or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Informal Comparison: Panasonic TC-P65ZT60 & TC-P65VT60, Samsung PN60F8500, Pioneer PRO-141FD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Informal Comparison: Panasonic TC-P65ZT60 & TC-P65VT60, Samsung PN60F8500, Pioneer PRO-141FD - Page 3

post #61 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

Regarding the color-decoder error in the VT60, Tom discovered it after calibrating the set with an RGB signal from a VideoForge pattern generator. Then, when he watched Blu-rays via YCbCr, the image had a slight greenish cast, which was mostly evident in side-by-side comparisons with the ZT60 and Kuro. He was able to correct this by calibrating with a YCbCr signal. This did not happen on the ZT60.

Hi,

Can i ask what AV modes (calibrated) were used on each display please ?...

Sorry if this has already been asked before, my internet is playing up slightly at the moment.

Thanks
post #62 of 205
I think the best way to accurately compare displays would be to calibrate each one to there max performance potential between 0 black and 100% white, getting the best contrast ratio from each display!

Setting to a certain output is surely adding a limitation to overall PQ and pop.

It also seems that the max achievable black level was not reached using standard calibration methods.

Todays plasma's do seem to have a split between usable environments, eg ZT suited to low - non light conditions, limited use in bright conditions, VT/f8500 suited for bright conditions, limited use in dark conditions, personally IMO I do feel the ZT is an unfinished product and needs additional work to increase the light output, then we will have a new display to perfectly replace the older G9 Kuro, combine the ZT with the f8500, anyone?
post #63 of 205
How is tom getting his black level measurement for his kuro? In all his reviews he always mentioned 0.001 for black. Reading the F8500 review he says it's 0.0013. Any reason for this? The kuros mll is actually 0.001. This means it changes over time if his readings are correct.
Edited by saprano - 7/21/13 at 7:09am
post #64 of 205
I, too , am looking forward to Tom Norton 's review of the 65VT60. I was worried at first because of the previously mentioned error in the color decoder, but I see that problem has been resolved. my only remaining problem is the silver bezel. I wonder if a can of Krylon flat black spray paint would adhere to the bezel?
post #65 of 205
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu03 View Post


Hi,

Can i ask what AV modes (calibrated) were used on each display please ?...

Sorry if this has already been asked before, my internet is playing up slightly at the moment.

Thanks


I can't really address Tom's calibration process; you'll have to wait for his review.

post #66 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Hitman- View Post

I think the best way to accurately compare displays would be to calibrate each one to there max performance potential between 0 black and 100% white, getting the best contrast ratio from each display!

Setting to a certain output is surely adding a limitation to overall PQ and pop.
At the same time, calibrating to their peak brightness would somewhat be unfair to the Panasonics. 30-40fL, while not set in stone, is the ideal range for a dark/moderately lit room, so many of us wouldn't go above 40fL for the majority of our critical viewing. The only fair way to compare them would be to compare night modes and day modes separately.
Quote:
Todays plasma's do seem to have a split between usable environments, eg ZT suited to low - non light conditions, limited use in bright conditions, VT/f8500 suited for bright conditions, limited use in dark conditions, personally IMO I do feel the ZT is an unfinished product and needs additional work to increase the light output, then we will have a new display to perfectly replace the older G9 Kuro, combine the ZT with the f8500, anyone?
Ya, the Panasonics are better suited for light controlled rooms while the Samsung excels in bright rooms. Some people don't actually read reviews and just look at which scores better, when they should really be deciding based on their lighting conditions. There is no best for everyone.
post #67 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahzel View Post

At the same time, calibrating to their peak brightness would somewhat be unfair to the Panasonics. 30-40fL, while not set in stone, is the ideal range for a dark/moderately lit room, so many of us wouldn't go above 40fL for the majority of our critical viewing. The only fair way to compare them would be to compare night modes and day modes separately.

I have to disagree, the purpose of a true comparison is to have each display at it's best performance and potential, saying to cut one displays performance to equal the other to be fairer on the lower performer is an unbalanced scenario and this would be, unfair.

It's like saying for example in car speed test, the organisers restricting this car because is much faster than the other car and this would make it fair, would it?

Having 2 tests for day and night again would be pointless due to the output variables of each display and would just give the same results as just cutting results from a proper test in half, the higher output panels would still give the higher output, vice versa, would raising the black level of the ZT give a higher peak output and a higher score, I wouldn't think so.
post #68 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahzel View Post

Ya, the Panasonics are better suited for light controlled rooms while the Samsung excels in bright rooms. Some people don't actually read reviews and just look at which scores better, when they should really be deciding based on their lighting conditions. There is no best for everyone.

This is do agree with that no new display suites everyone, however there is a display still around that can accommodate everyone's environment.
post #69 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Hitman- View Post

I have to disagree, the purpose of a true comparison is to have each display at it's best performance and potential, saying to cut one displays performance to equal the other to be fairer on the lower performer is an unbalanced scenario and this would be, unfair.

It's like saying for example in car speed test, the organisers restricting this car because is much faster than the other car and this would make it fair, would it?

Having 2 tests for day and night again would be pointless due to the output variables of each display and would just give the same results as just cutting results from a proper test in half, the higher output panels would still give the higher output, vice versa, would raising the black level of the ZT give a higher peak output and a higher score, I wouldn't think so.

Several respected pro calibrators have already stated that the VT60 and the ZT60 can get brighter than the ISF "normal" calibrated figure suggests. THX mode is brighter, right off the bat. All it takes is a little deviation from the ISF ideal, and both Panasonics can display a brighter image.
post #70 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Hitman- View Post

I have to disagree, the purpose of a true comparison is to have each display at it's best performance and potential, saying to cut one displays performance to equal the other to be fairer on the lower performer is an unbalanced scenario and this would be, unfair.
That's why I said it would be fair to compare both day and night modes. Or not necessarily a comparison, but a note of which is brighter and/or has a better filter for day viewing. Night modes rarely go above 40fL, so what use is the extra brightness if it's not being used? How can you get anymore fair than than comparing both day and night modes?
Quote:
It's like saying for example in car speed test, the organisers restricting this car because is much faster than the other car and this would make it fair, would it?
If maximum speed (or in this case, brightness) is your test, then of course not. But if that extra speed isn't going to use, let's just say to a soccer mom for example, what good is the extra speed? The only thing gained from calibrating the Samsung to its peak brightness is a higher on/off contrast ratio, which is essentially a useless stat.
Quote:
Having 2 tests for day and night again would be pointless due to the output variables of each display and would just give the same results as just cutting results from a proper test in half, the higher output panels would still give the higher output, vice versa, would raising the black level of the ZT give a higher peak output and a higher score, I wouldn't think so.
Most people here know that the Samsung is brighter and therefore better for bright rooms. The comparison that was done was done in ideal conditions (a dark room) and therefore both were calibrated accordingly. Calibrating the Samsung to its peak brightness and comparing it to the Panasonics would be a bad way to compare them IMO, because that is not how most people would view the Samsung in such conditions.
Edited by rahzel - 7/21/13 at 2:34pm
post #71 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Several respected pro calibrators have already stated that the VT60 and the ZT60 can get brighter than the ISF "normal" calibrated figure suggests. THX mode is brighter, right off the bat. All it takes is a little deviation from the ISF ideal, and both Panasonics can display a brighter image.

I know the Panasonics can go brighter but at a cost of accuracy, if this deviation from ISF accuracy is below perceivable tolerances, then we would have the other modes as the forefront for these tests, which I think it's not due to the lack of their use in these published tests and shootouts etc.. and so reports and evaluations have used the best/most accurate available controls in the display, which are predominately the ISF set.
post #72 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Hitman- View Post

I have to disagree, the purpose of a true comparison is to have each display at it's best performance and potential, saying to cut one displays performance to equal the other to be fairer on the lower performer is an unbalanced scenario and this would be, unfair.

It's like saying for example in car speed test, the organisers restricting this car because is much faster than the other car and this would make it fair, would it?

Having 2 tests for day and night again would be pointless due to the output variables of each display and would just give the same results as just cutting results from a proper test in half, the higher output panels would still give the higher output, vice versa, would raising the black level of the ZT give a higher peak output and a higher score, I wouldn't think so.


I couldn't agree more. Limiting the top FTL is like limiting the top speed in a car comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rahzel View Post

At the same time, calibrating to their peak brightness would somewhat be unfair to the Panasonics. 30-40fL, while not set in stone, is the ideal range for a dark/moderately lit room, so many of us wouldn't go above 40fL for the majority of our critical viewing. The only fair way to compare them would be to compare night modes and day modes separately.
Ya, the Panasonics are better suited for light controlled rooms while the Samsung excels in bright rooms. Some people don't actually read reviews and just look at which scores better, when they should really be deciding based on their lighting conditions. There is no best for everyone.

I have seen a few a few calibrations over 35FTL, but not at 40FTL and as far as I have seen they are in other modes than ISF. The brightness is in the ZT, but I am not sure it can be calibrated to ISF standards while keeping that brightness in the panel. I personally would like to have at least 40-45ftl from ISF Day and 35ftl for night. I don't think in this day and age that's asking for too much from a plasma panel.
post #73 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixdoctor View Post

I couldn't agree more. Limiting the top FTL is like limiting the top speed in a car comparison.
Yes, in a top speed comparison. Since when is the brightest panel the best panel? wink.gif
Quote:
I have seen a few a few calibrations over 35FTL, but not at 40FTL and as far as I have seen they are in other modes than ISF. The brightness is in the ZT, but I am not sure it can be calibrated to ISF standards while keeping that brightness in the panel. I personally would like to have at least 40-45ftl from ISF Day and 35ftl for night. I don't think in this day and age that's asking for too much from a plasma panel.
Yes, the Samsung is better for day viewing... I never once argued that. However the comparison was done in ideal conditions (a dark room) so all of the panels were calibrated accordingly.
post #74 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahzel View Post

Yes, in a top speed comparison. Since when is the brightest panel the best panel? wink.gif Yes, the Samsung is better for day viewing... I never once argued that. However the comparison was done in ideal conditions (a dark room) so all of the panels were calibrated accordingly.

The brightest panel is not necessarily the best panel. If so, LED would win all the time. It can be an important factor for overall contrast ratio, especially in daytime viewing.

I have not even brought up the Samsung, because I have never owned one. I am only comparing the ZT to the Kuro's. This is why the shootout was the best comparison. It was the daytime view in which you say the true difference in panels, otherwise the Panasonic would have taken the show by a large margin.
Edited by Mixdoctor - 7/21/13 at 2:56pm
post #75 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Several respected pro calibrators have already stated that the VT60 and the ZT60 can get brighter than the ISF "normal" calibrated figure suggests. THX mode is brighter, right off the bat. All it takes is a little deviation from the ISF ideal, and both Panasonics can display a brighter image.

It's a difficult one isn't it, go a bit brighter for ambient and daylight, but sacrifice accuracy. Or stay dim (but contrasty enough) for a blackout room. But at the same time in blackout conditions trying to keep the MLL of the zt at it's absolute minimum whilst still looking bright enough... If that makes any sense confused.gif

Must be quite frustrating. Personally i'm glad i own a Kuro 9.5g with only approximately 70hrs on the clock. Whilst taking comfort in knowing what it is capable of at being basically the all rounder plasma for my video needs. Mean that in the nicest possible way of course. smile.gif
post #76 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahzel View Post

Yes, in a top speed comparison. Since when is the brightest panel the best panel? wink.gif

I'm not meaning just about brightness, i'm basing my opinion on all the variables, which give a display it's contrast ratio, accuracy and overall picture quality, the car was just a simple example and as such should not to be used as a full interpretation of my point/s.
post #77 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixdoctor View Post

The brightest panel is not necessarily the best panel. If so, LED would win all the time. It can be an important factor for overall contrast ratio, especially in daytime viewing.
I'm not debating day time performance though, and the comparison in the OP wasn't comparing them in such conditions either. Calibrating the Samsung to its optimal performance would help in a brighter room, but it wouldn't really help in a dark room, unless of course you prefer eye searing brightness. It also wouldn't help much in terms of overall contrast ratio either, only on/off contrast because it floats blacks.
Quote:
I have not even brought up the Samsung, because I have never owned one. I am only comparing the ZT to the Kuro's. This is why the shootout was the best comparison. It was the daytime view in which you say the true difference in panels, otherwise the Panasonic would have taken the show by a large margin.
Your idea of a true comparison between panels differs from mine then, and it may differ for the next person. I, as well as many people here, do most of their critical viewing in a light controlled room. There are also many people that view their TVs in a bright room. Hence why I think the only fair comparison would be to tell readers which set performs better in each room condition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Hitman- View Post

I'm not meaning just about brightness, i'm basing my opinion on all the variables, which give a display it's contrast ratio, accuracy and overall picture quality, the car was just a simple example and as such should not to be used as a full interpretation of my point/s.
I understand what you mean... you think it's best to calibrate both panels to their optimal performance, even if that means setting it brighter than ideal for the room conditions. I still disagree though. In this particular case, the Samsung can only have a higher on/off contrast ratio because it floats blacks. Calibrating it to its optimal will not help with color accuracy or black levels. It will always have a lower static or ANSI contrast ratio because it doesn't hold blacks as well as the Panasonics or Kuros. So the only advantage of calibrating the Samsung to its optimal performance would be additional brightness. The person who calibrated both displays calibrated them for the room conditions that they were viewed in. Of course the Samsung is much brighter and therefore will be better in brighter rooms.
Edited by rahzel - 7/22/13 at 2:12pm
post #78 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu03 View Post

It's a difficult one isn't it, go a bit brighter for ambient and daylight, but sacrifice accuracy. Or stay dim (but contrasty enough) for a blackout room. But at the same time in blackout conditions trying to keep the MLL of the zt at it's absolute minimum whilst still looking bright enough... If that makes any sense confused.gif
Somewhat of a sacrifice for viewing in the daytime, but the 70% increase in screen size (plus nighttime viewing) more than makes up for it. Though I'm still envious of the factory 500M black levels. wink.gif
post #79 of 205
Can a human see the difference between a mll of .0010 and .0013?
post #80 of 205
Depends on the person. Some can some can't. Most would need the displays side by side.
post #81 of 205
Dammit Man, I want to see review and see how my TV did! Post it Norton.
post #82 of 205
Why? As i said on the last page-
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Tom Norton's review and comparison is actually the one i'm looking forward too. Thanks for the preview scott. I just like his reviews.

I find it funny that these new sets have been tested by a ton of sites, had a shootout recently, explained each sets advantages and disadvantages, released in stores where people bought their display of choice, and yet here we have people arguing over someones ( a special someone though!) thoughts, not even the actual review by the reviewer, on displays we knew the performance of months ago. It seem people like reassurance of their display of choice.

Anyway. The filter on the panasonic must be amazing cause the kuros still measure darker. It seems that filter works even in a dark room which shouldn't be too surprising since unless your walls are a very dark light absorbent color there will still be some light reflection off the walls onto the TV.

EDIT- Scott, do you have that kuro BL number right? It's 0.001.

We already know how the new displays perform. Unless you're like me and like the way he does reviews??? I'm not looking for confirmation on any of the new (and old) sets abilities. We've already been trough that.
post #83 of 205
Cool write up thanks Scott!
post #84 of 205
If it wasn't for the energy star requirements all the current gen plasmas would have better blacks and whites.
post #85 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by fcmatt View Post

Can a human see the difference between a mll of .0010 and .0013?

If you compare the 2 panels side by side (with above mentioned MLLs) in a very dark room- you will notice a difference if you have a discerning eye. However, if you have only 1 panel then you would not miss the other wink.gif

Having said that, I wish I had kept 500M and not sold it eek.gif
post #86 of 205
The comparisons with a race are fairly interesting.

Top speed is important. But so is handling.

On a banked oval, top speed, assuming handling is okay may be the deciding factor.

On a road course, insufficient braking, poor cornering, acceleration and numerous other factors could make the top speed irrelevant.

Evaluations based on the actual use make sense.

I see no issue with testing all under low light, home theater conditions. A different test for a light infused room is also valid. It seems highly self motivated to criticize Scott's impressions because you believe that a different unit would have had a different outcome under different conditions.
post #87 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by drfreeman60 View Post

The comparisons with a race are fairly interesting.

Top speed is important. But so is handling.

On a banked oval, top speed, assuming handling is okay may be the deciding factor.

On a road course, insufficient braking, poor cornering, acceleration and numerous other factors could make the top speed irrelevant.

Evaluations based on the actual use make sense.

I see no issue with testing all under low light, home theater conditions. A different test for a light infused room is also valid. It seems highly self motivated to criticize Scott's impressions because you believe that a different unit would have had a different outcome under different conditions.

Agreed, I don't know why else—in 2013—one would buy a $3,500 plasma display, other than for a home theater environment. If a TV is going into a bright room, there are too many compelling LCD/LED options, as well as a number of less expensive plasmas that will fit the bill and get plenty bright. And of course there is the F8500. "The right tool for the job" comes to mind here, and the VT/ZT60 Pannys are designed for home theater. That's why they measure so well in that environment, and space-limited home theater enthusiasts are likely thrilled there is a product so well tailored to their needs.
post #88 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Agreed, I don't know why else—in 2013—one would buy a $3,500 plasma display, other than for a home theater environment. If a TV is going into a bright room, there are too many compelling LCD/LED options, as well as a number of less expensive plasmas that will fit the bill and get plenty bright. And of course there is the F8500. "The right tool for the job" comes to mind here, and the VT/ZT60 Pannys are designed for home theater. That's why they measure so well in that environment, and space-limited home theater enthusiasts are likely thrilled there is a product so well tailored to their needs.

Different products for different needs as you say. I thought about the factors before I bought my "home theatre plasma". My viewing environment is usually (but not always) completely dark when I watch anything. No gaming, and little to no cable tv. Mostly movies (bluray/streaming). This turned me to certain products. For the environment mine is in the performance is outstanding at all times. I agree that environment is a huge factor for at least how I made my decision. I doubt everyone who bought a VT/ZT though shares the same logic.

Had some of those factors changed significantly, I would have chosen differently. For a different room in the house I picked something else because of lighting conditions, content etc.
post #89 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post


Agreed, I don't know why else—in 2013—one would buy a $3,500 plasma display, other than for a home theater environment.

Great marketing/branding, product placement, and shill reviews, online comments, and storefronts, come to mind biggrin.gif
post #90 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by drfreeman60 View Post

The comparisons with a race are fairly interesting.

Top speed is important. But so is handling.

On a banked oval, top speed, assuming handling is okay may be the deciding factor.

On a road course, insufficient braking, poor cornering, acceleration and numerous other factors could make the top speed irrelevant.


Evaluations based on the actual use make sense.

I see no issue with testing all under low light, home theater conditions. A different test for a light infused room is also valid. It seems highly self motivated to criticize Scott's impressions because you believe that a different unit would have had a different outcome under different conditions.

Exactly the context I was referring to by my post, one will effect the combination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Agreed, I don't know why else—in 2013—one would buy a $3,500 plasma display, other than for a home theater environment. If a TV is going into a bright room, there are too many compelling LCD/LED options, as well as a number of less expensive plasmas that will fit the bill and get plenty bright. And of course there is the F8500. "The right tool for the job" comes to mind here, and the VT/ZT60 Pannys are designed for home theater. That's why they measure so well in that environment, and space-limited home theater enthusiasts are likely thrilled there is a product so well tailored to their needs.

I agree to a point but the reality of it is that the majority of consumers will purchase a display for normal, general home use and each display is advertised as such (no signs to state, this choice for a dark room, this is for a light room, any room) and therefore should be tested to show the maximum potential, this will then show, which are the best for each individual circumstance!

Running a comparison in only 1 type of scenario will only show which display bests that mode and not an accurate representation of all the displays full potential, proper environment use and IMHO give an inaccurate assumption and will not only give limited information but should only appeal to a minority who will use the display in such an environment, but it won't and so would also make point that if a general consumer made a purchase on such information and then used such a display at home, which did not meet the criteria of the test conditions, then he would be disappointed, mislead, would he not?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Informal Comparison: Panasonic TC-P65ZT60 & TC-P65VT60, Samsung PN60F8500, Pioneer PRO-141FD