent me, had cloudy patches in different areas. Same problem; different places. This wasn't about being a plasma snob. I would have kept the FIRST tv if it had grey blacks, but not foggy patches smack dab in the center of the my screen. It literally blocked my field of view. "The gobblins always came out at night!". It must have to do with manufacturing difficulties with tvs this large and thin with edge lit technology. This is THE sole reason I started buying plasma tvs.

What I noticed with this 65 inch plasma, is that 1. it has no clouding or flashlighting, and 2. It is as freakin clear as a 55 inch led. Clearer in fact! Something to do with plasma tech. I guess. This just plain amazes me every time I watch my tv.

You know I hate 4k for it's lack of film-like look and completely unnecessary hyper clarity for movies. BUT, imagine having a 75-90 inch tv someday that, because of it's size, will be reduced in UHD clarity to only HD due to 4k pixel spread. I could live with that! You can also sit a lot closer to them and they stay clear looking for that cinema experience.
So, until then, keep your plasma and stay out of Sargy's glog.smile.gif
If you go for it though, I've got your back my friend. I just want you to know what your getting into with larger LED tvs in general and Samsung in particular. Read the negative Amazon posts about that tv and similar ones that have sold more before you proceed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Codeman00 View Post

You are in an interesting situation. Speaking from experience, your distance from the TV is too far for a 55" for sure. In fact, I think its too far even for a 65" although its much better than with a 55". A 75" would be great for your 14 ft viewing distance. However, it comes with a price. I went and looked at all of the LED TVs at HHGregg yesterday....with similar decision to make as yours. I quickly noticed (again) that I couldn't possibly live with an LED. They picture is far inferior the the Panasonic VT60 and the Samsung plasma. Its really not even close and real images look like a Pixar movie. I think we would all have a larger plasma than a 65" if it was possible and cost effective....But we're all stuck at 65". The decision lies whether or not you can live with the LED picture....the 75" part is a no brainer if its in your budget.
@Code, I gave you your first thumbs up because we all deserve one : )

@Sarge, I know you love the thumbs so gave you one to and damn you love to write, lol.

Now with the issue at hand. When does one sacrifice PQ for size. Someone had wrote if pq was more important then size than why do people go to a movie theater and pay good money to see a movie just because it is on a big screen. Screen size is definitely important in the overall enjoyment of a movie and maybe even the most important to some.

I have owned LED TV's and before my VT60 I had a 60es7500 Samsung LED which is toward their top of the line. In my search for a TV I started with LG LED TVs so I also know what the less quality brings as well. The real main issue I have with LEDs is the clouding and flashlighting. That is the one thing that can totally ruin any experience when you turn out the lights. I could deal with less saturated colors and a little less natural look but when what I call defects in the technology ruin the actual picture that is usually tough to overlook.

I don't think going to a 70" from a 65" is enough in size to sacrifice pq but at 75" it really gets me thinking.
eric3316 is offline  
post #9297 of 14718 Old 12-28-2013, 06:57 AM
Member
 
swc11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I've had my 65vt60 for a week now and love it. I have a sony bluray player that works great. When I got this tv the BB guy said I should get a Panasonic bluray player because it automatically adjusts the picture settings for the best picture. Something about them both being Panasonic they will sync. Any truth to this? Even if true I doubt I would change out my sonybluray cause I have no problems at all with it. Just curious.
swc11 is offline  
post #9298 of 14718 Old 12-28-2013, 06:58 AM
Member
 
Mike Baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
That's like saying then why why do people have htib they they sound like crap. I find it funny how someone can defend a great display but have a htib or Soundbar or a cheapo reciever with bookshelf speakers with a 8 inch sub. Some people like a bigger display over picture quality.
Mike Baron is offline  
post #9299 of 14718 Old 12-28-2013, 07:35 AM
Senior Member
 
XBR11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
I would like to hear from you that bought this tv, ran the slides, input different settings (like cnet and dnice) and tried them out, didn't like them, and got a pro calibration. How much better is the tv looking with the pro calibration (assuming it is better). In your opinion was the cost of the calibration worth it?
XBR11 is offline  
post #9300 of 14718 Old 12-28-2013, 07:43 AM
Member
 
CHHill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by XBR11 View Post

I would like to hear from you that bought this tv, ran the slides, input different settings (like cnet and dnice) and tried them out, didn't like them, and got a pro calibration. How much better is the tv looking with the pro calibration (assuming it is better). In your opinion was the cost of the calibration worth it?

We did. We bought the tv, ran the slide and tried different settings. Then, got a professional calibration. It wasn't that wedidn't like the results, we did. We just thought a professional calibration would be good. The results were stunning. In my opinion it was well worth the money.
CHHill is offline  
Reply Plasma Flat Panel Displays

Tags
Panasonic Tc P65vt60 65 Inch 3d Smart Plasma Hdtv , Panasonic , Panasonic Tcp65 65 Inch Vt25 3d Plasma Tv , Panasonic Tc P60vt60 60 Inch 3d Smart Plasma Hdtv , Panasonic Tc P55vt60 55 Inch 3d Smart Plasma Hdtv
Gear in this thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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