Plasma brightness, then and now - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 7Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 56 Old 04-01-2015, 06:59 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
soloist3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Plasma brightness, then and now

I was considering the brightness of PDP technology over the years, I currently own a 9G Kuro (5020) and an old Vizio VP422, not even sure whose glass is in the Vizio. Anyway, the Pioneer is actually plenty bright but not anywhere near as retina searing as my VP422. I suspect this has to do with the methods of minimally priming the cells to achieve the lower black levels, but compared to many other plasma's, even those with quite terrible, almost LCD rivaling mll's, I have noticed an overall diminished white output in newer v. older plasmas. I am speaking of panels such as the well regarded Samsung F5300B, H5000, and nearly all of the recent Panasonic models (haven't really seen an ST60, but have seen plenty of VT/ZT60's).

Is this a result of more stringent power consumption restrictions, or due to manufacturers not wanting to put in power supplies that can handle the current demand of a high peak white on these larger screens? Perhaps I have the perfect storm so to speak, a smaller panel (being a 42"), and it being an older 720p panel? I mean, I literally have no noticeable ABL compression/expansion on my VP422. Interesting still is that I have not noticed any ABL or diminished light output on my grandfathers Vizio 50" 1080P Plasma either. I guess what I am wondering is, what happened to the great mid tones and peak whites that plasma used to offer? I have owned this older Vizio for years with no IR or uneven screen wear, and there have plenty of times where I left a DVD menu on screen all night (fell asleep after long days at work), so it cannot be to prevent IR or reduce phosphor aging. Just curious, I mean I am a pretty big plasma fan, always have been, just wondering why the big trend towards dim plasma monitors. While I realize that the industry standard is near the 35ftL range, there are times when daytime viewing requires a bit more punch, my VP422 certainly has it, and the Pioneer is not by any means dim, just wondering why most plasma's, though especially Panasonic stuff made after the 8UK/9UK series, always looked so dim to me.

Last edited by soloist3; 04-01-2015 at 10:08 PM.
soloist3 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 56 Old 04-01-2015, 09:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 7,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 409
According to CNET, the Vizio's like your VP422, were probably the brightest PDP's ever made. However, it came at the expense of black level performance and lower contrast ratio's when compared to the latest plasmas. As you know the Kuro's pretty much excelled in all areas, even in fairly bright room environments, but don't forget, they weren't as energy efficient as today's sets and they certainly didn't come cheap.

Ian

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


Last edited by mailiang; 04-01-2015 at 09:28 PM.
mailiang is offline  
post #3 of 56 Old 04-01-2015, 11:56 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
soloist3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks for the CNET reference, I didn't even bother looking it up b/c I was almost sure that it was too insignificant a plasma to even have a review there. Glad to know my opinion is founded about the brightness, I mean, this thing KILLS my LED-LCD in my living room (had to go that route...roommates ). I am amazed every time I see it. The funny thing is that, while black levels are pretty bad by most standards, the detail IN the black is phenomenal, nothing ever looks crushed into the grey, every little detail sort of "pokes" through the not-so-great blacks. To the point where, honestly, the contrast is so high and so static that it looks very pleasing, very watchable...in fact more pleasing than the Panasonic models that I have bought and sold over the years. I guess what I love the most is there are NO floating blacks and NO visible ABL on the VP422, it's a no nonsense panel that just looks good in everything but a completely dark room. I often wonder what would have happened if plasma had gone that route, where they retained their good white levels, similar to the trail that the F8500 was attempting to blaze. Personally, I find floating blacks and floating whites (ABL) so distracting...ABL maybe even more than floating blacks (well, depending on how much they float).

I am really proud of Pioneer for being ALL about the PQ, their panels ate tons of power but the picture quality they had was just great all the way around. I guess I am "that guy", the one that would gladly sacrifice a little power consumption for a great panel. The VP422, while not a black level great, is just such a pleasant set to look at, the only situation that it doesn't excel at is watching the tv in complete darkness. I guess I am just proud of the plasma that I do own and really lamenting the fact that the tech is dead and that OLED is a little too far off to really fill the gap

Last edited by soloist3; 04-02-2015 at 12:18 AM.
soloist3 is offline  
post #4 of 56 Old 04-02-2015, 12:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,499
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 801 Post(s)
Liked: 303
I'm jealous that you can leave a menu on all night without too much fear. My old Panasonic will retain shadows of a menu (or health bar) for weeks if it holds still for only a few minutes.
Now I'll have to compare it to the bright familyroom LCD because it is a fairly old PDP.

EDIT:
My panny plasma will indeed put out a brighter image than the Sanyo LCD in the familyroom (which is a nicely bright TV) and will even match my phoneLCD (made for outdoor use), but only in Dynamic mode which is permanently saddled with terrible gamma that looks unnatural and adds lots of image-noise (gamma on this Panasonic is different for each preset, but non-adjustable). Cinema and User presets (the only ones with decent-looking gamma) are noticeably darker at their brightest possible settings.

Simple <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room, build in a day, takedown in an hour.
Easy $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.

Last edited by Ftoast; 04-02-2015 at 04:05 PM.
Ftoast is offline  
post #5 of 56 Old 04-02-2015, 12:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 7,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Personally, I don't like overly bright displays like those found on LCD's. They just don't look natural to me. THX recommends a brightness level of 30 ftl under controlled lighting conditions which is easily achieved by most plasmas which are still brighter then my old CRT. That being said, I actually prefer it a few foot lamps higher then that, however, for most daylight viewing, your probably better off with a set with a very good AR filter, a less aggressive ABL, or the ability to output levels that can be only be achieved by an LCD. The Samsung 8500 may fit the bill so to speak, but there are floating blacks and possible color bleed issues to consider. Bottom line, there's no such thing as a perfect display.

Ian

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


Last edited by mailiang; 04-02-2015 at 01:17 PM. Reason: Typo
mailiang is offline  
post #6 of 56 Old 04-02-2015, 03:25 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
soloist3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 10
In no way am I looking for a LED-LCD plasma analog (in terms of brightness), it just so happens that this VP422, and some of the older Plasmas really can do it. I keep my Vizio at 53 contrast, 40 brightness and it is just perfect (they both go to 100, and there is a huge degree of change in that range). At 53, it's putting out the same amount of light as my Vizio 50" CFL LCD, not overly bright but cuts right through the daylight that comes through my side facing glass sliding door. Very pleasing amount of light, looks just like my old Mitsubishi 26" CRT At no point do I ever have to take out the remote and change the contrast values b/c it just always looks good, well short of a completely dark room, and even then, it's better than any LCD I have seen.

I really need to get a meter to find out what this panel is putting out because I just love watching the set. Though I am also curious to see what its maximum light output is, as it must be some sort of record for plasma. I guess what I am getting at with the panel brightness comparison is the Panasonic models throughout the years looking increasingly dim. Almost like they were tinting the front glass so much to obtain the best black levels that plasma tech was seen as trading black for peak white (since panasonic was the most popular plasma at the time). I must have went through 3 or 4 different models, I think the last one was an S50 and my eyes just couldn't get used to how dark the image was. It was about that time there was all of this talk of how plasma just "couldn't compete" in terms of brightness compared to LCD, meanwhile I was here watching the VP422 every day thinking, if I had this any brighter I think my eyes would start bleeding...it's so bright that I had to turn it down to right out of the box.

Also, about leaving an image on screen and falling asleep, yeah, that is a TERRIBLE feeling. The first time it happened I was physically panicked for a few hours, thinking I had ruined my panel, but after about an 30-60 mins the IR was gone, no harm done. I was so surprised, and thankfully I learned that this panel is almost impossible to burn in, which is surprising because it is so bright.

Last edited by soloist3; 04-02-2015 at 11:30 PM.
soloist3 is offline  
post #7 of 56 Old 04-02-2015, 04:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 7,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by soloist3 View Post
I was here watching the VP422 every day thinking, if I had this any brighter I think my eyes would start bleeding...it's so bright that I have to turn it down to right out of the box.
You mean like this? I caught this neighborhood cop while you were out leaving your house after watching a hockey game on the VP422! I would suggest you call the authorities, but I doubt he'll be returning.




Ian

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


Last edited by mailiang; 04-02-2015 at 04:15 PM.
mailiang is offline  
post #8 of 56 Old 04-02-2015, 07:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,422
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1272 Post(s)
Liked: 1278
personally, all my tv's have been able to reach around 30-35ftl, so as far as i'm concerned, they're all 100% as bright as i want. the real difference is the MLL which has ranged from basically 0 to 'bright enough to read by'...

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 offline  
post #9 of 56 Old 04-02-2015, 11:26 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
soloist3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I understand the 35ft.L goal. While I feel that it is important to adhere to some standard, my eyes prefer a bit more punch, even though I can certainly appreciate a 30-35ft.L image.

I suppose what I am saying is that Samsung was lauded for their ability make a "plasma so bright it could rival an LED-LCD" meanwhile many older plasmas were as bright or brighter years ago. Now, you would say that it is more impressive because the black levels are much better, though looking at the F8500 specs, it is not anything really remarkable, though I am sure a little bit better than this old Vizio that nobody cared too much about Just interesting that plasma essentially died because it wasn't bright enough, something that many people believed was inherent to the technology, which really was never true.
soloist3 is offline  
post #10 of 56 Old 04-02-2015, 11:44 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
soloist3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post
You mean like this? I caught this neighborhood cop while you were out leaving your house after watching a hockey game on the VP422! I would suggest you call the authorities, but I doubt he'll be returning.




Ian
^ Lol..love this. It is impressively bright and a not well acknowledged plasma set. To be honest I wasn't expecting anything noteworthy when I bought it, having my Pioneer Kuro in the main room, so I suppose I am glad it excels at something

Last edited by soloist3; 04-02-2015 at 11:59 PM.
soloist3 is offline  
post #11 of 56 Old 04-03-2015, 08:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 7,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by soloist3 View Post
Just interesting that plasma essentially died because it wasn't bright enough, something that many people believed was inherent to the technology, which really was never true.
I remember the days when you can actually view TV's in a light controlled room. Unfortunately due to the increase of big box stores, most PDP's were seen under poor florescent lighting which favored brighter LCD displays. Despite their lower luminance levels, color accuracy, black levels and contrast levels continued to improve. According to the Image Science Foundation, contrast is the most important specification when it comes to picture quality, it's what gives the picture the pop you are referring to. I agree that in bright room environments many plasma displays may fall short in this area, but in home theater applications, asside from projection screens, they are still more faithful to film and they come closest to meeting ATSC/SMPTE/CIE specifications. There are a lot of reasons why Plasma died, but picture quality wasn't one of them.


Quote:
Plasma, a requiem
What's the big deal, you might ask? Don't LCD TVs—or LED TVs, if you like to mistakenly call them that—already represent the overwhelming majority of TV sales?
Yes, though frankly I've never been able to understand why, unless you happen to live in a sun-drenched house without any window coverings, where LCD's higher brightness and less reflective screens would be a plus. (Or if you need a TV with a screen smaller than 42 inches.) All those so-called LCD TV features that manufacturers like to brag about, such as local dimming and 120Hz and 240Hz technologies—plasma doesn't need them. They're simply efforts to overcome LCD TVs' inherent weaknesses. And let's not even get into viewing angles.
The best plasmas deliver everything a videophile could want in a TV: great, deep black levels, accurate colors, and unlimited viewing angles. Think that plasmas only appeal to video snobs? We recently brought a bunch of new employees into our TV labs and asked them to pick their favorite two TVs. Out of the 15 TVs playing the same program, every single person picked the only two plasma sets in the room. James Wilcox-Consumer Reports January 2014
Also see:
Rip Panasonic Plasma.

Ian

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


Last edited by mailiang; 04-03-2015 at 11:47 AM. Reason: Removed link
mailiang is offline  
post #12 of 56 Old 04-03-2015, 01:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,422
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1272 Post(s)
Liked: 1278
Quote:
Originally Posted by soloist3 View Post
I understand the 35ft.L goal. While I feel that it is important to adhere to some standard, my eyes prefer a bit more punch, even though I can certainly appreciate a 30-35ft.L image.

I suppose what I am saying is that Samsung was lauded for their ability make a "plasma so bright it could rival an LED-LCD" meanwhile many older plasmas were as bright or brighter years ago. Now, you would say that it is more impressive because the black levels are much better, though looking at the F8500 specs, it is not anything really remarkable, though I am sure a little bit better than this old Vizio that nobody cared too much about Just interesting that plasma essentially died because it wasn't bright enough, something that many people believed was inherent to the technology, which really was never true.
the blacks are pretty remarkable, the fact that it maintains those blacks with the brightness is what got ppl's attention.


it's capable of ansi contrast ratios close to 10000:1 and on/off contrast of almost 50000:1. the only display I know of that beats that is the kuro and last gen panny's.


but I'm sure the reasons for dimmer plasma 'on average' is:
-more stringent eco requirements
-trying to produce cheaper, not better displays
-application of more aggressive screen filters


I think there's more to the statement 'plasmas are too dim'. it's not an absolute statement, like you said your old plasma proves otherwise, as does the f8500. but at least in the f8500's case, it's not a cheap display, and while imo it blows away all competition from the lcd market, most average ppl won't appreciate what it does so well, and will wonder why the 700dollar lcd beside it that's slightly brighter isn't the better purchase. selling plasmas to the average crowd is like expecting everybody to buy high end sports cars. not everybody 'gets it' and it doesn't make any sense to spend more money, deal with more maintenance, and whatever else comes with owning a Porsche over a Honda.

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 offline  
post #13 of 56 Old 04-03-2015, 03:53 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
soloist3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yep, you hit the nail on the head, I agree wholeheartedly. Even the reasons you mentioned are the reasons I came to. Above all I am just disappointed that such a great technology died...though I suppose OLED isn't too far off, thankfully

Last edited by soloist3; 04-04-2015 at 12:04 AM.
soloist3 is offline  
post #14 of 56 Old 04-03-2015, 07:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,422
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1272 Post(s)
Liked: 1278
still would be nice if oled replaced lcd instead of plasma...


I'd love it if:
-lcd's were restricted to smaller sizes, and cheap models, since even the expensive ones aren't very good anyway.
-oled's took over as the 'top of the line' big screens, capable of UHD and whatever else
-plasma's became the economical performers, something like the st60 would still destroy any lcd, but they will still be limited in size and resolution

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 offline  
post #15 of 56 Old 04-04-2015, 12:51 PM
Member
 
Vegeta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 12
The only plasma that was anywhere near as bright as my LX5090 / 5020 Kuro 9G was the Panasonic TXP50GT60B but I just couldn't get used to the DFC on the Panasonic so stuck to the Kuro. I also had a Panasonic TXP55VT65B and that was about 30% dimmer than the Pioneer and the GT60B and I could still see the DFC albeit less than the GT60B so I got rid of it.
Vegeta is offline  
post #16 of 56 Old 04-04-2015, 01:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 7,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegeta View Post
The only plasma that was anywhere near as bright as my LX5090 / 5020 Kuro 9G was the Panasonic TXP50GT60B but I just couldn't get used to the DFC on the Panasonic so stuck to the Kuro. I also had a Panasonic TXP55VT65B and that was about 30% dimmer than the Pioneer and the GT60B and I could still see the DFC albeit less than the GT60B so I got rid of
it.
I can only assume that you are in the UK, which I believe uses the 50hz PAL frame rate. I have found that certain PDP's may be more sensitive to DFC at these rates then the NTSA standard 60hz rate. 60hz can also be an issue occasionally due to high data compression. I rarely see any noticeable banding or posterization on 24p BD content when watching my S60.

Ian

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


Last edited by mailiang; 04-04-2015 at 03:44 PM. Reason: Typo
mailiang is offline  
post #17 of 56 Old 04-06-2015, 10:04 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
soloist3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Vegeta, I am glad you brought that up, about the 30% dimmer estimate, I had also concluded that the last generation Panasonic's were just too dark for my eyes. I rarely ever get a chance to watch movies in a dark room, someone almost always has a light on somewhere, kitchen, over the stove, you name it. The only time the Panasonic looked acceptable to me was in near complete darkness. It made me really upset too, as I had sold my 42" Kuro a few months before they were released, I was thinking that Panasonic would carry on with the same tech Pioneer was using. Perhaps they did, but the brightness was just never there.
soloist3 is offline  
post #18 of 56 Old 04-07-2015, 09:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 7,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by soloist3 View Post
Vegeta, I am glad you brought that up, about the 30% dimmer estimate, I had also concluded that the last generation Panasonic's were just too dark for my eyes. I rarely ever get a chance to watch movies in a dark room, someone almost always has a light on somewhere, kitchen, over the stove, you name it. The only time the Panasonic looked acceptable to me was in near complete darkness. It made me really upset too, as I had sold my 42" Kuro a few months before they were released, I was thinking that Panasonic would carry on with the same tech Pioneer was using. Perhaps they did, but the brightness was just never there.
FWIW, my 2013 Panasonic is brighter then my 2010 model which is brighter then my in-laws 2009 Panny. Have you actually viewed any of these sets properly calibrated and at home under normal viewing conditions? I watch sports on my set all day long with indirect sunlight in my media room and the picture is pretty bright. However, when watching movies under the same conditions I have to draw the shades a bit to reduce reflections. I have a Toshiba Reza LCD in my bedroom with a matte screen, which is a lot less reflective, but under similar lighting conditions, it really doesn't look that much brighter.

Ian

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


Last edited by mailiang; 04-07-2015 at 11:48 AM. Reason: Typo
mailiang is offline  
post #19 of 56 Old 04-18-2015, 12:54 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
soloist3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Interestingly, no, I have never seen them fully calibrated, wish I had the opportunity to. I just recently saw a fellow members VT60, I was fairly impressed, it wasn't as dim as I remember the ST60 I saw just a few weeks ago (odd to, as the ST60 is supposed to be a bit brighter; likely it was a setting difference). Anyway, I am kind of interested in compiling a list of plasma's in terms of peak brightness (those with respectable black levels, the F8500 is likely at the top, but I am unsure as to where the Panasonic's, lower-end Samsung's, and of course, the Kuro's fit.
soloist3 is offline  
post #20 of 56 Old 04-18-2015, 01:03 PM
Member
 
surfajl77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
RE:

Quote:
Originally Posted by soloist3 View Post
Interestingly, no, I have never seen them fully calibrated, wish I had the opportunity to. I just recently saw a fellow members VT60, I was fairly impressed, it wasn't as dim as I remember the ST60 I saw just a few weeks ago (odd to, as the ST60 is supposed to be a bit brighter; likely it was a setting difference). Anyway, I am kind of interested in compiling a list of plasma's in terms of peak brightness (those with respectable black levels, the F8500 is likely at the top, but I am unsure as to where the Panasonic's, lower-end Samsung's, and of course, the Kuro's fit.
Why this obsession with brightness? Do you live in a glass house?

The problem is that you’re judging brightness capabilities based on what you’re seeing with your eyes at a single point in time. Just because one set looks “brighter” than another set you compared it to, doesn’t necessarily conclude that it is the “brighter” TV of the two. For example, what environments were they in? Dim environments or bright environments? What settings/modes were they using? What are their viewing preferences? The bottom line is this: You can’t make a judgment call on brightness based simply on what you see unless you know the settings that are being used. Just because my Kuro can get blazingly bright, for example, doesn’t necessarily mean that I run the set like that. In fact, some people look at it and say, “Oh, that’s a dim TV set. It sucks.”

I own two Kuros (5020 and 151FD) and a Panasonic VT50. I can sit there and crank the contrast on my remote and “eye-ball” them all in order to get them pretty damned bright. But I’m also sacrificing other parts of the picture while doing so that you probably don't realize. With that said, the only set I’ve ever had professionally calibrated that was able to achieve super bright levels WITHOUT introducing additional sacrifices to the picture is my 151. I'm assuming that the other 9/9.5G Elite models also would fall into this family as well.

Yes, the f8500 can get very bright, but its black-levels are no on par with Panasonic or Pioneer, which is a sacrifice I'm not willing to make.

I own a 5020 and it’s mostly just used in the playroom with the kids these days. The only mode that you can calibrate is movie mode and while the brightness is just fine, the anti-reflective filter sucks and its lack of calibration controls make it incapable of producing a reference image. It’s like having a Porsche, but being restricted to only drive it 50mph. You’re really only getting a “taste” of what the Kuro can really do.

We have a guy here in California who actually interviews potential clients before agreeing to calibrate their sets. And if the clients appear to be those types who favor “vibrancy” over accuracy, he will not agree to calibrate their sets, because he knows they’ll be disappointed. D-Nice himself has said that he could care less if a panel can do over 30ftL. Even if someone does a Day/Night calibration, they usually end up using the Night mode exclusively, because 35ftL is more than sufficient for viewing in even a moderately lit room.

As for my 151FD, once you unlock ISF modes and plug in some settings, you get a gorgeous picture that rivals pretty much anything. And the anti-reflective filter is superior on the Elite models, which makes a lot of difference in terms of being able to reject light, which is equally as important as its “brightness” capabilities. And yes, it can easily reach 50ftL levels without any issues, but I don’t really feel this is important. Max brightness is only a small piece of the pie when it comes to things like color accuracy and black levels.
mailiang likes this.

Last edited by surfajl77; 04-18-2015 at 01:06 PM.
surfajl77 is offline  
post #21 of 56 Old 04-18-2015, 02:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,422
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1272 Post(s)
Liked: 1278
^^ it's like wanting an amp that puts out 300w/ch instead of 200w/ch when all you really need is 100w/ch anyway... too easy to get caught up in the marketing of it

of course there are ppl who will see a benefit because of the way they use it, but it's quite frustrating to see the market trend towards brighter panels and higher black levels and away from deeper blacks(that still provided sufficient brightness)

i do happen to own the f8500(which in all honesty is a fantastic display for its versatility), but if i could trade brightness for better MLL it would be an obvious choice to do it. pretty much every display since crt (until oled) has 'not black blacks', so there's ALWAYS room for improvement, even the kuros. on the other side, i've never personally owned a tv that i felt was too dim, ever. i had to go to great lengths to figure out how to tame the f8500's TOO bright image so that i could watch it without getting headaches.
mailiang and StinDaWg 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

Last edited by fierce_gt; 04-19-2015 at 07:48 AM.
fierce_gt is offline  
post #22 of 56 Old 04-18-2015, 03:10 PM
Member
 
surfajl77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I think the whole desire for brightness trend started once LCDs started being mass marketed. The misconception that "brighter is better" is one that's very hard to convince people to look past. When I was younger and less informed, I always gravitated to the brightest sets on the showroom floor and would declare X is better than Y because they were brighter when I looked at them at Best Buy.

But once you see a properly calibrated image and become accustomed to what an image is supposed to look like (as opposed to what you want it to look like), you begin to appreciate the realism and depth provided by some of these plasmas.

I thought it was interesting that a couple of years ago during the VE Shootout, while the f8500 won in the view of the public, the VT60/ZT60 was the preferred set by the professional calibrators. And I feel this difference was due to what appeals most to the eye. Consumers are going to be drawn to the more punchier look of the f8500, while calibrators are going to me drawn more to the increased shadow-detail and black levels of the Panasonics, which they place more emphasis on when trying to achieve reference quality.
StinDaWg likes this.
surfajl77 is offline  
post #23 of 56 Old 04-18-2015, 09:40 PM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 955
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by soloist3 View Post
Interestingly, no, I have never seen them fully calibrated, wish I had the opportunity to. I just recently saw a fellow members VT60, I was fairly impressed, it wasn't as dim as I remember the ST60 I saw just a few weeks ago (odd to, as the ST60 is supposed to be a bit brighter; likely it was a setting difference). Anyway, I am kind of interested in compiling a list of plasma's in terms of peak brightness (those with respectable black levels, the F8500 is likely at the top, but I am unsure as to where the Panasonic's, lower-end Samsung's, and of course, the Kuro's fit.
If you're going to be compiling, I can at least help you with a few models I own lol.

F8500
F4500 (own one)
F5300 (own one)
S60 (own one)
LG PT350 (owned one)
KOF is online now  
post #24 of 56 Old 04-18-2015, 09:56 PM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 955
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfajl77 View Post
I think the whole desire for brightness trend started once LCDs started being mass marketed. The misconception that "brighter is better" is one that's very hard to convince people to look past. When I was younger and less informed, I always gravitated to the brightest sets on the showroom floor and would declare X is better than Y because they were brighter when I looked at them at Best Buy.

But once you see a properly calibrated image and become accustomed to what an image is supposed to look like (as opposed to what you want it to look like), you begin to appreciate the realism and depth provided by some of these plasmas.

I thought it was interesting that a couple of years ago during the VE Shootout, while the f8500 won in the view of the public, the VT60/ZT60 was the preferred set by the professional calibrators. And I feel this difference was due to what appeals most to the eye. Consumers are going to be drawn to the more punchier look of the f8500, while calibrators are going to me drawn more to the increased shadow-detail and black levels of the Panasonics, which they place more emphasis on when trying to achieve reference quality.
Today's games can also make use of calibration just like movies, but unlike movies, games do not cap at 30 fL. So really, while it's true Panasonic plasmas truly excel in mesopic vision range, that doesn't mean they always suck at photopic vision range compared to the F8500/LCDs. Given a chance, the Panasonics can dish out SO much in photopic contents (like running them in quarter of a screen in ABL friendly photopic scenes) the F8500/LCDs cannot compete. I want more brightness out of my Panasonic plasma not because I say hell with black level and graviate towards the brightest TVs, but because such spectacular black level can be made so much more if added with more brightness. HDR will be the future, so 30 fL light output cannot be argued as being more realistic. The reason plasmas, despite being dim, end up being more realistic than LCDs is because properly done mesopic vision alone is still hella better than improperly done photopic vision as those LCDs have attempted. If Panasonic plasmas have gotten far more brighter and also employed HDR, they will be far more realistic than current one because now they are doing proper photopic vision too. If we are shooting for photorealism, why stop at movies? Movies aren't even anywhere close to be resolving suns, sunny beach, etc.
KOF is online now  
post #25 of 56 Old 04-19-2015, 04:06 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
soloist3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The concern about brightness is simply because it is the other side of the "contrast ratio" equation. I love having excellent blacks and feel that the majority of newer plasma's do very well in that category, with obviously a few models outstanding, the Kuro's and the Panasonic 60's. Given that I am looking at these models (and the F8500), TV's that all have great black level performance, my concern has shifted to trying to obtain as much peak brightness as I can get. My viewing situation includes quite a bit of high ambient light, I would rather have something like an ST60 over a VT/ZT because of the extra brightness, or perhaps even an F8500, as again my dark room viewing is a much smaller percentage of my viewing experience.

Perhaps my views are a bit clouded by my experience with plasma after selling my Pioneer 4280HD back in 2010, ever since then, new plasma's have looked very dim too me, especially the Panasonic's. I cannot even remember all of the models of Panasonic and Samsung plasma's that I went through during that time, but they were all very dark, and felt less engaging to watch. I remember specifically one entry level set, a Samsung 51" 530 series, that just looked like it was always stuck behind a giant ND filter of some kind. I remember putting my VP422 next to it, with the same content and the difference was incredible, the VP422 was at least twice as bright and was only set to half it's available peak white levels. I suppose the VP422 is a bit of a spoiler though, I mean it can easily outshine my LCD, but something in the the 50-55ft.-l range, similar to what the 5020 can do is a great place to be for me, unfortunately I haven't seen a plasma since the 5020, well or the VP422, that can really get there. 30-35ft.-l is fine if you only watch in complete darkness, but in most daytime or high ambient light scenarios, I find it's just not enough, which is of course a subjective and personal thing.

Last edited by soloist3; 04-19-2015 at 04:10 AM.
soloist3 is offline  
post #26 of 56 Old 04-19-2015, 07:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,422
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1272 Post(s)
Liked: 1278
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfajl77 View Post
I think the whole desire for brightness trend started once LCDs started being mass marketed. The misconception that "brighter is better" is one that's very hard to convince people to look past. When I was younger and less informed, I always gravitated to the brightest sets on the showroom floor and would declare X is better than Y because they were brighter when I looked at them at Best Buy.

But once you see a properly calibrated image and become accustomed to what an image is supposed to look like (as opposed to what you want it to look like), you begin to appreciate the realism and depth provided by some of these plasmas.

I thought it was interesting that a couple of years ago during the VE Shootout, while the f8500 won in the view of the public, the VT60/ZT60 was the preferred set by the professional calibrators. And I feel this difference was due to what appeals most to the eye. Consumers are going to be drawn to the more punchier look of the f8500, while calibrators are going to me drawn more to the increased shadow-detail and black levels of the Panasonics, which they place more emphasis on when trying to achieve reference quality.
i actually think it's very easy, all you have to do is display the tv's in an environment that resembles what you see at home.

i have had 4 different LED tv's at home, all for less than 2 days because it was IMMEDIATELY obvious once i got them home, they looked terrible. the first i returned as defective. it wasn't until the second one looked even worse that i decided to look up the issues and discovered they were accepted 'issues' with LED LCD's. it's funny that i had to turn the backlight down to 3/20 to get a comfortable brightness, but at anything above 5/20 it was also obvious that the tv had serious uniformity issues and terrible black levels. if those tv's were cranked to 20/20 and displayed next to a plasma in a medium lit(or heaven forbid dark) room, the extra brightness would be making the defects more obvious.

i am convinced that stores are displaying lcd tv's in bright showrooms because it hides these defects.

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 offline  
post #27 of 56 Old 04-19-2015, 08:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,422
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1272 Post(s)
Liked: 1278
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post
Today's games can also make use of calibration just like movies, but unlike movies, games do not cap at 30 fL. So really, while it's true Panasonic plasmas truly excel in mesopic vision range, that doesn't mean they always suck at photopic vision range compared to the F8500/LCDs. Given a chance, the Panasonics can dish out SO much in photopic contents (like running them in quarter of a screen in ABL friendly photopic scenes) the F8500/LCDs cannot compete. I want more brightness out of my Panasonic plasma not because I say hell with black level and graviate towards the brightest TVs, but because such spectacular black level can be made so much more if added with more brightness. HDR will be the future, so 30 fL light output cannot be argued as being more realistic. The reason plasmas, despite being dim, end up being more realistic than LCDs is because properly done mesopic vision alone is still hella better than improperly done photopic vision as those LCDs have attempted. If Panasonic plasmas have gotten far more brighter and also employed HDR, they will be far more realistic than current one because now they are doing proper photopic vision too. If we are shooting for photorealism, why stop at movies? Movies aren't even anywhere close to be resolving suns, sunny beach, etc.
personally, i don't want THAT much realism. i don't want to wear sunglasses while watching tv. could you imagine watching a scene that cuts back and forth between a bright outside area and a dark inside area. glasses on, glasses off, glasses on...

i like that at about 35ftl or so, i'm never feeling strain on my eyes or discomfort. at 40ftl, i start to feel that. HDR will be interesting, i'm still not sure how it's going to look, but i really REALLY hope that they will not make the average brightness higher.

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 offline  
post #28 of 56 Old 04-19-2015, 08:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,422
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1272 Post(s)
Liked: 1278
Quote:
Originally Posted by soloist3 View Post
30-35ft.-l is fine if you only watch in complete darkness, but in most daytime or high ambient light scenarios, I find it's just not enough, which is of course a subjective and personal thing.
very subjective! i personally find watching in super bright conditions, shall i say 'silly' to be polite. this has nothing to do with what type of display, it's just a wrong feeling experience to me. tv goes on, blinds get closed, it's that simple for me. but...


also comes down to some care. if you can keep direct sunlight off the screen, which imo is MANDATORY for all displays, there's not reason a plasma can't handle brighter room. i'd have to double check the exact measure, but i'm sure this one is between 30-35ftl. nobody has ever mentioned anything about it being dim.

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 offline  
post #29 of 56 Old 04-19-2015, 08:43 AM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 955
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
personally, i don't want THAT much realism. i don't want to wear sunglasses while watching tv. could you imagine watching a scene that cuts back and forth between a bright outside area and a dark inside area. glasses on, glasses off, glasses on...

i like that at about 35ftl or so, i'm never feeling strain on my eyes or discomfort. at 40ftl, i start to feel that. HDR will be interesting, i'm still not sure how it's going to look, but i really REALLY hope that they will not make the average brightness higher.
No, read Scott Wilkinson's report on HDR again. Did he wear sunglasses? Properly done HDR only allows you to see high luminance in a small window in very short time. Heck, even HDR employed to my dim Panasonic S60 can bring much marked improvement because of increased dynamic range, so black/shadow rendition will look more truthful. (In HDR, bright part is only half of the equation, that's why only OLEDs despite being still dim for a HDR display will still be the best choice for HDR contents)

The only way HDR can hurt your eyes is those content providers go 'Loudness War' and jack up brightness more than necessary. Perhaps future commercials and web ads will REALLY make advantage of such HDR in a twisted way.
KOF is online now  
post #30 of 56 Old 04-19-2015, 09:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 7,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
very subjective! i personally find watching in super bright conditions, shall i say 'silly' to be polite. this has nothing to do with what type of display, it's just a wrong feeling experience to me. tv goes on, blinds get closed, it's that simple for me. but...


also comes down to some care. if you can keep direct sunlight off the screen, which imo is MANDATORY for all displays, there's not reason a plasma can't handle brighter room. i'd have to double check the exact measure, but i'm sure this one is between 30-35ftl. nobody has ever mentioned anything about it being dim.

Personally, I can't understand why anyone would have a main viewing room where you can't control the lighting. For daytime viewing in overly bright secondary rooms, I have no problem with LCD's, since the environment isn't conducive to displaying a quality, accurate picture to begin with.

Ian
fierce_gt likes this.

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

mailiang is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Plasma Flat Panel Displays

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