Flat panel shootout. - Page 8

Please start curing your amnesia. At the last year shootout there was 55" HX929and it was badly smeared, not beaten. Later they issued corrections but the smear was done and it can be seen until now. At the same time a cult of Elite of drummed up which blinded people to the extent that they were denying obvious problems. It has taken long time battles to raise awareness about these problems.

The whole issue is however different. Sony flagship is the 65" HX929.
It was released near the end of 2011 with volume sales started in 2012. This was use as an excuse for the rejection from the shootout. But some Panasonic 47" LCD was included.


Hehe, the "only reason" and the "most folks" are excellent example of cult brainwashing. For everbody who is using TV like a TV, which means significant part of usage is in daylight, knows that color accuracy is of absolutely primary importance. Count D-nice and ChadB among the videophiles who are blind.

There are no pulsating colors with Sony and there is no black level problem - you can't get better blacks than switching off all pixels. There are no video processing problems. It is true that Elite has less blooming achieved but not switching off the pixels completely which means its black levels are not as good as with all pixels off.

In the end it is even not so important is Elite or Sony are winners or not. It is about the shootout procedures. The guys own the shootout and they can shoot out whenever they wish. But the public should be aware that this shootout does not satisfy rigors of fair and unbiased competition.

The only thing I am surprised at is if not include the 929 why not the 850 I think that would have handily beat out the panny LCD and Samsung LCD as well as the lg...

As has been said many times before, why don't you just hold your own shootout that presents what you think is a fair and unbiased competition. Oh hell, why go through all that trouble, just proclaim the 65HX929 the winner right now as you would find a way to invalidate any other result.

Local dimming LED LCD's have issues and the Sony is no exception. There are no perfect displays out there, not even the HX929, despite the uniform praise you give it. The only real bias revealed in this thread so far is yours towards a very good, but not the best, display. If you took the time to read the article at Electronic House there were no "bad" displays in the shootout, so enjoy your pick, stop whining about the past and get on with your life.

Can we move on.

Black Level is not always measured @ 0% stimuli. It's usually measured @ 10% especially for LED. This because the LED's shut off on most Local-Dimming displays

In order to get a somewhat accurate mll 10% is used.

Thought the 929 can turn off all its pixels for a total black screen, it struggles with blooming when you have a dark screen with objects present. IE: rolling credits

The ELITE doesn't have this problem because it doesn't totally turn off it's pixels.

This also why @ 0% stimuli it looks almost like a plasma.

Sharp did a fabulous job in this area. Hence why you see No Blooming on the Elite @ all.

Giving you great dynamic range

CHadB and DNice choose the HX929 over the Elite. Has to do with overall PQ.

You and others have not properly understood the meaning of my question. Do we know if each attribute has been giving the same importance or equal weighting to calculate the final score for a TV?

What DrRx has done to calculate the results is add each of the five attributes for a TV and divide that summation by five, i.e. an average. But what if the weighting for one attribute were to be set at say 30%, another at 25%, the next at 20%, the following one at 10% and the last at 15%; this would produce very different results.

The way I interpret the shootout results is that all manufacturers, with their best models represented, provide an excellent picture for the consumer.

What's left is for you to decide which you prefer; be it manufacturer, or technology, or styling or even sizes offered.

In the end, if you pick any of the models that participated in the shootout, you're bound to have one heck of a nice television.

Chris

The method by which you've arrived at you results, i.e. by averaging each of the five attributes for each TV, does not agree with the published results from Value Electronics. Hence my initial query to you.

The final results can be seen on the updated article from the "Big Picture Big Sound" website. The last picture at the bottom shows a table with the audience's votes followed by the ranking.

The winner is listed as the Panasonic TC-P65VT50 plasma, the runner up position is held by the Sharp Elite PRO-60X5FD, while the third position was taken by the Samsung PN64E8000 plasma. Therefore, each attribute cannot carry the same weighting and averaging the results cannot be used to arrive at the score for each TV.

I've devised an hypothetical weighting scenario that correlates with the first three known results. I've attributed a 25% weight to the "Black Level". Considering that the "Contrast Ratio" is tied to a great extend with the black level, I've also given it 25%. To the "Color Accuracy", which is also important, I've given 20%. I gave only 10% to the "Moving Resolution (Sharpness)" since it not always obvious to observe the sharpness of moving pictures. The remaining 20% goes to the "Video Quality". My weighting scheme is not too far away from an equal 20% (an average) for each attribute, yet it produces different results as you can see just below:

1. Panasonic TC-P65VT50 .... 9.21
2. Sharp Elite PRO-60X5FD ... 8.56
3. Samsung PN64E8000 ........ 8.46
4. Samsung UN60ES8000 ...... 7.15
5. LG 60PM9700 .................. 6.56
6. Panasonic TC-L47WT50 .... 5.93

Now I'm not implying that my weighting scale corresponds to the one used by Value Electronics, various ones will yield similar results, but it does agree with the first three results.

I would recommend to anybody that's shopping for a new flagship-class HDTV to do more research than just stopping at the results obtained from the Value Electronics shootout. While an excellent tool for those looking into buying a flagship TV from the represented manufacturers, you can be assured that some models slightly lower down the ladder from the flagship models and usually a bit quite cheaper, will in some cases produce a better PQ than some of the flagship models presented in the shootout.

Case in point, CNET's David Katzmaier wrote in the review for the Samsung's PN60E8000: "The Samsung PNE8000 is the best-performing Samsung TV I've ever tested, outdoing the D7000/D8000 from last year with its darker black levels and earning a 9 in this category. It also showed superb color accuracy, although not quite as good as those sets. That said, I still prefer the picture of the Panasonic ST50 by a nose, due to the E8000's slightly less impressive shadow detail and slightly worse bright-room performance. With 3D sources the E8000 is clearly superior to the Panasonic, however.".

As you probably know, the Panasonic ST50 line is two lines down from the VT50. The Samsung PN60E8000 can be purchased for an average of about $2300 while the Panasonic TC-P60ST50 can be had for an average of about $1900. That's $400 more in your pocket for a PQ that's about equal if not better in favor of the Panasonic. Then again, if some folks want certain specific features over PQ, to each his own...

Your observation is actually the reason for my initially posting the mean score for each set - it does not agree with the stated rankings. I watched the shoot-out in it's entirety and it was made reasonably clear that each set was to be evaluated on 5 different criteria, and NO mention was made that any one criteria was to be considered more or less important.

In your assessment you have given the inter-related Black Level & Contrast 50% of the total weighting. Other's (myself included) realize that those 2 are criteria inextricably linked, and thus should be considered more or less as only one aspect, albeit an important one. So a more accurate assessment might be 30% combined Black Level & Contrast, 25% Color Accuracy, 15% Motion and 30% Video Quality. With that weighting the results still give the same ranking as with each aspect equally weighted:

I guess my point is that unless the scoring over-weights Black Level & Contrast Ratio, the Elite ends up in 3rd place, not 2nd due to its poorer (relatively) Color Accuracy, Motion Handling and Video Quality. So I still question why/how VE publishes the ranking in the order that they do.

Superior 3D rendering (less xtalk)..is worth $400 more in my book hehehe
Plus is looks prettier and can recognize my face\\voice (well sometimes)

I'm not sure that the precise top three-ranking had been published when you wrote your post. The "Electronic House" article posted on May the 21st mentions: "According to my score card, the Panasonic plasma VT50 came out on top, with both the Elite LCD and Samsung plasma landing in second.".

The CNET article from David Katzmaier posted on May 22nd reports the correct ranking: "Panasonic's best plasma TV for 2012 beat out five other contenders. In descending order of average score (see the scorecard below), they were the Sharp Elite PRO-60X5FD LCD, the Samsung PN64E8000 plasma, the Samsung UNES8000 LCD, the LG 60PM9700 plasma and the Panasonic TC-L47WT50 LCD.". However, we know this cannot be the average score as this would place the Samsung PN64E8000 plasma in second place and the Sharp elite would then land in the third spot as your calculations show.

The "Big Picture Big Sound" article came out first on May 21st but was updated on the 22nd with the picture of the results table that shows the ranking for the first three TVs just below the results table.

In my assessment I did indicate that the weighting scenario I chose is HYPOTHETICAL. I also realize that the black level and the contrast ratio are inextricably linked that's why I wrote on my post: "Considering that the "Contrast Ratio" is tied to a great extend with the black level"... I do agree that the weighting I attributed to those two aspects is very large. However, I didn't want to spend more time calculating other weighting scenarios since this calculated scenario fitted with the published ranking. It was purely meant as an illustrative scenario to make the point that Value Electronics must have used a different weighting system to arrive at the published ranking.

It would be interesting to hear from someone at Value Electronics as to what weighting they've assigned to each attribute. Perhaps D-Nice can elaborate on this subject if he's aware of the answer and allowed to disclose it.

I should have specified 2D PQ. Like I said: to each his own.
Just be careful not to knock your head with your neighbors' when you both try to dodge those 3D piranhas coming right at your faces!

I'm not sure where you heard this, but it's not true. Any display should be capable of the black levels required for an accurate 10%stim. Assuming 100 cd/m² brightness and 2.40 gamma, the darkest that's ever going to be is 0.4 cd/m². If you use BT.1886 gamma (compensated curve) or 2.22 (0.6 cd/m²) it's going to be even less challenging.


I would argue that the reason for the Elite having less noticeable blooming is due to the fact that it has a higher contrast LCD panel, and more local dimming zones. Even the top-end Sony has something like 1/3 the zones if I recall correctly.

There are modes on the Sony sets which also don't turn the LEDs off with black, and blooming can still be visible then. What the Elite does should make a difference to off-axis viewing, however.

I would actually argue that in many respects, the older HX909 was a better set than the HX929. The HX929 was essentially a cost-cut version, as evidenced by a number of problems that exist on the 929 that did not on the 909 with its superior Sharp UV²A RGB LCD panel. (rather than RGBY) Sony themselves discussed the fact that this was the goal of their 2011 sets, as the TV division is hemorrhaging money. The lack of a high-end 2012 model is an extension of that goal.

As much as I like Sony's LCDs, I would absolutely not argue that they are the best TVs ever made, that they were "smeared" in the previous shootout (mistakes happen) or that they should have been included in this one. If it was included in this shootout, a Kuro should have been too. I think it would have been interesting to have a Kuro there for comparison, but as they have not been available for years now, they are becoming less relevant.


For my personal preferences, I would probably place Sony's LCDs in the top spot, as I cannot tolerate issues that exist on all PDPs such as ABL circuits, dithering, posterisation, image retention, flicker, low contrast in bright conditions, and "phosphor lag" but I accept that most people do not have a problem with that.

I need a display that is suitable as a PC monitor (can't have an ABL circuit) for playing games with a lot of static HUD elements (can't be susceptible to IR) is suitable for daytime use in a bright room (even my 909 is not bright enough at times) can play back 24p content without giving me a headache (must support interpolation without introducing the soap opera effect, which I haven't yet found on a PDP) and can display high contrast material in a dark room without giving me a headache. (no flicker, phosphor lag or other temporal issues)

Even my 909 is not perfect in these regards. While the Sharp panel is fast and high contrast, it suffers from the strange subpixel driving problem that has plagued Sharp LCD panels for years, where horizontal lines can look "ragged" depending on the image being displayed. The fact that this is visible even at a distance, when it's a difference of half a subpixel, is clear evidence that 1080p is not enough resolution yet, and particularly impacts the display of PC/game content. I eagerly await the introduction of 4K OLED displays that use a horizontal RGB stripe subpixel structure, rather than the RGBW or vertical RGB stripes on the sets being introduced this year. (I suspect they're also going to utilise ABL circuitry)

Unfortunately it looks like there probably aren't going to be any more high end LCD displays from this point onwards. Everyone has moved towards producing edge-lit sets, and I don't believe Sharp will ever make a truly high end display, no matter how they market and price it.



LG's IPS panels just aren't high enough contrast to support good local dimming without a lot of visible blooming. And if I remember correctly, while the LG nano sets technically have a large number of "zones" there are actually a very limited number of addressable zones that are dimmed, something around 100 or so. It seems more like LG count clusters of LEDs as zones, rather than the number of areas which can be independently adjusted. (whereas Sony uses something like 10 LEDs per zone, and only counts that as a single zone) I wouldn't expect LG to implement very good image processing to back up the capabilities of the panel/backlight array anyway.



3D might be "better" on it, but 3D in general is still poor on any flat panel. The only 3D I've ever seen which has been acceptable, has been Sony's HMZ-T1 OLED head-mounted display, but that is a relatively low contrast display (0.02 cd/m² black level) has very poor optics (lots of chromatic aberrations) is very uncomfortable to wear, and despite the marketing claims, displays a fairly small image. It also suffered from some bad crosstalk with PC content from what I saw. (not 3D "crosstalk" but horizontal "banding" as seen on PDPs)

Wide publicitization of the shootout is a strong argument for voicing major concerns about the shootout to avoid misleading the public.

Please.

This is completely illogical and it is hard to understand why you go with this Kuro nonsense.

Sony 65" flagship arrived in the end of 2011 well after the previous shootout and its sales were ramped up this year. The argument it was eliminated being the last year model is thus absurdal and invented after "long debating" as the guys declared. So, first there was the accidental mistake with the Sony 55". Now there is elimination of the 65" on phony arguments. To add the absurdity some 47" Panasonic LCD was added to the list.

It is patently obvious that normal way would to include all significant new TVs which appeared since the last shootout.

The shootout guys obviously know this very well since now they are waiting for OLED TVs appearing later this year to compare them with current winners. While with the logic of holocausting Sony they should organize new shootout next year and declare the OLEDs are last year TVs so they can not participate .

What is the inevitable conclusion is that from yet unclear reasons the shootout guys wanted to avoid at any price that Sony 65" may come out as the best LCD TV. This, plus statements form D-nice and ChadB, make strong case for the proof Sony 65" HX 929 is the best LCD TV.

Apparently the 2012 LG flagship has 24 dimmable zones according to several review sites.


Aaron

So now we have gone from the 65HX929 being the best television, to being the best LCD.

That two in the middle of the model number denotes that it is a 2011 modelif they were positioning it as a 2012 model, it would be the HX959, but they do not have an HX9 series model this year.


You are making claims about there being significant differences between the 55" and 65" models, could you be specific? If there are such differences, this should not be a problem for you.

The only difference I would expect is moderately more backlight zones than the 55" purely because there's a larger area to be covered, though still considerably less than the Sharp Elite has.

Furthermore, Sony's displays do not have "unparalleled color accuracy" as you claim, and offer very limited calibration controls. (but it may well be better than the Elite)

As I have already stated, I own a Sony HX9 series LCD, and for my needs, they are probably the best displays out there right now. But that doesn't mean I expect it would win the shootout, or that it's the best display out there. Many of the complaints I have about plasma displays are not a concern for the majority of people, it seems.

I don't see there being any conspiracy here to keep Sony from winning the test for some reason. As soon as viewing angle is a concern, any LCD loses, for example, but local dimming sets look particularly bad.

Great event, can't wait till later this year, Round 1 with OLED's.

Same here.

I wouldn't be surprised if it has some glitches that keeps it out of getting first place that will be corrected in the following years.

Youtube?

Hahaha... funny!

My prediction is that Samsung's OLED will win first place, with some qualifications, and LG's OLED display will either come in second or third place due to image processing issues and/or the WRGB pixel structure.

I don't think either of this year's OLED displays are going to be a good purchase, as they're bound to have issues and are very expensive displays at a time when we're heading towards 4K and 48Hz support.

Remember that Sony and Pansonic might surprise us yet with their OLED panels, who knows.

This year? We know they won't.