or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Aquos vs. Bravia
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Aquos vs. Bravia - Page 7  

post #181 of 210
I used settings that other people had calibrated their TVs with.

If you look at the thread, you'll see multiple settings that were tested and multiple pictures reflecting vs. modes.

A lot of custom/standard mode comparisons too.
post #182 of 210
So, in other words, no. They're not properly calibrated.

Comparing the sports stats screenshots, there's extra detail in the black portions next to the star on the XBR that isn't present on the Sharp, and the highlights are completely blown out. It's pretty obvious that the XBR isn't set up properly.

Does the blueness on the XBR go away if you lower the brightness setting, or is it constant?

I'd like to see a greyscale step pattern on both if you're able to do so.
post #183 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalGriffin
...I went into the store and watched the display on a standard definition source. I HATED IT....
I did the same thing at the Tweeter in Princeton, and had them project the standard def stuff to the row of Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas, and to the 40" Bravia alongside a Pioneer Elite. By far, the Bravia had the best SD picture quality, but the plasmas blew it away for upconverted DVD. I like the Bravia, but prefer plasma, and would suggest that it's all about the feed to the sets.
post #184 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesxtreme
I don't agree with you guys about the blacks.

After testing it in a controlled environment with the same camera side by side... I really believe the sharp is marginally better. The sony has a bluish black. the Sharp has a darker grey black.

I turned on black correction on the Sony to get darker blacks.
Bluesxtreme, if you recall I commented (as did others) about how our observations of the Bravia simply didn't match your pictures. It's always possible the camera exaggerates or simply doesn't pick up the differences properly. But, after having had the Sharp in my house alongside of the Bravia, I couldn't disagree with you more.

I found after carefully adjusting both, the Sony had blacker blacks, richer colors, better sharpness (not surprising after the latest revelations about Sharp LCDs and how they throw away 1/2 of the vertical resolution) and overall better contrast. My wife who's generally blase about this stuff, saw it immediately. My wife would have shot me if I kept the Sharp.
post #185 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark_1080p
blue -

On your black test, I was wondering if you compared the 2 at lowest backlight level ? I suspect (tell me if I am wrong) that the Sony can block more light at higher backlight levels than can the Sharp, which gives it a bit extra punch at brighter levels.
Perhaps that's what I saw. I didn't compare both with the backlight totally off since I didn't think that was a realistic viewing condition. I viewed both with the backlight midway, 3/4 up and full up. In each case the Sony unquestionably was darker. It was easy to see on letterboxed movies as well.
post #186 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesxtreme
If you look at this picture you see that with a input source (at the lowest backlight) the brightness of the Sony is much more apparent, then again, the backlight is not blocking as much so how do you judge that? If you made a guess you might say the Sony has a better contrast level? Or you could say the sony just didn't block as much light so at the lowest backlight it's just allowing more light through and so it will naturally look brighter. Also, notice the black bars in the middle. the difference is able to be distinguished.
Again, I feel compelled to say this, your pictures are just SO far off of what I see with virtually every broadcast seen on the Sony (as well as my HD camcorder's output), that it seems to me that your camera is either REALLY misrepresenting what the Sony does or you just didn't adjust it properly. I think anyone that's even seen the lousy adjustments in-store of the Bravia (and certainly those that own it), will acknowledge that even those pictures look FAR better than the ones your posting here.

I would tell anyone not to use these pictures to determine the quality of the Bravia. They don't even begin to do the Bravia any justice!!!
post #187 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdkind
So, in other words, no. They're not properly calibrated.

Comparing the sports stats screenshots, there's extra detail in the black portions next to the star on the XBR that isn't present on the Sharp, and the highlights are completely blown out. It's pretty obvious that the XBR isn't set up properly.
I would go so far as to say if the camera is even semi-accurately picking up the picture quality, the Sony is HIDEOUSLY adjusted!! There's just no way I can over-emphasize this folks....no way.
post #188 of 210
I can give you that my camera will tell some of the story and not the whole story, but the one thing i will disagree about is (and i'm not sure if you are saying this) that the camera doesn't lie.

I won't say that oh, the sony looks worse b/c of the camera and it should look tons better than the canon b/c it's the same conditions, same camera and same picture. I just don't find that valid.

However, it could've been a higher resolution but like i said... it'll at least tell you some of the story.

After having them side by side, i didn't declare a winner. the reason is b/c people will have subjective opinions and ideas... and that's totally fine, it's what a discussion is for right? so i don't think it's worth that much. both are great tvs. i'm lucky enough to not be able to tell a huge difference between the two... in fact i find them both almost the same.

that article is really causing quite a buzz, but it's more technical than reality... i mean if 1/2 the resolution is gone...shoudln't the picture be half as good? That's a easily quantified theory but in reality i do not see the vast diff. I'm not saying the article is wrong, but practically what does it tell us? and like i said i can tell the diference of 720p and 1080i, but i can't see the diff between the two tvs?... but i really assume that source/signal strength/power quality is just too many factors that can affect your decision on what looks better. so, i tried... and thats what i came up with. glad you like your tv.
post #189 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesxtreme
I can give you that my camera will tell some of the story and not the whole story, but the one thing i will disagree about is (and i'm not sure if you are saying this) that the camera doesn't lie.
Actually, the one thing generally agreed upon by people who know better is that screenshots are worthless. Too many variables to screw things up, particularly that little variable called "calibration".

They're fun to look at, but that's about it.

Quote:
that article is really causing quite a buzz, but it's more technical than reality... i mean if 1/2 the resolution is gone...shoudln't the picture be half as good?
Technically, it's not half the resolution being thrown away. It's half of the vertical resolution (1080 to 540). The horizontal resolution (1920) stays the same. That's why HD still looks much better than SD on such a display, despite the resolution loss.
post #190 of 210
The passion runs wild on this thread with the "mines better than yours mentality". When I bought my 37 inch Sharp (2005 discontinued price) the XBR had just came out and I compared them. Bravia looked nice but not at twice the price (BB+extended warranty). If I bought both of them and hung them side by side to compare and if the XBR looked better to me I would not pay the premium. With some shopping even at today's prices you'll pay a premium for the XBR. Value is in the corner of the Sharp and as you see the Sharp fans and Sony fans argue which is better.
post #191 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdkind
Technically, it's not half the resolution being thrown away. It's half of the vertical resolution (1080 to 540). The horizontal resolution (1920) stays the same. That's why HD still looks much better than SD on such a display, despite the resolution loss.
Gotcha, thank goodness... i was worried... :p
post #192 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldcband
The passion runs wild on this thread with the "mines better than yours mentality".
Funny. I thought I was promoting technical accuracy.

Believe me, I've bought, sold, and sh*t on more displays than you know. I have no problem bashing a display I own if it's doing something wrong.

Besides, I don't have my 40" Bravia yet. Still waiting for it to come in. I could switch at any time without penalty if I wanted to.
post #193 of 210
thirdkind, i don't think oldc meant you specifically... he's just talking in general about a lot of comments on this board.
post #194 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdkind
Funny. I thought I was promoting technical accuracy.

Believe me, I've bought, sold, and sh*t on more displays than you know. I have no problem bashing a display I own if it's doing something wrong.

Besides, I don't have my 40" Bravia yet. Still waiting for it to come in. I could switch at any time without penalty if I wanted to.
No I wasn't talking about you. I was pointing out which brand has better value. I think I got caught in the crossfire.
post #195 of 210
Why does it have to be a better than propositiion?

I've owned both a Sony and Sharp and I like them both and if I had to choose between them I'd choose the Sharp hands down based upon ownership experience and perhaps if Bravia had a 46" I'd go for that but to me the 40" is to small for the price - I'll take the 45" and bought it for the same price the Bravia 40 goes for at BB. If you don't like Sharp that's OK and the Bravia is a great looker but to damn small for HT experience. I would expect the 46" may MSRP for significantly higher than the Sharp which is usual for Sony pricing.

All things being equal and Sony had a 46" Bravia I certainly would consider it but I wouldn't pony up the extra bucks they'll probably want. I have no problems with blacks as the Sharp and my Sony LCD FP's blows away the PX500 plasma in Whites and brightness - I could not stand viewing my HD on that plasma and during the day in the Sun it was a piece of trash which I sold to someone without windows. I was at BB just viewing and I saw the same inferior whites on the plasma's even in ski scenes and after having viewed a Sharp for 6 months I was viewing these lousy whites that washed out contrasting bright colors the LCD made stand out. What a relief to view an LCD again and not see everything reflected into the scene - you actually see the picture instaed of the dozen things in the room reflecting back at you the plasma presents. Man, after owning an LCD and then peer into a plasma in a sunny room it's a nightmare during the day especially a sunny day.

What I find unique after owning and selling an SXRD and the the PX500 is that the LCD FP has a soft peering into feeling that is more 3D - those other panels could not deliver on those aspects which I found as a huge disappointment. I simply cannot believe how much trashing Sharp takes on this forum. I like both the Sharp and the Sony Bravia but they need are larger one to deliver on HT size and feel at an affordable price target instead of letting BB greed inflate it beyoond MSRP. Can't we agree they are both great panels? Just let Sony bring on the 46" and Sharp will bring along their 57" in February in the US Market and perhaps someday the 65" may actually rival a plasma in price - now we're talking HT Size! Lotto TV for now though unless you had the bucks for a Q006 it's only $2K more retail.:D
post #196 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldcband
No I wasn't talking about you. I was pointing out which brand has better value. I think I got caught in the crossfire.
No problem. From a pure value standpoint, I agree with you. The 40" Sony is expensive and buyers do pay a premium for that little bit extra.
post #197 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross
...I found after carefully adjusting both, the Sony had blacker blacks, richer colors, better sharpness (not surprising after the latest revelations about Sharp LCDs and how they throw away 1/2 of the vertical resolution) and overall better contrast. My wife who's generally blase about this stuff, saw it immediately. My wife would have shot me if I kept the Sharp.
I'd assume the Sony does a similar chop to the resolution, unless you have proof otherwise? Pretty much par for the course absent an external de-interlacer/ scaler...
post #198 of 210
post #199 of 210
I tried taking a few screen shots and I'm posting them even though I don't like them. It was far easier taking screen shots of my Fujitsu plasma...I'm not sure why, but these LCD shots are really tough and just don't show the picture properly. Nonetheless, I thought it might be interesting for some since it may show the Bravia a bit better.
post #200 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by westa6969
What a relief to view an LCD again and not see everything reflected into the scene - you actually see the picture instaed of the dozen things in the room reflecting back at you the plasma presents. Man, after owning an LCD and then peer into a plasma in a sunny room it's a nightmare during the day especially a sunny day.
But of course to be fair and present a balanced picture, if you watch in a dim to dark room as you would in a movie theater or might in your own home, the plasma then becomes an obviously superior display and the much superior contrast ratio of the plasma becomes immediately apparent. Subtle shadings in movies show up beautifully whereas the LCD simply can't reproduce those subtleties. Reflections off the screen become a total non-issue.
post #201 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by S. Hiller
I'd assume the Sony does a similar chop to the resolution, unless you have proof otherwise? Pretty much par for the course absent an external de-interlacer/ scaler...
You know what they say about assuming ;).

Blues, The reason I asked about the two "black level" screenshots this morning is because I just don't think that test is really any kind of indication of what real world viewing would be. Nothing personal at all, but I think the methodology used in the testing is not right. I think the best way to test would be to use an active feed from two properly calibrated panels and compare freeze frames of black scenes (like space/night shots for instance) from the same source. What really matters is what kind of black levels can be achieved while still retaining good shadow detail.


ron
post #202 of 210
From my perspective the fact that the Sharp Aquos' do not accept a 1920x1080 signal from a PC Video card, that makes the Sharp weaker. I just bought the 7U and painfully discovered that it only supports a 1280x1024 PC signal. Ouch! Does anyone know if the Sony 46" Bravia will support a 1920x1080 PC signal? If it does, then that makes the difference for me!
post #203 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by R11
You know what they say about assuming ;).

Blues, The reason I asked about the two "black level" screenshots this morning is because I just don't think that test is really any kind of indication of what real world viewing would be. Nothing personal at all, but I think the methodology used in the testing is not right. I think the best way to test would be to use an active feed from two properly calibrated panels and compare freeze frames of black scenes (like space/night shots for instance) from the same source. What really matters is what kind of black levels can be achieved while still retaining good shadow detail.


ron
R11, after thinking about it for a night or so... i really do think they are valid for these reasons:

1) backlight directly affects black level with or without a source. That is why after i turned it to the lowest setting, i immediately put in a source! in addition, i did mention the sharp being darker than the sony at the lowest (backlight) setting. The question was, who had the best black levels. Sharp does even if it is a by a small amount.

2) even if screenshots are not completely accurate, it is not worthless. let's just say it will give you "some" indication even if there is a margin of error. It may not be perfect, but then again... what is a perfect setting?
a) your home and your eyes
b) snapshots in your home of TVs side by side
c) comparing at a high end store
d) comparing at bb or CC with or w/o tweaking it isn't your home

of course A would be the best, b & c would be a wash b/c it's not your home environment but at least the source would be decent (assuming the right connections)
* NOT everyone can afford to have both TVs side by side... pictures will be more objective than a description of words right? even if it's not perfect i still stand by my logic that thats the best you can do over the internet short of inviting you over to my apartment! :cool:

3) i never claimed to be an expert but i devoted lengthy observations to describe the TVs. Yet in the end i said the two to be very very equal in terms quality and PQ. Slight differences are there but who's to say you'll notice them unless you had them side by side?

4) my point is, i only disagreed with the black levels. that was the most apparent diff i saw and it was not by much. but i will say one thing. the screenshots are fairly indicative of what i saw with my own eyes. whether you trust that or not I think buying both tvs and tweaking them with the settings really makes a difference.

As for Shadow detail, I will tell you that the Sony has better Shadow detail w/o black correction. with black correction is is about the same. I left the black enhancement on the sharp but eventually turned it off so i don't know what both of them would be compared like. I forgot i had left it on.

My theory is that the sharp is better at blocking light but as a tradeoff you will see less detail in the shadow.
post #204 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by R11
You know what they say about assuming ;).

Blues, The reason I asked about the two "black level" screenshots this morning is because I just don't think that test is really any kind of indication of what real world viewing would be. Nothing personal at all, but I think the methodology used in the testing is not right. I think the best way to test would be to use an active feed from two properly calibrated panels and compare freeze frames of black scenes (like space/night shots for instance) from the same source. What really matters is what kind of black levels can be achieved while still retaining good shadow detail.


ron
R11, after thinking about it for a night or so... i really do think they are valid for these reasons:

1) backlight directly affects black level with or without a source. That is why after i turned it to the lowest setting, i immediately put in a source! in addition, i did mention the sharp being darker than the sony at the lowest (backlight) setting. The question was, who had the best black levels. Sharp does even if it is a by a small amount.

2) even if screenshots are not completely accurate, it is not worthless. let's just say it will give you "some" indication even if there is a margin of error. It may not be perfect, but then again... what is a perfect setting?
a) official testing by an independant source w/ proper equipment
b) your home and your eyes
c) snapshots in your home of TVs side by side
d) comparing at a high end store
e) comparing at bb or CC with or w/o tweaking it isn't your home

of course A would be the best, d & e would be a wash b/c it's not your home environment but at least the source would be decent (assuming the right connections)
* NOT everyone can afford to have both TVs side by side... pictures will be more objective than a description of words right? even if it's not perfect i still stand by my logic that thats the best you can do over the internet short of inviting you over to my apartment! :cool:

3) i never claimed to be an expert but i devoted lengthy observations to describe the TVs. Yet in the end i said the two to be very very equal in terms quality and PQ. Slight differences are there but who's to say you'll notice them unless you had them side by side?

4) my point is, i only disagreed with the black levels. that was the most apparent diff i saw and it was not by much. but i will say one thing. the screenshots are fairly indicative of what i saw with my own eyes. whether you trust that or not I think buying both tvs and tweaking them with the settings really makes a difference.

As for Shadow detail, I will tell you that the Sony has better Shadow detail w/o black correction. with black correction is is about the same. I left the black enhancement on the sharp but eventually turned it off so i don't know what both of them would be compared like. I forgot i had left it on.

My theory is that the sharp is better at blocking light but as a tradeoff you will see less detail in the shadow.
post #205 of 210
This is my experience with LC-45GX6U and KLV-S32A10.

There definitely is a bluish tone to the Sony backlight vs the grayish tone of the Sharp. At lowest backlight levels, the Sony does let out more light than the Sharp. I'll let you guys decide whether this is important or relevant.

When I adjust both sets to get the most detail in dark shadow areas of a movie, the Sony has slightly better black levels.

When I adjust both sets closer to Panny plasma black levels, they are about equal in black levels.

I think the picture processing on the Sony is moderately better than the Sharp. I'd say 9/10 for the Sony and 8/10 for the Sharp.

I'll say that comparing the picture at BB or CC is not a reliable comparison. Besides the lighting and random adjustments people have made, often times I've found the Sony is setup using ATSC tuner through RF input while the Sharps were the "monitor" types which didn't have a tuner, so they get fed with component cables split a thousand ways.

IMO when you use ATSC or QAM tuner, you get really sharp pictures, probably the best your TV is capable of. I can easily tell the difference on my Sharp 45" using QAM or ATSC tuner vs the Comcast STB over component and DVI. This is using Motorola DCT-5100.

Also I'd like to correct a perception from the Mercer article. I don't know how the smaller Sharp displays behave, but I ran through the tests that were posted on that thread as well as some of my own. The Sharp LC-45GX6U (1920x1080 native res) that I have is *not* throwing out half the resolution. I ran alternating black/white horizontal lines 1 pixel thick over component cables using 1:1 pixel mapping. I could clearly distinguish each alternating black/white line. If the display was purely using Bob deinterlacing, the screen should be flashing. It appears it is using some form of weave deinterlacing.

Someone on that thread (I think Mark) mentioned the Sharp passed the static test but failed the motion test. The Sharp LC-45GX6U may not have the best deinterlacer, but it certainly isn't blindly throwing out half the resolution and line doubling the first field. I cannot speak for the other Sharp sizes.
post #206 of 210
I was thinking about buying a LC37D6U but someone responded I should get a different model because of the price difference. Since you all know a great deal about the sharps is there any model that has speakers on the bottom that is not ridiculously over priced? When I called Sharp they said they are all the same screens but have minor differences like size, color, speaker placement, HDTV tuners, etc. To me a 700 dollar difference is just ridiculous for equal screen size TV's. I can only fit a TV with a width of 37 inches max. Any suggestions on models would be appreciated. Thanks.
post #207 of 210
I have been debating between Sony KDL-V32XBR1 and Sharp LC-32D7U

I was sold on the Sony but there is a big price difference. Up until 2 months ago prices for both similar, but now i see the Sharp price dropped dramatically. Does anyone know the reason for the Sharp price drop?

$$$$ for the Sharp seems to good of a price.

Has anyone purchased the Sharp LC-32D7U? If so what price did you buy it?

I am just wondering if $$$ is too good to be true.

EDIT>>

Mod note: no price talk, please. Also, do not ask members what they paid. MSRP only, thanks.
post #208 of 210
You may want to delete your response and repost the question due to adding the cost factors into your question...against the rules, and could get this thread locked!!!
post #209 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesxtreme
2) even if screenshots are not completely accurate, it is not worthless. let's just say it will give you "some" indication even if there is a margin of error. It may not be perfect, but then again... what is a perfect setting?
Bluesxtreme, I included the screen shots above only because I thought your shots showed the Sony in such a hideous manner. My shots were certainly not the best, nor do they show the Sony picture anywhere near what it's capable of, but I did think it showed the quality a bit better than the shots you took of the Sony.

But I too stand by my assertion, the Sony blacks were better in side by side tests with the same size Sharp. Of course my observations only apply to the 26" Sharp & Sonys which I tested.
post #210 of 210
One thing I have not heard mentioned in this thread is that the Sharp has Video out, whereas the Sony does not.

I was sold on the Sony a month ago, and until yesteday I planned on picking up a 32XBR1 this week. (I am limited to 32" due to a build in wall cabinet).

Initially, I am only going to use it with OTA broadcasts, so SD picture quality is important as well. I also have a Pioneer DVR/DVD Recorder but figured it would be wasted with the new TV. If the TV Video out is decent, I would love to be able to record the HD channels to my DVR (even though I know they will be down converted to 480i), without having to get an external HD receiver.

I have now added the 32D6U and the 32D7U to my list (D7U only because of the TVGOS and ability to use it more easily to record down-converted HD channels automatically).

My question is do the Sharp's output the 16:9 flag over S-video output? Has anyone else used this function?

Thanks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Aquos vs. Bravia