AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › My view on the C7000 Samsung plasma
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My view on the C7000 Samsung plasma - Page 3

post #61 of 213
7/21/10 at 7:00pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prerunnerv6 View Post

The 58 will look significantly bigger than the 50 especially when you play a movie with black bars on it. I was perfectly fine with my 50" at 10ft as long as it was a full screen picture. Once black bars kicked in, I felt like I was back to my 42" tv.

Yeah. Its fine full screen. But I'm a bit concerns about bars. Hmm. Guess I'll have to get the 58!!!
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 213
7/22/10 at 8:17am
Thread Starter 
UPDATE.
After playing MW2 for about 6 hours strait last night. I finally got my 1st hint of IR. You could see my ammo count in the bottom left side of the screen. (60) so I thought this would be a great time to use a timer. And so I did. Removing with the "Scrolling Bars" took about 15 mins to FULLY REMOVE it. It washed away within the 1st 2 mins. But if I looked very closely. I could still see it. Now I must say. If I were not getting 1 foot away from my tv to see it. I honestly wouldn't have seen it at all. I literally had to be at least a foot away from it to see it. Also, I've learned that just watching normal content seems to get rid of it within 5 mins vs the bars. Idk why that is. But that's how it's worked for me.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 213
7/22/10 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

UPDATE.
After playing MW2 for about 6 hours strait last night. I finally got my 1st hint of IR. You could see my ammo count in the bottom left side of the screen. (60) so I thought this would be a great time to use a timer. And so I did. Removing with the "Scrolling Bars" took about 15 mins to FULLY REMOVE it. It washed away within the 1st 2 mins. But if I looked very closely. I could still see it. Now I must say. If I were not getting 1 foot away from my tv to see it. I honestly wouldn't have seen it at all. I literally had to be at least a foot away from it to see it. Also, I've learned that just watching normal content seems to get rid of it within 5 mins vs the bars. Idk why that is. But that's how it's worked for me.

This is normal IR. Don't worry about it. It will always go away. Man just enjoy that set and yes you should get the 58".
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 213
7/22/10 at 9:20am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CedYou View Post


This is normal IR. Don't worry about it. It will always go away. Man just enjoy that set and yes you should get the 58".

I was just providing an update. Not a complaint. I'm not worried about it at all. And yes. I'm getting a 58 inch lol. Can't wait! Gotta wait a little while though. But I'm getting it. I might have to get the 58C8000 though since best buy doesn't sell the 58C7000. Sucks cause to me. The C8000 isn't worth the price difference
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 213
8/10/10 at 10:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjb4 View Post

Cnet jus released a 3dtv roundtable. The c7000 tied with the vt25 except for some color related issues seen on the vt25 not seen on the sammy! Sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you post a link PLEASE!

Thanks as always!
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 213
8/10/10 at 10:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

Hahaha. Well there ya go. I still wouldn't keep it that way being as it's pointless now. Only reason why I'm getting the 8 vs 7 is because best buy doesn't sell the 58 C7000. Otherwise I'd just get that one.

Why is it pointless now?

And yeah, no one around here sells the C7000, much less the 63" one - I am going to have to buy mine online.....

Thanks as always!
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 213
8/10/10 at 10:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

I was just providing an update. Not a complaint. I'm not worried about it at all. And yes. I'm getting a 58 inch lol. Can't wait! Gotta wait a little while though. But I'm getting it. I might have to get the 58C8000 though since best buy doesn't sell the 58C7000. Sucks cause to me. The C8000 isn't worth the price difference

The C8000 has better picture quality
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 213
8/11/10 at 4:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjb4 View Post

Cnet jus released a 3dtv roundtable. The c7000 tied with the vt25 except for some color related issues seen on the vt25 not seen on the sammy! Sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tied? There was a clear winner. And a clear second place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNET View Post

The best of the bunch, for both 2D and 3D picture quality, is the Panasonic TC-PVT20/25 series, represented below by the 50-inch VT25. Its black levels were visibly deeper than the others, it handles 1080p/24 properly (despite some artifacts), and its color is highly accurate. Second place goes to another, significantly cheaper 3D-compatible model, Samsung's PNC7000

I suppose the Colts "tied" the Saints in the last Super Bowl except they just scored less points. Yeah.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 213
8/11/10 at 7:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by happy nightmares View Post

Tied? There was a clear winner. And a clear second place.
I suppose the Colts "tied" the Saints in the last Super Bowl except they just scored less points. Yeah.

I believe mjb4 is referring to this article.
http://reviews.cnet.com/2795-6482_7-419.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNET View Post

In terms of 3D performance, the two plasmas, the Panasonic VT25 and the Samsung PNC7000, essentially tied for best of the bunch. Their 3D presentations evinced the least "crosstalk" (the ghostly doubled lines around 3D objects onscreen). Between the two we noticed a couple color-related issues on the Panasonic we didn't see on the Samsung, but they're nitpicks and balanced by the Panasonic's superior black levels--which make it the best TV overall when we consider 2D performance.

The VT25 trumps the PNC7000 in overall 2D/3D PQ. They tie when it comes to 3D.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 213
8/11/10 at 7:48am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by audionnl View Post

The C8000 has better picture quality

Not worth the price difference. And really. The PQ isn't a major difference in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by happy nightmares View Post

I suppose the Colts "tied" the Saints in the last Super Bowl except they just scored less points. Yeah.

Bahahahaha! That was a dam good game. They deserve that win. Even though I was going for the colts.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 213
8/11/10 at 8:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

Not worth the price difference. And really. The PQ isn't a major difference in any way.

Perhaps not a major difference to you, but the ANSI contrast ratio of the C7000 is only about half as good (958:1 vs 1663:1) as the lower Panasonic model, the G25. The disparity is even greater when compared to the VT25. For some, that is a significant difference and well worth the extra money.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 213
8/11/10 at 10:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by audionnl View Post

The C8000 has better picture quality

Yeah, but has a grey bezel and not black - what were the brains at Samsung thinking.......

That is the ONLY reason I won't buy it - does not match the rest of the home theater...

Reply
Reply
post #73 of 213
8/11/10 at 10:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sobek View Post

Perhaps not a major difference to you, but the ANSI contrast ratio of the C7000 is only about half as good (958:1 vs 1663:1) as the lower Panasonic model, the G25. The disparity is even greater when compared to the VT25. For some, that is a significant difference and well worth the extra money.

I believe JukeBox was comparing the C8000 to C7000, which as far as Samsung has said, will have similar PQ in a dim viewing environment. The contrast ratio you give is from ChadB who measured an MLL of 0.026 ftL on an early set. FWIW, CNET measured an MLL of 0.013 ftL and other calibraters have subjectively stated (they don't provide #'s) that the contrast ratio is relatively good as compated to last year's models... I think the jury is still out on the true contrast ratio for these models on the latest firmware.

http://www.tweaktv.com/quick-looks/s...ck-review.html
http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-6482_7-...tag=mncol;page
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 213
8/11/10 at 10:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by happy nightmares View Post

Tied? There was a clear winner. And a clear second place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by koffas View Post

The VT25 trumps the PNC7000 in overall 2D/3D PQ. They tie when it comes to 3D.

That is not quite how I read it...

Like mjb4 stated, the article states:

"In terms of 3D performance, the two plasmas, the Panasonic VT25 and the Samsung PNC7000, essentially tied for best of the bunch." So TIED

AND

"Between the two we noticed a couple color-related issues on the Panasonic we didn't see on the Samsung, but they're nitpicks and balanced by the Panasonic's superior black levels--which make it the best TV overall when we consider 2D performance." So the Samsung's color is better/more accurate, but the Panasonic has slightly better black levels - SO TIED?

That coupled with the fact that the Samsung is 1.4" thick vs. Panasonic's 3.6" - and the fact that you can get the Samsung 63" for $2198 on the net - and the cheapest I have found the Panasonic 65" here is locally for $3695 + tax ($3880 total) - the Samsung is looking pretty darn good!

Reply
Reply
post #75 of 213
8/11/10 at 10:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pologuy View Post

That is not quite how I read it...

Like mjb4 stated, the article states:

"In terms of 3D performance, the two plasmas, the Panasonic VT25 and the Samsung PNC7000, essentially tied for best of the bunch." So TIED

AND

"Between the two we noticed a couple color-related issues on the Panasonic we didn't see on the Samsung, but they're nitpicks and balanced by the Panasonic's superior black levels--which make it the best TV overall when we consider 2D performance." So the Samsung's color is better/more accurate, but the Panasonic has slightly better black levels - SO TIED?

That coupled with the fact that you can get the Samsung 63" for $2198 on the net - and the cheapest I have found the Panasonic 65" here is locally for $3695 + tax ($3880 total) - the Samsung is looking pretty darn good!


Right. I linked to CNET's 3D shootout article. Unclear if there is an intended difference in the meaning of "picture quality" and "performance".

"The best of the bunch, for both 2D and 3D picture quality, is the Panasonic TC-PVT20/25 series."
"In terms of 3D performance, the two plasmas, the Panasonic VT25 and the Samsung PNC7000, essentially tied for best of the bunch."

The VT25 has better PQ, but, in my opinion, the improvement is not worth the difference in street pricing. Couple that with better styling on the C7000/C8000 series and not worrying about rising blacks made for an easy decision.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 213
8/11/10 at 3:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sobek View Post


Perhaps not a major difference to you, but the ANSI contrast ratio of the C7000 is only about half as good (958:1 vs 1663:1) as the lower Panasonic model, the G25. The disparity is even greater when compared to the VT25. For some, that is a significant difference and well worth the extra money.

Numbers and what you will actually see are to complete different things. I don't care about numbers the manufactures say there sets do. It's nothing but a number. Eyes are the final answer. In my viewing environment. The sets pretty much look the exact same.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 213
8/14/10 at 10:37am
Well, I got a chance to see these two (C7000 and VT25) side by side yesterday and there is no comparisson - the Panasonic is clearly the better TV - at least in my opinion.

First, I had the TV guy make the settings as close to exactly the same on both TVs as possible and the Panasonic was the clear winner no matter what he did.

The Panasonic looked brighter, had better whites and better blacks and better color all the way around.

I also, for the first time, actually looked at the bezel of the Samsung C7000 closer and felt it - it looks and fees terribly cheap - the "textured" plastic (it felt like plastic, not sure what it is) was just way too unattractive - it cheapened the TV by a lot. If it would have had the same bezel as the C6500, then the TV would have looked very nice.

However, the huge font logo for SAMSUNG looked "out of place" in relation to the more subdued smaller font logo for the Panasonic.

All in all, everything about the Panasonic I liked better - the picture quality and the design - minus the fact that the Samsung is much thinner.

Again, this is just my opinion - but the trip made up any doubt I had in my mind.

My Panasonic P65VT25 is on order from a local dealer and should be here in a few weeks!

Now to find a wall mount that will hold this thing, lol.

Reply
Reply
post #78 of 213
8/14/10 at 9:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

Numbers and what you will actually see are to complete different things. I don't care about numbers the manufactures say there sets do. It's nothing but a number. Eyes are the final answer. In my viewing environment. The sets pretty much look the exact same.

Those were not manufacturer numbers. Those were the ANSI contrast ratios given by ChadB.

Sure you may see something different than a 958:1 contrast ratio in your home. However, you will NEVER see something better than 958:1 (assuming ChadB's measurements are accurate). Numbers do not lie. Only your mind convinces you the picture is better than it measures.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 213
8/14/10 at 10:04pm
ChadB also measured a VT25 at .010 ft/L

Just saying...
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 213
8/15/10 at 2:25am
Thread Starter 
Numbers don't matter
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 213
8/15/10 at 4:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pologuy View Post

Well, I got a chance to see these two (C7000 and VT25) side by side yesterday and there is no comparisson - the Panasonic is clearly the better TV - at least in my opinion.

First, I had the TV guy make the settings as close to exactly the same on both TVs as possible and the Panasonic was the clear winner no matter what he did.

The Panasonic looked brighter, had better whites and better blacks and better color all the way around.

I also, for the first time, actually looked at the bezel of the Samsung C7000 closer and felt it - it looks and fees terribly cheap - the "textured" plastic (it felt like plastic, not sure what it is) was just way too unattractive - it cheapened the TV by a lot. If it would have had the same bezel as the C6500, then the TV would have looked very nice.

However, the huge font logo for SAMSUNG looked "out of place" in relation to the more subdued smaller font logo for the Panasonic.

All in all, everything about the Panasonic I liked better - the picture quality and the design - minus the fact that the Samsung is much thinner.

Again, this is just my opinion - but the trip made up any doubt I had in my mind.

My Panasonic P65VT25 is on order from a local dealer and should be here in a few weeks!

Now to find a wall mount that will hold this thing, lol.


+
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 213
8/15/10 at 4:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

Numbers don't matter

Sure they do. TV's are not magical.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 213
8/15/10 at 5:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post


Numbers and what you will actually see are to complete different things. I don't care about numbers the manufactures say there sets do. It's nothing but a number. Eyes are the final answer. In my viewing environment. The sets pretty much look the exact same.

I was wondering about this. I mean, numbers are one thing, but what is a "usable" contrast ratio? LCD's have insane ANSI contrast ratios, but just because you have decent blacks and can get really bright doesn't mean your PQ is worth a damn. The LCD I had before I got my plasma probably had at least a 25% higher ANSI contrast ratio, but the plasma PQ was head and shoulders above the LCD. And plenty bright enough.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 213
8/15/10 at 5:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakoCSH View Post


I was wondering about this. I mean, numbers are one thing, but what is a "usable" contrast ratio? LCD's have insane ANSI contrast ratios, but just because you have decent blacks and can get really bright doesn't mean your PQ is worth a damn. The LCD I had before I got my plasma probably had at least a 25% higher ANSI contrast ratio, but the plasma PQ was head and shoulders above the LCD. And plenty bright enough.

Exactly. Which is the same case for my plasma. All if it's numbers are lower then my LCD.(contrast 7mill-1 vs 5mill-1) Yet the PQ is on par and at some points even better.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 213
8/16/10 at 12:32am
And don't forget, black levels WILL rise on the pansonic, that's a fact.

How much and when is the question.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 213
8/16/10 at 4:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

And don't forget, black levels WILL rise on the pansonic, that's a fact.

How much and when is the question.

This years models? If so I'd love to see your proof that that is a fact, since there hasnt been any reports of a black level rise in this years models.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 213
8/16/10 at 5:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Im2sexy View Post


This years models? If so I'd love to see your proof that that is a fact, since there hasnt been any reports of a black level rise in this years models.

Panasonic G20/25 owners ready reported rising blacks on their tv. We are still waiting on reports on the vt20/25 but it will happen, that's part of panasonic neo panel.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 213
8/16/10 at 5:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakoCSH View Post

I was wondering about this. I mean, numbers are one thing, but what is a "usable" contrast ratio? LCD's have insane ANSI contrast ratios, but just because you have decent blacks and can get really bright doesn't mean your PQ is worth a damn. The LCD I had before I got my plasma probably had at least a 25% higher ANSI contrast ratio, but the plasma PQ was head and shoulders above the LCD. And plenty bright enough.

Why would you compare black levels of LCDs and plasmas? The two technologies produce very different styles of pictures.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 213
8/16/10 at 6:57am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Im2sexy View Post


This years models? If so I'd love to see your proof that that is a fact, since there hasnt been any reports of a black level rise in this years models.

That's been proved wrong long ago. Read before you post.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 213
8/16/10 at 8:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guibs View Post

Panasonic G20/25 owners ready reported rising blacks on their tv. We are still waiting on reports on the vt20/25 but it will happen, that's part of panasonic neo panel.

Links to these reports please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

That's been proved wrong long ago. Read before you post.

Whats been proved wrong? I do a lot of reading thank you very much.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › My view on the C7000 Samsung plasma