![Wow: World of Wonder [Blu-ray]](http://cdn.avsforum.com/1/11/50x50px-ZC-1166fb14_B00462PTDQ-51E0ByQYHsL.jpeg)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 
Joel, the XBR950 uses a Dynamic Contrast to make up for its inherent lack of contrast ratio. From rereading your original post it seems like a lot of pro calibrators would be surprised at your results and even told you so? I've not heard of ISF/THX calibrators using the dynamic features in their calibrations since they significantly reduce the fidelity of the screen reproduction and color accuracy, although at times they do work nicely on their lower levels. Who was your calibrator?
Another thing I noticed in your post is that you have observed greater input lag in the plasma over the LCD?
You definitely have one of the more unique experiences I've ever heard of. Thanks for sharing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoelxD
The even more funny thing is, there is no sw/hw tweaks for the XBR950... the only adjustable stuff for pro or not is the consumer level menu ! The VT went through the whole ISF tweaks. Yes both me and Robert were amazed looking at the XBR950 ONLY in comparison to a preconceived notion built up about it from a "spec" view point. Like you pointed out.
Honestly, I believe I see blacker blacks and whiter whites (one extreme to the other) on the 950 than the VT50... without the contrast specs that the VT50 has, tell me how that is possible ?
BUT the VT50 presents the picture slightly better, yes. It looks slightly more rich and has a depth to it, like I could reach into the tv with my eyes. The 950 does not present this. But oddly enough visually it doesn't seem like contrast is the problem to it... though it may be, it just doesn't "look" that way. As I pointed out, I almost blame it not looking as good because it gets more black and more white than the VT50.
Again, I am no professional, nor do I claim to be. I am just pointing out the perception of what I see. Though my calibrator was one of the top in the industry, and he mentioned being surprised about the Sony as well.
The even more funny thing is, there is no sw/hw tweaks for the XBR950... the only adjustable stuff for pro or not is the consumer level menu ! The VT went through the whole ISF tweaks. Yes both me and Robert were amazed looking at the XBR950 ONLY in comparison to a preconceived notion built up about it from a "spec" view point. Like you pointed out.
Honestly, I believe I see blacker blacks and whiter whites (one extreme to the other) on the 950 than the VT50... without the contrast specs that the VT50 has, tell me how that is possible ?
BUT the VT50 presents the picture slightly better, yes. It looks slightly more rich and has a depth to it, like I could reach into the tv with my eyes. The 950 does not present this. But oddly enough visually it doesn't seem like contrast is the problem to it... though it may be, it just doesn't "look" that way. As I pointed out, I almost blame it not looking as good because it gets more black and more white than the VT50.
Again, I am no professional, nor do I claim to be. I am just pointing out the perception of what I see. Though my calibrator was one of the top in the industry, and he mentioned being surprised about the Sony as well.
Joel, the XBR950 uses a Dynamic Contrast to make up for its inherent lack of contrast ratio. From rereading your original post it seems like a lot of pro calibrators would be surprised at your results and even told you so? I've not heard of ISF/THX calibrators using the dynamic features in their calibrations since they significantly reduce the fidelity of the screen reproduction and color accuracy, although at times they do work nicely on their lower levels. Who was your calibrator?
Another thing I noticed in your post is that you have observed greater input lag in the plasma over the LCD?
You definitely have one of the more unique experiences I've ever heard of. Thanks for sharing.
Yea, it was a shocker, I think mainly cause most try to judge the 950 like the 929 or previous models, and then once they get it calibrated, they/we are very surprised. Definitely no "dynamic contrast" turned on. (if thats what you meant). I always had that off. It never has been turned on. Now if you meant Sony uses a thing called "dynamic contrast" within the tv as a uncontrollable thing from consumers, then, I guess I have no control over that, and yes, then it is being used. As my post says, my calibrator was/is Robert Busch. As the review says, man, he is awesome ! Definitely highly recommended if your in the greater Bay Area.
I don't think I'm alone on this one or it is as rare as you think. It's just a 950 vs the older "expected" models I think. Since its so new still, it is just now beginning to show situations like this. Maybe ? IDK.
Again, I am not here to say the XBR950 is the best TV. I actually am not saying that at all, but rather the VT50 is the best TV IMO.... The point was that I and my calibrator were very SURPRISED at how well the XBR950 looked after its so simple non-ISF calibration. And how CLOSELY it resembled the VT50. It was just unexpected is all.
Since this is a VT50 thread though, I really don't feel comfortable talking so much about the XBR950. I just was told to share my experience with both tvs on both threads to give everyone as much info as possible.
.
, but I'm not going to change how I use a tv
