what makes pioneer kuro so special - Page 3

Originally Posted by dlplover

Either the phenomenon you're describing is so mild as to be irrelevant or you're reasoning is wrong somehow. I think D-Nice hit it on the money. You're making assertions about a set you don't even have access to test with a meter. You're going opposite to the scientific method which usually means your suppositions are wrong.

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Those images are created with data from measurements taken from those displays.

Originally Posted by gorman42

As for the APL, it's there, there's no denying it. At the same time, it's definitely not so pronounced as the pictures you posted make it appear. Furthermore, as the eyes adapt to extra light output, when you watch normal content it's something you really don't notice.

Originally Posted by greenjp

My Panasonic PX77U doesn't look anything like that, and yes I watch hockey on it all the time. You sound like a knowledgable person but your arguments, particularly with those who are more knowledgable, are not improving your credibility.

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

There seems to be some confusion over what this data is a measurement of. This is the data combined with the test patterns.

If it still doesn't mean anything to you, any of the larger patterns (high APL) are representative of brighter scenes in film.

Please make sure you are viewing in on black rather than the lighter AVS Forum theme. (a bright surround will make the differences less noticeable)

Reference display (or any LCD out there)


9G Kuro:


9.5G Kuro:

Originally Posted by gorman42

As for the APL, it's there, there's no denying it. At the same time, it's definitely not so pronounced as the pictures you posted make it appear. Furthermore, as the eyes adapt to extra light output, when you watch normal content it's something you really don't notice.

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

The only reason it may not appear to be so pronounced is if you are not used to looking at a display that doesn't do this (or not to the same extent) or have never done a side-by-side comparison with an LCD or other display device without an ABL circuit. (or one so aggressive)

As I previously mentioned, data I have seen from Panasonic screens of a similar age was considerably better than the Kuros. D-Nice claims that has changed with newer models though, but has not backed this up with anything.

Originally Posted by hhaller

D,
What is the max light output that you've been able to squeeze from a 65VT30 for ISF Day? I thought I had read on that other forum, that it was about 40 ftl. Is that true?

Could any of the other picture modes be accurately calibrated to put out more light?

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Those images are created with data from measurements taken from those displays.

D-Nice will be able to verify that this data is correct. (I don't expect him to, however)


If you are used to watching a display in a darkened room at reference brightness, the effect is very obvious in person.
It is immediately obvious if you have a Kuro next to any LCD when both are calibrated to the same peak brightness level.

If you do not have a calibrated display and have the contrast control jacked up, then it may be considerably less noticeable as the dimmed image may end up closer to where it should be. (but then I find small areas of high contrast to be unbearably bright to watch in a dark room)

Originally Posted by D-Nice

You are exaggerating here. Everyone knows that with white will dim as the screen % increases , but it isn't like your simulation.

Originally Posted by dlplover

Again, you're making a ton of assumptions about a sets you don't have.

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

There seems to be some confusion over what this data is a measurement of. This is the data combined with the test patterns.

If it still doesn't mean anything to you, any of the larger patterns (high APL) are representative of brighter scenes in film.

Please make sure you are viewing in on black rather than the lighter AVS Forum theme. (a bright surround will make the differences less noticeable)

Reference display (or any LCD out there)


9G:


9.5G:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

You're right, I have made a huge mistake with these images and while you probably won't believe me, unintentionally misrepresented that data.

Originally Posted by calvin35

If this is supposed to represent full field white on a 9 and 9.5G Kuro then this may just be the silliest post I have ever seen on AVS.

Originally Posted by D-Nice

Everyone makes mistakes, however your sims are still skewed.... even with full screen white.

Originally Posted by calvin35

If this is supposed to represent full field white on a 9 and 9.5G Kuro then this may just be the silliest post I have ever seen on AVS.

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

The patterns are here if you want to check for yourself: http://www.mediafire.com/?dw8or3l0gda2qth

A 9G loses ~60% brightness, a 9.5G loses ~40% brightness at 100% APL, at least when peak white is set to around 100 nits. I don't know if the ABL is affected by the contrast setting, and if higher light outputs would perform worseit's not something that matters to me.

At 2.2 gamma on a calibrated PC display, that's 79% grey (9.5G) and 67% grey. (9G) Pretty sure my math is correct on that.


Or are you saying they're skewed in some other way?

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

The patterns are here if you want to check for yourself: http://www.mediafire.com/?dw8or3l0gda2qth

A 9G loses ~60% brightness, a 9.5G loses ~40% brightness at 100% APL, at least when peak white is set to around 100 nits. I don't know if the ABL is affected by the contrast setting, and if higher light outputs would perform worseit's not something that matters to me.

At 2.2 gamma on a calibrated PC display, that's 79% grey (9.5G) and 67% grey. (9G) Pretty sure my math is correct on that.


Or are you saying they're skewed in some other way?


Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by D-Nice

You do realize I can put full screen white on my Kuros at anytime and compare it to an LCD, right? It does not look like your sims.

Simply put, reality does not match your sims.

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Well no, rather than looking grey, it just looks dim... but there's no other way of representing that.

The brightness change is the same however.

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Well no, rather than looking grey, it just looks dim... but there's no other way of representing that.

The brightness change is the same however.

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Well no, rather than looking grey, it just looks dim... but there's no other way of representing that.

The brightness change is the same however.

Originally Posted by all clear

Hi guys

i wonder and i ask my self

what makes pioneer kuro so special other than any HDTV

i own the kuro and i calibrated well..but still i don`t know what make it so special

black level ??..does this really matter ??

i`m confused with the picture quality it looks like dull and lack of brightness

Originally Posted by dlplover

No, reference white is whatever level matches with the brightness levels in the room the display is being used to produce a reference quality image. That can vary greatly by location and to a degree based on user preference - how bright someone likes their image.

Originally Posted by Otto J

I think I'll make a stab of answering the question, ignoring the ongoing debate...

For the record, I have calibrated a few hundred Pioneer's of different generations, so that's basically my background. First off, the Kuro's are not perfect displays. Just widely considered closer to perfect than anything else out there. Is it a "reference display"? Depends what you mean by reference. Reference for comparison between end-user displays, yes. Reference as in studio reference monitor - no. However, I do believe that the vast majority is right - a Pioneer KRP is the best monitor ever created. I also happen to believe that while the KRP is better than a 5090h, the difference isn't that big - the 5090h is still in my opinion better than any competitor.

But what's so special about it then? Well, first off, it's possible to get it fairly close to accurate, fairly easily. If you find the picture dull, you have either A: A bad calibration (perhaps a good calibration for a dark room placed in a bright room?), or B: you just don't see the value of an accurate picture. Which is fine, I believe you should look into why an accurate picture is an advantage, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

However, other displays can be calibrated for fairly accurate color and gamma as well, so what makes the Kuro different. Basically, black level is a major factor - however, not the way most people seem to think. It's not just that the black level is low, it's the fact that black level is low _without_ any tricks, such as backlight dimming on LCD's, or variable drive current like on Panasonic's (which is one reason Panny's don't match Kuro´s). The black level is good, the detail in dark areas are good, the color accuracy in dark areas are good - without any visible drawbacks. Every single competitor that has similar black levels, achieve them by introducing drawbacks. I personally believe that this, combined with fairly accurate color, is the main reason for Kuro's success.

Another area where specifically Panasonic fails to match the Kuro's, is in signal processing. Any consumer-grade Panasonic I've seen (I haven't seen many pro Panny's), have some kind of active sharpness-processing going on. You can see this on certain patterns on HD basics (don't recall the name of the pattern, I will update as soon as I've checked...). The Panasonic's change the sharpness behavior based on the material. The Kuro's are much more solid in this regard. This is part of the reason why Kuro's just "feels" better, more accurate, natural if you will (provided that that's what the source material calls for).

To cut it short, basically the Kuro's are the displays that have the least obvious, least intrusive issues with image quality. There are certainly displays out there that matches or surpasses the Kuro's in certain areas. But none that have the same all-round lack of visible artifacts. Any display that surpasses the Kuro's in certain areas, does it in areas that aren't very obvious to the naked eye - while at the same time compromising in areas that are. I think that's the best way to sum it up.

Originally Posted by Otto J

You could argue that if the ambient light is too high, you will never achieve a reference quality image no matter what. If you want reference quality images, you need a reference quality environment. Trying to achieve a high quality image in very bright surroundings, is just like trying to achieve high-end sound in a non-treated listening room - it's just not possible. You can certainly minimize the issues, but it will never be "reference quality".

Also, I don't see any relevance of "user preference" when discussing reference quality. If preference is involved, it's no longer reference.

Originally Posted by Otto J

You could argue that if the ambient light is too high, you will never achieve a reference quality image no matter what. If you want reference quality images, you need a reference quality environment. Trying to achieve a high quality image in very bright surroundings, is just like trying to achieve high-end sound in a non-treated listening room - it's just not possible. You can certainly minimize the issues, but it will never be "reference quality".

Also, I don't see any relevance of "user preference" when discussing reference quality. If preference is involved, it's no longer reference.

Originally Posted by dlplover

Your eyes adjust to the lighting environment so that dimness only matter if you're watching in a very bright room. Otherwise, you won't see it. So all your post amounts to is that LCD's can go brighter than plasmas. Woah! Groundbreaking... since that wasn't already common knowledge.

Like has been said many times, white point vs. room light levels matters a lot more than some arbitrary number.

Originally Posted by Iorek

Excellent post... I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought this. What's the point of having better blacks than a Kuro if you have to introduce distracting artifacts to do it? TV manufacturers are trying to progress picture quality through gimmicks rather than doing it the right way. More cost effective I'm sure, but that doesn't mean I have to like it!

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Thank you, that's what I've been trying to say with regard to reference white levelit doesn't matter that it's not defined in the BT.709 spec, the goal is to match the mastering environment for a reference-class image. For that same reason, 2.4 should be the target gamma if you have the viewing environment correct. (mastering CRTs are as close to 2.4 as they could make them)

But do you then agree that there is no way you could call the Kuro a reference display, if it dims the image as much as 40% lower than intended, depending on picture content?

No, the point is that it is not representing the image as intended. Scenes which are meant to be bright, are dimmer than they are supposed to be no matter how you set up the display. It's not something your eyes can adjust to, because it's a non-linear process. Lower APL scenes are (mostly) displayed correctly, so bright scenes are still dim relative to them.

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Local-dimming LCDs have greater ANSI performance than CRTs ever did. While there are artefacts created from it, it's generally still a better picture.

The Kuros add their own artefacts to the image by the nature of being a Plasma. (poor gradation, dithering, phosphor trails, ABL dimming etc.) There is nothing that gets it all right yet, on the consumer side of things. Hopefully OLED will fix that in a few years time. (or sooner if the idea of a HMD isn't offputting to you)

Originally Posted by Iorek

I wasn't suggesting that the Kuros were still #1 in all categories, but as Otto stated, they provide an amazing picture with minimal distracting artifacts. For all I know you could be 100% correct about the dimming (Though I'm much more inclined to trust D-Nice's input), but I simply don't notice it during real content. Same with dithering and everything else you mentioned. What I do notice is blooming, floating blacks, clouding, lack of uniformity, flashlighting, etc. I've tried more than a few TVs over the past two years, and all of them had flaws that distracted me to some degree. With the 500M I can just sit back and enjoy a movie.

Imagine if Pioneer had stayed in the TV business. If the 9.5g TVs are any indication, they were working to improve this dimming you speak of in addition to pushing the envelope on all the other aspects of picture quality. And they were doing that without gimmicks. It's a tragedy.

Originally Posted by D-Nice

2.4 is the standard for a studio reference monitor. It is not the standard for anything else, period! There are two gamma targets currently being considered by SMPTE for digital displays... 2.2 and 2.35, Niether is 2.4, is it?

Originally Posted by D-Nice

Dimmer based on what? Are you going to sit hear and continue to think that an ABL circuit is linear in its action regardless of where a PDP's reference light output is set? Seriously?

In general, the ABL circuit is more aggressive the higher reference white is set via windowed patterns. It is the exact opposite as reference white is set lower.

Originally Posted by D-Nice

AND AGAIN, consumer CRTs had ABL circuits. It is the primiary reason why one calibrates a CRT with windowed patterns instead of full field (yeah, windowed patterns where here long before PDPs).

Originally Posted by Iorek

I wasn't suggesting that the Kuros were still #1 in all categories, but as Otto stated, they provide an amazing picture with minimal distracting artifacts. For all I know you could be 100% correct about the dimming (Though I'm much more inclined to trust D-Nice's input), but I simply don't notice it during real content. Same with dithering and everything else you mentioned. What I do notice is blooming, floating blacks, clouding, lack of uniformity, flashlighting, etc. I've tried more than a few TVs over the past two years, and all of them had flaws that distracted me to some degree. With the 500M I can just sit back and enjoy a movie.

Originally Posted by Iorek

Imagine if Pioneer had stayed in the TV business. If the 9.5g TVs are any indication, they were working to improve this dimming you speak of in addition to pushing the envelope on all the other aspects of picture quality. And they were doing that without gimmicks. It's a tragedy.