Originally Posted by sunspot
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.
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!