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

F8500.. OR .. ZT60 ????? - Page 65

post #1921 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by willieconway View Post

I'm not attempting to make Samsung look bad. I'm trying to make sure that you at least get the math right in your month long crusade against anyone who doesn't bow to the altar of Samsung. Which, by the way, I find pathetic.

Oh brother. Is anyone forcing you to read my posts?
post #1922 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Oh brother. Is anyone forcing you to read my posts?

No. I just find them truly amusing.
post #1923 of 3096
Can somebody explain why the ST60 has a greater ANSI contrast ratio than the F8500?
post #1924 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickywinford View Post

Can somebody explain why the ST60 has a greater ANSI contrast ratio than the F8500?

Contrast ratio is the highest luminence divided by the lowest. For example, 50 divided by 1 is a ratio of 50 to 1. Whereas 90 divided by 2 is a ratio of 45. Without seeing the numbers used for the ratio, it would be easy to assume the bigger number is better.

The F8500 has a black measurement of 0.02 versus the ST60/VT60 of 0.01. As a number gets into the fractions, a 50% decrease is more and more insignificant. On the high luminence, the ST60 achieves a brightness of 131 cdm2 which is very impressive. the Vt60 achieves about 82. The F8500, however, hits a whopping 214 or about 40% higher than the ST60!

Which contrast ratio do you think is more impressive? Blinding whites with deep dark blacks or deep deep blacks and okay brightness? Movies normally have scenes that are mostly during the day versus night. Which light spectrum dominates? I'm still at a loss for words on why CNET gives the nod to the VT60 when it is less than half as bright, much lower real contrast, and a slightly better black while discounting the game changing brightness and contrast ratio of the F8500.

The eye test will tell you immediately which TV has the better contrast.

Here is a review that actually rate the F8500 as the superior TV: http://www.televisioninfo.com/content/samsung-f8500-review-2
Edited by cyphron - 7/28/13 at 6:30am
post #1925 of 3096
Getting dark is great but it's the shadow detail while dark which is most significant for me ,and the Panasonic's are the clear winners here. Samsung has made great strides this year especially in brightness levels no doubt, but it would be completely wasted on someone like myself who doesn't need all that brightness. As usual it's all based on the viewing environment, Gary.
post #1926 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickywinford View Post

Can somebody explain why the ST60 has a greater ANSI contrast ratio than the F8500?

This is because the ST60 is able to keep it's black level low even with white being displayed on the screen. This is why ANSI contrast ratio is more important to look at - how well a TV can keep black levels. The F8500 does have slight floating blacks which is why the black level rises with the ANSI contrast pattern - hence it has a lower ANSI contrast ratio than the ST60 and even the ZT60.

Here are the AV Forums Reviews for the ST60 and the F8500 - look at the ANSI contrast ratio:

www.avforums.com/reviews/Samsung-F8500-PS-51F8500-64F85000-3D-Plasma-TV-Review_552/Test_Results.html

www.avforums.com/reviews/Panasonic-ST60-ST60B-TX-P42ST60B-P50ST60B-P55ST60B-3D-Plasma-TV-Review_551/Test_Results.html
post #1927 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphron View Post



Here is a review that actually rate the F8500 as the superior TV: http://www.televisioninfo.com/content/samsung-f8500-review-2

Actually, that site rates the ZT60 as the best TV with the f8500 as number 2.
post #1928 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogues View Post

Actually, that site rates the ZT60 as the best TV with the f8500 as number 2.
I think he only meant superior to the ST60...which is obviously not true for every environment unless we completely discard the aforementioned ANSI ratio values.
post #1929 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduin View Post

This is because the ST60 is able to keep it's black level low even with white being displayed on the screen. This is why ANSI contrast ratio is more important to look at - how well a TV can keep black levels. The F8500 does have slight floating blacks which is why the black level rises with the ANSI contrast pattern - hence it has a lower ANSI contrast ratio than the ST60 and even the ZT60.

Here are the AV Forums Reviews for the ST60 and the F8500 - look at the ANSI contrast ratio:

www.avforums.com/reviews/Samsung-F8500-PS-51F8500-64F85000-3D-Plasma-TV-Review_552/Test_Results.html

www.avforums.com/reviews/Panasonic-ST60-ST60B-TX-P42ST60B-P50ST60B-P55ST60B-3D-Plasma-TV-Review_551/Test_Results.html

It seems different reviewers are throwing different numbers left and right. To me, everyone is pulling their numbers out of their behinds. Case inpooint, HDGuru states that F8500 has a native contrast ratio of 40100 to one, besting even the ZT60.
http://hdguru.com/samsung-pn60f8500-hdtv-review/
Then again, televisionreview.info has another number altogether, 13000 to 1. Who to believe? Compound the issue further with one reviewer stating the luminence as 41 fl whereas another stated that it's 225 cdm2. If you convert one to the other, you will find that the numbers don't match. Did the reviewer turn down the cell light to take that measurement? Maybe, or rather, I believe the 64" version has the much higher luminence and thus the better contrast ratio.

Why are reviewers turning down the cell light level and turn off black optimizer in order to lower the contrast ratio of the F8500? Why would they handicap the TV like this? Do people watch TV by turning off all the picture processing so they can compare PQ quality?

The bottom line is this, SEE the sets for yourself. These number gymnastics that the reviewers are throwing out to prove that one TV is better is pointless. Don't purchase any TV by comparing theoretical measurements. The numbers are all over the map.
post #1930 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogues View Post

Actually, that site rates the ZT60 as the best TV with the f8500 as number 2.

The old score of 9.9 has since been updated to 10 after a retest with black optimizer on. So technically they are tied. Of course, one TV is can be had for considerably less than the other. YMMV.
post #1931 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphron View Post

It seems different reviewers are throwing different numbers left and right. To me, everyone is pulling their numbers out of their behinds. Case inpooint, HDGuru states that F8500 has a native contrast ratio of 40100 to one, besting even the ZT60.
http://hdguru.com/samsung-pn60f8500-hdtv-review/
Then again, televisionreview.info has another number altogether, 13000 to 1. Who to believe? Compound the issue further with one reviewer stating the luminence as 41 fl whereas another stated that it's 225 cdm2. If you convert one to the other, you will find that the numbers don't match. Did the reviewer turn down the cell light to take that measurement? Maybe, or rather, I believe the 64" version has the much higher luminence and thus the better contrast ratio.

Why are reviewers turning down the cell light level and turn off black optimizer in order to lower the contrast ratio of the F8500? Why would they handicap the TV like this? Do people watch TV by turning off all the picture processing so they can compare PQ quality?

The bottom line is this, SEE the sets for yourself. These number gymnastics that the reviewers are throwing out to prove that one TV is better is pointless. Don't purchase any TV by comparing theoretical measurements. The numbers are all over the map.

You need to understand that the HDGuru contrast number is NOT ANSI contrast. I don't care about on/off contrast - nor should anyone - ANSI contrast is more important. Also the contrast of 40100:1 for the F8500 was on an uncalibrated display.
Edited by Arduin - 7/28/13 at 12:50pm
post #1932 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduin View Post

You need to understand that the HDGuru contrast number is NOT ANSI contrast. I don't care about native contrast - nor should anyone - ANSI contrast is more important.

Why is it more important? Is it because it's the number that the Panasonic excel at?

The Panasonic has the better checkerboard contrast number. Is a checkerboard pattern representative of an average movie? The F8500 has the better ratio under the other tests and looks to have better contrast under lighting condition that is not pitch black. This goes back to my original argument, the ZT60 will always have the "better" number due to its sub 0.002 black number. If you divide that number into any average luminence of 80, you'll get a very high contrast number. Nevertheless, the F8500 has the better contrast in real world scenery and in most rooms that are not pitch dark.

Edits: terrific explanation of contrast ratio: http://www.highdefforum.com/flat-panel-tvs/69651-why-you-should-ignore-contrast-ratio-specs.html
Edited by cyphron - 7/28/13 at 1:19pm
post #1933 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphron View Post

Why is it more important? Is it because it's the number that the Panasonic excel at?

The Panasonic has the better checkerboard contrast number. Is a checkerboard pattern representative of an average movie? The F8500 has the better ratio under the other tests and looks to have better contrast under lighting condition that is not pitch black. This goes back to my original argument, the ZT60 will always have the "better" number due to its sub 0.002 black number. If you divide that number into any average luminence of 80, you'll get a very high contrast number. Nevertheless, the F8500 has the better contrast in real world scenery and in most rooms that are not pitch dark.

Edits: terrific explanation of contrast ratio: http://www.highdefforum.com/flat-panel-tvs/69651-why-you-should-ignore-contrast-ratio-specs.html

Why is it more important? No not because it's what the Panasonics excel at - it's because the black level should not rise by much when the screen is displaying any white.
post #1934 of 3096
Just read this entire thread And it jus goes back and forth...very simple straight forward question...if you had to do it all
Over again...ZT60 or F8500 for overall "everything" PQ black level sharpness motions brightness...those are most important which do you go with.?
post #1935 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeLfMaDe111985 View Post

Just read this entire thread And it jus goes back and forth...very simple straight forward question...if you had to do it all
Over again...ZT60 or F8500 for overall "everything" PQ black level sharpness motions brightness...those are most important which do you go with.?

I used the side-by-side eyeball test playing the same source BD on the VT60 and 8500, and tweaking the settings myself on both sets. For overall PQ I chose the 8500, and after living with it have no reason to think I would choose differently again. For me that's the only test and review that matters.

(edited: changed DVD to BD)
Edited by abalone - 7/28/13 at 3:01pm
post #1936 of 3096
I take it you meant Blu-ray because DVD is no way to compare the quality between any of these 3 sets.
post #1937 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

I take it you meant Blu-ray because DVD is no way to compare the quality between any of these 3 sets.

Yes, Blu-ray.
post #1938 of 3096
It seems to me that, after all of the back and forth, they are so close that it really does come down to personal preference. I chose the ZT because I thought it looked better and abalone chose the F8500 because he thought that it looked better. I think that both of us were right.
post #1939 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphron View Post

It seems different reviewers are throwing different numbers left and right. To me, everyone is pulling their numbers out of their behinds. Case inpooint, HDGuru states that F8500 has a native contrast ratio of 40100 to one, besting even the ZT60.
http://hdguru.com/samsung-pn60f8500-hdtv-review/
Then again, televisionreview.info has another number altogether, 13000 to 1. Who to believe? Compound the issue further with one reviewer stating the luminence as 41 fl whereas another stated that it's 225 cdm2. If you convert one to the other, you will find that the numbers don't match. Did the reviewer turn down the cell light to take that measurement? Maybe, or rather, I believe the 64" version has the much higher luminence and thus the better contrast ratio.

Why are reviewers turning down the cell light level and turn off black optimizer in order to lower the contrast ratio of the F8500? Why would they handicap the TV like this? Do people watch TV by turning off all the picture processing so they can compare PQ quality?

The bottom line is this, SEE the sets for yourself. These number gymnastics that the reviewers are throwing out to prove that one TV is better is pointless. Don't purchase any TV by comparing theoretical measurements. The numbers are all over the map.

Bingo!
post #1940 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduin View Post

Why is it more important? No not because it's what the Panasonics excel at - it's because the black level should not rise by much when the screen is displaying any white.

And black levels that rise slightly when more and more white enters the scene is usualky not that important since your pupils constrict and make it hard to see the rising black levels. You can only see the deepest blacks when your pupils are dilated. smile.gif

This is why some calibrators admit that ANSI CR is not a great real world gauge of what our eyes really see. It also probably explains why many purchasers of the 8500 feel that to their eyes, the Samsung appears to have a higher CR.
post #1941 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeLfMaDe111985 View Post

Just read this entire thread And it jus goes back and forth...very simple straight forward question...if you had to do it all
Over again...ZT60 or F8500 for overall "everything" PQ black level sharpness motions brightness...those are most important which do you go with.?

The only time I hate that I have a plasma is when the entire screen is white with the ABL kicking in. I know the set can display full white as a window that is 75% of the screen would be extremely white. However, once 90% of the screen is white, the ABL kicks in and the display is off white. It's extremely irritating and the only time I wish I had an LED.

As for those who already purchased their TV I hope they're happy with it. Do your due diligence before not after the purchase. Buyers remorse is not healthy. Be happy with having one of the two best TVs in the world.
post #1942 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeLfMaDe111985 View Post

Just read this entire thread And it jus goes back and forth...very simple straight forward question...if you had to do it all
Over again...ZT60 or F8500 for overall "everything" PQ black level sharpness motions brightness...those are most important which do you go with.?

If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't change, and I don't think many people here would either. The two sets are great. I just don't think you can go wrong as long as what you buy suits your environment well (and I can't stress that enough). As many posters have said, if you're going to spend this kind of money on a set, go beyond the numbers and judge for yourself. Don't let posters convince you what you should own. Trust your own eyes -- see what you see, not what someone else sees.
post #1943 of 3096
Wh
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirh View Post

If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't change, and I don't think many people here would either. The two sets are great. I just don't think you can go wrong as long as what you buy suits your environment well (and I can't stress that enough). As many posters have said, if you're going to spend this kind of money on a set, go beyond the numbers and judge for yourself. Don't let posters convince you what you should own. Trust your own eyes -- see what you see, not what someone else sees.
Which do you have? ZT or F?
post #1944 of 3096
As you raise panel brightness beyond reasonable levels the sensitivity of your retina will actually decrease and your pupils will adjust to let in less light over time, for me the light output of the ST50 is more than enough and I rarely raise contrast above 80 in a very bright room with windows on two walls, with the improvements in filters this year I really wonder why brightness is such a big deal at all.
post #1945 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeLfMaDe111985 View Post

Wh
Which do you have? ZT or F?

ZT60
post #1946 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirh View Post

ZT60
You find the ZT to be a lil blurry less sharp than the Sammy? I remember viewing the VT50 at the Magnolia next to the E7000 playing se BD and the Sammy was Defintely sharper IMO but better accurate colors and blacks on the VT. So I'm wondering if its kind of the same. Lots of red push on the Sammy and it wasn't in dynamic mode
post #1947 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeLfMaDe111985 View Post

You find the ZT to be a lil blurry less sharp than the Sammy? I remember viewing the VT50 at the Magnolia next to the E7000 playing se BD and the Sammy was Defintely sharper IMO but better accurate colors and blacks on the VT. So I'm wondering if its kind of the same. Lots of red push on the Sammy and it wasn't in dynamic mode

I had similar observations between the VT50 and E7000, and the VT60 vs the F8500. I found the VT's somewhat oversaturated and too red, which looked good in some scenes but unnatural in others. I found the E and F Sammy's to be more natural looking, but some might consider that subdued. The sharpness issue was also a big deal to me. The VT50 actually looked out of focus it was so bad, whereas the E7000 was very sharp. The VT60 was better, but still not up to the F8500. The whites on the F8500, as many have observed are excellent, and not good on the VT60, particularly in a side-by-side comparison. But I'm firmly in the camp that both are very good TV's, and it just comes down to personal preference. No one else can or should tell you which one is better for you.
post #1948 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeLfMaDe111985 View Post

You find the ZT to be a lil blurry less sharp than the Sammy? I remember viewing the VT50 at the Magnolia next to the E7000 playing se BD and the Sammy was Defintely sharper IMO but better accurate colors and blacks on the VT. So I'm wondering if its kind of the same. Lots of red push on the Sammy and it wasn't in dynamic mode

I saw them side by side viewing the dark knight rises. I liked the zt60 the best. There was no blurriness or lack of sharpness. There was nothing wrong with the 8500 I just preferred the zt picture. Others here prefer the 8500. I also did not need the light output of the 8500.



The zt60 at home looked even better than in the store.
post #1949 of 3096
So if both "rivals" have all extra processing turned off in picture menus. And sharpness turned down to minimum (or correctly) off so to speak according to a reference sharpness pattern... Playing identical material, and say for argument sake the Samsung throttled right the way back with light output to stay toe to toe with the Panasonic for obvious reasons... Both side by side (calibrated)...

Would the Samsung still 'appear' sharper - does anyone know ?
post #1950 of 3096
The answer is entirely dependent upon the viewer. According to some who have had a chance to see them side-by-side on multiple occasions (Ken), the answer has been yes...to others, not so much (DavidHir). I myself think it's an image processing algorithm increasing the sense of apparent sharpness, something one could mimic fairly closely with something like a Darbee Darblet.
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 ?????