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

F8500.. OR .. ZT60 ????? - Page 75

post #2221 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

The Shootout calibrators (whom I trust more than Cnet or any other publication) didn't see any benefit of the ZT over the VT in a dark room and even recommended the VT as a final result - and the VT does put out an extra 5 ftL or so which can benefit 3D viewing. If one is doing a lot of brighter room viewing, perhaps the filter on the ZT is worth the extra hundreds of dollars. However, I will say the VT60 filter holds blacks very well in a bright room and reflections are no issue at all in a dark room.

Evert time I've seen the VT60 in a bright room and had a chance to compare it with the ZT60 and F8500 it has been obvious that the VT60 doesn't stand a chance against them. Blacks look more like grey in comparison and it is obvious that the ZT60 has the best filter of all three. I still went with the F8500 as no other plasma is even close to match it when it comes to light output, but ZT60 has the most impressive filter, closely followed by the F8500 and with the VT quite a bit behind. After all, the filter is what separates the ZT60 from the VT60, so no surprises there.
post #2222 of 3096
There have been some posts lately that compares the F8500 to the vt60/zt60 with regards to how "cinematic" they are, but almost no one mentions what settings they use, so how can any conclusions be drawn from that? It's like comparing two cars with regards to performance, one driven by average joe and the other by Michael Scumacher.
post #2223 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu03 View Post

Certainly haven't beat it yet anyway.

Have you had to have the panel replaced due to a fault or just for new ?

These phosphors are good for 50,000 hrs before any tiny noticeable drop in contrast. But then all that would change is the contrast control would go up to a higher number slightly to achieve (for example) the same output of light. So for instance the contrast control is at 36 now, after x amount of hours it may go to 38 to achieve the same. No big deal.

The Power supply boards (3), one or more of them dying would be your biggest concern.

Although if not abused I reckon the boards would be good for a (minimum) of 35,000 hrs, the plasma module itself is the least of your worries...

Cheers

smile.gif

Hi
Your info was very helpful. Tank you so much.
This week i am going to have my panel measured in hours and will decide if i will replace it now or after.
The panel is great as new, it was just because i was getting a 0 hours panel.
I am going to buy it anyway and keep it, as well as the power supply boards.
I love this panel so much that i want to keep it for years to come and be prepared for issues.
The Panasonic is an amazing plasma, but not quite sure if it's manufactured with all this detail.
post #2224 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by improwise View Post

There have been some posts lately that compares the F8500 to the vt60/zt60 with regards to how "cinematic" they are, but almost no one mentions what settings they use, so how can any conclusions be drawn from that? It's like comparing two cars with regards to performance, one driven by average joe and the other by Michael Scumacher.

Cinematic meaning how each manufacture implements and presents the image. Samsung and Panasonic have very different ways as to how the image is presented. Panasonic is much more easy on the eyes, smooth and a little softer image and looks more like a movie where as Samsung is very sharp and bright with lots of fine detail. Everything can be tweaked, but out of the box ZT THX Bright room, black-dark, warm2, motion off- Samsung movie, cell 20, warm 2, motion off, Black dark. Like I said pretty much out of the box only, no pro calibration. Of course this is only my observations everybody will have different opinions and preferences as too what they like.
post #2225 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by RefTheater View Post

Hi
Your info was very helpful. Tank you so much.
This week i am going to have my panel measured in hours and will decide if i will replace it now or after.
The panel is great as new, it was just because i was getting a 0 hours panel.
I am going to buy it anyway and keep it, as well as the power supply boards.
I love this panel so much that i want to keep it for years to come and be prepared for issues.
The Panasonic is an amazing plasma, but not quite sure if it's manufactured with all this detail.

Sounds like a realistic idea to me. It doesn't get any better with 60" plasma television.

With the spares you are set up nicely in the unlikely event anything will happen to the 600.

Keep enjoying it you made the correct choice imo -with Pioneers they last longer than seven months after release. And that greyscale (and many other 'critical' integral key qualities) won't ever be matched.
post #2226 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu03 View Post

Sounds like a realistic idea to me. It doesn't get any better with 60" plasma television.

With the spares you are set up nicely in the unlikely event anything will happen to the 600.

Keep enjoying it you made the correct choice imo -with Pioneers they last longer than seven months after release. And that greyscale (and many other 'critical' integral key qualities) won't ever be matched.

I also believe that, and i also think i made a wise choice.
I was making a claculation and giving a good margin of error, the panel has around 6000 to 7000 hours maximum.
So i will keep the new panel for the future.

I also don't want to seem picky, but the black frame is more beautiful and gives a better cinematic experience than the silver frame from Panasonic, this is what a call a small (but big at the same time) detail.
post #2227 of 3096
deleted
Edited by changboy - 12/29/13 at 8:01pm
post #2228 of 3096
i had both the zt60 and the f8500 at the same time,mounted in nearly the same place. i can tell you that all this talk of the panasonic being cinematic is a nice word for an overpriced SOFT display with substandard active processing going on, causing different problems. the zt60 is only good if you're going to watch it from 40feet away, then you wont see how soft it is. the digital processing is not as good as the f8500, the zt60 whites look grey and yellow, depending, and you occasionally see a tinge of green on faces and skin tones. my zt60 was professionally calibrated in los angeles, by those who set up monitors for sony pictures. After 5 weeks i returned the zt60 and will never look back. the f8500 has a fantastic yet accurate picture. if you're a mole and can afford it get the zt60, if you're a normal person who loves movies and sports viewing in a normal household, who likes a nice clean and crisp image, get the f8500. plus the fan noise is ridiculous and not necessary. panasonic sacrificed every other picture element it looks like to get a better black, well its black alright!
post #2229 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Los Angeles View Post

i had both the zt60 and the f8500 at the same time,mounted in nearly the same place. i can tell you that all this talk of the panasonic being cinematic is a nice word for an overpriced SOFT display with substandard active processing going on, causing different problems. the zt60 is only good if you're going to watch it from 40feet away, then you wont see how soft it is. the digital processing is not as good as the f8500, the zt60 whites look grey and yellow, depending, and you occasionally see a tinge of green on faces and skin tones. my zt60 was professionally calibrated in los angeles, by those who set up monitors for sony pictures. After 5 weeks i returned the zt60 and will never look back. the f8500 has a fantastic yet accurate picture. if you're a mole and can afford it get the zt60, if you're a normal person who loves movies and sports viewing in a normal household, who likes a nice clean and crisp image, get the f8500. plus the fan noise is ridiculous and not necessary. panasonic sacrificed every other picture element it looks like to get a better black, well its black alright!

Bingo.
post #2230 of 3096
Bingo my ass.

-Signed, the mole.
post #2231 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Los Angeles View Post

i had both the zt60 and the f8500 at the same time,mounted in nearly the same place. i can tell you that all this talk of the panasonic being cinematic is a nice word for an overpriced SOFT display with substandard active processing going on, causing different problems. the zt60 is only good if you're going to watch it from 40feet away, then you wont see how soft it is. the digital processing is not as good as the f8500, the zt60 whites look grey and yellow, depending, and you occasionally see a tinge of green on faces and skin tones. my zt60 was professionally calibrated in los angeles, by those who set up monitors for sony pictures. After 5 weeks i returned the zt60 and will never look back. the f8500 has a fantastic yet accurate picture. if you're a mole and can afford it get the zt60, if you're a normal person who loves movies and sports viewing in a normal household, who likes a nice clean and crisp image, get the f8500. plus the fan noise is ridiculous and not necessary. panasonic sacrificed every other picture element it looks like to get a better black, well its black alright!

Nice troll post.
post #2232 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Los Angeles View Post

ithe zt60 whites look grey and yellow, depending, and you occasionally see a tinge of green on faces and skin tones. my zt60 was professionally calibrated in los angeles, by those who set up monitors for sony pictures. After 5 weeks i returned the zt60 and will never look back.

Your expert calibrators from Sony must have done a great job on your calibration, guess they didn't stay at a Holiday Inn the night before, if you still had a green tinge. Plus it was a little early in the life of your ZT to have it calibrated. Hope you continue to enjoy your 8500. Time for me to go back underground and continue my game of Bingo rolleyes.gif
post #2233 of 3096

I don't believe that is a troll post...

 

...and there are a lot of people exhibiting defensive behavior when one talks badly about the display they own.

 

I saw both the ZT60 and the F8500 in the store, side-by-side, before I made my purchase decision.

 

I thought, clearly, the F8500 looked sharper, more detailed and had pure whites.  

 

The ZT60 looked dimmer, softer, less detailed and with grayer whites.

 

I went with the ZT60 because friends who know plasmas told me that this was the better display.

 

I am having buyers remorse and awaiting to swap my ZT60 out for the F8500.  The swapping process is taking longer than expected but I am patient.

 

I don't have anything against the ZT60.  In a way, it's the most beautiful display I have ever seen.  You fall in love with its black levels.

 

But, yes, it does tend to have a softer more cinematic look to it in THX mode and other online calibrated settings.

 

Having looked at the F8500 again for a second time at Ken's home, I think that display tends to have a more "video" look to it out of the box.  

 

We can sit here and call each other trolls and defend our own displays, but that's not getting useful information out to people.

 

Nobody is saying one display is clearly better than the other.  By going to the F8500 I am going to lose exceptionally deep black levels and, a picture that looks more film-like out of the box (which is more preferential for me).

post #2234 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein View Post

Having looked at the F8500 again for a second time at Ken's home, I think that display tends to have a more "video" look to it out of the box.  

That's just the factory setting. That can all be changed by motion control and sharpness.
Ken
post #2235 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein View Post

I don't believe that is a troll post...

...and there are a lot of people exhibiting defensive behavior when one talks badly about the display they own.

I saw both the ZT60 and the F8500 in the store, side-by-side, before I made my purchase decision.

I thought, clearly, the F8500 looked sharper, more detailed and had pure whites.  

The ZT60 looked dimmer, softer, less detailed and with grayer whites.

I went with the ZT60 because friends who know plasmas told me that this was the better display.

I am having buyers remorse and awaiting to swap my ZT60 out for the F8500.  The swapping process is taking longer than expected but I am patient.

I don't have anything against the ZT60.  In a way, it's the most beautiful display I have ever seen.  You fall in love with its black levels.

But, yes, it does tend to have a softer more cinematic look to it in THX mode and other online calibrated settings.

Having looked at the F8500 again for a second time at Ken's home, I think that display tends to have a more "video" look to it out of the box.  

We can sit here and call each other trolls and defend our own displays, but that's not getting useful information out to people.

Nobody is saying one display is clearly better than the other.  By going to the F8500 I am going to lose exceptionally deep black levels and, a picture that looks more film-like out of the box (which is more preferential for me).

Ron,

Pure whites has to do with proper calibration - particularly grayscale. Getting the most neutral (6500K) grayscale is the key to what brings out white purity. No display is perfect out of the box - no, not even THX mode. Everyone saying the Panasonic has poor whites is clueless to put it mildly. You were essentially looking at two non-professionally calibrated displays. As someone like yourself who does Blu-ray reviews, you should understand the crucial importance of proper calibration and how one cannot make a truly valid judgement between displays unless BOTH are properly calibrated and viewing both in the same environment. You are not making informed statements, no offense.

The VT/ZT is just as good, or superior (in blacks and color decoding) to the F8500 in every single measurable area once properly calibrated. Period. Virtually every pro calibrator will tell you the same; I am not making this up. Do the research and you will find quickly for yourself. The F8500 does have more light output and that will trump the Panasonic for brighter room viewing.

There is no coincidence that Kevin Miller, D-Nice, and David M all preferred the Panasonics for dark room viewing at the 2013 Shootout. David Katz alluded to this, as well. I've personally talked to another well known pro calibrator who believes the same.

Those who are saying the Panasonics are green and dim, take a look at the images from an ST60 (which actually has very slightly less accurate color than the VT/ZT) and tell me how these look:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475972/official-panasonic-st-gt-vt-zt60-pictures-thread/120

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475972/official-panasonic-st-gt-vt-zt60-pictures-thread/150

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475972/official-panasonic-st-gt-vt-zt60-pictures-thread/180
Edited by DavidHir - 12/9/13 at 10:56am
post #2236 of 3096
deleted
Edited by changboy - 12/29/13 at 8:01pm
post #2237 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken6217 View Post

I had both in my room for almost two weeks!
I'll just delete the personal drivel you spewed at me (which, with any luck, will earn you an infraction) and keep the rest intact, which isn't much. The post to which you responded was about as biased as I've seen in this thread. The fact that you didn't call it out for what it is shows you aren't as impartial as you're pretending to be. The ZT60 is the first Panasonic set I've owned. Apparently, I was a Pioneer fanboy prior to this for being able to recognize and appreciate some of the same benefits in PQ (near perfect color reproduction, deep blacks, cinematic video quality, and natural film-like motion). The problem with the matter-of-fact observations from you, Ron, and Los Angeles is that you think they're the final word on the matter.
Edited by vinnie97 - 12/9/13 at 11:30am
post #2238 of 3096
come on guys: enough with the personal attacks

posts deleted
post #2239 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

I'll just delete the personal drivel you spewed at me (which, with any luck, will earn you an infraction) and keep the rest intact, which isn't much. The post to which you responded was about as biased as I've seen in this thread. The fact that you didn't call it out for what it is shows you aren't as impartial as you're pretending to be. The ZT60 is the first Panasonic set I've owned. Apparently, I was a Pioneer fanboy prior to this for being able to recognize and appreciate some of the same benefits in PQ (near perfect color reproduction, deep blacks, cinematic video quality, and natural film-like motion). The problem with the matter-of-fact observations from you, Ron, and Los Angeles is that you think they're the final word on the matter.

There is nothing biased about it. I bought the Panny based on everything I read. I loved the blacks and the picture quality but I could not live with how dim it was.

Best Buy has a very generous return policy and I took advantage of it. I had both sets in my house and then made my (easy) decision.

Do you think that I really liked the Panny, but returned it for the Samsung just so I can post on the forum that the Samsung is better?

In my main HT room, I have a 3 chip Runco projector with anamorphic lens ($40K in total) with a 108" Stewarts screen. I do think I have some knowledge of video and what I am looking at.
Ken
post #2240 of 3096
So now this is becoming a "my home theater is bigger and more expensive than yours" e-peen measuring contest? I don't really care about that nor do I care about your subjective observations of a couple of non-calibrated panels yet to even be broken in (impossible to do in 2 weeks). You already proved some holes in your knowledge when you claimed an ISF calibration will *always* make for a dimmer picture.
post #2241 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

Ron,

Pure whites has to do with proper calibration - particularly grayscale. Getting the most neutral (6500K) grayscale is the key to what brings out white purity. No display is perfect out of the box - no, not even THX mode. Everyone saying the Panasonic has poor whites is clueless to put it mildly. You were essentially looking at two non-professionally calibrated displays. As someone like yourself who does Blu-ray reviews, you should understand the crucial importance of proper calibration and how one cannot make a truly valid judgement between displays unless BOTH are properly calibrated and viewing both in the same environment. You are not making informed statements, no offense.

The VT/ZT is just as good, or superior (in blacks and color decoding) to the F8500 in every single measurable area once properly calibrated. Period. Virtually every pro calibrator will tell you the same; I am not making this up. Do the research and you will find quickly for yourself. The F8500 does have more light output and that will trump the Panasonic for brighter room viewing.

There is no coincidence that Kevin Miller, D-Nice, and David M all preferred the Panasonics for dark room viewing at the 2013 Shootout. David Katz alluded to this, as well. I've personally talked to another well known pro calibrator who believes the same.

Those who are saying the Panasonics are green and dim, take a look at the images from an ST60 (which actually has very slightly less accurate color than the VT/ZT) and tell me how these look:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475972/official-panasonic-st-gt-vt-zt60-pictures-thread/120

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475972/official-panasonic-st-gt-vt-zt60-pictures-thread/150

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475972/official-panasonic-st-gt-vt-zt60-pictures-thread/180

As far as those example pics, I've personally tried photographing a Plasma and usually the picture turns out much more white than the Plasma actually gives off (I suppose partly shutter speed), and then combined with viewing it on an LCD with bright whites. So while those pictures might look white, I'd probably guess they're a bit more off white in reality.

Secondly those images aren't displaying largely white images, sure there might be some white, but its a different story with bright/white screens such as some games, hockey/winter sports, etc.. they'll turn white to beige faster than you can say auto brightness limiter.
post #2242 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtangletn View Post

As far as those example pics, I've personally tried photographing a Plasma and usually the picture turns out much more white than the Plasma actually gives off (I suppose partly shutter speed), and then combined with viewing it on an LCD with bright whites. So while those pictures might look white, I'd probably guess they're a bit more off white in reality.

Secondly those images aren't displaying largely white images, sure there might be some white, but its a different story with bright/white screens such as some games, hockey/winter sports, etc.. they'll turn white to beige faster than you can say auto brightness limiter.

That was certainly not my observation of watching a few minutes of the WaterKeepers Alliance Celebrity Ski Fest yesterday. I was watching on a ZT60.
post #2243 of 3096
Quote:
The problem with the matter-of-fact observations from you, Ron, and Los Angeles is that you think they're the final word on the matter.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't believe I was giving the final word on the matter.

 

I am simply relaying personal observations having the pleasure of being able to see both displays in action.

 

And, true, while the displays are uncalibrated, I still agree with everyone that both the ZT60 and F8500 have different video qualities to them.

 

Everyone is going to have their own personal tastes as to which one they like.  

 

Could calibration make one look like the other?  I would suspect that's very possible.  

 

Just giving an observation of how these displays look directly out of the box -- and I must say -- they each look excellent uncalibrated.  Most all the online reviews of both models state that.

 

....but of course, I would always recommend further calibration.

post #2244 of 3096
Geez folks, this is supposed to be informative and fun! These are two fantastic displays, among the best flat panels ever produced from a performance perspective. There is no right or wrong choice here, either is worthy of someone's hard-earned cash if one values videophile-level display performance above all else. I went for a ZT myself and love it, but can't imagine being disappointed with a F8500!
post #2245 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

So now this is becoming a "my home theater is bigger and more expensive than yours" e-peen measuring contest? I don't really care about that nor do I care about your subjective observations of a couple of non-calibrated panels yet to even be broken in (impossible to do in 2 weeks). You already proved some holes in your knowledge when you claimed an ISF calibration will *always* make for a dimmer picture.

Any why should anyone take your word for anything? Do you have some supreme knowledge or credentials? It would be a shame for people to take your words for fact.

Maybe I should not have said that ISF calibration will always make the display darker, but the vast majority of the times, it does.

With regards to the two weeks of running the TV, it did not have to be broken in for me to form my opinion, because there was no way the ZT gets brighter during breakin. What does happen is that there is a color shift grey scale changes.

Bottom line is that I liked the 8500 better when comparing and so did Ronald who came to my house and decided this himself.
Ken
post #2246 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtangletn View Post

As far as those example pics, I've personally tried photographing a Plasma and usually the picture turns out much more white than the Plasma actually gives off (I suppose partly shutter speed), and then combined with viewing it on an LCD with bright whites. So while those pictures might look white, I'd probably guess they're a bit more off white in reality.

Secondly those images aren't displaying largely white images, sure there might be some white, but its a different story with bright/white screens such as some games, hockey/winter sports, etc.. they'll turn white to beige faster than you can say auto brightness limiter.

Those pics were merely to give an example of general represenation that Panasonics are not dim and green. Obviously, various factors will determine how these look, but just making a point.

I'm seemingly the only person who has seen and owns a pro calibrated VT60 taking place in this current conversation and I can tell you, the whites are outstanding and very natural based on the content material and I've owned a number of pro-calibrated displays over the years ranging from CRT to SXRD to Plasma.
post #2247 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken6217 View Post

Any why should anyone take your word for anything? Do you have some supreme knowledge or credentials? It would be a shame for people to take your words for fact.

Maybe I should not have said that ISF calibration will always make the display darker, but the vast majority of the times, it does.

With regards to the two weeks of running the TV, it did not have to be broken in for me to form my opinion, because there was no way the ZT gets brighter during breakin. What does happen is that there is a color shift grey scale changes.

Bottom line is that I liked the 8500 better when comparing and so did Ronald who came to my house and decided this himself.
Ken
Bully for you. My impressions are backed up by the pros actually, the people who figuratively eat and breathe display calibration on a daily basis in many cases. I actually didn't realize Rob visited your house (I thought it was Ken Ross wink.gif), so I can't fault the both of you for relying upon your preference for extra brightness, but Los Angeles' unfounded and incendiary outburst (effectively calling ZT60 owners moles) is what started this entire exchange. Subjectively speaking, the ZT60 (before calibration) was only a smidgen darker than my 111FD (Kuro) in a dark room (preferred viewing environment), so the dimness complaints simply don't register as credible on my radar for anything other than a brightly lit room.
post #2248 of 3096
deleted
Edited by changboy - 12/29/13 at 8:01pm
post #2249 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Bully for you. My impressions are backed up by the pros actually, the people who figuratively eat and breathe display calibration on a daily basis in many cases. I actually didn't realize Rob visited your house (I thought it was Ken Ross wink.gif), so I can't fault the both of you for relying upon your preference for extra brightness, but Los Angeles' unfounded and incendiary outburst (effectively calling ZT60 owners moles) is what started this entire exchange. Subjectively speaking, the ZT60 (before calibration) was only a smidgen darker than my 111FD (Kuro) in a dark room (preferred viewing environment), so the dimness complaints simply don't register as credible on my radar for anything other than a brightly lit room.

I also have a well know calibrator from this forum that had the same opinion regarding the two displays as I have but with post calibration thoughts. His reply was that if he was buying a set, he would go for the 8500 over the ZT.

For me personally it makes no difference what they buy I don't work for the company. I just don't want anyone on this forum making a decision based on your "expert facts".

Let them see for themselves and make their own decision. Not based on me or you.


Ken
post #2250 of 3096
You wouldn't have given a resounding bingo to that last post if you really felt that way. And concerning the experts, your friend appears to be in the minority (of those who have spoken on the subject). Several experts' impressions can be sourced from the Value Electronics shootout from earlier this year (as can the crowd favorite), many of whom David Hir already referenced. It's unfortunate you're ignoring those referenced but not at all that surprising.
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 ?????