Official Panasonic GT30 Series Discussion Thread [No Price Talk] - Page 7

Yep. This forum is awful compared to that one. That forum is friendly and a lot more informative.

I can't believe that the lower tier model performs better.

I wouldn't expect a firmware fix from Panasonic, although they did offer a fix for colors on THX in 2009, so it's not impossible. Fixing THX gamma would be nice, too.

Not only that, the set still has the same mll as the GT25, although it may be a little better since the blacks don't float, but who cares if lower APL content triggers the brightness to go crazy all the time.

Sometimes I think they do this on purpose... why? I have no idea.

Why do people always announce their irrational choices? PERHAPS, if you had read the rest of what D-nice had said, you'd know that there is a distinct possibility this may be fixed, and that aside from that the TV seems pretty damn rock solid. I think Dnice even mentioned something about asking his Panasonic contact about this issue and seeing what they at least have to say on it.

Perhaps you may want to wait first and see if the issue can be rectified or solved?


I understand that if the settings are consistent, than whatever I have been using since 2008 has been excellent. People were ready to throw the set under the bus for thinking it had 1.1 gamma (which it in the end didnt), but it in no way apparently looked like it did. I dont know what they would have changed (since a THX standard should remain consistent), but I am just hoping it looks as good as it does on my current set.


So...are you asking me a question? Or is this just a rhetorical statement phrased as a question? Because honestly, I can't tell. Also, I don't really consider the set "THX certified"...they have a THX certified mode...one I embraced very much on my 800u (in spite of some initial complaints and issue to it seeming dim at first). I would love to actually SEE the THX mode and how it looks. AS for the floating whites.... seems like the verdict is still out on that (not about them existing, but them being fixed, heck, Dnice has apparently stopped his eval on other things until he can get a firm answer on calibrating them out of the picture), and I never bought a Panasonic set with floating blacks even (which I am now at this point happy to avoid), so I really have no idea until we get more answers.

I think all this gamma talk is blow out of portion but the real story is the fluctuating brightness and maybe it can be fixed with a fw update or may be its the frist run of tvs haveing this problem. like D nice said there is no set standard for gamma.

Um...no. 1.9 gamma for THX is horrible, its not blown out of proportion.

I suppose you are right....since Panasonic listened last year and fixed floating blacks.

Oh wait... no they didn't.

I don't expect the fluc. brightness to get fixed at all.

If there's no set standard then why do all calibrators aim for 2.2, the gamma level at which all professional film and video is produced?

Can you produce a document that shows a specification for gamma? There is no standard -- at least not yet. As D-Nice said there are two candidates being considered, 2.2 and 2.35. For my current viewing environment and TV, I would prefer a gamma at about 2.3.

Larry

Good responses. I understand and I agree.

And they fixed the premature raising black level goof too, right?

Err, maybe again, they didn't.

Personally, if past history is any indication I'd give it 50/50 of getting fixed.

I'm not saying it, Poynton is saying it. Science is saying it. It's all there in the documents which I know you have read.


I've been there done that too. Like I said, all my displays are calibrated to 2.4 as per studio reference monitors, and they look fantastic, and the science backs me up on this. Your argument is not of fact and science, but rather of what looks good to you.

I suspect that like most stubborn calibrators you have become used to 2.2 over the years and anything else looks "wrong" to you. Well, that is very disappointing because I expect better from someone as objective as yourself.


So you are evaluating what the ABL does and then changing the gamma on the window patterns based on that. I'm sorry but that is not the right way to set gamma. The only way to get a consistent gamma reading is with window patterns and window patterns only. The ABL is not even active most of the time so it's pointless trying to calibrate for it (ABL kicks in at around 60% and average APL of video content is only 15-40%).

Besides, you're still not hitting 2.4 with or without the ABL active. So it's still wrong.

I type this on a CRT monitor calibrated to 2.4. The image is fantastic and exhibits excellent perceptual uniformity, as it should according to Poyntons scientific research. Shadow detail is fully visible and images look convincing and well lit.

But according to your opinion I am supposed to consider the image to be wrong and terrible and cartoonish. Why do you spread such misinformation?

Professional film and video is produced on monitors with 2.4 gamma. See post #164.

When the hell did I say I am a fan of 2.2 or exclusively use 2.2? None of my Kuros are calibrated to 2.2 and I do most of my viewing in a dark room. Do I use a gamma target of 2.2? Sure, but only when it is appropriate. If you do not know anything, don't assume.



Uh, no. You did not understand my post and I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

I understood perfectly: you calibrate gamma using windows, then you go and measure gamma at high APL when the ABL is active, then you go back and change the gamma of the windows based on this. This is wrong.

Jesus. Are you playing or just dumb? I never said I measure at high APL and then go back and change gamma. Please stop with the BS.

On ur sets that are calibrated to a 2.4 gamma, hv u checked on low/high APL scenes if there are issues? Also is it really 2.4 at all points of the curve? Using an average is not correct.

I hv seen some displays that while can be set to 2.4, exhibiting instability in the low and high end of the gamma curve and its visible if u view material. Different issues crop up. Some are able to go to 2.4 in the mid levels, but are wonky in the low and high end. Forcing them to 2.4 via a video processor then shows problems with the picture (posterization, banding, noise, purple snakes etc...depending on the set)

I believe that is what D-Nice is saying. Reference monitors are different as they are made to different specs (even then there would be limitations). I doubt any commercial set is deemed as reference (possibly the Kuro and other studio/pro grade CRTs/monitor but little else). If u push a set beyond its capabilities, something gives...

Then what on earth were you hinting at here:


^ Your argument above is that ABL causes gamma shifts and therefore gamma should be set taking this into account. Which is wrong because ABL is not in use most of the time, and calibrating for it will result in most scenes having incorrect gamma.

If I have misrepresented your argument, then what is your argument for not using 2.4?


Of course. There are no issues with either, all shades are completely visible at all APL's and the perceptual uniformity is excellent.


Yes of course, the C7000 has a 10 point gamma control specifically for achieving this. My PC monitor is calibrated in the video card's LUT so it is done to perfection as well.


Of course, if the display is not capable of doing 2.4 properly then you may have to target something else. But a set like the C7000 with its 10 point control has absolutely no issues with 2.4.

I like potatoes.

Me too. I'll take them over fights like these anyway.

Two words:

• Consideration
• Evaluate

When you figure out/comprehend what those two words mean and how they relate to a competent calibrator, perhaps then you will understand what I was getting at. You seem to be an ameture at this. Nothing wrong with it... you just have a lot to learn.

As I said before, I'll agree to disagree with you. Since I'm sure you don't get that either, welcome to my ignore list.

Pneumatic, I would really appreciate it if you could confine your jousting to the appropriate forum, it belongs in the Calibration Forum.

+1. I come here to read about the new Panasonic TVs, not long-winded debate about the merits of 2.4 gamma vs. 2.2 gamma.

Pro: Get to learn about the benefits of different gamma settings.

Con: See two posters, who both have taught me things with their posts, come to these types of exchanges.

I've got a set pre-ordered through VE (won't say what kind) and am getting it calibrated in store. I told Robert that I would like any of the calibrators to do the job, of which D-Nice is one, because there is no doubt in my mind that they all have professional attitudes and the experience required to do the job well.

Don't know much about gamma...but I know audio a bit. And I know that with audio, it's not uncommon for the listener to want something other than the perfect flat response. There is science yes...but there is also art....and the art component can only be proficiently done with somebody with innate talent and sound experience with the science...IMO.

So when you can't win you just ignore people. Great attitude.

First, you start by saying no competent calibrator would use 2.4 because it's "cartoonish". Except whoops, 2.4 is what studio monitors use, so you're wrong there. Then, you go on to say 2.3 gamma is best because of the ABL. Except ABL isn't in use the vast majority of the time so that argument holds no water either.

So, in the end you haven't provided any actual reason why you think 2.4 is wrong. This is despite the scientific evidence which clearly states 2.4 is needed for proper brightness levels in a dimly lit room.

Sadly, people are still going to believe you because of your reputation. In this case however, your reputation is greater than your talent.

Alternatively, before the set gets even reviewed or received by the larger market you could prematurely turn it into a crisis with everyone running around on fire and TV's exploding in a massive TVmagheddon before anyone can do anything about it.

Floating blacks sucked, but when they first appeared did Pansonic fix them within a year? No. So... I guess..have fun waiting two years for a new TV from them? With the distinct possibility Panasonic may act differently with this admittedly different issue?

I really don't know much about this stuff and I don't want to feed fuel to the fire, but...
I just have to say if there's a standard for studio reference monitors to use the same setting of anything then whoever made that standard isn't very bright. Every monitor is different and should be calibrated per unit for optimal results IMO. That would be like me adjusting my settings on my Panasonic to match someone’s calibrated settings from a Samsung.

There are and have been a whole heck of a lot of flawed ideas / standards in this world. To put your full faith in one persons standard sounds pretty silly to me.

Studio monitors are individually calibrated to extremely accurate gamma and color settings. That's why they cost tens of thousands of dollars. They don't just copy the settings over from one unit to the next, that would be a farce.

The same goes for consumer displays, each one needs to be calibrated individually to meet the 2.4 power function in order to appear perceptually uniform to human vision when viewed under dim lighting conditions.

I have very little knowledge about display calibration and no dog in the fight. I read through that .pdf doc from Poynton and noted the text on pages 7-9 in the "Picture Rendering in Video" section. I have added italics where I note items of particular interest:

"Several assumptions about the reference display and its viewing conditions are implicit in current studio video practice:
The reference display incorporates a power function (EOCF) with an exponent between 2.35 and 2.4.
It has reference white luminance of between 80 cd·m-2 (EBU standard) and 120 cd·m-2 (smpte standard).
It is viewed in diffuse illumination of about 100 lx in a dim surround having reflectance of about 18%, and surround luminance of about 5% of reference white.
It has off-state reflectance of about 0.5%, which - combined with the ambient illumination in the viewing environment - gives a veiling glare of about 0.25 cd·m-2.
If video originated with these assumptions is viewed on a display with different characteristics (say, maximum luminance of 300 cd·m-2) or in a different viewing environment (say, an average surround instead of a dim surround), then image data should be altered at the display to achieve the intended appearance."

Note, Poynton does not say 2.4 is the correct gamma, rather he gives it as the upper end of the range for a particular subset of displays in a subset of viewing environments. He then explicitly states that a different gamma will be required when viewing the material on different displays in different environments. This seems a pretty strong rebuttal to the "2.4 is always the right gamma" argument.

He goes on to give an example of watching video in the "office":
"In an office environment, maximum luminance could be as high as 300 cd·m-2; the contrast ratio is poor (perhaps 20:1); and the usual surround is average - that is, the surround luminance approximates that of the displayed image. In these circumstances, an end-to-end exponent of about1.1 is suitable for a studio scene. For a studio scene originated with a 0.5-power OECF, the 1.1 end-to-end exponent can be achieved through display gamma of about 2.2."

Simply an example of when you need to adjust gamma to account for the display and it's environment. Seems to me that D-nice's contention that a range of gammas can be appropriate depending on the display and the environment is correct.

I may be well into the "only knows enough to be dangerous" category here but am interested in learning more.

jeff

This was not my argument.

Thanks.