or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Official Panasonic GT50 Series Discussion Thread [No Street Price Talk]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Panasonic GT50 Series Discussion Thread [No Street Price Talk] - Page 259

post #7741 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

It usually ends up doing the opposite. Shows artifacts as well. The fresh rate on a plasma is plenty fast enough. There is literally no need for motion smoother.

I would normally agree with you but I asked an identical question to the posting gentleman. I have found this GT50 to NOT handle motion very well at all. The credits at the end of a movie seem...well...call it what you might (I call it NON-SMOOTH, or "jittery" ). The only way I could get respectable/solid credits at the end of a movie was to put the GT50 on "Moderate" "Motion Smooth." That took care of the problem and I have not seen a deleterious effect from the "Motion Smooth" (but then I am not susceptible/see a problem with overly smooth motion (the dreaded "soap program" motion). I just do NOT think this TV handles motion well. But "plenty fast enough ?" Um, no, I do not agree.
post #7742 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by WOLVERNOLE View Post

I would normally agree with you but I asked an identical question to the posting gentleman. I have found this GT50 to NOT handle motion very well at all. The credits at the end of a movie seem...well...call it what you might (I call it NON-SMOOTH, or "jittery" ). The only way I could get respectable/solid credits at the end of a movie was to put the GT50 on "Moderate" "Motion Smooth." That took care of the problem and I have not seen a deleterious effect from the "Motion Smooth" (but then I am not susceptible/see a problem with overly smooth motion (the dreaded "soap program" motion). I just do NOT think this TV handles motion well. But "plenty fast enough ?" Um, no, I do not agree.

Whats your source?

motion has a lot to do with the fps. You could have a source issue as well.
Edited by ser_renely - 3/10/13 at 5:19pm
post #7743 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurovw89 View Post

its on "off" now. I am watching a blu ray and tried to set it to auto while watching and still can not do anything/

3:2 is only used for interlaced video (1080i, 480i) to artificially create a progressive signal. BluRay is progressive video (1080p) by default and doesn't require any manipulation. So when you watch a progressive source the options for 3:2 are grey'd out. If you watch an interlaced source the options will become available.
post #7744 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by WOLVERNOLE View Post

I would normally agree with you but I asked an identical question to the posting gentleman. I have found this GT50 to NOT handle motion very well at all. The credits at the end of a movie seem...well...call it what you might (I call it NON-SMOOTH, or "jittery" ). The only way I could get respectable/solid credits at the end of a movie was to put the GT50 on "Moderate" "Motion Smooth." That took care of the problem and I have not seen a deleterious effect from the "Motion Smooth" (but then I am not susceptible/see a problem with overly smooth motion (the dreaded "soap program" motion). I just do NOT think this TV handles motion well. But "plenty fast enough ?" Um, no, I do not agree.

The TV handles motion too well, that's the real problem.

Motion smoother is not the "correct" looking image. rolleyes.gif
post #7745 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpollagi View Post

3:2 is only used for interlaced video (1080i, 480i) to artificially create a progressive signal. BluRay is progressive video (1080p) by default and doesn't require any manipulation. So when you watch a progressive source the options for 3:2 are grey'd out. If you watch an interlaced source the options will become available.

I'm not sure how it relates to interlaced sources, but doesn't it have more to do with it being 24 fps film converted to 60 hz?

Blu-ray is still having the 3:2 pull down done to it, unless you use 48hz mode.
post #7746 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by stansbrand1 View Post

Has anyone tried the New Samsung 5100 3d glasses with their gt50? They say their compatible with 2012 Samsung's. I bought two last night from Amazon. The design looks better than the 4100's from 2012. Im hoping they work well.

Yes, they work fine.
post #7747 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bartley View Post

Yes, they work fine.

thanks! i can you comment on how the 5100's compare to the 4100's?
post #7748 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bond 007 View Post

Yes. As far as I know. And it is also only within 14 days if I remember right.

It is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpollagi View Post

I think the Amazon policy is a great benefit and gives you that extra piece of mind on a TV purchase. It saved me several hundred just like you (but back in May 2012) when I got my 60GT50 reduced to 1699 on a Labor Day special when I ran across a better price out of the blue.

I'm sure the policy was never intended to be used for gaming the system by purchasing Amazon TV's when you fully expect the price to drop elsewhere. The Amazon returns policy is a premium bonus itself. If you really feel Paul's is a better buy then order another from Paul's and return the Amazon set. You have the power; wield it wisely. You are still not even close a real clearance price yet. Wait for something around 1/2 price then strike quickly.

It isn't the one time per purchase part that bugs me, it is that the price match I used was on the TV I returned. The policy is one time per product, regardless of quantity or time of purchase. So my subsequent replacement could not take advantage of the price match, even though at the time the replacement was ordered, Amazon's price was the same as the price I used to price match. In short, my one price match was wasted on an order that was returned on a TV whose replacement was ordered when the price was the same as my price match price.

I would not call that gaming the system, is it unreasonable to expect the price match to "reset" when the set it was used on was returned? it was two separate orders with two separate order numbers. I don't care about the money, it's just $100, who cares. I'm more bothered by the policy and Amazons unwillingness to work with a special situation. They would lose more money paying for return shipping and trying to sell an open box set than they would price matching the $100.

No big deal, $1699 is a perfectly fine price for the quality of the set, but a good policy in theory is not necessarily so great in practice in this case.
post #7749 of 9713
You got the same exact display. hence replacement Why would you honestly believe that should entitle you to another price match.. Answer. You shouldn't.
post #7750 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

I'm not sure how it relates to interlaced sources, but doesn't it have more to do with it being 24 fps film converted to 60 hz?

Blu-ray is still having the 3:2 pull down done to it, unless you use 48hz mode.

3:2 pull down is used for interlaced video. The popular BluRay format for film is progressive. New frame creation is done by interpolation not by pull down. Some titles can be done in 60fps-interlaced, but no pull down is required. The 48 Hz mode just displays the actual film frames without adding any interpolated content. More true to the original film but very flickery on a display optimized for 60 Hz.
post #7751 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by ser_renely View Post

Whats your source?

motion has a lot to do with the fps. You could have a source issue as well.

Source reference is a Panasonic BD-210...movie was a Blu-ray 24fps. I cannot stand judders on credit roll. "Should be" smooth and solid, which I only got once I went to the Motion Smoother and set to "Moderate." Even "Weak" was not enough to stop the judder. I have not noticed any deleterious effect w/ it to "Moderate" except slightly "too-smooth" Soap effect.
post #7752 of 9713
So, you actually sit down and enjoy watching the credits?
post #7753 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by WOLVERNOLE View Post

Source reference is a Panasonic BD-210...movie was a Blu-ray 24fps. I cannot stand judders on credit roll. "Should be" smooth and solid, which I only got once I went to the Motion Smoother and set to "Moderate." Even "Weak" was not enough to stop the judder. I have not noticed any deleterious effect w/ it to "Moderate" except slightly "too-smooth" Soap effect.

You realize it's NOT supposed to be smooth, correct? You can make it smooth with SOE if you want, but that's fake.

I don't get how you can blame the TV, when you're describing the very nature of 24/30 FPS content. confused.gif

"Low Frame-rate Judder
The word judder is applied to the lack of smooth motion that results from the low “sampling rate” of 24p, 25p, and 30p capture. This type of judder is inherent to low sampling rate video and is part of what’s called “film look.” It makes no difference if you like it or not--this judder is inherent in film. If you go to the movies, you see judder when objects move through the frame--although film shooters know how to keep it from becoming too extreme. Video shooters tend not know how, or don't use the fluid-head tripods which limit panning speed, and so tend let it get totally out of control."


http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/avchd-format-discussion/124261-what-isnt-judder.html
Edited by JSpectre88 - 3/11/13 at 12:26am
post #7754 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpollagi View Post

3:2 pull down is used for interlaced video. The popular BluRay format for film is progressive. New frame creation is done by interpolation not by pull down. Some titles can be done in 60fps-interlaced, but no pull down is required. The 48 Hz mode just displays the actual film frames without adding any interpolated content. More true to the original film but very flickery on a display optimized for 60 Hz.

It doesn't matter, whether it's interlaced or progressive, 3:2/2:3 pull down is still occurring if you output at 60hz.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1428450/problems-with-24p-cinematic-playback-on-panasonic-tc-p55st50#post_22388149
Edited by JSpectre88 - 3/11/13 at 12:33am
post #7755 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by stansbrand View Post

thanks! i can you comment on how the 5100's compare to the 4100's?

I've never used the 4100's. It looks likes there's crosstalk (not noticeable while viewing), but for all I know that's normal.
post #7756 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by WOLVERNOLE View Post

...I just do NOT think this TV handles motion well...

Jittery file credits aside, I have not been blown away with my GT50's quick motion performance as much as I expected to be. Great TV, don't get me wrong, but having watched a 120Hz LCD for almost 5 years and seeing what plasmas in bars or other people's houses could do, I was expecting to have my socks blown off once I got the GT50. I can't complain one bit at what I'm seeing - the contrast level alone has made it worth while for me - but I've been paying attention to little things, like the ad logos on the boards during OTA hockey broadcasts for instance, and the puck/players themselves when breaking out, and I can't really notice a "HUGE" improvement over my 5yo LCD. What's funny/sad is the other week I was sitting at a bar close to home catching the end of a hockey game and was literally sitting right under a Samsung plasma and I don't know what model it was or how it was tweaked but the signage on the boards remained legible even times when the camera panned quickly from one end of the ice to the other. I've yet to experience that type of motion performance/smoothness on my GT50... the ad logos turn fuzzy when the camera pans quickly. I'm hoping its just my settings somehow or perhaps the fact my panel is still relatively new. I'm not complaining, I love my new set, but I've noticed.

Does anyone know if professional ISF calibration would have any influence whatsoever on fast motion performance??? (if it can be improved by calibration?)
post #7757 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckin96 View Post

Jittery file credits aside, I have not been blown away with my GT50's quick motion performance as much as I expected to be. Great TV, don't get me wrong, but having watched a 120Hz LCD for almost 5 years and seeing what plasmas in bars or other people's houses could do, I was expecting to have my socks blown off once I got the GT50. I can't complain one bit at what I'm seeing - the contrast level alone has made it worth while for me - but I've been paying attention to little things, like the ad logos on the boards during OTA hockey broadcasts for instance, and the puck/players themselves when breaking out, and I can't really notice a "HUGE" improvement over my 5yo LCD. What's funny/sad is the other week I was sitting at a bar close to home catching the end of a hockey game and was literally sitting right under a Samsung plasma and I don't know what model it was or how it was tweaked but the signage on the boards remained legible even times when the camera panned quickly from one end of the ice to the other. I've yet to experience that type of motion performance/smoothness on my GT50... the ad logos turn fuzzy when the camera pans quickly. I'm hoping its just my settings somehow or perhaps the fact my panel is still relatively new. I'm not complaining, I love my new set, but I've noticed.

Does anyone know if professional ISF calibration would have any influence whatsoever on fast motion performance??? (if it can be improved by calibration?)
Most of the time this kind of problem is source related. Have you noticed this sort of thing on all sources? I know you cant buy a blubray with a soccer game on it but anything similar when watching anything but your cable box. And then does it do it on all channels?
post #7758 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bond 007 View Post

Most of the time this kind of problem is source related. Have you noticed this sort of thing on all sources? I know you cant buy a blubray with a soccer game on it but anything similar when watching anything but your cable box. And then does it do it on all channels?

The primary reference I have is the smaller XBR4 LCD upstairs. Both sets are receiving the same OTA broadcast from the rooftop antenna. So there's actually very little signal compression occurring - its as virgin a signal as you can get directly from the networks. The only variable would be each Tv's internal ATSC tuner... As for content, hockey is the only quick motion programming I watch so it stands out the most. The GT50 IS better than the LCD, but as mentioned I guess I was expecting a huge improvement> i've had 4+ yrs to critique the hell out of my (what I thought was extremely fuzzy) XBR4 upstairs.

As far as BD content goes, certain scenes which have really bothered me over the years on my upstairs set I've eagerly tested out on the GT50. Casino Royal looks just as blurry downstairs on the new set. Chalk that up to content for sure. There are a few scenes in The Dark Knight which have always given my Sony trouble - one in particular early in the film when that ponytail mafia goof drags some addict out of their van and throws him to the ground in front of Scarecrow to complain how the drugs messed him up. I can't tell you how many times I stayed up adjusting the settings on my XBR4 because of how awful that one scene looked - as the addict is thrown to the ground the picture is so blurry/jittery its almost painful on the eyes to watch. I found the factory CINEMA mode on my Sony to be the best setting to display this scene smoothly (the defaulted motion adaptive settings for whatever reason work best, but overall its not the ideal setting to watch a whole movie with). Anyways I've tested this same scene on my GT50 - playing with the motion feature, using various settings like Black Ops and CNet (have yet to try using HD Master's though) and I will say the scene does look "a bit" better overall than it does upstairs, but I guess I was expecting it to be a stellar improvement being a plasma and all. I suppose this is content related as well.

But I'm still scratching my head as to why hockey looked so damn crisp and sharp on that Samsung panel at the bar. The place is new (like just opened in 2013) so they have to be new panels in there, although I can't imagine a St. Louis franchise dropping coin on anything but low-mid level models. Their channel feed is digital satellite so the signal wouldn't be as bad as cable but still not as pure as OTA. I was only there that one time for maybe an hour but my eyes were glued to the boards more than the game - the more I examined, the more I realised these sets were handling the motion extremely well. Noticeably better than my setup at home. I realise there are too many different variables, but/and I will surely be investigating/critiquing more and continuing to do comparisons between my two sets at home.

BTW I spoke to an ISF/THX calibrator in my area about possibly configuring my GT50 in the next few weeks, which is why I asked if a calibration would have any bearing on the panels motion performance? (or if it strictly tweaks colours and contrast only).


EDIT: they were different channels, yes. Good point. That means I'll have to head back to the bar on a Sat for a fair-er comparison...

EDIT EDIT: on second thought, its the same channel I can compare between my own two sets. Its not a major improvement watching it on the plasma compared to the 120Hz LCD. The difference is most prevalent when I go from watching downstairs on the GT50 and head upstairs to turn on the XBR4. That's when I start to think, "this really wasn't that bad to begin with". On one hand I understand inherent limitations in source material, but then again I always thought plasma technology was inherently better at displaying quick motion vs. LCD across all source material. I DO see a huge improvement for instance when I compare my old LD material: the GT50 makes these LD's enjoyable to watch again - very clean and film like. Those same discs look so brutal on the XBR i put the LD player in storage all these years. I guess I'm still expecting that kind of WOW improvement when it comes to motion.
Edited by stuckin96 - 3/11/13 at 11:01am
post #7759 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

Motion smoother is not the "correct" looking image. rolleyes.gif
Depends on if that's intended. Sports stuff with fast camera shutter speed. Looks great on CRT. But hamstrung by a modern flat panel dislay's limitations. Even the Panasonic VT50 unless you turn on the smoothing modes. (Sometimes we decide what's the lesser evil: Tolerating the blur that the display limitation foists upon us; or tolerating the interpolation artifacts???)

It is useful to know the intent of the source material and what target display it is intended for. For example, video games or sports shows on a CRT -- can look stunningly clear during fast-motion; with fast horizontal pans looking exactly as clear as stationary images. In these times, we sometimes want to eliminate motion blur for this situation. And often, when scrolling or moving windows on a computer, we want less motion blur rather than more motion blur. Etc. (As it happens -- Blur Busters Blog covers elimination of motion blur -- video game friendly methods of eliminating motion blur, without interpolation, without input lag.)

Though, mind you -- it's best to not to have the motion blur in the first place if we didn't want it (no source-based motion blur, and no motion blur caused by display either) -- so that we wouldn't have had to deal with interpolation or artificial algorithms like the motion-interpolated refreshes that the Panasonic's do, etc. But then we want to enable this sometimes anyway, because it looks better for the specific material that is intended to have less motion blur (as an artificial method of getting around a display motion blur issue).

But with most plasma and LCD's not being as good as CRT, we're stuck with motion interpolation (for most non-CRT displays) as a major method of working around technological limitations. (As a side effect, that's not computer/videogame friendly due to input lag)

Motion blur is beneficial when we want it, but is not beneficial when we don't want it and the display throws the unavoidable motion blur roadblock in our way. So it's pick your poison; tolerate the purest mode (but more blur) or the interpolation modes (but less blur). There are certain times where we rather let our human eyes be the limiting factor for motion blur, not the source or display. Many displays still have a lot of work to do (even the Plasma VT50 which I've spent a few hours testing) -- especially when it comes to computer and gaming use.
Edited by Mark Rejhon - 3/11/13 at 12:02pm
post #7760 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post

Depends on if that's intended. For example, the source material and what target display it is intended for. For example, video games or sports shows on a CRT -- we often sometimes want to eliminate motion blur. And often, when scrolling or moving windows on a computer, we want less motion blur rather than more motion blur. Etc. Blur Busters Blog covers that matter -- video game friendly methods of eliminating motion blur, without interpolation, without input lag.

Though, mind you -- it's best to not to have the motion blur in the first place if we didn't want it (no source limitation, no display limitation) -- so that we wouldn't have had to deal with interpolation or artificial algorithms. But then we want to enable them anyway, because it looks better for the specific material that is intended to have less motion blur (getting around a display motion blur issue).

But with most plasma and LCD's not being as good as CRT, we're stuck with motion interpolation (for most non-CRT displays) as a major method of working around technological limitations.

Motion blur is beneficial when we want it, but is not beneficial when we don't want it and the display throws the unavoidable motion blur roadblock in our way. So it's pick your poison; tolerate the purest mode (but more blur) or the interpolation modes (but less blur). Many displays still have a lot of work to do (even the Plasma VT50 which I've spent a few hours testing) -- especially when it comes to computer and gaming use.

For some things, I agree. Games shouldn't be 30 fps to begin with, that's the problem. I would think sports at 60 fps should be fast enough, but if the plasma is causing judder and blur that a CRT would not, then I suppose that's a different story. However, in the context of film to which I was referring, the judder is correct, while the smoother is an artificial effect. I wonder if he saw The Hobbit at 48 FPS, he probably would have loved it.
post #7761 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

For some things, I agree. Games shouldn't be 30 fps to begin with, that's the problem. I would think sports at 60 fps should be fast enough, but if the plasma is causing judder and blur that a CRT would not, then I suppose that's a different story. However, in the context of film to which I was referring, the judder is correct, while the smoother is an artificial effect. I wonder if he saw The Hobbit at 48 FPS, he probably would have loved it.

I can attest to 60fps content looking extremely smooth on a plasma display; I have a GT50 I use almost exclusively for PC gaming. The technology introduces some extra dithering during motion but is otherwise smooth -- maybe not as good as a CRT, but a very solid performer (Mark could probably detail other ways plasma's motion is not up to CRT standards but I'm coming at this as a user without the capacity to do extensive testing). For someone whose content is primarily 60 frames/sec, a plasma is massively superior to any LCD technology out there (let's ignore LightBoost since this is already barely about the GT50 and that's a PC-only technology) .

The problem is that essentially nothing is 60fps outside PC gaming, so judder is always going to be present as the screen refreshes at 60hz (well, plasma's more complicated than that but essentially 60hz). I can understand why, coming from a motion interpolated LCD, a person might wonder why everyone talks about plasma motion performance, but they must remember that the majority of people here consider interpolated frames (invented by algorithms and generally not particularly accurate) to be completely unacceptable. If we throw that technology out completely, and assume we're talking about 30fps TV, then we're left with a choice:

Motion blur (LCD) or judder (plasma)? This becomes a matter of personal preference. I prefer judder over blur, because at least if I'm seeing 2 frames at once they both clearly show detail definition. And, as I said, a large portion of my media consumption is at 60 fps, where the plasma wins with no close competition. If the user is going to be watching non-interactive 30 (or 24) fps media and is okay with interpolation, then I think it really comes down to comparing how good the interpolation processing of various TVs is. I can't speak for that because it's not something I use.

The real solution to all of this is higher frame rates in content. 60 would get everything running smooth on plasmas, and 120 would allow the full backlight strobing of the "LightBoost" monitors to be applicable to LCD TVs. Film traditionalists hate the idea, and I understand that, but I personally have no problem with higher frame rates so long as we're talking about actual source frames from cameras, not produced by interpolation algorithms. Of course I grew up with mostly 60fps media (PC games) so anything less than that just feels like it's dropping frames to me.

One last bit... I don't believe that judder in film is actually "correct" really, is it? People are resistant to the idea of higher framerates (see: Hobbit backlash), so for a long time they've been doubling up frames, which creates judder. I'm fairly certain (but cannot test it, so someone let me know if I'm wrong) that if you actually played a film at a true 24 fps you could lose the judder in exchange for that old-timey flicker. The frame rate would still be quite low, but you wouldn't get all that confusing double image effect. So judder may be accurate to the current experience of film, but it's not inherent to the 24 fps media. From my perspective it's just another argument that we need higher real frame rates in our media (again, I know film people will want to murder me and I do apologize). The Hobbit may have lost too much of the appearance of film that we expect, but it was really the first try at making this work. I'm sure that, over time, filmmakers would figure out how to get the effects they desire at higher frame rates.
Edited by headlesschickens - 3/11/13 at 1:36pm
post #7762 of 9713
What's your PC build? What do you play?
post #7763 of 9713
Hi,

Would someone who owns the Panasonic P60GT50 please check if with the stand, it is high enough to have the Yamaha YAS-101 in front of the TV? The YAS-101 height is 4 1/4” according to spec.

Thanks very much for your help. Really appreciated.
post #7764 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsw2200 View Post

Hi,

Would someone who owns the Panasonic P60GT50 please check if with the stand, it is high enough to have the Yamaha YAS-101 in front of the TV? The YAS-101 height is 4 1/4” according to spec.

Thanks very much for your help. Really appreciated.

Dead on, its going to be too tall, but if you are looking down at the screen and have the speaker far enough forwards, then you could probably get away with it.
post #7765 of 9713
Thanks very much Fahrenheit,

Bummer, the TV will be on a high built in shelve. I need to see if I can make arrangement for this. I was going to pull the trigger on Paul's TV price drop but luckily I thought of this first.

Thanks again. Best regards.
post #7766 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by headlesschickens View Post


One last bit... I don't believe that judder in film is actually "correct" really, is it? People are resistant to the idea of higher framerates (see: Hobbit backlash), so for a long time they've been doubling up frames, which creates judder. I'm fairly certain (but cannot test it, so someone let me know if I'm wrong) that if you actually played a film at a true 24 fps you could lose the judder in exchange for that old-timey flicker. The frame rate would still be quite low, but you wouldn't get all that confusing double image effect. So judder may be accurate to the current experience of film, but it's not inherent to the 24 fps media. From my perspective it's just another argument that we need higher real frame rates in our media (again, I know film people will want to murder me and I do apologize). The Hobbit may have lost too much of the appearance of film that we expect, but it was really the first try at making this work. I'm sure that, over time, filmmakers would figure out how to get the effects they desire at higher frame rates.

No, it is correct for films. The judder created by 3:2 pull down (converting 24fps to 60hz), is a separate issue from the natural judder of low FPS content (24/25/30 FPS). Even a pure 24fps source displayed at 48hz (what movie theaters use) still has judder, it's inherent. You could play the film at 24hz and the judder would be even worse, while the flicker would be intolerable. You actually need to triple and quadruple the frames to get smoother motion, such as 72hz and 96hz, respectively. Judder is still present, but the effect is reduced. When you get up to 120hz you start to get into SOE territory. At low frame rates there simply aren't enough frames displayed to convey smooth motion. I'm not sure how I feel about HFR (high frame rate) content, I'm skeptical, but I would be willing to look at it with an open mind.
Edited by JSpectre88 - 3/11/13 at 4:22pm
post #7767 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsw2200 View Post

Thanks very much Fahrenheit,

Bummer, the TV will be on a high built in shelve. I need to see if I can make arrangement for this. I was going to pull the trigger on Paul's TV price drop but luckily I thought of this first.

Thanks again. Best regards.

if you like the tv, and i admit its a good set, you should go for it and think of alternatives for your cc speaker placement: bracket, wall mount, above set, etc. etc.
post #7768 of 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsw2200 View Post

Thanks very much Fahrenheit,

Bummer, the TV will be on a high built in shelve. I need to see if I can make arrangement for this. I was going to pull the trigger on Paul's TV price drop but luckily I thought of this first.

Thanks again. Best regards.

Why don't you just set the stand on a piece of 1/4 inch plywood ? Or, 1/2 inch or 3/4 inch or whatever you need.

Moving the TV down is not possible but moving it up is simple.
post #7769 of 9713
When watching in 3D, how do I calibrate it so that I can have the brightness that Vivid mode offers without loosing the quality of color. Also, does running the TV in Vivid hurt the lifespan of the TV? Lastly, will setting the panel brightness to high be bad for the TV?
post #7770 of 9713
The brighter the picture the shorter the life. THese things last FOREVER either way so I really wouldn't worry about it. As for 3D. Use THX 3D settings or Masters
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Official Panasonic GT50 Series Discussion Thread [No Street Price Talk]