AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › I saw a calibrated 50" 700U yesterday
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I saw a calibrated 50" 700U yesterday

post #1 of 35
5/7/07 at 5:38am
Thread Starter 
I saw a 1080p 50" Panny 700U yesterday at the Tweeter in Tyson's Corner, Virginia.


I know it was calibrated because the employee and I were discussing the picture - I was commenting at how dim it looked. His response was that it was calibrated and the others weren't.

Anyway, it was pretty underwhelming to say the least. The Pioneer FHD-1 literally knocked it out of the store... and I'm not a Pioneer person... not by a mile. It was two sets over from a 60 series 58" 768p Panny. I'd say the black levels were as good or better on the 58", and it was probably twice as bright... and yes, that made the picture appear to have much more depth and dimensionality.


For those in the area though - go take a look. I was surprised to see it on the floor.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 35
5/7/07 at 6:15am
Who "calibrated" it? Was it a certifies ISF technican, or the store head geek? Also was it showing in the display mode it was calibrated in (standard vs Cinema or Auto)? More importantly, had someone (say a customer) played with the user settings?
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 35
5/7/07 at 7:40am
It's hard to appreciate a properly calibrated set next to several in torch mode. It's also hard to appreciate a non-calibrated set at home. That's what makes stores suck so much.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 35
5/7/07 at 7:54am
Were the panels near the 700 also calibrated (the Pioneer, the 58" Panasonic, etc.)? Or were they in normal in-store "look at me, I'm BRIGHT and SHINY" mode? I'd think a properly calibrated set would/should look dimmer in that brightly-lit setting and surrounded by cranked-up panels.

Just asking.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 35
5/7/07 at 8:08am
I saw the same panel at Tyson's Tweeter. It did look much dimmer than any others in the store, but that has been my general impression with this panel when I saw it at Fair Lakes Best Buy. I can tell you that although it looked dim in comparison to other panels, the details were very crisp. What I really like about the 700U is that it has almost no "black crush". I was watching the poker tournament they had on and I could see the creases in the announcer's black suit, then I moved over to the XBR LCD 46in and it was just 1 black blurb. The thing about Tweeter is that they do have much better lighting conditions, no crazy sodium spot lights, the store is dimly lit to help with reflections.

For this panel I think that the true test is to take it home and try it out. Very hard to make out at any store.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 35
5/7/07 at 8:19am
I use my 360 on my 700u in vivid mode on the tv and it is so bright I can barely look at some of the things that come up on the dashboard. The color is ultra bright, but lacks some of the definition due to colors bleeding and things like that. But I just like to game in that since games tend to have a cartoony look anyway. For my regular tv watching on it, I use a users settings from the 700u calibration thread and it is much dimmer but very "natural" looking. I watched the planet earth blu-ray with it and it was like looking out a window at some flowers. Absolutely stunning picture. It definitely has less black crush then the 4665f samsung lcd that I had previously and I don't have to worry about backlighting issues or motion blur. I'd say the blacks are slightly better then the Pioneer FHD1 taht was at the bestbuy where I bought the 700u. For it to stand up to a much more costly set like the pioneer, I'm impressed with it for that I paid. I cannot complain at all.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 35
5/7/07 at 10:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by UUronl View Post

The Pioneer FHD-1 literally knocked it out of the store...

Wow, the store's owner must have been pissed to have a $3000 plasma thrown out onto the sidewalk in front of the store. Did it break? How does a TV literally knock another TV?

People, the word "literally" does not mean "figuratively, but with emphasis!"

Anyway, the other posters are probably right -- any "calibrated" TV will probably look dim next to other display tv's in torch mode.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 35
5/7/07 at 12:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Wow, the store's owner must have been pissed to have a $3000 plasma thrown out onto the sidewalk in front of the store. Did it break? How does a TV literally knock another TV?

People, the word "literally" does not mean "figuratively, but with emphasis!"

Anyway, the other posters are probably right -- any "calibrated" TV will probably look dim next to other display tv's in torch mode.


Good God - I hope for your sake you're more tolerable in real life. I actually thought twice about writing that sentence but I figured it would be obvious that I was "speaking" figuratively. We should all be capable of successfully parsing and decoding written and spoken text.


Funny you should be lecturing us on things "literal". There isn't a person alive who would possibly try to decode that statement using a literal translation of the word "literally". Of course a TV could never knock another TV out of a store. To appease the unimaginative, I suppose I should have written, "The Pioneer FHD-1 figuratively knocked it out of the store". That's really kind of redundant though, since you need to understand that the phrase is figurative to decode its meaning.


In my mind the use of the word "literally" communicates that the performance actually (literally) met the criteria necessary to fully justify the use of the figurative statement.


I sincerely hope that people don't need to be reminded what the word "literal" means.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 35
5/7/07 at 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by UUronl View Post

Of course a TV could never knock another TV out of a store.

That really depends on how hard you throw it.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 35
5/7/07 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by UUronl View Post

In my mind the use of the word "literally" communicates that the performance actually (literally) met the criteria necessary to fully justify the use of the figurative statement.


I sincerely hope that people don't need to be reminded what the word "literal" means.

Well, unfortunately they do -- it's probably second to "irony" as the most misused work in English. Big pet peeve... and I'm very tolerable in real life

This obviously isn't a forum for semantic debates, so I won't belabor it, but that's just not an appropriate usage of the word. There's a reason there's a separate word to indicate literalism. It's like when sports announcers say that a player "literally carried the team on his back!!" or "Player X is literally on fire!" It's just a misuse of the word.

Anyway, you obviously didn't mean it to actually be literal, but like I said, pet peeve...
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 35
5/7/07 at 1:51pm
Again:Who Calibrated It? To What? Who Fooled With It After?
Never Trust What You See In The Store
Never Take The Salesman's Word For ANYTHING!
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 35
5/7/07 at 1:53pm
Has anyone determined whether the new Panasonic 1080p plasmas are HDMI 1.3 capable?
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 35
5/7/07 at 1:56pm
It makes me laugh that in order to argue a point on the correct use of a word, that everyone brings out the big gun college words...literally...
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 35
5/7/07 at 2:04pm
CALIBRATION as used on the AVS FORUM refers to an ISF Calibration.
This usually costs approximately $200-300 for the first input and $100-150 per each additional input per tv.
I doubt that the store spent $300 per tv calibrating the two sets in question!
Check the "Display Calibration" threads and the ISF website.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 35
5/7/07 at 2:08pm
I think when people say "literally" to convey emphasis because they get it confused with the word "utterly". The two sound similar and when you use "literally" in the improper way being discussed in this thread, it actually sort of sounds correct to the ear if you don't stop to think about the definition. It just so happens that in this case, what you end up saying is exactly the opposite of what you mean.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 35
5/7/07 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

It's just a misuse of the word.

Actually, if you want to be *hyper* technical, it was not a "misuse" of the word. Prescriptive grammar was largely a 18th and 19th century endeavor that most serious language scientists admitted was a failed and impossible task by the middle of the 20th. Languages are in a constant state of change, and his "misuse" of the world "literally" is becoming quite common, thus the reason basically everyone, including yourself, understood what he meant.

Illogical? Oh, yeah. But no more so than "bad" potentially meaning both "horrible" and "very good/cool." There was a time when bad solely meant bad.

Just part of language's often-frustrating charm. You (or I) may not like how populations of speakers evolve usage and meaning over the years, but you generally can't stop it.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine, as well.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 35
5/7/07 at 2:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk147 View Post

Actually, if you want to be *hyper* technical, it was not a "misuse" of the word. Prescriptive grammar was largely a 18th and 19th century endeavor that most serious language scientists admitted was a failed and impossible task by the middle of the 20th. Languages are in a constant state of change, and his "misuse" of the world "literally" is becoming quite common, thus the reason basically everyone, including yourself, understood what he meant.

Of course you're correct -- but it still bugs me! It's just a shame when a word that has a nice, precise, perfectly useful meaning gets diluted like that. Oh well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sk147 View Post

Just part of language's often-frustrating charm. You (or I) may not like how populations of speakers evolve usage and meaning over the years, but you generally can't stop it.

Well, poop. What fun is it to be pedantic when you can't stop the tide?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 35
5/7/07 at 2:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk147 View Post

Actually, if you want to be *hyper* technical, it was not a "misuse" of the word. Prescriptive grammar was largely a 18th and 19th century endeavor that most serious language scientists admitted was a failed and impossible task by the middle of the 20th. Languages are in a constant state of change, and his "misuse" of the world "literally" is becoming quite common, thus the reason basically everyone, including yourself, understood what he meant.

Illogical? Oh, yeah. But no more so than "bad" potentially meaning both "horrible" and "very good/cool." There was a time when bad solely meant bad.

Just part of language's often-frustrating charm. You (or I) may not like how populations of speakers evolve usage and meaning over the years, but you generally can't stop it.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine, as well.


Yeah, this gets argued a lot - and I'm usually resistant to quick adoption of "changes" and "evolutions" based solely upon common usage. I also have a list that drives me nuts. I'm not sure if I'll add this one (I'm just not feeling it ), but it would seem many other people have done so.

As for breaking out college words, I talk and write like that every day... there's nothing special about any of those words. I have had quite a few technical papers and other small pieces published, and in a different setting I wouldn't have shrugged off the reservations I had about using the phrase. I'm generally a bit more relaxed about what I read and write on forums. Perhaps I expect others to similarly relax their expectations in this type of setting.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 35
5/7/07 at 3:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Well, poop. What fun is it to be pedantic when you can't stop the tide?


That made my day, thank you
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 35
5/7/07 at 4:19pm
Last time I was in a Tweeter and they were "calibrating" a disc they were using DVE, which is probably what they used in the VA store. I'm sure in a home setting it would have a great picture, but in a store does not get the credit it deserves.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 35
5/7/07 at 6:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk147 View Post

Actually, if you want to be *hyper* technical, it was not a "misuse" of the word. Prescriptive grammar was largely a 18th and 19th century endeavor that most serious language scientists admitted was a failed and impossible task by the middle of the 20th. Languages are in a constant state of change, and his "misuse" of the world "literally" is becoming quite common, thus the reason basically everyone, including yourself, understood what he meant.

Illogical? Oh, yeah. But no more so than "bad" potentially meaning both "horrible" and "very good/cool." There was a time when bad solely meant bad.

Just part of language's often-frustrating charm. You (or I) may not like how populations of speakers evolve usage and meaning over the years, but you generally can't stop it.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine, as well.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. What a bore.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 35
1/30/08 at 8:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk147 View Post

Actually, if you want to be *hyper* technical, it was not a "misuse" of the word. Prescriptive grammar was largely a 18th and 19th century endeavor that most serious language scientists admitted was a failed and impossible task by the middle of the 20th. Languages are in a constant state of change, and his "misuse" of the world "literally" is becoming quite common, thus the reason basically everyone, including yourself, understood what he meant.

Illogical? Oh, yeah. But no more so than "bad" potentially meaning both "horrible" and "very good/cool." There was a time when bad solely meant bad.

Just part of language's often-frustrating charm. You (or I) may not like how populations of speakers evolve usage and meaning over the years, but you generally can't stop it.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine, as well.

First off, I have to say this is the most entertaining thread on the forum right now. I have a question about my plasma which has been literally derailed by my desire to post on this thread.

I hate the above argument, probably because it is so obviously true. Language evolves, get over it, etc. But in this case I find it particularly obnoxious because it is not just the word "literally" which has been "corrupted." It is the idea behind the word, so that if UUronl had been in a different mood she could have said:
The Pioneer FHD-1 actually knocked it out of the store
or
The Pioneer FHD-1 physically knocked it out of the store
and because of the "figuratively, with emphasis" dumbing down of the language, we would all know that he didn't really mean that. So if the Pioneer had literally, actually, and physically knocked the other television out of the store, she wouldn't have any way to tell us in ten words or less!

This sentence I find particularly amusing/annoying:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk147 View Post

To appease the unimaginative, I suppose I should have written, "The Pioneer FHD-1 figuratively knocked it out of the store".

You should have written: The Pioneer FHD-1 knocked it out of the store.
As you mentioned, this requires us to understand that it is a figurative statement. However, this wasn't exciting enough for someone somewhen (probably an espn announcer) who decided that they wanted to overemphasize the figurative language by insisting that it wasn't figurative, and so achieved some mild shock effect, quickly lost through overuse, as he contributed to the gibberization of the English language.

You say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk147 View Post

In my mind the use of the word "literally" communicates that the performance actually (literally) met the criteria necessary to fully justify the use of the figurative statement.

but if it didn't meet this criteria, why use that statement at all?

I hope you don't take this as an attack, because it isn't. You obviously understand what you did and can defend yourself, and I just like the debate over language.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 35
1/30/08 at 9:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by spearofsolomon View Post

First off, I have to say this is the most entertaining thread on the forum right now. I have a question about my plasma which has been literally derailed by my desire to post on this thread.

I hate the above argument, probably because it is so obviously true. Language evolves, get over it, etc. But in this case I find it particularly obnoxious because it is not just the word "literally" which has been "corrupted." It is the idea behind the word, so that if UUronl had been in a different mood she could have said:
The Pioneer FHD-1 actually knocked it out of the store
or
The Pioneer FHD-1 physically knocked it out of the store
and because of the "figuratively, with emphasis" dumbing down of the language, we would all know that he didn't really mean that. So if the Pioneer had literally, actually, and physically knocked the other television out of the store, she wouldn't have any way to tell us in ten words or less!

This sentence I find particularly amusing/annoying:


You should have written: The Pioneer FHD-1 knocked it out of the store.
As you mentioned, this requires us to understand that it is a figurative statement. However, this wasn't exciting enough for someone somewhen (probably an espn announcer) who decided that they wanted to overemphasize the figurative language by insisting that it wasn't figurative, and so achieved some mild shock effect, quickly lost through overuse, as he contributed to the gibberization of the English language.

You say:



but if it didn't meet this criteria, why use that statement at all?

I hope you don't take this as an attack, because it isn't. You obviously understand what you did and can defend yourself, and I just like the debate over language.


The Professor has weighed in on grammar and spelling
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 35
1/30/08 at 10:23am
"Oh, pardon me folks. I thought I was in a Plasma TV forum; my mistake."

*Literally backs out of room*
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 35
1/30/08 at 10:52am
Noun 1. anal personality - (psychoanalysis) a personality characterized by meticulous neatness and suspicion and reserve; said to be formed in early childhood by fixation during the anal stage of development (usually as a consequence of toilet training)
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 35
1/30/08 at 11:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by UUronl View Post

I saw a 1080p 50" Panny 700U yesterday at the Tweeter in Tyson's Corner, Virginia.


I know it was calibrated because the employee and I were discussing the picture - I was commenting at how dim it looked. His response was that it was calibrated and the others weren't.

Anyway, it was pretty underwhelming to say the least. The Pioneer FHD-1 literally knocked it out of the store... and I'm not a Pioneer person... not by a mile. It was two sets over from a 60 series 58" 768p Panny. I'd say the black levels were as good or better on the 58", and it was probably twice as bright... and yes, that made the picture appear to have much more depth and dimensionality.


For those in the area though - go take a look. I was surprised to see it on the floor.

Many "videophiles" swear by the improvements they see regarding the images rendered on a calibrated display; however most of the "uninitiated," myself included, wonder if there is any validity to their assertions?

Don’t believe me, try the "calibrated" settings @ the top of the official Kuro settings thread.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 35
1/30/08 at 2:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by optivity View Post

Many "videophiles" swear by the improvements they see regarding the images rendered on a calibrated display; however most of the "uninitiated," myself included, wonder if there is any validity to their assertions?

Don’t believe me, try the "calibrated" settings @ the top of the official Kuro settings thread.

I think videophiles have different expectations. If your camera takes a picture of blue, you want the exact same shade of blue on your TV from a technical perspective.

Now its all about personal preference as to what you think looks better. Im sure LCD owners wouldn't appreciate my 700U because its not as bright, but their eyes are calibrated to a very bright display.

life is all about perspective.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 35
1/30/08 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by flood222 View Post

I think videophiles have different expectations...

life is all about perspective.


And proper use of grammar if you are reading this thread. What is a videophile? literally "one who loves sight". Yes, literally!
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 35
1/30/08 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfalfa323 View Post

Has anyone determined whether the new Panasonic 1080p plasmas are HDMI 1.3 capable?

The current gen Panasonic panels (700/750) are 1.3 compliant. I assume the new ones will be as well.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 35
1/30/08 at 3:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by flood222 View Post

their eyes are calibrated to a very bright display

Right, out @ the Best Buy's, Circuit City's and the Wal*Mart's of this world.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › I saw a calibrated 50" 700U yesterday