Originally Posted by R Harkness
I'm still not getting you here. (Sorry, maybe I'm just being thick).
I know that brightness levels can of course factor into contrast ratio. For several years the Panasonic has rated it's ED model at 4000:1 contrast ratio, vs the HD model's 3000:1. There was no difference in black level, rather the ratings reflected the ED model's greater brightness. (This being due to it being easier to get greater brightness out of the fewer, larger pixels on the ED model). So the Panasonic numbers did indeed reflect differences in peak brightness levels when significant.
However, no such brightness differences were apparent in the ratings of the HD models, which all had the same 3000:1 spec.
You seem to be saying that the newer "dynamic contrast" style rating works out to the same old 3000:1 number - i.e. no actual change in the contrast ratio, only in the rating method that changes the numbers.
The question is, if there was any significant difference between the brightness of the 50" HD models and the big 65" display (both the lower res and newer 1080p res) why didn't it come out in the numbers before? Both 65" models and the smaller HD models were rated at 3000:1.
If the newer numbers are just the older numbers "re-jigged" why would there now be a difference between the contrast of 65"/50" models when it wasn't there before?
The point is, the dynamic contrast formula is very misleading (remember that Samsung actually started the whole thing....did they actually live up to their numbers?). Why did Panasonic jump on the bandwagon....who knows but I think it is a mistake.
If you want further info on dynamic contrast ratios here are some links.....