or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › LCD Flat Panel Displays › UN55B8500 Is Edge Lit With Local Dimming?!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UN55B8500 Is Edge Lit With Local Dimming?!

post #1 of 73
Thread Starter 
I know being an owner of this set. I should know. But I was reading reviews and thought I'd take a look at the spec sheet on C-Net. According to them. It's edge lit with local dimming. Is this true? Can anyone provide clear evidence that it is indeed Full Led set? I just wanted to make sure. Figured it's better to be safe then sorry in this case.

Here is the link
post #2 of 73
B8500 is backlit led with local dimming which is better than edge lit with local dimming congrats on owning the best lcd out today (bastard lol)

B8000 is the model that is edge lit so make sure you know if its the b8500 or b8000 that you have.
post #3 of 73
Thread Starter 
Yeah. It's the B8500. That's for clarifying that up for me. It was really started to get me thinking. Yeah. I'd say this tv is beast. But from my point of view. It last crisp detail that edge lit models do. Idk why. Just brights don't seem as bright to me on this set vs the C8000/B8000. Doesn't show as much overall small detail. Is this just me? Maybe my settings? Am I missing something lol.
post #4 of 73
2009 models of Samsung are known for they lack of shadow detail and sharpness, compared to 2010 models from Samsung. Now is it the 10p white balance control, better filters or some other technological advantage, I don't know.

On precision dimming they say this:



post #5 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

Yeah. It's the B8500. That's for clarifying that up for me. It was really started to get me thinking. Yeah. I'd say this tv is beast. But from my point of view. It last crisp detail that edge lit models do. Idk why. Just brights don't seem as bright to me on this set vs the C8000/B8000. Doesn't show as much overall small detail. Is this just me? Maybe my settings? Am I missing something lol.

For starters...You mentioned that you do a lot of posting from your phone, please take a little time to proof read you posts. Everybody makes some grammar and spelling mistakes on occasion but come on...some of the words that get used in your sentences and some of spots periods gets placed is ridiculous and it looks like a 3rd graders post.

Now does the 8500 have local dimming...ARE YOU KIDDING ME! Not only have you made numerous posts referencing your B8500's local dimming abilities, you have used the B8500 and it's local dimming as the corner stone of your argument, with MANY posts I might add, to beat the hell out all things edge lit. You have shouted from the rooftops for the last 2 months about the B8500 but then start this thread from one misprint on Cnet?
I have seen a post from you that sarcastically said, " If it's in Home Theater Magazine it must be true"...doesn't that rule apply here, especially after owning a B8500?
post #6 of 73
Thread Starter 
Hmmm. So it's not my settings that's making me lose detail?
post #7 of 73
Shopper.com ( a CNET SITE) BUTTON Edge Light w/local dimming Flat-panel TVs.
post #8 of 73
Sounds like your settings are fine

Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

After owning a UN55B8500 I can tell you that local dimming kills edge lit in every single way possible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

The 8500 is perfect. It doesn't need to change at all. Maybe less input lag for gaming. Thats about it.
post #9 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiopsi View Post

On precision dimming they say this:




Just the kind of BS I have come to expect from Samsung lately.

Calling "precision dimming" better than true local dimming is in the same league as calling LCDs with LED backlight "LED TVs". Oh yes, it may be better than no dimming at all but it is a *joke* compared to true LD.

Let's see what Samsung says about it - compared to true local dimming:

- "Less Halo Effect"
In the pictures example perhaps - halos depend on the size of the zones and putting LEDs at the edge of the panel doesn't help bringing the zone size down.

- "Deeper Black"
Only compared to no local dimming! Here they play with the ignorance of the potential customer. Saying "Deeper Black" is like stating contrast ratios of "8.000.000:1" - total hogwash.

- "More Detail"
This is downright silly - in their first sets up to the A950 they didn't implement LD perfectly and got black crush, the B8500 is reported to not crush blacks and has perhaps the same amount of detail as the Sony XBR8.

- "Reduced Power Consumption"
Can be true - but it remains to be seen if the whole set has a low power consumption and not only the backlight - and "up to 15%" isn't exactly earth shattering, too. See Sharp's full LED sets for truly low power demands.

Also:

They use a screen element that "magically" fits the light cone of the edge LED and make it appear as it looks best there with horrendous dimming halos - as they illustrate dimming zones like any layman would imagine: Perfect rectangles. Problem is: Most LD LCDs don't use perfect rectangular zones and the blooming therefore isn't that dramatic.

What they also don't tell you (by not showing it) is when the element on screen is much smaller than the "precision light cone". What if it's exactly as large a local dimming zone? ;-)

And what if the bright element sits exactly in the middle of the screen and you have the famous black Cinemascope borders at the top and bottom of the panel? Will the "precision dimming" then illuminate the black/dark areas to be able to brighten the elements in the middle, too? I'd like to see an illustration from Samsung for this...

They also don't illustrate the biggest advantage of local dimming: Larger objects with an inhomogeneous light distribution will have better contrast thanks to the different light levels in the zones. With "precision dimming" you can only control the brightness of a each light cone - which may not be sufficent depending on the size of the element.
In the example they do illustrate all dimming zones have the exact same amount of brightness - which they wouldn't have in reality. Publishing things like this is beyond "mistake" - it's plainly a *lie*.

Of course a brighter dimming zone needs more energy but if it increases contrast wouldn't you accept that as a necessary means?

And, yes, of course they don't tell you the amount of "precision zones"...

Kudos to Samsung's marketing department:
They are working full steam to make the customer forget that they already had a better tech out there and try to sell inferior tech by making it look & sound better.
post #10 of 73
Thread Starter 
Very well said. I think Samsung maybe trying to spring away from the fact that they had a better set in 09 due to the lawsuit. They can no longer make it so they want you to believe that what they have now is even better? Also does anyone know of the best settings to get the most detail from a picture? I like colors and details that "pop" and I can't seem to figure that aspect out yet.
post #11 of 73
I went from B8500 to C8000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny42 View Post

Let's see what Samsung says about it - compared to true local dimming:

- "Less Halo Effect"
In the pictures example perhaps - halos depend on the size of the zones and putting LEDs at the edge of the panel doesn't help bringing the zone size down.

I can confirm, C8000 has less haloing, what I have experienced.

Quote:


- "Deeper Black"
Only compared to no local dimming! Here they play with the ignorance of the potential customer. Saying "Deeper Black" is like stating contrast ratios of "8.000.000:1" - total hogwash.

The B8500 has overall better black level/ contrast ratio, but in small area black level/ contrast C8000 takes the cake.

Quote:


- "More Detail"
This is downright silly - in their first sets up to the A950 they didn't implement LD perfectly and got black crush, the B8500 is reported to not crush blacks and has perhaps the same amount of detail as the Sony XBR8.

More detail on C8000 is true, and it is a big jump. But I don't really think it's because precision dimming.

Quote:


- "Reduced Power Consumption"
Can be true - but it remains to be seen if the whole set has a low power consumption and not only the backlight - and "up to 15%" isn't exactly earth shattering, too. See Sharp's full LED sets for truly low power demands.

Haven't measured.
post #12 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny42 View Post

... They use a screen element that "magically" fits the light cone of the edge LED ...

And what if the bright element sits exactly in the middle of the screen and you have the famous black ... borders at the top and bottom of the panel? ...

... With "precision dimming" you can only control the brightness of a each light cone - which may not be sufficient depending on the size of the element.
In the example they do illustrate all dimming zones have the exact same amount of brightness - which they wouldn't have in reality.

Really well said, way to rip the marketeers to shreds!!

What I do not get is why Sammy did not simply make a C8500 and skip the 9000 altogether, or show it as a "concept" TV?
post #13 of 73
Thread Starter 
What made you go from the B8500 to C8000? The halo effect isn't bad at all on the B8500. Would like to hear your views on how each tv compares to eachother. I honestly can't imagine better over all PQ then the 8500.
post #14 of 73
3D, but was surprised how good 2D PQ is. I think, overall it's better because of the detail.
post #15 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark_1080p View Post


Really well said, way to rip the marketeers to shreds!!

What I do not get is why Sammy did not simply make a C8500 and skip the 9000 altogether, or show it as a "concept" TV?

Couldn't agree more. I don't understand why the didn't make a C8500. I'm sure they'd end of selling more of those then a C9000
post #16 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiopsi View Post

3D, but was surprised how good 2D PQ is. I think, overall it's better because of the detail.

How much better would you say the 2D is? Also, is there white spots when not wacthing a fullscreen movie in the letter box bars? If the C8000 wasn't 3D. Would you have ever gotten it?
post #17 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

How much better would you say the 2D is? Also, is there white spots when not wacthing a fullscreen movie in the letter box bars? If the C8000 wasn't 3D. Would you have ever gotten it?

Not much, maybe on same level, different characteristics. Haven't seen any white spots. No 3D, maybe not.
post #18 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiopsi View Post

Not much, maybe on same level, different characteristics. Haven't seen any white spots. No 3D, maybe not.

Understood. I almost bought a C8000 today and was going to sell my 8500. But I don't care for 3D. Is 2D PQ isn't any better. Then I'd have to pass on the C8000.
post #19 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiopsi View Post

I went from B8500 to C8000
I can confirm, C8000 has less haloing, what I have experienced.

A C8000 may indeed have less haloing if the dimming isn't really that active.
In such sequences it more or less resembles a non-LD set that does not have haloing at all. On the other hand you get exactly this:

Quote:


The B8500 has overall better black level/ contrast ratio,

True LD increases contrast like no other LCD backlight type. A set with a relatively high amount of zones and intelligent control of them will *smoke* any type of edge dimming.

Quote:


but in small area black level/ contrast C8000 takes the cake.

Local dimming *of course* has weaknesses - nobody denies that - and halos are perhaps the biggest problem of it. In consequence there are indeed occasions where a non-LD set will look better or subjectively better.

LD will however increase contrast compared with any other backlight type, provided all other factors are the same (same panel, same picture processing, same settings).

Quote:


More detail on C8000 is true, and it is a big jump. But I don't really think it's because precision dimming.

I don't talk about "general detail" because it's heavily affected by the picture & motion processing and the better the processing the more details you see. This is especially true with motion processing and as there is still much room for progress and newer sets are often better at it (higher processing speed = better frame interpolation etc.).

However, as we talk about backlights, the only detail one should compare when comparing different backlights is the "shadow detail" - which means detail in low brightness areas.

Older LD LCDs indeed suffer from "black crush" which results in loss of shadow detail because the appropriate zone gets dimmed too low. Even if the panel displays the exact pixel patterns in these dark areas you may not see them because the zone does not produce enough light to make them visible.

A classic example is a black night sky or space scene on the whole screen with only bright white stars all over it. There are three likely results:

- A non-LD LCD will, if you set the white to the correct level (and disable dynamic contrast) produce a non-black sky. The light spill is the reason for this as the LCD masks aren't yet perfect - if they were there would be no need at all for local dimming of any kind!
If you activate/maximize dynamic contrast the sky will become darker but the stars will also lose brightness. You may perceive this as a better image or not - but it won't be a true representation of the original image.

- An older LD LCD with a tendency for black crush will have a much improved black level and display a darker sky but less stars. Older sets "count" the number of active pixels per zone and if there aren't enough bright ones the complete zone stays dark.

- Other LD LCDs like for example the Sony XBR8 (or the European X4500 that I own) will display all stars at their correct brightness and thus have no black crush. The downside: The sky will be for the most part very similar to a non-LD LCD - grayish. Dark gray but not black.

So pick your poison - at this time you'll have to compromise in such extreme situations, but they are pretty rare in screen time. The overwhelming amount of video material will have less challenging scenes and true LD will be the best option as halos aren't that visible in them.

It's simple: LD will always be a better solution for a given panel until LCD masks are perfected to the point that no noticeable amount of light spill happens. Then LD will become instantly obsolete.
The question is: Will LCD masks get perfected before OLED or another new technology will make LCD as a whole obsolete?
post #20 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

Understood. I almost bought a C8000 today and was going to sell my 8500. But I don't care for 3D. Is 2D PQ isn't any better. Then I'd have to pass on the C8000.

LOL, how many 8500's do you have?
I thought you said you sold your 8500 weeks ago...
post #21 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaDude View Post


LOL, how many 8500's do you have?
I thought you said you sold your 8500 weeks ago...

2. 46 inch for bedroom and 55 living. I just got it today. I was going to get the C8000. But I don't care about 3D. And since clearly the C8000 isn't on par with the 8500. I decided to pass.
post #22 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

2. 46 inch for bedroom and 55 living. I just got it today. I was going to get the C8000. But I don't care about 3D. And since clearly the C8000 isn't on par with the 8500. I decided to pass.

So that's two in addition to the one you sold? So you've now owned three 8500's? Or you sold one and then bought another?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

Very sad day for me people. I've sold my 8500. Back to tv shopping
by far the best tv I've ever owned or seem to date. I do hope to see something on par with this set in the future.
post #23 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew67 View Post


So that's two in addition to the one you sold? So you've now owned three 8500's? Or you sold one and then bought another?

I've sold one and ending up getting another. I regretted selling it to begin with. I paid more for this one then what I had before. But I guess that's what I get for selling it to begin with. The wife was pissed I got rid of it. So I had to please her lol.
post #24 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

I've sold one and ending up getting another. I regretted selling it to begin with. I paid more for this one then what I had before. But I guess that's what I get for selling it to begin with. The wife was pissed I got rid of it. So I had to please her lol.

Good gosh man, you do go through a lot of TV's!
are the 46 inchers still available, and what did you shell out for that one?
(if you don't mind me asking)
post #25 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

And since clearly the C8000 isn't on par with the 8500. I decided to pass.

Apparently it can't be to clear or you wouldn't have started this thread.
post #26 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by topr View Post


Apparently it can't be to clear or you wouldn't have started this thread.

It was clear. Hence I bought another one. And this thread was a concern about it being edge lit. Not a bad set. I thought for sure it was local dimming FULLY BACK LIT. I didn't think any edge lit crap would be able to produce blacks ad deep as this. Hence. Why I put this thread up. The only thing I like about C8000 is it's color pop and how it looks when off. I happen to like it's bezel with the samsung logo lit up. Even if I were offers a C8000 for half the price vs the 8500. I'd still pick the 8500. Hence why I now have 2.
post #27 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

Hence why I now have 2.

You just said you sold one and bought a replacement. So what is it? I'm starting to wonder if even you can keep your story straight without a scorecard.
post #28 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew67 View Post

You just said you sold one and bought a replacement. So what is it? I'm starting to wonder if even you can keep your story straight without a scorecard.

I'm confused as well as I thought you said you sold your 8500 and were looking at another set as you like to try out new sets.
post #29 of 73
oh look more b8500 controversy with jukebox. he's owned 3 b8500s and a kuro in one month and he still cant decide!!! what will he do next? i cant wait for the next thread!!!

he must be a very rich bestbuy employee to be able to afford all these things...
post #30 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaXPL View Post

oh look more b8500 controversy with jukebox. he's owned 3 b8500s and a kuro in one month and he still cant decide!!! what will he do next? i cant wait for the next thread!!!

he must be a very rich bestbuy employee to be able to afford all these things...

Lol. Far from rich. And the KURO was only bought to make money. I didn't buy it for any other reason. And yes. I do happen toike trying out sets. But out of everything I have tried. The 8500 is the best. Looking forward to the Sony HX909. I know if LG didn't have zone banding. I'd like em more. But it's to much for me. I've learned a lot trying out new sets. For one. I'm to picky. 2. Givin what I've owned before. I seem to be more of a pop and high contrast fan. Other then natural looking colors. The only things I really don't like about the 8500 is it's off angle viewing and lack of "pop". I wish it had as much detail and pop ad other tvs. I'm just someone who isn't used to the whole "natural" look of tv's. I like pop. Everyone else seems to like natural as well. Including the wifey. Which is also why I've gone to other threads to try and find some "pop" settings. I'm trying to get just a little more detail and pop out my set.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: LCD Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › LCD Flat Panel Displays › UN55B8500 Is Edge Lit With Local Dimming?!