Why I Bought a Plasma HDTV in 2014 - Page 29 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 378Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #841 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 06:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
caloyzki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 40
btw, the
PN64F5300 is back again for $999 at walmart.
imagic and EscapeVelocity like this.

(2) Energy RC 70 towers
(1) Energy Veritas 2.0C center
(2) Energy Veritas 2.0R surrounds
(2) Energy RC LCR back surrounds
(1) Rythmik LV12R sub
(1) Denon 2112CI avr
(1) LG 55" LM7600 tv
caloyzki is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #842 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 07:03 AM
Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post
Interesting impressions. I'm surprised you can't see a difference in the detail between the two (or that the F4500 looks more! detailed to your eyes). That certainly isn't my impression from having seen the displays side-by-side in stores. Even with their crap 720p feeds, the detail and dithering just looks miles better to me on the F5300. The F4500s look more jaggy and much more "pixelly" by comparison (though they also produce very nice images).

You might try some of the adjustment suggestions posted here. It may be my imagination, but the Gamma seems a little brighter on the F5300 at the default setting of 0. So you might try knocking that down a couple settings. You'll need to re-adjust the Brightness a little to prevent black details from bein crushed though.

I also recommend changing the Picture Size to Screen Fit. That might help to sharpen the HD images (esp. 1080i/p) a bit more. The Game Mode also looked a tad sharper to my eyes than the other Picture Modes as well, which is why I suggest giving that a try on external sources.

You could also try tinkering with the Film Mode (deinterlacing) options as well to see if that helps with 480i/1080i content. Most of my viewing on the 51F5300 was with 1080p Blu-rays and upscaled DVDs though, so I didn't get much chance to test the TV's on-board upscaling/deinterlacing performance. I would think those features would work more or less the same on both models though, except that they're scaling to different panel resolutions.
Its not that the F4500 looks more detailed, just sharper. This makes sense because the 1080p set is upscaling 720p OTA content much more than the 1024x768 set. When inspecting the images up close (3 to 4 feet), the 4500 does look more pixelly (ie sharper) than the 5300, which must apply a slight blur in order to upscale. Its not thats its really bad or anything, but I do notice it. I personally prefer sharper images to softer ones.

Really though, from about 9' away, in a dark room, you dont see the either the sharpness of the 4500 or the softness of the 5300 with OTA HD content-- other than the 4500 having slightly better color "pop", they are virtually indistinguishable.
Josh128 is offline  
post #843 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 07:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
LastButNotLeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 08077
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
One thing worth noting, I could not get the F5300 to come this close to "perfect" calibration. Not that the gap is huge—perceptually, it's quite slight. However, the F8500 is capable of coming closer to the reference ideal—worth it for me in the context of my job, but probably not worth it for many people.
Sure you could have. They have the same 2-point and 10-point grayscale and color controls for primaries and secondaries. Here's my F5300, HCFR 3.1.4 and a new i1Pro:









Michael
ADU, StinDaWg, RyanHomsey and 1 others like this.

Downloadable FREE demo discs:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475769/de...ently-authored 

Did you really need to quote that entire post in your reply?
LastButNotLeast is offline  
post #844 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 07:57 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,216
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 670 Post(s)
Liked: 1692
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastButNotLeast View Post
Sure you could have. They have the same 2-point and 10-point grayscale and color controls for primaries and secondaries. Here's my F5300, HCFR 3.1.4 and a new i1Pro:

Michael
Very impressive. Yes, the controls are the same and therefor the adjustments are the same, and in many ways the panels behave very similarly. However, because of the uneven screen uniformity, with the push towards magenta in the whites, I found that a perfect calibration at any one given spot on the screen did not translate directly into a fully, properly calibrated screen from edge-to-edge. With the F8500, the uniformity is quite great, when compared to the two F5300s I saw. Maybe I would have lucked out if I kept trying for a better F5300. Anyhow, the issue I had was not whether I could dial-in a super low DeltaE, it was whether that applied to the whole screen or not.

For what it's worth, I'm going to go back into the F8500 and tighten all of these up, but here's the result of my first pass:





Calibrated with CalMAN 5 by SpectraCal

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com

Last edited by imagic; 07-04-2014 at 08:18 AM.
imagic is online now  
post #845 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 08:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
LastButNotLeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 08077
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 210
At this point, it's a numbers game (fun though that may be); I'm sure the picture LOOKS wonderful.
Coming from an RPCRT, the uniformity of my plasma is amazing.

Now you can go back to building subs.
Tell your wife (ex-wife?) she's a saint.

Michael

Downloadable FREE demo discs:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475769/de...ently-authored 

Did you really need to quote that entire post in your reply?
LastButNotLeast is offline  
post #846 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 08:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 6,569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Some LCDs are absolutely capable of great measured black levels, but with many LCDs the optimal viewing angle is quite narrow and perceived contrast falls off, even when viewed mildly off-angle. Also, those deep blacks are typically accompanied by at least a little bit of blooming around bright objects—there is not the same kind of stark delineation between bright and dark that you get with plasma/OLED.

This is the first year that I've seen LCDs that can challenge plasma in some IQ categories, but at the "reference" level and in a dark room, I have yet to see an LCD beat the best plasma has to offer. It doesn't really matter how the low-end stuff stacks up, it's easy enough to find an LCD thet's worse than the worst-performing plasma you can buy.
I have to agree that some higher end LCDs can produce excellent contrast and black levels with minimal blooming. But even with recent improvements with local dimming, you will still have to shell out a good piece of change compared to what you would have to invest in a decent plasma. I posted this CNET article previously, since IMO, Morrison covered this topic rather faithfully. http://www.cnet.com/news/why-led-doe...etter-picture/

Ian

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
post #847 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 08:34 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,216
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 670 Post(s)
Liked: 1692
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastButNotLeast View Post
At this point, it's a numbers game (fun though that may be); I'm sure the picture LOOKS wonderful.
Coming from an RPCRT, the uniformity of my plasma is amazing.

Now you can go back to building subs.
Tell your wife (ex-wife?) she's a saint.

Michael
Yup, below the JND threshold is what really matters.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #848 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 08:52 AM
Member
 
cblandin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Sheesh, with Samsung bailing, I might have to pull the trigger on an F8500 (had the 5300 for a week, but returned it because of the reflections). A friend has a 64" F8500 that he'll sell me for $1900 with the BB 5 year warranty which seems pretty fair (no tax, shipping, etc)...decisions, decisions.
cblandin is offline  
post #849 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 09:59 AM
Senior Member
 
machavez00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Phoenix, Az
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What does a calibration cost these days? Without calling, the only one listed on the ISF website that lists what they charge on their website is BB. I don't want to pay too much if I decide to have my 60F5300 calibrated.

machavez00 is offline  
post #850 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 11:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eric3316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by cblandin View Post
Sheesh, with Samsung bailing, I might have to pull the trigger on an F8500 (had the 5300 for a week, but returned it because of the reflections). A friend has a 64" F8500 that he'll sell me for $1900 with the BB 5 year warranty which seems pretty fair (no tax, shipping, etc)...decisions, decisions.
Why is he selling it?
eric3316 is offline  
post #851 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 12:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cajieboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Space Coast, Florida
Posts: 4,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Some LCDs are absolutely capable of great measured black levels, but with many LCDs the optimal viewing angle is quite narrow and perceived contrast falls off, even when viewed mildly off-angle. Also, those deep blacks are typically accompanied by at least a little bit of blooming around bright objects—there is not the same kind of stark delineation between bright and dark that you get with plasma/OLED.

This is the first year that I've seen LCDs that can challenge plasma in some IQ categories, but at the "reference" level and in a dark room, I have yet to see an LCD beat the best plasma has to offer. It doesn't really matter how the low-end stuff stacks up, it's easy enough to find an LCD thet's worse than the worst-performing plasma you can buy.

The narrow viewing angles are one of my top pet peeves against purchasing an LCD/LED vs a self-illuminating display. Personally, it bugs the crap out of me, and I doubt that's going to change any time soon. I felt the same way about RPTV's.
cajieboy is offline  
post #852 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 12:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Jason626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: illinois
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by cblandin View Post
Sheesh, with Samsung bailing, I might have to pull the trigger on an F8500 (had the 5300 for a week, but returned it because of the reflections). A friend has a 64" F8500 that he'll sell me for $1900 with the BB 5 year warranty which seems pretty fair (no tax, shipping, etc)...decisions, decisions.
That is a very good deal.
Jason626 is offline  
post #853 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 05:46 PM
Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 42
After spending even more time testing the F5300 right next to my F4500, I can only say that dollar for dollar, the 51F4500 is the easily the best TV you can buy today. I was impressed with it before pitting them against each other, but frankly Im a bit shocked after seeing them together.

Perhaps its because the majority of my viewing is OTA HD, which is either 720p or 1080i, but the 4500 looks more natural to me, period. In my bedroom, from about 7 feet and beyond, they look almost identical, with a slight edge going to the 4500. Up close, I find the 4500 actually looks better. I dont care for upscale blur that is more pronounced with some HD content on the 5300. I've played with settings on both sets, and shared the same video feed, and theres just something about the image of the 4500 that looks better. I really think its due to the fact its much closer to the native res of the content.

For 480p content, the 4500 wins by the largest margin of all content I tested. While the 5300 still looks better than any LCD Ive seen for 480p, the way it upscales the content just isnt as pleasing as the 4500. You really cant see it in the pictures, but sitting 4 feet away from both sets the difference is clear, the 4500 just flat out looks better.

For 240p content, the 5300 definitely shows more clarity and better scrolling motion because of it. While close, the 5300 is better here.

For 1080p content, specifically PC connection, the 5300 obviously wins there-- if you set a PC to 1080p and connect to the 4500 you can really only read the windows text while its moving as the screen res is just not high enough for 1080. For 1080p movies though, I think its much, much closer than most people would think. I downloaded the 1080p trailer of the new 300 movie and played it, in 1080p mode, on both sets, and it looks spectacular on both-- in fact, unless there text on the screen, I could not see any discernible difference starting from about 6' away. The 4500 is just a sleeper of a set. Im sure there is movie content out there where the 1080p would look sharper on the 5300, but I have my doubts as to whether the color, contrast, and uniformity would be any better than the 4500 with any content, as the best it could do was essentially match the 4500 in my darkened room.

I do find the 5300 seems to put out noticably more heat from the back of the set. While both get warm, the 5300 gets a good bit warmer. I thought people were just talking smack, but I can confirm that these two sets together do a very good job at warming a closed bedroom!

As for the screen door effect a lot of people seem concerned about, I snapped a few pics of both sets running identical content in the same shot. Although there are other clues as to which set is which, I challenge anyone to look at the images and say one looks significantly different from the other with a straight face-- from 8 feet away with just about any content, they are virtually identical. Check out these snapshots.










jer88 likes this.

Last edited by Josh128; 07-04-2014 at 05:51 PM.
Josh128 is offline  
post #854 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 05:51 PM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Thanks for your comparison, Josh. Any ABL/brightness difference between the two? I'm assuming the F4500 has an upper hand due to its lower resolution, but there is more to ABL other than resolution.
KOF is offline  
post #855 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 06:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,171
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 224 Post(s)
Liked: 559
720p sources tend to look better on 720p displays. I noticed that many years ago when shopping for my first plasma, and I don't think much has changed there really.


but 1080p on a 1080p tv still looks better than 720p on a 720p display. I'm sure if you watched mostly blurays instead of mostly 720p content, the 5300 would make more sense.


it's hard to tell in the pics, but they basically look identical to me. definitely an accomplishment for the 4500. I'd still like to see them with my own eyes though before I say they are 'equal'.
fierce_gt is offline  
post #856 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 07:25 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 128
I've spent a lot of time lookin at both displays in stores with a 720p feed, and the 51F5300 is still my preference.

The higher resolution of the 51F5300 will expose more of the flaws/dirty laundry in SD and lower resolution sources. So if you watch a lot of content like that, then a 720p display like the 43F4500 or 51F4500 might be a better fit/compromise, because the 240p and SD material probably won't play as well to the 51F5300's strengths.

The blacks could be slightly deeper on the F4500s than on the F5300s as well (esp. on an F4500 that's been used for awhile, where the phosphors have already aged/dimmed a bit). I've seen a few figures here that seem to suggest that. And it could be contributing to a greater sense of depth on the F4500. Increasing the room lighting around the F5300 and maybe darkening its Gamma a bit more (as I suggested earlier) might help to level the depth/black level playing field. In a darkened room though, the F4500 might come out slightly better on black depth.

There's no contest to my eyes though on which display has better detail and dithering. The 51F5300 wins that battle hands down, esp. on 1080p sources, but also on all the 720p feeds that I've seen. It's just my opinion though, and others' experiences may well be different.

I think Josh is probably used to the coarser resolution and dithering (and possibly slightly deeper blacks) on the F4500, and those are probably translating to a "crisper" looking image for him at a distance, which is completely legitimate. 9 feet is a little far away to really appreciate the detail of the 51F5300 on a good HD source though.

Hopefully he'll try a few of the suggestions in my last post (and here), esp. the Screen Fit and Game Mode, before givin up on the 51F5300. Maybe some of his source devices can do a better job of scaling to the panel's native 1080p resolution as well. And maybe the low-rez/SD content would also benefit from a little more Sharpness.

The dithering is finer on the 51F5300 though. And it's going to produce a "smoother" ("blurrier" to Josh) looking image than the lower rez F4500. There's really no way to change that. And it's one of the things that makes the 51F5300 a superior TV imo. Most of my viewing is 1080p content though. And fwiw, all of the Blu-rays and other HD content that I watched on the 51F5300 looked absolutely stunning.

ADU

Last edited by ADU; 07-05-2014 at 09:52 AM.
ADU is offline  
post #857 of 951 Old 07-04-2014, 10:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
StinDaWg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
720p sources tend to look better on 720p displays. I noticed that many years ago when shopping for my first plasma, and I don't think much has changed there really.
I've been using NNEDI3 upscaling since madVR added it a few months ago. 720p looks a lot better upscaled to 1080p now, especially text which looks less alaised.
StinDaWg is offline  
post #858 of 951 Old 07-05-2014, 12:27 AM
Senior Member
 
TahoeDust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I watched Super 8 tonight on my E7000 and was reminded off all the reasons I went plasma. The blacks and shadow detail in the cave scenes at the end looked incredible. I love this TV. I should scoop up an F8500 and put it in storage for when this one dies.

Samsung PN60E7000
Sony HT-CT770
Custom HTPC - 3.2GHz/8TB/8GB/HD5670
TahoeDust is online now  
post #859 of 951 Old 07-05-2014, 05:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eric3316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
720p sources tend to look better on 720p displays. I noticed that many years ago when shopping for my first plasma, and I don't think much has changed there really.


but 1080p on a 1080p tv still looks better than 720p on a 720p display. I'm sure if you watched mostly blurays instead of mostly 720p content, the 5300 would make more sense.


it's hard to tell in the pics, but they basically look identical to me. definitely an accomplishment for the 4500. I'd still like to see them with my own eyes though before I say they are 'equal'.
Plus, can you really tell PQ quality through a pic? I can snap a pic of an LED TV and post a pic and you would think it was an OLED TV with true blacks.

To go even further, the TV's would need to be calibrated for a fair comparison. We know out of the box both TV's are wrong.

To my eyes, looking at the pic through my computer, the 5300 looks more natural but that's not really saying much. I have taken pictures of my TV's and then compared them to the actual picture I see on the TV and most of the time the photo is not even close to what I see on the TV.
eric3316 is offline  
post #860 of 951 Old 07-05-2014, 05:37 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,216
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 670 Post(s)
Liked: 1692
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric3316 View Post
Plus, can you really tell PQ quality through a pic? I can snap a pic of an LED TV and post a pic and you would think it was an OLED TV with true blacks.

To go even further, the TV's would need to be calibrated for a fair comparison. We know out of the box both TV's are wrong.

To my eyes, looking at the pic through my computer, the 5300 looks more natural but that's not really saying much. I have taken pictures of my TV's and then compared them to the actual picture I see on the TV and most of the time the photo is not even close to what I see on the TV.
Using pictures posted on the Internet to judge TV image quality is basically impossible. There are too many factors working against it, not the least of which is the display used to view the pictures—unless it is perfectly calibrated, it's going to distort the photo. Then there's the photo itself—it's a rare camera that is perfectly color accurate. And, as you point out, the TV(s) in the picture need to be calibrated. Even if all the devices in the chain are calibrated, many cameras can't handle the full dynamic range of a TV.

In other words, with a typical photo of a TV posted on the Internet... forget it. It's meaningless. I know that to be true because of my own attempts to use photos to illustrate points about TV image quality. I spend more time explaining the limitations of photography than anything else... it's hardly worth it unless the photo is showing something very specific.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #861 of 951 Old 07-05-2014, 10:42 AM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 128
^ Pretty much agree with you on all that Mark. I hope Josh128 continues to share his experiences with the F4500 and F5300 though. If there's one message that this thread seems to be conveying, it's that there is no "one-size-fits-all" display which will satisfy every users' needs, desires and budget. And it's informative to hear about the differences between the displays, both on a technical and subjective level... even the F8500.

I am somewhat tempted to get a 43F4500 because it would be a much better fit for my budget at its current (ridiculously low) $300 pricetag. That's one of the reasons I've been scrutinizing and comparing both models so closely. But I'd really prefer the add'l resolution of a "true" 1080p display, and also wouldn't mind the larger size of the 51" F5300 for movie viewing, esp. on scoped content (after the panel breaks in).

I think that 43" Sammy would make a great bedroom TV though (if I had the bread for more than one).

ADU
ADU is offline  
post #862 of 951 Old 07-05-2014, 02:45 PM
Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post
^ Pretty much agree with you on all that Mark. I hope Josh128 continues to share his experiences with the F4500 and F5300 though. If there's one message that this thread seems to be conveying, it's that there is no "one-size-fits-all" display which will satisfy every users' needs, desires and budget. And it's informative to hear about the differences between the displays, both on a technical and subjective level... even the F8500.

I am somewhat tempted to get a 43F4500 because it would be a much better fit for my budget at its current (ridiculously low) $300 pricetag. That's one of the reasons I've been scrutinizing and comparing both models so closely. But I'd really prefer the add'l resolution of a "true" 1080p display, and also wouldn't mind the larger size of the 51" F5300 for movie viewing, esp. on scoped content (after the panel breaks in).

I think that 43" Sammy would make a great bedroom TV though (if I had the bread for more than one).
Thanks for the open-minded feedback. First off, trust me, the 4500 series are some seriously kick-ass TVs at INSANELY good prices. I wouldnt hesistate to recommend the 51" to anyone other than someone with a skylight in the room they plan to put it, and the 43", while I dont have any personal experience with it except for seeing it at a Sears (and it looked great even in the showroom BTW), I can only say if its identical to the 51" in every way but size, dont even hesitate to get it if you are thinking about it. I guarantee it will impress you.

I know I may gush a bit much about my 4500, but it really is that good-- I think most people really overestimate the difference in PQ that resolution makes in sets when going from 720/768 to 1080p. Things like contrast, color accuracy, motion, and screen uniformity take a front seat to resolution for PQ, especially once you reach HD resolutions. I believe resolution falls victim to the law of diminishing returns once you pass 720 vertical lines of resolution, especially for sets 50" or smaller. I really think most people just do not realize that-- but its probably due to the fact that they havent really spent much time with a 720p set of the quality of the 4500's. You simply can not go wrong with either size in any room with suitable lighting for plasma, let alone a bedroom.

Enough about the 4500 though-- after seeing them side by side I was SO close to returning the 5300 for a 4500 for the last day and a half, but I spent some more time with the 5300 on its own, on a stand in front of the 4500 in our bedroom (my living room entertainment center is not yet ready for a 51" flat screen) and I have decided to keep it. I got an incredible deal on it ($495) and I really cant find any faults with it other than not handling 480p as perfectly as the 4500 and the slightly more realistic color of the the 4500. This may well be due to the fact that the new panel needs break in. Standing alone, without the well broken in 4500 at its side bullying it, it IS a great looking set, even with 480p. Once I get my blu-ray player (thats right, I dont have one yet!) and stick it in the living room, Im sure its going to serve me well.

About the pictures/judging quality from them, in general, Mark is right-- its hard to do. You'll just have to take my word for it though, these pics are true to what Im seeing in person. Sure, neither set is calibrated, but I had the 4500 settings set to what I feel looks fantastic for OTA HD and gaming (two different settings), and I fired up the new 5300 right next to it and tried to match its picture as close as possible with the identical feed running on both. From 7+ feet back, in real life, they do produce INCREDIBLY similar pictures, you can trust me on that-- I have both sets, I have no angle, no reason to mislead anyone. By the way, in case anyone was wondering, the 4500 is the top set in the pictures. While it is essentially impossible to tell the difference in PQ, the plastic and the energy rating sticker on the top right of the 5300 is a dead giveaway!

I also shot a video of gaming on both sets with the same feed to show the identical lag time, but my wife and kids busted in the room, plopped in front of the camera and basically ruined it. I have yet to set it up again but I may do so and post a video soon!
ADU likes this.
Josh128 is offline  
post #863 of 951 Old 07-05-2014, 02:54 PM
Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post
Thanks for your comparison, Josh. Any ABL/brightness difference between the two? I'm assuming the F4500 has an upper hand due to its lower resolution, but there is more to ABL other than resolution.
I actually think the 5300 fairs quite well in comparison to the 4500 in terms of brightness and ABL. To me the brightness is essentially identical, but I dont have any instruments to gauge them. The 5300 almost seems a slight bit brighter in fact, but that may be due to the fact it was about 1 to 1.5 ft closer to me than the 4500 when watching the two-- that and the greater pixel density may have just made it look that way.

As for ABL, with either set set to cell light of 18, I didnt notice any at all for regular content. When forcing the issue using a PC and expanding /shrinking white windows, it is still present and visible on both, but actually seems a bit more subtle on the 5300. I'd say it does quite good.
Josh128 is offline  
post #864 of 951 Old 07-05-2014, 02:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
EscapeVelocity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 5,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post
Couple quick and dirty comments on the new 51F5300, after having spent a few hours with it, right next to my trusty 4500, exchanging sources and such.

Pros/Cons

PC Monitor Functionality --This baby is razor sharp when connected via HDMI to a PC outputting to 1920x1080p. Motion of windows, mouse pointer, etc. are spot on with nary a hint of blur....impressive, but not unexpected.

Magenta/Pink on White / Uniformity Issues -- Or complete lack thereof, I should say. Using the Win7 PC I had connected to it, I created some full screen white backgrounds and maximized white windows looking for any discoloration or distortion on the screen in a dark room. Try as I might, I saw nothing out of the ordinary, just white. Nothing even close to the pink hue I spotted on the 60" floor model at BB. Same goes for the 4500.

Input Lag-- I fed the 5300 with a component 240p feed from an emulator on my Wii, splitting off the Y(Luma/Green) to my F4500 and tried a couple quick games in which you have a character jumping. Looking at both screens, the motion seemed identical on both. This is a valid test because when I did it with my F4500 and a 20" CRT, I could fairly easily see the lag in the 4500 compared to the CRT when the characters would jump--even though it measured only about 32 to 48ms. I'd say for all intents and purposes its identical to the 4500 in this regard.

240p handling-- When feeding the system from an RGB enabled SNES and Genesis/MD through a CSY-2100 clone, it produced a razor sharp image, quite a bit sharper than the 4500, without the ever so slight pixel distortion on horizontally scrolling backgrounds that is present on the 4500 (because of its much lower horizontal res, undoubtedly.) The N64 was also tested, and ironically produced a very similar image to the 4500, perhaps just a bit sharper, but not as sharp and harsh as my Panasonic 50X60. I'd have to say the 4500 looks a bit better with N64 stuff, the 5300 has a slight edge with the SNES and Genesis however. (Because of the scrolling, in my opinion).

480p handling-- Ran Super Mario Galaxy on Wii to check it out. Actually looks pretty good I think, but in my opinion the 4500 is the clear winner here. The image on the1080 set seems a bit more blurry on the edges of lines / etc than the 4500 does, but its not a deal breaker. If the 4500s 480p is a 10, I'd rate the 5300s as an 8.5 or 9, its still quite good.

OTA HD Content-- Had some HD recordings on my OTA DVR that looked astonishingly good on my F4500, so I connected it to the 5300 and played back several programs/scenes that caught my eye--particularly the NBC coverage of the French Open tennis championships and an LPB HD program about the Japanese tsunami. I'd say it looked pretty damned great...if I wasnt so spoiled by the 4500! Seriously, it DOES look good, but I can detect the slight blur of upscaling being applied to the 720p/1080i programs I viewed. One positive is that it seemed to be able to resolve just a slight hint more detail of small lettering on signs at the French Open, but the overall image to me just did not look quite as sharp, especially when up close to the set (4' or so). When viewing from 6' or more however, I found the slight upscale blur pretty much unnoticable, with the image looking very similar to the 4500.

Overall Pic Quality vs. the 51F4500-- I may catch a bit of flack for saying this, and perhaps part of it is because the panel is spanking new and not broken in yet, but at least for OTA HD program viewing, the 4500 seems to produce a sharper, more vibrant image. The colors just seem to jump out of the 4500 more. Granted , the 5300 is not broken in yet, so the deal with the colors may change later, hopefully it can match the 4500 eventually, but at least for the little while I played around tonight, its not quite there yet. I will say that the 5300 seems to be less prone to visible dithering on blacks than the 4500-- it produces some pretty pure blacks, but I'm not so sure that its not crushing blacks just a little because of that. I'm not a pro calibrator by any stretch of the imagination, I'm just shooting from the hip in saying that.

That said, when watching HD content from 6' back or more, I find the two sets to be remarkably similar, but seeing what the 5300 is capable of up close just makes me appreciate the 4500 that much more-- the 4500 really is unbelieveable for the price. Other than requiring 1080p for PC use (even though 1280x720 is perfectly usable on the 4500) , or watching 1080p Blu-rays, its my opinion that the extra $150 for the 5300 over the 4500 is not really worth it. Granted, as I get to spend more time with the 5300, break it in, and play with settings, my opinion may change, we'll just have to see. For all this talk though, I do believe I'll keep the set rather than return it for a 4500, as I basically got it for a steal @ $495.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with the two 51" Samsung plasmas Josh. Ill have more to say later.

Vizio VP322 Plasma / Vizio GV42LF LCD / Denon 2200 Silicon Image DVD / Panasonic S97 Faroudja Genesis DVD / Oppo 970HD Mediatek DVD / Oppo 983H Anchor Bay DVD / Panasonic LX-600 Laserdisc / Aiwa MX100 Multi-region VCR / JVC S7600 S-VHS / PS2 / Sega Genesis / Nintendo SNES / Roku 2 XS & HD-XR / Realistic STA-90 Reciever / Realistic Minimus 7 / Antennacraft G1483 Hoverman / Belden 7915A RG6 / Channel Master 7777 Titan 2 UHF/VHF / Panasonic AX-200u / Optoma Graywolf 92" / Draper Luma 92"
EscapeVelocity is offline  
post #865 of 951 Old 07-05-2014, 03:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Super Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post
Sure, neither set is calibrated, but I had the 4500 settings set to what I feel looks fantastic for OTA HD and gaming (two different settings), and I fired up the new 5300 right next to it and tried to match its picture as close as possible with the identical feed running on both. From 7+ feet back, in real life, they do produce INCREDIBLY similar pictures, you can trust me on that-- I have both sets, I have no angle, no reason to mislead anyone.
I know you probably spend a very long time tweaking the 4500 to what looks best to you but what if you started tweaking the 5300 from scratch (not using the 4500 as a reference) and see if you can get a better picture? Then compare the two side by side and maybe use the 5300 as the reference.
Super Eye is offline  
post #866 of 951 Old 07-06-2014, 05:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
caloyzki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 40
the 60" back on sale at Sears for $699.

(2) Energy RC 70 towers
(1) Energy Veritas 2.0C center
(2) Energy Veritas 2.0R surrounds
(2) Energy RC LCR back surrounds
(1) Rythmik LV12R sub
(1) Denon 2112CI avr
(1) LG 55" LM7600 tv
caloyzki is offline  
post #867 of 951 Old 07-06-2014, 08:33 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post
Thanks for the open-minded feedback...
It helps to keep a somewhat open mind on such things when one is basically broke. I was hopin to have an F5300 in my home this weekend to try out some other settings, but none of the half-dozen or so stores I contacted was willin to budge at all on the price. So for the time being, I'm still in "consider mode". I think you might appreciate the 51F5300 a little more though, if you can unleash a bit more of it's "1080p-ness", for lack of a better word.

I spent some more time lookin at both models yesterday, with identical settings, and the only real difference I can see between them is the resolution, and dithering which is finer (and smoother-appearing) on the F5300 vs. more coarse on the F4500.

The F4500 had a little more 3D "pop" to it though (for a 2D display) in the bright over-head store lighting, which I think is just a function of it's larger pixels. So I can see why some folks may initially be more drawn to the look of that display, esp. when viewed at a distance. I personally prefer the smoother, more high resolution look of the F5300 though. (Different strokes, as the sayin goes.)

I think the 43" F4500 has essentially all the same qualities as it's bigger 51" brother btw. As far as I can see, there's basically no difference between them, except for the size.

Also, I would not allow yourself to fall into the trap of thinking that the PQ on the F5300 will either vastly improve or become more "F4500-like" as it starts to break-in. You might get the color and a few other settings dialed in a little better. But it's probably goin to look much the same as it does now a couple months or a year from now.

ADU

Last edited by ADU; 07-07-2014 at 05:56 PM.
ADU is offline  
post #868 of 951 Old 07-07-2014, 03:59 AM
Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post
Also, I would not allow yourself to fall into the trap of thinking that the PQ on the F5300 will either vastly improve or become more "F4500-like" as it starts to break-in. You might get the color and a few other settings dialed in a little better. But it's probably goin to look much the same as it does now a couple months or a year from now.
Yeah, you're probably right, but I've decided to keep the 5300 anyway. I guess its not too bad when the only real fault I can find is that its 1080p! Hopefully the Blu-Ray player will unleash some of its potential.
Josh128 is offline  
post #869 of 951 Old 07-07-2014, 06:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
LastButNotLeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 08077
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 210
No, it's not too bad:

Samsung PN60F5300B Settings And What They Do

Michael
ADU likes this.

Downloadable FREE demo discs:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475769/de...ently-authored 

Did you really need to quote that entire post in your reply?
LastButNotLeast is offline  
post #870 of 951 Old 07-07-2014, 08:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 6,569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADU View Post
It helps to keep a somewhat open mind on such things when one is basically broke. I was hopin to have an F5300 in my home this weekend to try out some other settings, but none of the half-dozen or so stores I contacted was willin to budge at all on the price. So for the time being, I'm still in "consider mode". I think you might appreciate the 51F5300 a little more though, if you can unleash a bit more of it's "1080p-ness", for lack of a better word.

I spent some more time lookin at both models yesterday, with identical settings, and the only real difference I can see between them is the resolution, and dithering which is finer (and smoother-appearing) on the F5300 vs. more coarse on the F4500.

The F4500 had a little more 3D "pop" to it though in the bright over-head store lighting, which I think is just a function of it's larger pixels. So I can see why some folks may initially be more drawn to the look of that display, esp. when viewed at a distance. I personally prefer the smoother, more high resolution look of the F5300 though. (Different strokes, as the sayin goes.)

I think the 720p 43" F4500 has essentially all the same qualities as it's bigger 768p 51" brother btw. As far as I can see, there's basically no difference between them, except for the size.

Also, I would not allow yourself to fall into the trap of thinking that the PQ on the F5300 will either vastly improve or become more "F4500-like" as it starts to break-in. You might get the color and a few other settings dialed in a little better. But it's probably goin to look much the same as it does now a couple months or a year from now.
The 43'' has the same 1024X768 resolution.


Ian
ADU likes this.

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
Reply Plasma Flat Panel Displays

Tags
frontpage

User Tag List

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