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

F8500.. OR .. ZT60 ????? - Page 62

post #1831 of 3096
I also think for a lot of people once they have their display properly calibrated and get exposed to something closer to accuracy they will get used to that "look" very quickly and never look back at anything else. They will start noticing how other people's (uncalibrated) displays look completely unnatural because of the excessive use of sharpness, overly saturated colors, grayscale pushing a certain color too much, poor gamma, improper brightness/black levels, etc.

On the audio side, as I stated in an earlier post, Chad B calibrated my audio in addition to my video and that too made a dramatic difference. This will largely depend on your receiver, but mine is a Pioneer Elite that has the auto-calibration (MCACC) which is generally held in good regard, but it was nothing compared to the manual, detailed calibration Chad performed. There is so much more fullness, warmth, and natural subwoofer integration with my audio now. I am no longer experiencing that tinny, reverb sound I was getting.
post #1832 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by jh901 View Post

Audyssey is controversial to some degree though, so perhaps there's a better analogy. The panel, as measured by gear, isn't impacted by the room in the way that sound waves (from speakers) do. PQ is far more straightforward. Plus, one can put an uncalibrated panel right beside a calibrated while looking at data and easily see how the measurements relate.

Those who doubt pro-calibration should give it a try before leaping to a poor conclusion.

Calibration in any form and forcing someone to confirm to a third party baseline always opens up a can of worms. I disagree with your statement that video isn't like audio though. Video is impacted by the room; ambient light, color of the walls, the eyes of the person viewing the display (you cannot tell me that everyone has 20/20 vision with no variance in color reception), viewing angle, etc. All you can do is measure with a device and make adjustments to produce a certain output be it audio, visual, etc.
post #1833 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by smbsocal View Post

Calibration in any form and forcing someone to confirm to a third party baseline always opens up a can of worms. I disagree with your statement that video isn't like audio though. Video is impacted by the room; ambient light, color of the walls, the eyes of the person viewing the display (you cannot tell me that everyone has 20/20 vision with no variance in color reception), viewing angle, etc. All you can do is measure with a device and make adjustments to produce a certain output be it audio, visual, etc.

Last i checked calibrators don't hold a gun to anyones head and make them sign up for a professional calibration, but the term calibration implies a standard and regardless of those evironmental variables and vision variations it is still possible to calibrate the display to a reference. You make not agree with the reference but it exists for a reason.
post #1834 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by brehiser View Post

Can you link to your ISF night settings? Im curious to see as well.

See post #1813
post #1835 of 3096
Thanks for the replies. I now understand that calibration attempts to get the display to a reference baseline. This is important if you desire to still the bluray material as the director intended.

However,

There are many variables such as the master source file for the movie for one. The bluray is not exactly the same as the Master as it is compressed.

So if the directors are using Masters on a reference calibrated display. What we are witness to is already different due to the manufacturing process for Optical media and also compression.

Also I can assume that the panels used by directors are much better that the panels for consumers.

Visual acuity and environmental factors are also variable.

So I guess I will pass on a calibration. I suspect no two displays are the same so copying settings from someone else is not wise either.

I will just use the THX settings as the best alternative. As a matter of fact they look good to me.
post #1836 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by smbsocal View Post

Calibration in any form and forcing someone to confirm to a third party baseline always opens up a can of worms.

Force? And that 3rd party baseline is what is used for the content!

Quote:
Originally Posted by smbsocal View Post

I disagree with your statement that video isn't like audio though. Video is impacted by the room; ambient light, color of the walls, the eyes of the person viewing the display (you cannot tell me that everyone has 20/20 vision with no variance in color reception), viewing angle, etc. All you can do is measure with a device and make adjustments to produce a certain output be it audio, visual, etc.

You would be mistaken. Audio is far, far more complicated and subjective. It's not even worth discussing.

Picture quality can be measured accurately almost completely independent of the room and the measurements are far, far more comprehensive and connected to what the normal human eye can see. When we watch a blu-ray movie on a pro calibrated TV then we are seeing what we are intended to see up to the capability of the panel.
post #1837 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

Thanks for the replies. I now understand that calibration attempts to get the display to a reference baseline. This is important if you desire to still the bluray material as the director intended.

However,

There are many variables such as the master source file for the movie for one. The bluray is not exactly the same as the Master as it is compressed.

So if the directors are using Masters on a reference calibrated display. What we are witness to is already different due to the manufacturing process for Optical media and also compression.

Also I can assume that the panels used by directors are much better that the panels for consumers.

Visual acuity and environmental factors are also variable.

So I guess I will pass on a calibration. I suspect no two displays are the same so copying settings from someone else is not wise either.

I will just use the THX settings as the best alternative. As a matter of fact they look good to me.

That is fine, but you are not seeing anywhere close what your panel is capable of. Look at the report I posted above. See the "before"? Yours will look even worse than that. Red isn't red. Green won't be green. And blue won't be blue. And the balance of those from black to white will not be flat. I'd never considered calibration before the past year or so, but it only takes a single lesson to "get it".

Enjoy your panel for a few months and when the budget allows, shoot ChadB an email and schedule an appointment.
post #1838 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

Thanks for the replies. I now understand that calibration attempts to get the display to a reference baseline. This is important if you desire to still the bluray material as the director intended.

However,

There are many variables such as the master source file for the movie for one. The bluray is not exactly the same as the Master as it is compressed.

So if the directors are using Masters on a reference calibrated display. What we are witness to is already different due to the manufacturing process for Optical media and also compression.

Also I can assume that the panels used by directors are much better that the panels for consumers.

Visual acuity and environmental factors are also variable.

So I guess I will pass on a calibration. I suspect no two displays are the same so copying settings from someone else is not wise either.

I will just use the THX settings as the best alternative. As a matter of fact they look good to me.

At the end of the day, Blu-ray is mastered to rec 709 - that is the HD standard. That is what everyone (technicians, directors who lead color timing, etc.) is shooting for in the entire video/processing/mastering chain. Whether you choose to get as close as possible to that with your display is up to you.

Nothing is 100%, but the goal is to get as close to that as possible to keep the entire video chain intact. And for the most part, it works quite well when the process is followed.

According to experts in the field that I have read, Blu-ray can get fairly transparent to the master despite some of its limitations compared to a 4K master (which are a minority of transfers - unfortunately, many Blus are using older 1080p/2K masters because of costs, but that is for another thread). The down sampling and conversions work rather well. The vast majority of directors involved in the color timing process are very happy as there are no issues with their intentions being seen. Standard NTSC definition made it more difficult for sure.
Edited by DavidHir - 7/18/13 at 10:47am
post #1839 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by jh901 View Post

I am surprised that Ken has been able to evaluate his set's performance without a calibration.

Because it is relatively easy to calibrate certain settings and get a good idea of black levels, brightness capabilities and, if the display has a good reputation for color out-of-the-box (as does the F8500 in Movie mode), it isn't too difficult a task to evaluate the overall performance. Several reviews have stated how accurate the 8500 is in Movie mode. So with calibration it will only get better, even if it doesn't attain a significant visual difference pre & post. Some display's color capabilities are very difficult to ascertain since their OOTB settings are so poor regardless of modes.
post #1840 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

At the end of the day, Blu-ray is mastered to rec 709 - that is the HD standard. That is what everyone (technicians, directors who lead color timing, etc.) is shooting for in the entire video/processing/mastering chain. Whether you choose to get as close as possible to that with your display is up to you.

Nothing is 100%, but the goal is to get as close to that as possible to keep the entire video chain intact. And for the most part, it works quite well when the process is followed.

According to experts in the field that I have read, Blu-ray can get fairly transparent to the master despite some of its limitations compared to a 4K master (which are a minority of transfers - unfortunately, many Blus are using older 1080p/2K masters because of costs, but that is for another thread). The down sampling and conversions work rather well. The vast majority of directors involved in the color timing process are very happy as there are no issues with their intentions being seen. Standard NTSC definition made it more difficult for sure.

And doesnt it give peace of mind to know that if you see something odd it is the source and not the display ? Even outside of bluray a properly calibrated display will render a pretty consistent image I have found.
Edited by chunon - 7/18/13 at 12:01pm
post #1841 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunon View Post

And doesnt it give piece of mind to know that if you see something odd it is the source and not the display ? Even outside of bluray a properly calibrated display will render a pretty consistent image I have found.

Absolutely.

I see an across-the-board improvement in cable too. Color in particular looking more natural and true to the source.

The All-Star game the other night looked the most impressive I have ever seen it.
post #1842 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post



The All-Star game the other night looked the most impressive I have ever seen it.

+1

I was wishing that Root Sports looked that good for Pirates games! That I don't understand. Why does the all-star game broadcast look so amazing on a calibrated panel, but yet Root's broadcasts are simply ok?!
post #1843 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by jh901 View Post

+1

I was wishing that Root Sports looked that good for Pirates games! That I don't understand. Why does the all-star game broadcast look so amazing on a calibrated panel, but yet Root's broadcasts are simply ok?!

I see the same thing on the Reds broadcasts here, seems to be better when they are on the road for some reason. BTW nice year the Pirates are putting together smile.gif
post #1844 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

Absolutely.

I see an across-the-board improvement in cable too. Color in particular looking more natural and true to the source.

The All-Star game the other night looked the most impressive I have ever seen it.

It looked great and so did the home run derby, my set suddenly seems brighter but could just be my imagination
post #1845 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by jh901 View Post

+1

I was wishing that Root Sports looked that good for Pirates games! That I don't understand. Why does the all-star game broadcast look so amazing on a calibrated panel, but yet Root's broadcasts are simply ok?!

Maybe its the different HD cameras they use at each stadium? Or maybe its network specific?
I notice that watching NFL on FOX always looks better to me than on CBS.
post #1846 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by defjamz View Post

Maybe its the different HD cameras they use at each stadium? Or maybe its network specific?
I notice that watching NFL on FOX always looks better to me than on CBS.

you got it...know question the hd cameras are the primary piece that determines the quality of the output.
post #1847 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by airgas1998 View Post

you got it...know question the hd cameras are the primary piece that determines the quality of the output.

Compression of the source is also a factor especially on cable
post #1848 of 3096
fap fap fap fap fap fap
Edited by JLT86 - 7/21/13 at 10:11am
post #1849 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

That's pretty typical with most digital displays and all the processing going on. I've had to adjust lip synch on my receivers with almost every plasma & LED display I've owned.

Maybe I don't understand this correctly or I could be missing something so please correct me if I'm wrong because I don't have any external audio setup at home.

Can't you just have your audio devices plugged directly into the TV rather than the audio running out of the blu-ray?

Then I presume the picture and the sound would be sent to the tv in perfect sync so the audio coming out of the tv would be in sync too.

I thought that if your audio devices are plugged into your media player then the sound will be produced before the tv receives the image due to the TV's input lag being higher than the audio devices.
post #1850 of 3096
Hello! Remember the OP's question? 8500 or Z60. Ya'll need to start another thread.
post #1851 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by jh901 View Post

jh901 VT60 ISF Night.pdf 1335k .pdf file

Ah, ok. Let me know what you think!

Where is Ken's report for the F8500?

What mode did he calibrate in (custom or pro)?
post #1852 of 3096
Maybe a tough question, but since most plasmas seem to have their blacklevel affected by ambient light, how dark would a room have to be in order to be able to see the better black levels the Panasonics have compared to the F8500? I'm looking for a new TV for my living room, which is somewhat bright, so it is naturally a trade off between more light output (F8500) vs better black levels (ZT60).
post #1853 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by improwise View Post

Maybe a tough question, but since most plasmas seem to have their blacklevel affected by ambient light, how dark would a room have to be in order to be able to see the better black levels the Panasonics have compared to the F8500? I'm looking for a new TV for my living room, which is somewhat bright, so it is naturally a trade off between more light output (F8500) vs better black levels (ZT60).

I have a very bright great room / dining room combo with 3 105" X 74" windows. I had a Panasonic th50px77u and wanted a newer tv. I naturally went with a Panasonic 55st60 and it was not as bright as my old Panasonic for daytime viewing. I returned it and picked up a 51f8500 and have been happy with the upgrade now. The st60 looked amazing at night, but I could not accept the daytime picture, and the st60 is a lot brighter than the zt.
post #1854 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by RodK View Post

I have a very bright great room / dining room combo with 3 105" X 74" windows. I had a Panasonic th50px77u and wanted a newer tv. I naturally went with a Panasonic 55st60 and it was not as bright as my old Panasonic for daytime viewing. I returned it and picked up a 51f8500 and have been happy with the upgrade now. The st60 looked amazing at night, but I could not accept the daytime picture, and the st60 is a lot brighter than the zt.

Thank you for your reply. So, you say the ST60 looked fantastic at night, but what abot the F8500 at night then, especially with regards to black levels of course.
post #1855 of 3096
Another question, you see quite a few people complaining of fan noise on the Panasonics, which the F8500 does not have a problem with this. Yet, in this thread, I don't really see that mentioned very often as a deciding factor between the two TVs, which is kind of strange given how much some people seem to be affected by it. Any ideas on why that is?
post #1856 of 3096
Not sure if this has been posted before, but this is another Shootout, which is quite interesting:

http://www.televisioninfo.com/features/2013-flagship-tv-shootout

Don't miss that it is several pages long and that there is a video as well (which perhaps doesn't really say that much but still)
post #1857 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by RodK View Post

I have a very bright great room / dining room combo with 3 105" X 74" windows. I had a Panasonic th50px77u and wanted a newer tv. I naturally went with a Panasonic 55st60 and it was not as bright as my old Panasonic for daytime viewing. I returned it and picked up a 51f8500 and have been happy with the upgrade now. The st60 looked amazing at night, but I could not accept the daytime picture, and the st60 is a lot brighter than the zt.

Does sunlight shine directly on your screen? I have a fairly bright family room with 4 windows (2 facing east and 2 facing north). I just got a ZT60 last Thursday and was all worried it wouldn't be bright enough. Turned out not to be an issue at all. In fact I've set my contrast at about 60 or 70 for daytime viewing. Honestly, the TV seems like a light canon to me. Importantly though, the sun never shines directly on my screen.
post #1858 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by improwise View Post

Thank you for your reply. So, you say the ST60 looked fantastic at night, but what abot the F8500 at night then, especially with regards to black levels of course.

the f8500 looks great at night too, but I think the st was a bit blacker. the bars seemed to disappear better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sooke View Post

Does sunlight shine directly on your screen? I have a fairly bright family room with 4 windows (2 facing east and 2 facing north). I just got a ZT60 last Thursday and was all worried it wouldn't be bright enough. Turned out not to be an issue at all. In fact I've set my contrast at about 60 or 70 for daytime viewing. Honestly, the TV seems like a light canon to me. Importantly though, the sun never shines directly on my screen.

I can get direct sun in the late evening, but the st was washing out from the indirect light. the zt has a better filter so that may be what is also helping you out.

during the day time, the blacks on the st looked no better than my old panny plasma. the f8500 looks a lot better during the day than the st did.
post #1859 of 3096
If every set is calibrated to the same standard, then would they all not look the same? It seems to me that a more expensive ZT or VT is a waste of money. I think the st60 is the tv to get
post #1860 of 3096
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 ?????