or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › F8500.. OR .. ZT60 ?????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

F8500.. OR .. ZT60 ????? - Page 44

post #1291 of 3096
Seems to me if display A is apparently sharper than display B to you, the would-be buyer.... and you like the way display A looks... you should buy it. Who cares what is causing this?

I mean it's academically intriguing as to why, but it's not really important to the purchase decision. Buy the one you like better, ok?
post #1292 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by abalone View Post

Anyone watch hockey on the F8500 or VT60? My E7000 has reddish blotches in certain areas of the screen that really show up when panning across hockey ice. Shows up in other light/white scenes as well, but is most visible and annoying watching hockey. I've had 3 different panels, and each one has the same problem. It happens on any input, even video playing off a USB drive, so I know it's the TV. I'm seriously considering trading up, but I need to verify the uniformity problem isn't in the newer models. Thanks for any help.

Yep. It's one of the major reasons I went with the F8500 and returned my ST60 and the VT60 that I had first. Hockey looks like garbage on the Panasonic panels because the ABL just kills the whites, and makes them look tinted - kind of a greyish brownish tint, it's hard to describe. I had it calibrated and kept turning on hockey, and it looked like junk no matter what we did. The calibrator told me it was the ABL and even when he set it the lowest possible setting, it couldn't be defeated because the Panasonics use ABL to control heat in the television and you can't completely disable it. With the F8500, I've had none of the ABL problems and hockey looks great. So does web browsing, video games, or anything else where you're likely to have a lot of whites on screen.

All the talk in here about calibrations making the Panasonics as bright as the F8500 is pure falsehood. Sure, they might get to the same brightness, but the picture looks really bad. I had my ST60 professionally calibrated, asked the calibrator to raise the brightness so I could watch sports during the day, and it blew out the colors, made it look too "neon", and was way too contrasty. It looked like the Vivid mode or something. Just not good. He became frustrated and was the first to tell me I should check out the F8500, that it had the LCD-like brightness to deal with bright rooms and handle sports during the daytime.

In a dark room, the Panasonics look great. But if you have to deal with any daylight, the F8500 is hands-down superior - better contrast, detail, color and brightness. The better detail carries over to night as well. The F8500 has a much more detailed picture.
post #1293 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezuz747 View Post

Yep. It's one of the major reasons I went with the F8500 and returned my ST60 and the VT60 that I had first. Hockey looks like garbage on the Panasonic panels because the ABL just kills the whites, and makes them look tinted - kind of a greyish brownish tint, it's hard to describe. I had it calibrated and kept turning on hockey, and it looked like junk no matter what we did. The calibrator told me it was the ABL and even when he set it the lowest possible setting, it couldn't be defeated because the Panasonics use ABL to control heat in the television and you can't completely disable it. With the F8500, I've had none of the ABL problems and hockey looks great. So does web browsing, video games, or anything else where you're likely to have a lot of whites on screen.

All the talk in here about calibrations making the Panasonics as bright as the F8500 is pure falsehood. Sure, they might get to the same brightness, but the picture looks really bad. I had my ST60 professionally calibrated, asked the calibrator to raise the brightness so I could watch sports during the day, and it blew out the colors, made it look too "neon", and was way too contrasty. It looked like the Vivid mode or something. Just not good. He became frustrated and was the first to tell me I should check out the F8500, that it had the LCD-like brightness to deal with bright rooms and handle sports during the daytime.

In a dark room, the Panasonics look great. But if you have to deal with any daylight, the F8500 is hands-down superior - better contrast, detail, color and brightness. The better detail carries over to night as well. The F8500 has a much more detailed picture.

Thanks for that info. Very helpful. One concern I have about the F8500 is I watch in a dim room, and even dimmer at night. Yeah, like a man cave. I'm assuming I'll need to turn down the cell quite a bit. I already can't run my E7000 at cell 20 because it's too bright. So my concern is will the picture calibration suffer significantly at something well below max cell? I've read that lowering the cell does have an impact on calibration. You mention better detail, but what about the other aspects of PQ in a darker setting? Is the F8500 still the winner to your eye?
post #1294 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezuz747 View Post

All the talk in here about calibrations making the Panasonics as bright as the F8500 is pure falsehood
Can you quote the post that made this claim? What I remember was some were simply speculating that the ZT60 (the model that is the topic of this thread) can go brighter than 30 fL in other modes (and this has been confirmed in at least one review).
Quote:
In a dark room, the Panasonics look great. But if you have to deal with any daylight, the F8500 is hands-down superior - better contrast, detail, color and brightness. The better detail carries over to night as well. The F8500 has a much more detailed picture.
Very few have really seen how the ZT60 responds to ambient lighting (and I'm sure that if the room is excessively bright, an F8500 will indeed shine in such environments), so let's not get ahead of ourselves.
post #1295 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by abalone View Post

Thanks for that info. Very helpful. One concern I have about the F8500 is I watch in a dim room, and even dimmer at night. Yeah, like a man cave. I'm assuming I'll need to turn down the cell quite a bit. I already can't run my E7000 at cell 20 because it's too bright. So my concern is will the picture calibration suffer significantly at something well below max cell? I've read that lowering the cell does have an impact on calibration. You mention better detail, but what about the other aspects of PQ in a darker setting? Is the F8500 still the winner to your eye?

You know, that's what really stood out to me (other than detail) on the F8500 - was that even though the panel is bright enough to handle a really bright room with lots of daylight, it's not eye-searing at night. I actually find it enjoyable at night. It just seems a bit more vivid and punchy. Even when I use my HTPC and am browsing the web and looking at a pure white scene, it is bright but doesn't fatique my eyes.

I use the same settings for day and night and enjoy it. I've got my cell brightness set to 16. 20 was a little overkill. I also have my contrast pretty low, down around 40. I really don't care for high contrast settings on TV as I think it just washes out the source. It's especially visible on sports, where you seem to lose detail if the contrast is too high. I actually used a 1080p recording of a Seahawks NFL game to set my contrast level. The reason is that sports games have really contrasty scenes, lots of blacks, natural colors, green grass, human skin, and scoreboards with artificial colors and computer graphics. They also have lots of movement and far-away shots of people running, so you get a good sense of when the contrast settings are starting to blow out details.

To answer your other question, setting the cell brightness lower does not seem to impact picture quality, although I'm not sure what impact it has on calibrations as I haven't had mine calibrated yet. I've been very pleasantly surprised at how it performs with a medium cell brightness and medium contrast. I've got all the "special" stuff turned off (dejudder, cinesmooth, all that nonsense), and have most of my settings at default, and the colors are bright, punchy and vivid. Contrast and detail are stunning. The picture quality improved dramatically when I set my source to "PC" - it lost the graininess, which had been my only complaint. The picture looks far more fluid without losing the stunning detail. Really impressive and had both me and my girlfriend ooohing and aaahing while we watched various favorite movies.
post #1296 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Can you quote the post that made this claim? What I remember was some were simply speculating that the ZT60 (the model that is the topic of this thread) can go brighter than 30 fL in other modes (and this has been confirmed in at least one review).
Very few have really seen how the ZT60 responds to ambient lighting (and I'm sure that if the room is excessively bright, an F8500 will indeed shine in such environments), so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

The claim of similar brightness was made to me in another thread (the F8500 owner thread) in multiple posts. Various calibrators said they could get the VT60 to the same brightness as the F8500. I also read it in the VE shootout, IIRC. I read it enough times here when I was lurking, before I purchased the ST60 (and later the VT60), that it's what caused me to go with the Panasonic plasmas. I was hoping with the right calibration, I could get a punchy picture that wouldn't be so dim. I was really surprised how dim the ST60 looked in the store and when I got it home, it was just far worse because of my viewing environment. The picture quality of the ST60 and VT60 are impacted greatly by ambient daylight, it just really kills those sets. At night, they look pretty awesome. Like a reference picture. But in daylight... yuck. The picture becomes washed-out and very dim, kind of like viewing an LCD at a slight angle.

Of course, it became obvious to me that I have a very different view of "great picture" than calibrators after having my TV calibrated by a professional. I felt that while it looked "realistic", the colors were dull and lifeless to me. Back to your point, I had the calibrator tweak the brightness on the ST60, and it ended up looking really weird - kinda neon, too contrasty, not lifelike at all. It really killed the picture.
post #1297 of 3096
Thanks.

Yea, I saw your original account of that neon appearance above. Expecting a robust picture from any of the Panasonics, even the ZT60, in a room with the square footage of your windows (plus skylights), will probably yield disappointment.
post #1298 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by superbooga View Post

With regards to "sharpness" and artificially adding detail, the reference is a computer monitor, which does no image enhancement.

Actual sharpness in static scenes should be virtually identical among all flat panels with overscan and image processing turned off. However, sharpness in motion scenes can greatly vary among flat panels.

but how do you know the pc monitor isn't 'blurring' the image in some way? what if the 'extra' makes the image look more life-like? should we strive for digital perfection or try to get beyond the pixel structure? is that even possible? clearly i don't understand how any of this works... haha


i usually assess sharpness by viewing text on the screen, i never notice it in actual content though, so sometimes i wonder why i even bother

btw, i found with the f8500, that when put in PC mode, a sharpness of zero was VERY blurry, and hard to read text. i moved it up to around 20-30 and it looked like i was 'focusing' and the letters became clear again. not sure if that's processing, but it helps if it is. also not sure why no processing would give blurry letters if that's the case. i assume PC with sharpness to 0 should be no processing
Edited by fierce_gt - 5/23/13 at 10:22am
post #1299 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezuz747 View Post

The claim of similar brightness was made to me in another thread (the F8500 owner thread) in multiple posts. Various calibrators said they could get the VT60 to the same brightness as the F8500. I also read it in the VE shootout, IIRC. I read it enough times here when I was lurking, before I purchased the ST60 (and later the VT60), that it's what caused me to go with the Panasonic plasmas. I was hoping with the right calibration, I could get a punchy picture that wouldn't be so dim. I was really surprised how dim the ST60 looked in the store and when I got it home, it was just far worse because of my viewing environment. The picture quality of the ST60 and VT60 are impacted greatly by ambient daylight, it just really kills those sets. At night, they look pretty awesome. Like a reference picture. But in daylight... yuck. The picture becomes washed-out and very dim, kind of like viewing an LCD at a slight angle.

Of course, it became obvious to me that I have a very different view of "great picture" than calibrators after having my TV calibrated by a professional. I felt that while it looked "realistic", the colors were dull and lifeless to me. Back to your point, I had the calibrator tweak the brightness on the ST60, and it ended up looking really weird - kinda neon, too contrasty, not lifelike at all. It really killed the picture.

See, I find this confusing. I have a VT50 and I find it more than bright enough for a room in a Spanish style home with 4 rows of old style pane glass windows. I've been watching BB during the day and it is incredibly bright and rich. I don't have direct sunshine flooding the room but it's bright like any room with drapes open in the summer. I don't feel like it's dim. I've had 2 Kuros and the Panny is brighter than both using Cnet settings. I can only figure that people complaining about Panny dimness are new to plasma or that they are of a different psychology. The whites I can't comment on other than I've never thought that should be whiter.

I grew up in NY with a lot of snow -- I know from living in it (and have played hockey in it) that the ice and snow is never pure driven white for long so I can't really judge with a TV if the whites are off. It quickly takes on a gray or blue cast to it imo.
post #1300 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glashub View Post

See, I find this confusing. I have a VT50 and I find it more than bright enough for a room in a Spanish style home with 4 rows of old style pane glass windows. I've been watching BB during the day and it is incredibly bright and rich. I don't have direct sunshine flooding the room but it's bright like any room with drapes open in the summer. I don't feel like it's dim. I've had 2 Kuros and the Panny is brighter than both using Cnet settings. I can only figure that people complaining about Panny dimness are new to plasma or that they are of a different psychology. The whites I can't comment on other than I've never thought that should be whiter.

I grew up in NY with a lot of snow -- I know from living in it (and have played hockey in it) that the ice and snow is never pure driven white for long so I can't really judge with a TV if the whites are off. It quickly takes on a gray or blue cast to it imo.

+1 51ftl is not dim and yes whites are white
post #1301 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glashub View Post

See, I find this confusing. I have a VT50 and I find it more than bright enough for a room in a Spanish style home with 4 rows of old style pane glass windows. I've been watching BB during the day and it is incredibly bright and rich. I don't have direct sunshine flooding the room but it's bright like any room with drapes open in the summer. I don't feel like it's dim. I've had 2 Kuros and the Panny is brighter than both using Cnet settings. I can only figure that people complaining about Panny dimness are new to plasma or that they are of a different psychology. The whites I can't comment on other than I've never thought that should be whiter.

I grew up in NY with a lot of snow -- I know from living in it (and have played hockey in it) that the ice and snow is never pure driven white for long so I can't really judge with a TV if the whites are off. It quickly takes on a gray or blue cast to it imo.
To add to your confusion (and mine based on your experience), Geezus upgraded from a 5020FD. wink.gif
post #1302 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

To add to your confusion (and mine based on your experience), Geezus upgraded from a 5020FD. wink.gif

Yep. And I had it sitting right next to this wall:


This is a new house for me. When I moved in and put the Kuro in this room, I realized I would need a new TV. It just couldn't handle this room. As you can see, I have TONS of light. Living in Seattle, that light is important to me because we don't see the sun too often and you start turning into a vampire after a while. There is a reason those silly teenage vampires all live out here in Washington (Forks). Not a lot of daylight. So when I bought a house, I wanted one with a lot of light and plants so I could stay sane. I figured it was a lot cheaper to buy a new TV.

At first, I thought I'd have to buy an LCD. I tried the Panasonics because of all the claims on this very forum (which I tend to trust) that you could get a bright picture out of the Panasonic panels, and I had really liked the old Panasonic pro plasmas when I bought my Kuro. I tried everything possible to get an acceptable picture out of the VT60 and ST60.

But I never got a picture like this (and this is from a garbage phone camera):


That photo doesn't even show the full punch of the colors and detail, which are stunning and far better than anything I saw on the ST60 and VT60. That picture was taken in direct daylight with a 4'x8' sunlight directly above the TV.

And this picture shows that even in daylight, in a dark shot during a sports broadcast, you still don't lose the shadow details and it can hold its own against the daylight. This picture was also taken right at 3pm, with the sun directly overhead shining down through the skylight:



And finally, this scene in Avatar really shows the difference between the F8500 and the VT60. On the VT60, this scene gets killed by ABL, which dims the image and causes the bright areas to look very dull and not as purple, as the director intended. On the F8500, the purple branches of the Tree of Souls just come to life, and are so bright that it actually caused my camera to overcompensate and it looks kinda blurry. In real life, this looks stunning on the F8500:



My next goal is to get some pictures of the F8500 sitting side-by-side with the VT60 showing some images with both on default settings. It will speak for itself. Without a professional calibration (and even after one), the VT60 doesn't have nearly the same punch, vividness, and detail of the F8500.

That is my personal opinion after owning both.
post #1303 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezuz747 View Post

My next goal is to get some pictures of the F8500 sitting side-by-side with the VT60 showing some images with both on default settings. It will speak for itself. Without a professional calibration (and even after one), the VT60 doesn't have nearly the same punch, vividness, and detail of the F8500.

That is my personal opinion after owning both.

That would be awesome!
post #1304 of 3096
My heart goes out to you geezuz747. I lived in Portland OR for 5 years and no one can understand what 6 straight weeks of gray sky and drizzle can do to a person unless they go through it. My wife flew back last winter and said she descended through 2 miles of cloud cover.

Another good thing about F8500 is that you can use it as a sun lamp in the winter when there are no UV rays hitting the PNW. You could sit in front of it and watch hockey in Speedos and stave off Vitamin D deficiencies. smile.gif

All kidding aside -- it's a great TV. I hope you enjoy it a long time.
post #1305 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezuz747 View Post



My next goal is to get some pictures of the F8500 sitting side-by-side with the VT60 showing some images with both on default settings. It will speak for itself. Without a professional calibration (and even after one), the VT60 doesn't have nearly the same punch, vividness, and detail of the F8500.

When I read about a panel with "punch, vividness, and detail" I go the other way. Perhaps I'm alone, but when I see mention of "shadow detail, image depth, and inky blacks" I am interested. It will be interesting to look back a year from to now to find who went with the F8500 or the VT/ZT60.
post #1306 of 3096
Thanks for the added pictorial evidence, Geezus. I'm less confused now. Your 5020FD wasn't cutting it, so yea, I'm not surprised the Panasonics weren't either.
post #1307 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glashub View Post

My heart goes out to you geezuz747. I lived in Portland OR for 5 years and no one can understand what 6 straight weeks of gray sky and drizzle can do to a person unless they go through it. My wife flew back last winter and said she descended through 2 miles of cloud cover.

Another good thing about F8500 is that you can use it as a sun lamp in the winter when there are no UV rays hitting the PNW. You could sit in front of it and watch hockey in Speedos and stave off Vitamin D deficiencies. smile.gif

All kidding aside -- it's a great TV. I hope you enjoy it a long time.

Oh man, I hear ya. Sometimes I think I'm going to lose my mind. 9 months of pure gray hell. I take 2-3 vacations per year to sunny places to stay sane (and spend a lot of time in Mexico). Luckily, I've got a cute blonde girlfriend that likes to practice burlesque in my living room, and has recently been bringing over her burlesque girlfriends to join her. So that and a tequila helps with the depressive tendencies. LOL. And yeah, I pop Vitamin D pills like a madman.

I think I'm going to love this TV for a good long time. Won't replace it until it fails, or when they come out with a 100" 4k OLED panel that only draws 50w.
post #1308 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezuz747 View Post

I think I'm going to love this TV for a good long time. Won't replace it until it fails, or when they come out with a 100" 4k OLED panel that only draws 50w.

That was funny!
post #1309 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glashub View Post

See, I find this confusing. I have a VT50 and I find it more than bright enough for a room in a Spanish style home with 4 rows of old style pane glass windows. I've been watching BB during the day and it is incredibly bright and rich. I don't have direct sunshine flooding the room but it's bright like any room with drapes open in the summer. I don't feel like it's dim. I've had 2 Kuros and the Panny is brighter than both using Cnet settings. I can only figure that people complaining about Panny dimness are new to plasma or that they are of a different psychology. The whites I can't comment on other than I've never thought that should be whiter.

I grew up in NY with a lot of snow -- I know from living in it (and have played hockey in it) that the ice and snow is never pure driven white for long so I can't really judge with a TV if the whites are off. It quickly takes on a gray or blue cast to it imo.

it's just the argument ppl are using that think the f8500 is 'black enough'. you know, the whole 'if the f8500 sucks because it's not as dark as the vt60, then the vt60 sucks cause it's not as bright as the f8500'

and feel free to substitute st60 or zt60 for vt60 in the above. far as I can tell they are the same tv, haha. well, seriously close for a more than 1000 dollar difference.

anyway, my opinion is that both are bright enough, and both are black enough. if you didn't have them side by side I don't think you'd ever complain. the f8500 is as dark as the crt's I've had, which is much darker than any flat panel I've owned or seen(have no experience with kuros). and on the flip side, I've had plasmas for a long time, and usually don't have them set to the highest cell light because it's already more than bright enough.
post #1310 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

my opinion is that both are bright enough, and both are black enough

right so the real tie breaker is gaming lag:

care about gaming: VT60
dont care about gaming: 8500 or ST60
post #1311 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by ileff View Post

right so the real tie breaker is gaming lag:

care about gaming: VT60
dont care about gaming: 8500 or ST60

So I disagree that's the only tiebreaker (though I agree it's a valid one for gamers).

I'd say:

Want something flat out brighter than a Panasonic: 8500
Are content with the Panasonic's brightness: Panasonic ever so slightly over Samsung

(and then adjust for your desire to game)

Quote:
Originally Posted by geezuz747 View Post

Yep. It's one of the major reasons I went with the F8500 and returned my ST60 and the VT60 that I had first. Hockey looks like garbage on the Panasonic panels because the ABL just kills the whites, and makes them look tinted - kind of a greyish brownish tint, it's hard to describe. I had it calibrated and kept turning on hockey, and it looked like junk no matter what we did.

So I sat and watched hockey a bit the other day because of this constant conversation among North America's 14 remaining hockey fans (all of whom happen to be on AVS Forum apparently). And what I found differs pretty significantly from what you found. First of all, I found the whites to have no tint of any kind using my calibrated mode or the standard color mode. Second of all, I found hockey eminently watchable and contrasty. Third of all, I'd have preferred a brighter image.

But phrases like "looks like garbage" weren't nearly characteristic of how I'd describe the picture. More like "duller than I'd like".
post #1312 of 3096
So I'm confused, which is the better set? Vt 60 or 8500? :/ smile.gif
post #1313 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanii19 View Post

So I'm confused, which is the better set? Vt 60 or 8500? :/ smile.gif

The vt60 by a nose hair in mod and dark rooms and the 8500 for bright rooms. And VT60 if your a gamer
post #1314 of 3096
The results are in for the hdtv shootout.. The winner is... Samsung f8500,congrats to samsung
post #1315 of 3096
The EU tests F8500/VT60/ZT60 done VT / ZT 60 before the F8500 which is digitized so LCD ...
And the ST60 EU is the best ratio Quality / Price ... wink.gif
post #1316 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urga View Post

The EU tests F8500/VT60/ZT60 done VT / ZT 60 before the F8500 which is digitized so LCD ...
And the ST60 EU is the best ratio Quality / Price ... wink.gif

All flat panels are 'digitized'. ;-)

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
post #1317 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cev214 View Post

The results are in for the hdtv shootout.. The winner is... Samsung f8500,congrats to samsung

And...? The VT/ZT60 won the "expert vote". Congrats to the plasma leader, Panasonic. So, then, which Sammy rivals the ST60 at that price point? I did recently buy a Samsung though. Loving my Galaxy S4.
post #1318 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urga View Post

The EU tests F8500/VT60/ZT60 done VT / ZT 60 before the F8500 which is digitized so LCD ...
And the ST60 EU is the best ratio Quality / Price ... wink.gif
Yes ,
More moin or the F8500 LCD is typed ... wink.gif
post #1319 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by jh901 View Post

And...? The VT/ZT60 won the "expert vote". Congrats to the plasma leader, Panasonic. So, then, which Sammy rivals the ST60 at that price point? I did recently buy a Samsung though. Loving my Galaxy S4.
The EU ST60 was measured as the best Black F8500 ... : Eek:
post #1320 of 3096
The Panasonics still suffer from the way they handle 50Hz material so in the EU and for normal TV watching I'd take the F8500 everyday over them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › F8500.. OR .. ZT60 ?????