or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Chad B's TV rankings
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Chad B's TV rankings - Page 2

post #31 of 506
-Chad

Please explain why the G10 got a 2 of 3 in your resolution rating, because Cnet's review stated the set handles all 1080p lines even during moving scenes.

You gave the Samsung a 3 of 3, and i don't understand from the specs, why the Samsung gets a 3, and the G10 a 2 of 3.

TIA
post #32 of 506
I noticed that you gave the 09 Sammy plasmas almost the worst scores in the "pop" category.

This was just based on numerical difference between lightest light and darkest dark? I always thought they had a very nice pop, certainly not a washed out image(?) Was it really that bad? (a 3/10 is a pretty significant F haha)
post #33 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleh19 View Post

I noticed that you gave the 09 Sammy plasmas almost the worst scores in the "pop" category.

This was just based on numerical difference between lightest light and darkest dark? I always thought they had a very nice pop, certainly not a washed out image(?) Was it really that bad? (a 3/10 is a pretty significant F haha)

Hey guys, unless your set is a lemon(Vizio..lol. Ok, sorry about that), i think we need to realize that most reviewers(who are pro. calibrater's as well) are judging by numbers/specs..ect, where in many cases even the most visual perfectionist may not see a problem, unless he is allerted to it, and then looks for it..say 1-2 feet away on a 50"+ set?

Heck i even remember Cnet giving the XBR960 "poor" for two of it's primary color decoders and that was Cnet's reference set, and i noticed no push for those colors in the 4 years i have had it.

I'd love to see a review site that judges PQ by the naked eye..or a bunch of eyes, and not by readings/specs..ect.

Phil
post #34 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipO38 View Post

Hey guys, unless your set is a lemon(Vizio..lol. Ok, sorry about that), i think we need to realize that most reviewers(who are pro. calibrater's as well) are judging by numbers/specs..ect, where in many cases even the most visual perfectionist may not see a problem, unless he is allerted to it, and then looks for it..say 1-2 feet away on a 50"+ set?

Heck i even remember Cnet giving the XBR960 "poor" for two of it's primary color decoders and that was Cnet's reference set, and i noticed no push for those colors in the 4 years i have had it.

I'd love to see a review site that judges PQ by the naked eye..or a bunch of eyes, and not by readings/specs..ect.

Phil

The problem with judging a set by the naked eye is it can be wrong.
For a true videophile, the goal is to get their TV as close to reference as possible (reference being how a movie looks in a movie theater, the original way the movie was intended to look).

Merely judging a set by naked eye allows room for subjective thoughts. Meaning a reviewer could say that red on a Samsung looks worse then red on Panasonic, when in reality the science behind it (the science/technology that calibrators use) will show that the red on a Samsung is closer to reference than that of the Panasonic.

Sure, it would be easier for 95% of people to just buy a TV based off of subjective naked eye reviews, but for the 5% of us that actually want our TV's to look as close to possible as movie theater quality, naked eye reviews are totally useless.

And that is why some people are up in arms with Chad's post. They feel that their TV has no faults because that can't see any faults. That may be true, but for a videophile, the faults that you can't see are unacceptable and we can see them, because those faults represent a picture that is not close to reference.

Chad B is a trained professional for a reason. He helps those of us that will only accept the best picture possible (regardless if our eyes can tell the difference, though most videophiles can tell the difference without computers) attain the best picture possible. And his post is his professional opinion and data he has gathered that shows the strengths and weakness' of top of the line sets......weakness' that even though you may not see are still present and bothersome for those of us who want the best.

Videophiles only want the best.....and naked eye reviews do not come close enough for a videophile to make a purchase decision off of.
post #35 of 506
People are angry with Chad when their hard earned tv sets do not get his chime. People who bought respective brands want to justify that their tv is the best. Chad has calibrated a lot of tv's. I waited for three months to get mine calibrated. All i can say is that Chad, keep up the good work. Some people will snipe this thread from time to time but just ignore it. Your experience is second to none.

I am a panasonic lover and if Chad thinks otherwise, it is ok with me. What is important is that he calibrated my tv to the max and I am enjoying it

Keep on posting Chad!!!
post #36 of 506
From the review link:

Quote:


Panasonic 800u (12)

12) THX mode

Yet another expertly done review flawed by a complete lack of common sense in the setup. I own an 800U, and the the THX mode is only usable in a very dark room. It seems everyone knows this so please all you expert reviewers, use the custom mode for Panasonic Plasmas, not THX. Here it's especially bizarre here that the other two Panasonics, the G10 and V10 were tested in the Custom mode.

In this comparison, the use of THX instead of Custom for the 800U resulted in the expected dim screen, which impacted two of the review categories: "Pop" and Versatility, dropping them each to the lowest scores for all the reviewed panels in those categories. I own and 800U which is in a brightly lit family room with two "walls of windows". Set in the Custom mode, and the brightness at 53, the set has plenty of "pop". With the exceptional viewing angle capabilities of plasmas, the versatility is also excellent.

Lessons to be learned:

1) Compare like to like - don't use the THK mode for one Panasonic and the Custom mode for two others.

2) Further, don't use a mode (THX) at all which has well known flaws that make it sure to look worse in a comparison review. There must have been a reason, after all, that it was not used for the two newer Panasonic models.
post #37 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll Viper ll View Post

^This is funny. I would have thought that my *perfectly* calibrated 5020 would have something to say about the 7 for color that you gave the NE 9gs. Sure, a couple of the delta Es are slightly over 1 (but it's not visible to the human eye at these levels-- I dare someone to spot me the difference). I guess having a ruler flat gamma and tighter RGB tracking doesn't count for anything though. And why would the Elites, which have absolutely flawless color, earn less than the LG in this category.

You cannot calibrate the secondaries and primaries on the NE 9GS (No CMS and color/tint options are very rough) and the greyscale can only be calibrated with ControlCal.
If your deltaEs are slightly over 1 than you must be the luckiest man on earth...

Quote:


Minimum luminescence with mixed or real material = Kuro

I could not agree more.
post #38 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by radXge View Post

You cannot calibrate the secondaries and primaries on the NE 9GS (No CMS and color/tint options are very rough) and the greyscale can only be calibrated with ControlCal.
If your deltaEs are slightly over 1 than you must be the luckiest man on earth...


I could not agree more.


^Well, I had the man himself, D-Nice, calibrate my 5020. So, if someone knows how to get a kuro as close to perfect as possible, it's the guy that has done as much tireless work with these Pioneers as anybody.

Adjustment of the invidual primaries and secondaries may not be possible, but apparently, the NE are still quite friendly. A couple of my delta Es are below 1 (white and magenta), while several are around 2 (blue, red, yellow), with green and cyan a tad closer to 3. Regardless, color performance, visually at least, seems 99% indistinguishable from the elites/krps/sig monitors that can achieve all delta Es (except blue) of way under 1 (as D-Nice has shown).

Looking at my calibration report, everything else aside from these slight variances seems about perfect.

Obviously, these results aren't going to be obtained by just anyone. A seriously intimate knowledge of the tools and programs (controlcal) is required to get this kind of performance I would imagine. Pretty happy with it though
post #39 of 506
Chad please inform us on the wonders of the Pioneer KRP 500M if you get to calibrate one with patch for maximum performance. Thanks for your honest views and opinions. You should invite yourself to the shootout next year and we should have a calibrator shootout with the 10 best calibrators as reviewed by consumers, same displays and who can pull out the best picture in record time.
post #40 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll Viper ll View Post

^This is funny. I would have thought that my *perfectly* calibrated 5020 would have something to say about the 7 for color that you gave the NE 9gs. Sure, a couple of the delta Es are slightly over 1 (but it's not visible to the human eye at these levels-- I dare someone to spot me the difference). I guess having a ruler flat gamma and tighter RGB tracking doesn't count for anything though. And why would the Elites, which have absolutely flawless color, earn less than the LG in this category.

And LED LCD besting a kuro in black level? I don't count full screen black as anything even mildly impressive. My 81F could do that, and believe me, it's no 9g Pioneer. Minimum luminescence with mixed or real material = Kuro

Now you've gone and done it Chad - YOU have insulted the great KURO gods - You have commited "Blasphemy". For your penance say "Nothing is or ever will be better than an almighty Kuro." and may you be forgiven.
post #41 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick46 View Post

Now you've gone and done it Chad - YOU have insulted the great KURO gods - You have commited "Blasphemy". For your penance say "Nothing is or ever will be better than an almighty Kuro." and may you be forgiven.

lol, that's certainly what it seems like. The NE Kuro was still rated highly by Chad, but because ONE other TV beat it out for second, people question his opinion.
post #42 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahzel View Post

lol, that's certainly what it seems like. The NE Kuro was still rated highly by Chad, but because ONE other TV beat it out for second, people question his opinion.

I do not think the criticism of some individual ranking scores, is only about brand loyalty, with some comments this may be true, but not with all.
I saw the B7100 (B7090 in Europe) in direct comparison to a KRP-500A in a completely dark room and the black level of the KRP is by far superior in practice.
Black Level measurement, especially with Dimming Systems and black level in practice can and do differ a lot, especially in high-contrast scenes.
The knowledge and experience of Chad-B by far surpasses mine, no topic, but the same classification in black level of a B7100 and a Elite Kuro, does not match the result in practice, therefore it is miss leading.
In a black level measurement most dimming systems achieve a deeper black level than in practice, because they don't have to handle "high peak white brightness" and "ultra deep black level" at the same time, they can use the maximum potential of their dimming with a test pattern usually used in a black level measurement.
In case of a B7100 there is only one dimming zone, against 2073600 "dimming zones" of a Kuro, there are no dimming zones with a Plasma, but the Kuro can control each pixel, or in other word there are no limitations due to backlight/dimming zone systems, there is no fluctuations in the black level depending on the image content and the complexity of the image content plays no role, unlike with dimming systems.
If we then compare high-contrast scenes to judge the black level in practice, there is a big difference between a Elite and a B7100.
A Global Dimming system has to handle everything, peak white brightness and deep black level with only one dimming zone and the Elite has the great advantage to control each pixel, this is the reason why the black levels in practice and in a dark room is in sum much deeper.
Therefore in my view it makes no sense to judge the black level rating outside of real usage.
I am thinking here in the forum are sufficiently experienced calibrators, which can confirm that in practice, there is a significant difference in black level between a Elite 9G Kuro and a Samsung B7100, at least when the lights go out.
post #43 of 506
Thread Starter 
I can see some of the points about the B7100.

That first category is more about Minimum Luminance Level than real pic content contrast. The next category, pop, has more to do with real content contrast. For pop I rated the Kuros top dog, quite a bit ahead of the B7100.

To reduce confusion and because I agree with some of the arguments made here about the B7100 and LH90, I am thinking of relabeling black level to MLL and reducing it's importance a bit, probably to 7 or 8 instead of 10 points.
post #44 of 506
Chad, thanks for your informative comparison. Do you think you'll have a chance to review the LG plasma's (like 60PS60). Its quite hard to find any info or reviews on it.
post #45 of 506
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post

Chad, thanks for your informative comparison. Do you think you'll have a chance to review the LG plasma's (like 60PS60). Its quite hard to find any info or reviews on it.

I should be evaluating the latest LG plasma on the 28th, but I may not get the review finished for a couple days after that.
post #46 of 506
Thread Starter 
I made some tweaks to the chart. I changed "black level" to "MLL" and reduced it's importance.
Again, just as a reminder: the "real world" blacks, or ANSI contrast, is the "pop" rating, not the "MLL".

I also made a notation of the B7100's cloudiness issue, which I had just forgotten about when I made the chart. I had noticed it during the review, but felt it was not serious with the dynamic backlight turned on. Over the months since, I have talked with some of my customers about it, and they do still notice it on a black screen in a dark room; so I am including it as an "issue".
post #47 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad B View Post

I made some tweaks to the chart. I changed "black level" to "MLL" and reduced it's importance.
Again, just as a reminder: the "real world" blacks, or ANSI contrast, is the "pop" rating, not the "MLL".

I also made a notation of the B7100's cloudiness issue, which I had just forgotten about when I made the chart. I had noticed it during the review, but felt it was not serious with the dynamic backlight turned on. Over the months since, I have talked with some of my customers about it, and they do still notice it on a black screen in a dark room; so I am including it as an "issue".


Glad to see that you are continuing to adjust the ratings, based on people's comments.

I wonder why you did not just keep a 1 to 10 ranking for all segments of the rankings?

For example: When you give one segment a 1 to ten rating, and you give another, such as shadow details, a 1 to 5 rating, then you end up with one panel getting a 3 against another with a 5, which would be the best it could get. Now you then add in those numbers, to a total points catagory, which ends up being how the panels are giving their final rankings.

The problem with that is: If one panel gets a 10 and another gets a six, in one section, but the first panel gets a 3 and the other one gets 5, in the shadow details catagory, then you are distorting the results in the final totals.

For many people, shadow details is very important, and a 3 versus a 5 only gives a 2 point advantage in the overall ranking totals, where as a 6 versus 10 would make it a 4 point advantage in the cumulative totals.

I am not crazy about the subjective points category even being in the cumulative totals. I think that should be removed. Just a couple of observations. Thanks for taking a great stab at a very difficult task.
post #48 of 506
-Chad

Awesome job doing all the reviews and now the comparision.

Just one question:

Please explain why the G10 got a 2 of 3 in resolution compared to 3 of 3 for the Samsung 550?

Cnet noted the G10 showed all 1080 lines of moving resolution, and i'm not sure how much better it can get..lol, these are 1080p sets afterall.

TIA

Phil
post #49 of 506
Chad thanks for the review.
Have you had a chance to work on a 65S1 yet. People have compared a calibrated S1 in custom to G10. Is this a true statement? what would you rate the S1 resolution? I would like a 65" because of the distance.
On another note I has was I impressed by samsung B7100, but how does it do with Fast objects like sports. Thanks again.
post #50 of 506
B550 is that the 63" model Chad? Samsungs put off a lot of heat when I was next to the B550 63" is this normal. I would say looking at Sammy next to last years panny and the resolution is noticeable.
post #51 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

Glad to see that you are continuing to adjust the ratings, based on people's comments.

I wonder why you did not just keep a 1 to 10 ranking for all segments of the rankings?

For example: When you give one segment a 1 to ten rating, and you give another, such as shadow details, a 1 to 5 rating, then you end up with one panel getting a 3 against another with a 5, which would be the best it could get. Now you then add in those numbers, to a total points catagory, which ends up being how the panels are giving their final rankings.

The problem with that is: If one panel gets a 10 and another gets a six, in one section, but the first panel gets a 3 and the other one gets 5, in the shadow details catagory, then you are distorting the results in the final totals.

For many people, shadow details is very important, and a 3 versus a 5 only gives a 2 point advantage in the overall ranking totals, where as a 6 versus 10 would make it a 4 point advantage in the cumulative totals.

I am not crazy about the subjective points category even being in the cumulative totals. I think that should be removed. Just a couple of observations. Thanks for taking a great stab at a very difficult task.


I second that idea. In addition to what greenland mentioned, the chart would be much easier to read as you would not have to constantly scroll up to see whether a given score is at the low or high end of the category range. For example a score of 3 could be the best in one category, and near the bottom in another so you have to scroll up to the description each time. 0-10 ranking for each category would eliminate this confusion.

Thanks Chad for your efforts!
post #52 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick46 View Post

Now you've gone and done it Chad - YOU have insulted the great KURO gods - You have commited "Blasphemy". For your penance say "Nothing is or ever will be better than an almighty Kuro." and may you be forgiven.

Why don't you actually provide an argument instead of rehashing the same anti kuro sentiments. Until someone proves to me that I'm wrong, you're playing the fool.
post #53 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipO38 View Post

-Chad

Awesome job doing all the reviews and now the comparision.

Just one question:

Please explain why the G10 got a 2 of 3 in resolution compared to 3 of 3 for the Samsung 550?

Cnet noted the G10 showed all 1080 lines of moving resolution, and i'm not sure how much better it can get..lol, these are 1080p sets afterall.

TIA

Phil

I'm pretty sure he's referring to how high the resolution appears in motion (ie: how much detail and sharpness is retained), not the actual rated motion resolution. Two sets could have 1080 lines of motion resolution, but one could look better than the other -- all depends on how the set handles it.
post #54 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

I wonder why you did not just keep a 1 to 10 ranking for all segments of the rankings?

The problem with that is: If one panel gets a 10 and another gets a six, in one section, but the first panel gets a 3 and the other one gets 5, in the shadow details catagory, then you are distorting the results in the final totals.

Agreed, I noticed that from the start, as well. The way he has it weights the results indeed, unintentionally, I assume. Regardless, like you said, everyone weights the features differently, so it is better to have it non-weighted.

The way to fix it is to simply prorate the non-10 point scale categories to a 10 point scale; he should do that.

A '5 scale' is easy to double any number. Other scales could use decimels or rounding. Rounded, a '3 scale' would become 3, 7, and 10; a '7 scale' would become 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10. I think those were all the scales used.
post #55 of 506
The weights are required if you want an overall ranking. Without weighs, the results would be mostly meaningless for someone who is not sure what features he likes better. While some may disagree with the author weights, the author is still very qualified and the weights could be interpreted as a solid starting point.

Here is what I suggest
1) Rate each features from 1 to 10
2) Add a weight for each feature in the row under the title. For example, pop= 20%, color=15%, MLL= 10%, etc...
3) The result for a given display is equal to the sum of the multiplication of each rating by its weight.
4) Ultimately, the report could by dynamic. The weights could be input by the end user and the author weights would be the default ones. I know that it would be much more harder to do than a simple table!
post #56 of 506
question for you guys.....chad gave the v10 a low score for "pop" and the pio5020 a very high score for this. i always thought that this was the depth or 3d effect you see on a good plasma? many have said the the v10 is closet in depth to the pio's. so am i just not using the correct term?


also how is the lh90 with motion i did not see you mention this or did i just miss

thanks for the hard work chad
post #57 of 506
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipO38 View Post

-Chad

Awesome job doing all the reviews and now the comparision.

Just one question:

Please explain why the G10 got a 2 of 3 in resolution compared to 3 of 3 for the Samsung 550?

Cnet noted the G10 showed all 1080 lines of moving resolution, and i'm not sure how much better it can get..lol, these are 1080p sets afterall.

TIA

Phil

Thanks!

Actually, I used a static resolution chart from my pattern generator for this test. The Pannys are just a bit fuzzy with a tiny bit of a shadow on the sharpness/resolution test pattern. But it's not enough to be visible with regular images from a normal seating position; that's why I weighted resolution so low in importance. I wanted to identify differences but not let them appear as serious as other more important differences.
Also, the non elite Kuro is just a bit softer with it's resolution than the Elite; it's because the Elite has an extra control in the picture menu that sharpens it up more. Again, though, I doubt it's enough to be visible under normal conditions.
post #58 of 506
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by radXge View Post

The weights are required if you want an overall ranking. Without weighs, the results would be mostly meaningless for someone who is not sure what features he likes better. While some may disagree with the author weights, the author is still very qualified and the weights could be interpreted as a solid starting point.

Here is what I suggest
1) Rate each features from 1 to 10
2) Add a weight for each feature in the row under the title. For example, pop= 20%, color=15%, MLL= 10%, etc...
3) The result for a given display is equal to the sum of the multiplication of each rating by its weight.
4) Ultimately, the report could by dynamic. The weights could be input by the end user and the author weights would be the default ones. I know that it would be much more harder to do than a simple table!

Now that is a very intriguing idea, but unfortunately I'm not that web savvy to get it done (the dynamic chart).
post #59 of 506
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrep1 View Post

question for you guys.....chad gave the v10 a low score for "pop" and the pio5020 a very high score for this. i always thought that this was the depth or 3d effect you see on a good plasma? many have said the the v10 is closet in depth to the pio's. so am i just not using the correct term?


also how is the lh90 with motion i did not see you mention this or did i just miss

thanks for the hard work chad

I would say the Pannys are the closest plasmas to the Kuros in pop. But some of the LCDs fit in between.
post #60 of 506
Thread Starter 
I just calibrated a small (under 50") Panny S1 today. I was surprised that standard mode had terrible gamma, custom mode had still somewhat poor gamma, and cinema had very good gamma. And that was after adjusting brightness and contrast for each mode.
I want to wait till I do another one or 2 before I add it in the chart, but here are some observations:
It needed lots more color and tint adjustment than the G10 and V10. It's unusual for a Panny plasma to need much tint adjustment. The S1 showed much more difference with calibration than the G10 or V10. It was worse out of the box, but it turned out at least as good, if not better than, the G10 (S1 in cinema, G10 in custom). I could get up to 50 fL of brightness from Cinema mode with no compromise. It's a nice display.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Chad B's TV rankings