Official Panasonic GT50 Series Discussion Thread [No Street Price Talk] - Page 91

Thanks. I think THX bright room will be enough for when I watch tv during the day (which is really just the weekends). PQ on Best Buy's main floor (which I consider moderately bight) seemed pretty good, although I thought I noticed that the blacks were a bit washed out. But that isn't a deal breaker because I'll calibrate the tv and I do my serious movie watching at night.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Just picked mine up today! Still working on a few other things before its up and running.

This is almost the exact situation I'll be in. My room is maybe slightly wider, and the window/balcony will face North East (so no direct sunlight), but it will still be pretty bright. My 2007 Panasonic 50" plasma has no problem with that situation, so I'm wondering if this one will...

THanks for the feedback. The room is facing west and gets direct sunset light. I'm guessing this lighting might be too much for any TV, but just couldn't decide if I'd be better off with a Samsung LED for an extra 500-1000 dollars or if the Panny GT 60 on THX daytime settings would be bright enough.

Thanks for any help

As a current owner of a Kuro 5020FD since 2008, here are my current thoughts on my new 65GT50.
I am looking at picture quality only in this post.

Disclaimer(thanks to tonydeluce): Most of my viewing is with DirectTV HD material. Blu-ray on both of these displays is fantastic. So, I guess this is more of a comparison
on how the displays handle less than pristine source.

My Kuro has never been calibrated. I'm just using the community settings.
I watch the 65GT50 mostly with THX Cinema, THX Bright Room, and the CNET custom settings depending on ambient light.

Here are some of the things I've noticed so far.
The Kuro seems a bit sharper to my eye whereas the GT50 feels slightly soft and grainier. This in turn makes the GT50 feel a little "flat".
The Kuro just has more pop.
The black levels on both are great, but the Kuro also has a bit better black levels which probably help with that pop.

The GT50 has more visible dithering going on. Granted, you can't see it at normal viewing distances, but I wonder if that is adding to the softer/grainier picture.
I have also noticed more posterization on the GT50.

The Kuro also seems to have much better motion handling. I've noticed some artifacts on the GT50 that I've never seen on the Kuro.

One advantage of the GT50 is DSE. The Kuro seems to have more DSE from what I have seen so far.

The GT50 is a nice display and will remain my main display due to its size, but I prefer the Kuro at this point. I hope many of these issues can be resolved with a good calibration.
Edited by sunspot - 7/10/12 at 11:19am

If you're watching the TV, you won't be looking out the windows, so why wouldn't you just cover the windows while you're watching, then uncover when not?

I'm in the process of replacing an old CRT projector with a screen that rolled out of the ceiling in front of the fireplace.

Now, we have a 60" GT50 that we're going to mount on the mantle.

The problem is, the TV is now taking the place where our center speaker sat (5.1 surround).

So, we think there are 2 options:
1. Move the center speaker to the ceiling
2. Use the component in on the GT50 and let the TV's speakers act as the center console

Is the second option at all possible? How would we set it up?

Thanks!
Colin

I agree that my KURO handles poor quality source material much better than my 65GT50. I believe this is probably what is making your GT50 look softer and grainer because when I am watching a high quality blu ray the GT50 actually looks very noticeably sharper. The additional resolution along with the black levels makes for some amazing shadow detail. I also believe the black levels on the GT50 are about the same ( they may even be a tiny bit better ) as the KURO but I have an 8th gen and you have a 9th gen and that may be the difference. Hands down the GT50 is much brighter and this allows a better TV for daytime viewing so this area definitely goes to the GT50.

The KURO can operate at 72 Hz with a 24 Hz signal which should theoretically make the pans much better than pans at 60 Hz but they seem to be very close. Unless there is some text scrolling on the screen it is difficult to notice much judder.

For me I prefer the extra sharpness, brightness, etc. of the GT50 when I am enjoying high quality source material and can live with the issues when I decide to watch cable TV ( though some of the HD broadcast falls into the high quality source material bucket ).

I have been running the GT50 non stop for almost one week so I now have 150 hours on it and the PQ is very noticeably better than when I started watching last Tuesday...

Yes, I agree with everything you said. In fact, I intended to add a disclaimer to the beginning that most of my viewing is with DirecTV HD material. Thanks for pointing that out.
Blu-ray looks fantastic on both displays. No complaints there.

For me its plasma no matter what! I just figure out a way to deal with the sunlight. My room is fairly bright but does not have the direct sunlight you may have, but thats what blinds are for. There is no doubt that a good led/lcd sets will look a bit better (in some ways) during the day but is it worth the trade off for worse night viewing? For me it is not, but I guess it comes down to when you do the majority of your TV viewing. My GT50 looks very good during the day, excellent in the late afternoon, and amazing at night.

Personally I am not a huge fan of the Samsung led/lcd sets.
I know they are expensive but IMO the top-end Sony sets are the best non-Elite led/lcd sets out there. Regardless, I would just have a hard time spending almost double the money for a set that has a little better PQ during the day but not as good at night.

Also it looks like a very long room, so keep viewing angles in mind (unless you sit in the sweet spot and just say screw it to everyone else!).

Either way be sure to purchase from somewhere with a good return policy. That way if you are not happy with your first choice, you can swap it out to try another.
Edited by wattheF - 7/10/12 at 12:40pm

My room might be slightly brighter than yours. Here are some pictures I took during the brighter part of the day: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1403635/official-panasonic-gt50-series-discussion-thread-no-street-price-talk/1260#post_22038536

I just returned my GT50 a couple of hours ago. I gave it a shot for a week, but I too was disappointed with how the Panny handled TV content. Most of the time the picture was fine, but some commercials and some shows just looked horrid. And given that my wife is a huge Lifetime movie watcher, the Panny wasn't cutting it. And even the Comcast menu guide looked grainy and pixelated. Sure it is a terrible source, but it's something I had to look at.

When it came to Blu-Rays, I'll agree, the Panasonic was splendid. Blacks were truly spectacular, and the images were really really nice. I'm no videophile by any means, but I would say it's an amazing picture.

I found the speakers of the Panasonic to be okay too. While I do have a 5.1 surround sound setup, I usually resort to the onboard speakers for late night viewing, so as not to wake up the whole house.

And my panel had no buzz...

Image retention was a joke. From what I've read in this thread, I was expecting it to be horrible. But with only a few hours of viewing, I will say it was much much better than Plasmas of yesteryear. Sure, there'd be some residual static image, but it was only noticeable when the screen was only a solid color... And as soon as a moving image passed, it disappeared.... Maybe the 3 seconds of IR is too much for people here, but I bet with a few months of viewing, it'll work its way out...

I traded it in for a e7000 this weekend. I used them side by side for a few days. Yeah, the Samsung didn't get as inky-black as the Panasonic, but out of the box I preferred the Samsung's image. Much better job at rendering low-quality images, and

But when it came down to it, for my day-to-day viewing, I liked the samsung better... Only because it could render what I watch 90% of the time better... The fact that it was slightly less expensive, and came with glasses (albeit cheap ones), was a nice bonus too...


Too bad Panasonic didn't have a better way of boosting the quality of images... Because it was a very nice looking TV overall (style-wise, and with Blu-Ray sources). And it didn't buzz nearly as loud as this new Samsung!

We bought our first HD plasma TV 7 years ago and I found TV shows in HD were so much better than in SD that the fact that a show was in HD was a major factor in deciding what to watch. Fortunately in recent years almost every show we watch is in HD. Some video do not look good, usually commercials or video shot by an amateur, but I chalk it up to garbage in/garbage out. Many nature shows are remarkably good. In spite of the huge number of HD channels I get from Cablevision, Lifetime is only in SD and it is pretty bad on my 50GT50. What I cannot understand is why it is worse than some other SD channels such as Oxygen.

I am stunned by the quality of HD content on the GT50....it is SO much better than my previous set (Hitachi RPTV). I am very surprised that someone would be dissatisfied with the televised HD content unless there's something wrong with the source.

There does seem to be some difference between how different brand TVs handle the same source.

In my eyes, Samsung does a better job presenting lower-quality HD images than the Panasonic did. I've read on here that Samsung does have a different image processor, so maybe they're just better able to handle content.

Or maybe my Panasonic was defective.... Which I dont think to be the case since Blu-ray imags were outstanding.

Bierboy, you've heard the phrase "Ignorance is bliss"? It's all about your point of reference. For me personally, coming from a Kuro 5020FD, I am seeing an inferior picture. Not bad for sure, but not as good.
I also know people who rave about their LCD TVs with overblown brights, hotspotting, and dreadful SOE. That doesn't mean they are getting a better picture

My brother has that exact same set and it still impresses me with it's PQ. But for the life of me I don't see how you have lived without some curtains, drapes or light-limiting shades behind your TV. I would get headaches looking into that sunlight!

It's interesting how different people view image quality differently. I returned an E8000 for a 60GT50 for the same reasons that you returned the Panny.. I found that I much preferred both the blu-ray and the satellite HD broadcasts (using Bell Expressvu). I have about 150hrs on the Panny having used the D-Nice prep slides. I am using the CNET calibration values for Custom but will have professional calibration done in early August. My setup is in a theater room (with no windows) and using a Panny BDT310 blu-ray player and Onkyo SR805. I originally had a Sharp 52LE640 which i upgraded to the E8000 then to the GT50.

Alot of the inconsistency from channel to channel can be chalked up to gamma/greyscale issues and also source material. Sometimes you just get lucky and get a set that pleases you out of the box. Both brands are capable of producing stunning HD images if they are calibrated correctly imo.

buy the glasses that panny has in the manual
they are different this year than last
find them more inexpensive on line

thx norm and bright are very good default and are pretty much right on. perhaps bring the color down a little bit to around 30+/- or so contrast around 50 +/- suits me

i've seen calibration settings and tried them out specifically for 60gt50 but find them useless and waaay off mainly because the input from cable or satellite is going to vary depending where you live and off air signals are so varied as well
calibration may be ok for bluray etc but i find adjusting it to my eye works as good as anything else and don't use bluray that much

Well, it could also be that the last 3 sets I've owned have been Samsung (The first being an old 27" tube tv, then a B-series plasma, and most recently an LED). Maybe since my reference point is a Samsung product, I find their image better, or something.


I will say the Samsung DEFINITELY upscales the crappy Comcast guide better. I don't know if that too is something picture adjustments could improve, but out of the box, I just like the Samsung better.

Excuse me, but if you are inferring that my opinion is ignorant because I'm coming from a point of reference that you, somehow believe, is less informed simply because I am comparing my Panny to an Hitachi that was, by all who saw it, quite good at rendering HD TV program material, then I, sir, am offended....

But, as my avatar states....I won't hold a grudge...

Video scaling is at the heart of good PQ. Most large TV screens are now 1920 x 1080 pixels. Blue-Ray's look good on every set because they are not scaled; they are 1920 x 1080 and are just sent to the screen. You can alter the image with color, contrast, ect. but each pixel is just mapped 1:1 to the screen. Every other resolution has to be up-converted to fill the screen. This scaling process is as much art as it is science since it can be be done in infinite different ways. Being "art" each manufacturer's sets have a different look based on how they implement scaling. Samsung (my opinion) does a good job detecting "lines" and maintaining sharper transitions around them. This gives what appears to be sharper text and graphics on low resolution menus and the like. The GT50 does a good job with 480i, 480p, and 1080i. 720p looks good also but if you look close the fine detail can get a little softer than on a Samsung when the sharpness is dialed down based on a "good" setting for 1080p input. I have noticed that you can bring back some of that detail by increasing the sharpness without the overall PQ getting edgy on 720p sources.. Maybe its my imagination but the sharpness appears to almost function differently on 720p than other sources.

I think most of use are using calibration settings based on 1080p sources whereas the the "best" setting for sharpness on 720p sources should be higher. If anyone has a 720p resolution test I'd be curious to hear if higher sharpness settings are beneficial.

As long as it doesn't introduce artifacts (which it typically doesn't), I prefer sharpness up a little anyways. I keep it between 25-40 depending on the content.

Excellent inputs. All my non-bluray sources save one ota channel are 1080i. I increased the sharpness to 40 and it indeed improved the 720p ota channel (which was pretty good anyways).