LCD A650 same black level as Kuro 8G?

The a750 is a heck of a panel, now if only that .009 was throughtout the entire panel it would be fantastic, but unfortunately, due to the uneven backlighting on lcds, that .009 is rather inconsistent. I can say this though, the Elites, or atleast mine, suffers from that uniformity issue

8G Kuro measured .004ftl, didn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong.

They measured 0.008fL for the 5080.

Samsung LCD black levels are great, though they of course suffer from the usual problems -- flashlighting and poor contrast anywhere other than right in front of the screen. On my parents' Samsung, the flashlighting has gotten much better since they first bought it.

Thanks for the clarification. Why did I think .004ftl? Hmmm.

Newer LCDs are easily competitive with plasma's black level. Here's a few comparisons:

Plasma:

Panasonic TH-42PZ700U Plasma - 0.015 ftL
Samsung PN50A550 Plasma - 0.026fL
Pioneer Elite PRO-110FD Plasma - 0.004fL
Samsung FP-T5884 Plasma - 0.029fL

LCD:

Samsung LN52A750 - 0.009fL
NuVision NVU52DCM LCD - 0.024fL
Sony KDL-52XBR4 LCD - 0.032fL
Mitsubishi LT-46144 LCD - 0.019fL
Samsung LN-T4671F - 0.019fL

But, the difference and where it really counts (in my opinion) is ANSI contrast blacks. With Samsungs 81 series, for example, LED back lighting was well and good and DEFINITELY a step in the right direction, but mixed contrast was the biggest issue. I even found my previous set, the XBR5, to be better with mixed contrast than the 81 series.

I also forgot to mention, to achieve the darkest stated black levels on my XBR5, I had to turn back lighting all the way down and power save mode on high. That severely crushed blacks and dimmed the overall brightness excessively. It was noticeably dimmer than any plasma I've seen on the market.

In our showroom we have the 52A650 and the Pioneer 6020FD. The Samsung black levels are amazing, the 6020 is still better but the Samsung gives it a run for its money.

With LCDs other than the Samsung 81, ANSI and on-off contrast are exactly the same.

How do they achieve that measured level on the LCD though, usable real world settings or power saving high, light sensor on, backlight 0, etc...? I mean I can make my old ass XBR1 somewhat tolerable by turning on power savings, the light sensor, and taking the backlight to 0, but that doesn't mean it's watchable or in any way pleasing--even in a FPJ environment (near black walls, mid gray ceilings, blackout blinds and curtains). Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a smartass of the Plasma defense force with that comment (I've never even owned one), I'm seriously asking. I'm strongly considering the 650/750 on value (which I would likely upgrade next year thanks to the price) Vs. a 5020 (which i would probably have to keep 2 or 3 years thanks to the price).

XBR5 Contrast Ratio : 18,000:1 (Dynamic); 2,000:1 (On-screen)

Chris, that's not the same to me, unless I am reading it wrong.

The XBRs basically turn off the backlight when a full screen 0-IRE signal is displayed, which gives screwy on-off numbers. Real world on-off vs ansi is the same.

Think about it -- LCDs don't have APL circuitry because they don't need it. It's no more taxing to display a full on white screen than it is to show 50% white, 50% black, checkerboards, or whatever.

I think most of their readings are done at whatever setting gave the best contrast ratio (typically backlight at 0). If the screen gives a 2000:1 contrast ratio at 0 backlight, it should be quite punchy.

Chris, the XBR's don't turn off the back lighting. The reason I know this is because the level of black for a black or nearly black screen changes when you change the back lighting setting and/or the power save mode. If an all black screen meant the back lighting was turned off, then the screen wouldn't be visible, which is definitely not the case and there wouldn't be any variant as you change the back light setting or the power save mode.

I agree, though, the numbers that they tout are definitely screwy regardless.

Wow. Samsung is that bad this year? I thought there were pretty much neck and neck with panasonic. Weren't this year's panasonics measured at 0.008 ftL?

Yaa the blacks on the Pioneer are just a touch better than the 650 but the whites on the 650 are way better than the whites on a Pioneer.

My 650 Sammy is a amazing deal, I was just comparing it to the Panny 85u's I bought for the bedrooms and the Sammy has deeper blacks and the picture on the 85u is all pixelated when you look at it at 5ft.

$ for $ the new Sammies are HOTTTTTTTT!

They are HOT, and just think the higher end models are not even out yet, Pioneer will still have the better blacks, but I am curious to see how the A950's will measure up.

The XBRs turn off (or nearly turn off) the backlight when a full screen black signal is displayed. Since it's full screen black, there's nothing to see. This is probably done just to game the reviewer who measure black level and contrast ratios.

I don't mean that the backlight is off when it's set to "0," just that it's off or nearly off when it receives a full-screen black signal. I think I've seen Samsung LCDs do this as well. It just means that the black level needs to be measured with something other than a full screen black signal.

The A650/750 are in fact a pair of great panels. I am just dissapointed with the off axis viewing. The 71 series wasn't nearly as bad with the off axis viewing in comparison. W/ the 6/7 series, even if you move 2ft from center, there is a complete shift in contrast.

Besides that, I also hear that some of the 2008 Bravia models, so far, especially in the Z4100, that, too seems to have rather good black levels for an LCD, despite the matte screen as opposed to the A650/750's glossy CRT look. I actually did see the Z at a store display, and the blacks did get rather pitch-black, to say the least, even tho the store lighting may have crushed them a little.

Really? I thought the off-axis viewing of the 71 was pretty bad. It was tiring to keep my head in the exact right spot. If they're able to clear this up I think LCDs will be much, much more appealing. To me it's the only really major flaw left.

I know the Elite 8G's were .004

Ahhh, maybe that's it, then!

If you are going to compare 2008 model LCD's then why aren't you including the 2008 Pioneer kuro's??

The 9G pioneers are at an astounding 0.0014fL.
Beating all on the list
and the 2009 models will put an end to this whole comparison with its 0.000fL.

Yaa,but the whites suck! I love the Pioneer's but when you compare which TV has the best combo of white and black's together the 650 beats any Plasma from what I saw. Don't get me wrong the Pioneer's in perfect conditions have the best picture in my opinion but samsung has made a shot across the Plasma boy's bow and said if you do not get your chit together the LCD's will be putting you in the scrap heep right around the corner if you lay over.And they do need to do something about the whites they suck on plasma.

And one more thing do not even compare Panny in this at all,I bought 2 of them nice TV's but no 650 at all and the 800u is no Sammy either. The Pannies are a way's behind Pionner from my viewing and the reviews on them are BS in my opinion. PANNIES ARE OVERATED!

Those are all old Plasmas except for the Samsung, why not compare the current displays? If I'm not mistaken this year's Panasonic still bests the LCDs across board (if only slightly) and the new Kuros demolish anything on the LCD side

If you think the 650 is better than the 800U you need to lay off the crack pipe. Yes the Pioneers are leagues ahead of the Panasonics (and way ahead LCDs) but Panasonics are still better than the 650 especially if you want to bring the 800U into the discussion. S-PVA LCDs suck, I'll never buy a Samsung LCD as long as they keep using that garbage technology. As for the Panasonics being overrated I'm sure every home theater magazine was wrong and you were right, not to mention the millions of satisfied owners I hear that a lot from the LCD forum is that gospel over there now? Whatever makes you guys feel better One thing Samsung will never fix is the inherent problems of LCD/PVA technology the viewing angles will always be bad, the gamma will always shift and the screen will never be uniform, oh and there will always be input lag. The only type of LCD that has a chance against plasma are IPS panels, which ironically Panasonic uses on their small TVs.

The PRO-1150HD is still an amazing TV. Better with Blu-Ray than the Panasonic 85 series. The new 111/151 are amazing! 8G Pioneer Elite is still better than anything you can buy except the new 9G's. Pioneer is so far ahead with real contrast levels. LCD's look cartoonish. Even the 81 series ain't that good. Off axis on all LCD's is poor as is motion lag. 120HZ...a joke. LCD's are so bright that when you back them down the picture turns to crap. The 81 series is a step in the right direction, a small step though.
I still don't understand the love afair with the new 650 series. They don't impress me and the TOC is lame. Samsung hasn't done anything that with the new stuff that would make me want to ditch my Elites.

The non-elite 1080p models were .004 also from my recollection. I do remember the 720p Kuros being slightly behind in black levels over the 1080p series.

I have to say though that there's got to be a bit of difference if the Sammy's are at .009 and the 8Gs at .004. There's quite a step up in my 6020 rated at .001ftl over my 8G at .004ftl so I'd have to think the 8G is definitely better thant the Sammy in a darkened room(statistically speaking).