Originally Posted by Ken Ross
I'm loving my 'image defect' on my 8500. If this is what qualifies as an image defect, I really hope manufacturers continue to shower us with 'image defects'.
God forbid the picture could actually be displaying detail that's there, but it's easier to conclude it's an 'image defect'?
As they say in French, 'whatever'.
As to image brightness, making the image cooler and blowing out your white balance in the process, is not the best way to produce more light IMO. That becomes an image defect.
I hope I don't open a can of worms here, but it seems like all these kinds of observations need a 'reference' to compare to. I get the feeling that most ppl are comparing the Samsung to the panny's and whatever the Samsung does differently is being seen as a 'mistake'. like the Panasonic is the reference. kind of like in the shoot out it felt like the kuro was the reference, and the reason nothing could 'beat' the kuro is because anything done difference was seen as a mistake.
the f8500 is brighter, it's too bright. the f8500 isn't sharper, it's artificially adding detail. etc.
it just seems that at this level of quality(vt60, zt60, f8500, etc) it's hard to really be sure which one is 'best' at these unmeasureables because you need to compare it directly to a reference display. and as soon as you dub one the 'reference' it can never be beaten since any improvement would just be seen as a difference, and therefore a mistake.
all that being said, I didn't really think the Samsung had a sharper image, or showed more detail. but it did look 'smoother' to me. like it's not any more pixels, but there's less space between pixels? from my normal viewing difference it was irrelevant, but standing fairly close in the stores the f8500's pixel structure was SLIGHTLY harder to perceive.
my ultimate deciding factor was the lack of difference in pq, and the 500 dollar cheaper price for the f8500