I mentioned that (odd use of max BL cal) - but at least it's better than the zero proof/tests shown in previous comments here.
(just universal comments about low contrast of IPS, IPS no good for TVs, VERTICAL viewing angle, as if that was more important than horiz.)
I expected no less than dissing any review that didn't match the comments made. I wish cnet's reviews had 1/2 as much detail and data.
I guess their test data of the LG LM6700 (appx 1K contrast) is bogus too - as well as their plasma TV tests.
Their highest rated TVs are plasmas - Samsung E8000 rated a 10, 65VT50 a 9.6.
(Their highest rating given to an LED/LCD to date is an 8.4 - the LG 7600.)
At least their test method used was the same when comparing a "better contrast" samsung panel.
- and even Cnet (big plasma fans I'd say) doesn't seem to have posted Contrast results in their 7600 review that I can find.
(Personally, I never thought much of Cnet reviews of anything really, never have.)
I've seen a properly setup 7600, excellent. (maybe a better than avg sample, who knows. Clearly LG didn't cherry pick the one they sent Cnet lol.)
I'm would not be surprised if local dimming was off for pure contrast tests of the panel. Just as "dynamic contrast" should be off too imo. BTW - I didn't find where they said local dimming was off. (or if it was set to low/med/high.) Maybe I missed it but even did a search/find on the 'how we test' page
http://www.televisioninfo.com/content/How-We-Test.htm
I did see the comments on max blacklight used for black levels, which again surprised me with a BL at 100/max.
(both that a 'calibrated' setting would be with BL at max and how that IPS panel rated that well for black w/BL at max)
The only mention I found of "local dimming" on the how we test page is bolded below.
Quote:
"Black Level
We measure the black level at several times during the testing of the display, then we report on any variance we see with these multiple measurements and we discuss any dynamic backlight or local dimming that the display uses that affect the black level. However, the main figure that we quote is for the black level at our calibrated settings, with the backlight on maximum for LCDs. Our score is based on how dark the black is: the lower the luminance, the higher the score."
Contrast Ratio
To calculate the contrast that the screen can achieve, we divide the peak white luminance by the deepest black luminance they can produce when showing normal video and not in a standby mode. So, if a display has a deepest black of 0.4 cd/m2, and a peak white of 400 cd/m2, the contrast ratio is 1000:1. Our score here is based on how high the ratio is; the higher the better. Note that our tests differ from the approach that manufacturers use to determine the contrast ratio; they test the peak white with the backlight on full, then the deepest black with it on the lowest attainable setting (often called a dynamic contrast ratio). Our test determines the true contrast ratio with the backlight on full during the test (often called the static full field contrast ratio).
For direct view LCD and Plasma displays the ANSI checkerboard contrast ratio is generally within a few percent of the full field contrast ratio above. Reviewers that find a significant discrepancy between the two are in instead measuring the veiling glare light contamination of their measuring instrument instead of the HDTV. See below. (Tunnel Contrast section)
Didn't see any notes on Local Dimming (off, low, med or high) on the calibration page of the review either. (tired so maybe I missed it in a comment on another page or intro) Maybe since a LD setting (low/med/high) wasn't mentioned, that means it was off. And ditto for any other dynamic settings/options which most pros turn off for cals IIRC.
And since you mentioned Cnet as a reputable review site and how LG LCDs got bad reviews with "Poor contrast and poor black level performance".
Well here's their LG LM7600 review (I won't repeat the entire review here - but at least will include a link and some clips)
For the 7600, I didn't see any comment about poor contrast and they had postive comments on its black levels
Quote:
Cnet Review of LG LM7600 (including some of the negatives)
http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/lg-47lm7600/4505-6482_7-35117974.html
"The LG LM7600 series has very good overall picture quality,
with deep black levels for an LED TV."
- "Improved picture quality vaults the LM7600 into the small club of highly recommendable LED TVs this year."
"It's not every day that we encounter a television that has better picture quality than the more expensive version, but the LM7600 produced better image quality than the flagship LM9600 we reviewed earlier this year...."
(
Never saw a 9600 (full array) but I think they may have had a suspect 9600 or just early firmware issues)
"This TV's relatively deep black levels are its main strength (twice as dark as the LM9600's). Its main weakness is imperfect screen uniformity, including some of the most noticeable hot spots I can remember seeing. I was also hampered by imperfect picture controls, so color accuracy suffered. Overall the LM7600 is not quite the match of the Vizio M550KD or especially the Sony HX850, but it keeps up with the Sharp LC-LE640U and outperforms most of the other LED TVs we've tested this year, earning 7 out of 10 in this category."
"The LG outperformed the black levels of the Samsung UNES8000 in most scenes (Tree of Life), but occasionally (the nebula at 21:04) the ES8000 looked a bit darker. "
And I would never choose a vizio over the 7600 LG.... no matter what they said. I'd take the es8000 though.
(clearly my SIL got a better one than they tested from the comments they made.)
from the comments on hot spots, etc I would have returned a set like that.
I still can't find Cnet's contrast ratio test results but maybe you can...
( didn't see it in the cal/settings page either but maybe I missed it somewhere)
Personally I find the TVinfo review far more detailed and complete than Cnet or any other I could find on this TV.
But as I said earlier, I don't agree on the cal at max backlight.
some other reviews of the 7600
Sound and Vision Mag (tests/cal page)
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article/test-report-lg-55lm7600-3d-lcd-hdtv?page=0,2
Quote:
With the backlight set at 100, maximum light output was an impressive 118.4 ftL. Black level at that setting was 0.029, for a contrast ratio of 4,083:1. With the backlight set at 0, the numbers were 5.483 ftL and 0.0012, for a contrast ratio of 4569:1. I found a backlight setting of 40-60 to be optimal for my darkened room testing. At a setting of 50, the LG produced 62.39 and 0.015 ftL for a contrast ratio of 4159:1. The LED Plus “local” dimming didn’t meaningfully change these numbers, and as it generally made the center of the image noticeably brighter than the edges, I left this feature off during the majority of my testing.
Here's an early review (April) of the LG 55in LM7600 / LM760T (euro) -
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1333359799
Contrast ratio listed as 1800:1 (default/oob) and 1413:1 (after cal)
The same site's Samsung E8000 Plasma tests had 1020:1 (oob) and 1680:1 (after cal)
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1342685085
(I know, low max brightness is a factor with that plasma, and why some LCDs get higher ratios,
including Samsung LCDs - they don't get as dark, but they get very bright which helps with the contrast ratio calc.)
many samsung LCDs can get much brighter than the LG 7600.
Another 55in LM7600 review
http://reviews.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lg-lcd-tv/lg-55lm7600.html
"Side Angle, Off center Viewing Quality is very good compared to previous models."
"Deep Black Bars top and bottom on 16:9 content"
"Black levels were good but not the best we have seen"
Picture Quality: 9/10
Overall Rating: 8.5/10
(Didn't see a contrast ratio test/result there)
Again as I mentioned, uniformity (and flashlighting) are the most frequent complaints - I wasn't totally one-sided like some here. what really is a joke is the kind of universal, general 'truths' spewed around here by so many that have never even tested the things they put down. (But I'm sure replies will be full of more "oh yes, I have tested that, saw it at so and so, tested dozens with calman, clearly it was inferior, "....)
Think what you want... I'm too tired to argue. Some IPS TVs have great PQ, decent black levels, and their wide viewing angle (horizonal) is a big plus with a family or if you often have friends over. I think for the money the LG 55LM7600 I've seen (one with good uniformity as I said earlier) was a good buy at a sale price ($1100 at couple times (frys, microcenter), MSRP is way out of line). With a good source (even OTA HDTV), the PQ was excellent on the one i've seen (many times, many hours watching and tweaking it at his house). And I saw the 3 previous TVs, (including some cnet rated very highly) before he took them back over dithering, buzzing, pixel/panel defects - bad luck I guess.
And read the _owner_ threads here on any TV - plasmas included - and you'll see there are clearly variations in everything. sometimes extreme. There's pros and cons for every type. If comments here in TV threads were all I used for buying decisions, I'd not buy anything (since many posts are on problems, complaints, defects, etc - those happy with theirs are less likely to post as often) I'd hate to recommend any TV to anyone else after what I've seen with the SIL trying 4 sets (2 plasmas, one high end sony and finally the LG. It has better than avg uniformity I think. 4th time the charm I guess.) As I said earlier, if I could afford it, I'd like that Sammy 60ES8000 at a local dealer (no banding, good PQ, nice 3D... and yes, I've seen the ES8000 thread here.)
To the OP - good luck with whatever you get. Now sorry (again) that I bothered to stir the pot on this but maybe something here was useful.
Edited by Xlr8yourMac - 12/20/12 at 6:43am
