or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Pioneer Kuros and Samsung LCD-How could this be??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pioneer Kuros and Samsung LCD-How could this be?? - Page 3

post #61 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosng View Post

hmm. i seem to recall the samsung lcd's 61,71,81 series were much blacker than the kuros beside it showing a feed of the "kuros" commercial too.

I had a 5080 and 4671 side by side in my home. In a lower ambient light situation the 71 could NOT achieve the blacks of the Pioneer in any sort of calibrated state. By calibrated state, what I mean is that maybe the Samsung could get darker if you attempted to shut the backlight down to the point that you destroyed the image, did not attempt anything silly like that.

I really wanted to love and keep the 71 so I really put time into trying to make it equal the 5080 in this area.

I currently have a 5010 and the 4671 did best the 5010 on detail/resolution for a static image such as a test pattern. Unfortunately if anything is moving on the screen, which is pretty common when watching content, the 5010 absolutely destroys the LCD.

I would bet the "noise" they are referring to is due to the plasma not being a sample and hold technology like LCD is. Unfortunately it's that fundamental difference in the two technologies that produces the motion blur/smearing effect that LCD is still trying to overcome.
post #62 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosng View Post

hmm. i seem to recall the samsung lcd's 61,71,81 series were much blacker than the kuros beside it showing a feed of the "kuros" commercial too.

This is a joke as well! The 110FD has a black level of 0.004 ft-L -- the best LCD panel comes in at 0.006 ft-L. Tell me how the black level on the Sammies are darker.
post #63 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elemental1 View Post

Was it a black blank screen?

HAYOOO!
post #64 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosng View Post

i can't be the only one who's noticed motion blur on a plasma. maybe plasma folks aren't looking hard enough.

camera pans, judder, fuzzy edges during zooms. i see it on a plasma as well as lcd.

as for the 81 next to the kuros i saw in the store. the 81 lcd was definitely darker in the black areas than the kuros. ironically it was the pioneer flower (kuros) demo that was playing. go figure they are both nice sets. know what you like/want and get it.

Those artifacts can also be seen on CRT's hooked up to Hi Def sources if you look hard enough. What ever technology you have, size and over driven TV's (Turn those contrast levels down), will determine how noticeable these artifacts are to a given person.
post #65 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewdogg View Post

This is a joke as well! The 110FD has a black level of 0.004 ft-L -- the best LCD panel comes in at 0.006 ft-L. Tell me how the black level on the Sammies are darker.

i suppose the lighting situation in the store favored the lcd's and the plasma had a washout effect. that is a well known drawback of the less bright plasma technology.
post #66 of 117
If you want a good test of motion blur between the sets. Get a copy of TMNT on bluray. Go to the scene where Raphael and Leonardo are battling each other on the roof. Then watch the bit when Raphael beats Leonardo, realises something and then starts running over the roof tops.

When he runs over the roof tops on my mates latest XBR, no matter what 24p, motion flow etc you turn on, you can see a green/red mist above his head from the pixels not being able to shut off fast enough between green and red where his green head and red eye cover thing go up and down.

On my Kuro there is no mist at all, just his head bobbing as he runs. My mate at first thought it was the movie, but I then proved it's the lag issues LCDs still suffer from.

All TV's will have some motion blur, but that is actually down to the source I think. If there was NFL playing at 720p 60FPS it would be much smoother. Even smoother if you had 120FPS tvs and 120FPS source.

People say the human eye can't see frame rates that fast. But I'm pretty sure I could see the difference in the video, it would appear ultra smooth and if the tv could do that it would seem very smooth.
post #67 of 117
oooookaaaayyyy. just put that scene on and watched for the head bobbing and "mist" but don't see it at all.

jsut how visible is it supposed to be? i must have played it back over 10 times and i still don't see any green/red mist above his bobbing head.

maybe your friend should do some more dialing in.

i have an xbr2 46 and tosh a1.

maybe the hd dvd is a better version
post #68 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosng View Post

...that is a well known drawback of the less bright plasma technology.

Your "impression" is not confirmed with specifications. Even a lesser grade of plasma has two or three times the brightness level of an LCD when measured. The "better" white point of the LCD may give the impression of being brighter, but plasma doesn't suffer from output.
post #69 of 117
Most people run their plasma well under 50% peak brightness, I would bet.
post #70 of 117
have you tried setting a plasma above 50-60%
it aint pretty. i don't set my plasma anywhere near that high because it would be washout city. takes away all benefits of having a plasma.

that's the tradeoff with lcd. much much brighter settings
and still get a great picture. that is if you like a picture that bright and of course you take a hit on the black end. lcd's are doing greater in that dept every day. plasma the opposite is true. bright junkies need not apply.
post #71 of 117
I work in a retailer and I must say, one reason you cannot go completely on what you see in store is that, stores make HUGE margin on LCD's. Not going to specify the amount. Pioneer plasmas there is a very nice margin on, but it opens to a small market. When looking at the Samsung 71 series, there is a very very large margin, so obviously they want to see more of what they benefit more from.
post #72 of 117
Ok i have a dilemma i bought the sammy 5265f for 1999 from BB in december, BB has the 5080hd for the same right now. I'm thinking of returning just cause so many reviews hail the 5080. Now i dont have the extra dough to get a 5271 which is what you guys are comparing the 5080 to. I also think the 5271 is better than the 5265 but in the store i couldnt get the 5080 to look near as bright as the 5265 which was next to it. But it did look darn good though. One thing i noticed about the 5080 with the feed was some of the details got lost due to it being so dark. For instance they showed a guy with a purple shirt sitting and the 5265 showed the creases in his shirt and the 5080 just showed the shirt with detail but you couldnt see the creases in it.

now i'm sitting about 10ft away and using 360 and ps3 (i originally had a 42 plasma which i junked out for this purchase). I think they both look amazing on the 5265 but for some reason i dont feel content with the purchase. I think the PCMag review killed my enthusiasm. Also the 360 through component seems a bit dull. Plus i also feel that since the screen is glossy that i should get a plasma.

So my question, with price being equal which is really the better buy?
post #73 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by cigga24 View Post

I think the PC Mag review killed my enthusiasm. Also the 360 through component seems a bit dull. Plus i also feel that since the screen is glossy that i should get a plasma.

So my question, with price being equal which is really the better buy?

I got stuck with a PC mag subscription, I thumb through it when I get it then throw it away. They lost credibility with me a long time ago. But at equal prices the Pioneer is the better buy. Once you get it set up in your home the problems you saw in the store won't be there, in-store calibrations are almost always awful. (although it is fun to do basic calibrations to random displays and watch everyone flock to them.) Buy what will make you happy, and you are apparently not happy with the Sammy.
post #74 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosng View Post

...that's the tradeoff with lcd. much much brighter settings and still get a great picture....

Agreed, and white whites! But, plasma can burn your eyes like an LCD, it's just that you wouldn't want to, and you'd lose the advantage of the deep blacks in doing so.
post #75 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by cigga24 View Post

Ok i have a dilemma i bought the sammy 5265f for 1999 from BB in december, BB has the 5080hd for the same right now. I'm thinking of returning just cause so many reviews hail the 5080. Now i dont have the extra dough to get a 5271 which is what you guys are comparing the 5080 to. I also think the 5271 is better than the 5265 but in the store i couldnt get the 5080 to look near as bright as the 5265 which was next to it. But it did look darn good though. One thing i noticed about the 5080 with the feed was some of the details got lost due to it being so dark. For instance they showed a guy with a purple shirt sitting and the 5265 showed the creases in his shirt and the 5080 just showed the shirt with detail but you couldnt see the creases in it.

now i'm sitting about 10ft away and using 360 and ps3 (i originally had a 42 plasma which i junked out for this purchase). I think they both look amazing on the 5265 but for some reason i dont feel content with the purchase. I think the PCMag review killed my enthusiasm. Also the 360 through component seems a bit dull. Plus i also feel that since the screen is glossy that i should get a plasma.

So my question, with price being equal which is really the better buy?

If you like the picture on your display then just be happy, who cares what a print mag says. There will always be someone with a differing opinion.

That being said, consider this about the display you saw. It gets said over and over, but it's very rare that you have an ambient light situation at home which would come anywhere near a retail environment. The 5080 has plenty of light output to do the job at home, while the LCD has extra headroom above that but you'll never use it. When I had a 4671 LCD at home I had the backlight at 3-4 out of 10. About the black crush you saw, that's just calibration.

I would suggest you keep what you have if you like it. But otherwise I think the 5080 is by far the superior display, with no hesitation. In fact I'd pay much more for a 5080, but then again the 5265 would never be on my radar.
post #76 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by csgamer View Post

I was at BB the other day and was checking out the 5080 and 4280, and the samsung 61, 65, and 71 all had much deeper blacks on the loop they were playing. Maybe the brightess was way jacked up on the pioneer messing up the black level, i dunno it didn't look too bright though. For the samsungs the black level was 61 < 65 < 71 from the loop.

Do the kuros really have deeper blacks than these samsung 61, 65, and 71 series?

Yes
post #77 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosng View Post

i can't be the only one who's noticed motion blur on a plasma. maybe plasma folks aren't looking hard enough.

camera pans, judder, fuzzy edges during zooms. i see it on a plasma as well as lcd.


If you look real hard on the kuro you can see a very tiny bit in the fastest pans/movements. But on the 71 series and especially the 65 series it is always present and you don't have to look closely for it.
-imo
post #78 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosng View Post

not only that, with loss of detail they should be discussing why the plasma was crushing blacks.


PWM...yup a little there.
Crushed blacks...I couldn't get my kuro to crush blacks if I tried.
post #79 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosng View Post

actually it was the kuros commercial, the black blank screens were also darker on the samsung

Not the 61 or 71. The 81 I'll buy.
LCD's are great if you sit straight on and don't watch sports as the 120Hz does not get rid of blur.
post #80 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-A-G-L-E-S View Post

PWM...yup a little there.
Crushed blacks...I couldn't get my kuro to crush blacks if I tried.

To crush Kuro's blacks, all you have to do is set the Brightness control below 0. The Brightness control's setting is crucial for taking advantage of the Kuro's low black floor without losing black information. I find the steps too coarse; I often wish for 0.5 increments.
post #81 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by zarono View Post

From HT magazine:




I've seen Samsung properly set-up and it still suffers from motion-blur, seemingly no matter how many gimmicks they put in the set to combat this effect. The blacks might be dark, but the set still cannot muster the detail that plasmas can. When I buy an HDTV, I want to minimize the number of artifical filters, noise enhancers, LED backlighting gimmicks, etc for a more natural looking picture. Samsung seems to want to add as many to this set as they can, and its MSRP of $4500 is very high for a 52" TV. Also it still cannot accept 1080/24 sources, well it can but it converts them to 1080/60 so whats the point?

Dude,
LED backlighting is not a gimmick. nor is 120hz. I agree that the pioneer Kuro's have probably the best picture availible. But, Thats like a LCD lover calling Pioneers anti reflective screen, smooth mode, anti-burn in technology,etc gimmicks!
Improving on a technologys short comings is not a gimmick. Plasma does the same thing to combat its shortfalls.
Anything that either technology can do to improve customer satisfaction is a good thing in my book.
But I will admit that the Contrast levels that Samsung is advertising are definity gimmicks!!lol
post #82 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosng View Post

have you tried setting a plasma above 50-60%
it aint pretty. i don't set my plasma anywhere near that high because it would be washout city. takes away all benefits of having a plasma.

that's the tradeoff with lcd. much much brighter settings
and still get a great picture. that is if you like a picture that bright and of course you take a hit on the black end. lcd's are doing greater in that dept every day. plasma the opposite is true. bright junkies need not apply.

Sooo true,
Its the LCD's ability to maintain a great picture when brightness is up that is the difference.
Plasmas do a little better with black levels I think but contrast is more than just darkness. The definition of contrast is both dark and bright and the line between. And the Samsung does better in that categorie.
BUT, I still would rather have the KURO.
post #83 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-A-G-L-E-S View Post

Not the 61 or 71. The 81 I'll buy.
LCD's are great if you sit straight on and don't watch sports as the 120Hz does not get rid of blur.

Sit straight on?? Are you referring to the fact that an LCD's image starts to degrade after 178 degrees?? That makes me laugh that Plasma lovers keep bringing that up. I guess a flat panel is only good if you can watch the televison from behind the tv.lol
I mean really people???
If you have to watch any flat panel that far off from the side then you have some serious living room furniture arrangement problems in my book. LOL. Myself, I have a hard time a hard time seeing any image problems when viewing my LCD from the side. Period.
Also, you might want to read CNET's review of the Sony XBR4 LCD. In the performance paragraph They say and I quote " The 120hz of the XBR4 (as well as all of the 120hz LCD's weve tested) SEVERLY outclassed the Kuro pioneers smooth mode."
120hz does wonderful with motion.
post #84 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmak09 View Post

Sit straight on?? Are you referring to the fact that an LCD's image starts to degrade after 178 degrees?? That makes me laugh that Plasma lovers keep bringing that up. I guess a flat panel is only good if you can watch the televison from behind the tv.lol
I mean really people???
If you have to watch any flat panel that far off from the side then you have some serious living room furniture arrangement problems in my book. LOL. Myself, I have a hard time a hard time seeing any image problems when viewing my LCD from the side. Period.
Also, you might want to read CNET's review of the Sony XBR4 LCD. In the performance paragraph They say and I quote " The 120hz of the XBR4 (as well as all of the 120hz LCD's weve tested) SEVERLY outclassed the Kuro pioneers smooth mode."
120hz does wonderful with motion.

When I was shopping for a new HDTV I checked quite a few LCDs (including the 71 and XBR4) and none of them could maintain a stable image at 30 degrees off center (where quite a bit of viewing can occur for me), and it was a completely different looking picture at 160 degrees where it would be visible from the kitchen, I could barely make out anything on the screen. LCD viewing angles are still very bad, the 178 degrees is just how far off center you can get before you can't see the image at all, they never say that it will look the same as it does head on.

I was shocked when I checked the plasma's, no loss at most angles (at about 150 degrees it started to degrade slightly, but not that much.) Any LCD owner that claims that LCD doesn't have problems with viewing angles (or motion problems like some still do) is just as bad as a Plasma owner who says they have never had image retention or fringing, just because you have never noticed it doesn't mean that it isn't there.
post #85 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmak09 View Post

Also, you might want to read CNET's review of the Sony XBR4 LCD. In the performance paragraph They say and I quote " The 120hz of the XBR4 (as well as all of the 120hz LCD's weve tested) SEVERLY outclassed the Kuro pioneers smooth mode."
120hz does wonderful with motion.

I spent a month with a 4671 side-by-side with a 5080 and I would disagree. The Samsung implementation of 120hz and AMP was lacking in that their interpolation caused significant artifacting. I find that Pio's smooth introduces some as well but it's more subtle. The most important thing though, is that the plasma doesn't need smooth to excel at fast motion content. The LCD even with the snazzy new features enabled exhibits significant motion blur.

I would guess that CNET liked the "in your face" AMP feature.

I really wanted to like the LCD since it's much more appropriate for my usage for this display but I couldn't tolerate the motion issues.
post #86 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentsg View Post

I spent a month with a 4671 side-by-side with a 5080 and I would disagree. The Samsung implementation of 120hz and AMP was lacking in that their interpolation caused significant artifacting. I find that Pio's smooth introduces some as well but it's more subtle. The most important thing though, is that the plasma doesn't need smooth to excel at fast motion content. The LCD even with the snazzy new features enabled exhibits significant motion blur.

I would guess that CNET liked the "in your face" AMP feature.

I really wanted to like the LCD since it's much more appropriate for my usage for this display but I couldn't tolerate the motion issues.

Same here, I just can't stand motion blur, but I also wanted a large screen (coming from a 28 inch CRT with No blur) LCD just didn't cut it at all, Plasma came close but still fell short, but I had to make a sacrifice so I chose the Plasma. A lot of people seem to be dumping LCD, even sharpjunkie who made the 71 thread over on the LCD board, he now has a 5080 and says he would never go back to LCD.
post #87 of 117
Anyone that reads all the sharpjunkie posts will get acquainted with all of LCD's shortcomings.

He wanted LCD and extensively tried the 71, the 81, the XBR4, and finally decided that the 5080 put them all into the toilet!

His posts were about the most honest appraisals I've ever seen of LCD here at AVS.

Look folks--if the 5080 put LCD's in the toilet what do you think the new Panasonics or the 9Gs from Pioneer will do?

Now I will say that if you sit directly in front of the 71, 81, or XBR4 and don't mind the motion problems then they are better than 90% of Plasmas--it's just the upper 10% of plasmas that put them in the toilet.

That percentage will grow a little this year.

That's not to say that LCD will never solve its problems--who knows?

All I do know is that the 81 tops out at 57-inches and to me that not real Home Theater.

Buy a 2008 1080p Panasonic 58-inch or 65-inch 800 or 850 or any of the Pioneer 60-inch 1080p Kuro sets and you'll have something worth buying.

Everything else is just TV.
post #88 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Hef View Post

Your "impression" is not confirmed with specifications. Even a lesser grade of plasma has two or three times the brightness level of an LCD when measured. The "better" white point of the LCD may give the impression of being brighter, but plasma doesn't suffer from output.

don't even start with looking at specs vs looking with your eyes. please!!!!

did you forget that there is a big piece of glass in front of your big plasma screen? bigger the glass bigger the reflections. your measurements have to be done in a low light or dark room to give plasma any advantage vs an lcd.

place them in a bright room with anything more than a wimpy light or lit from behind and the plasma will be choking on it's "contrast" puhlease..
post #89 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-A-G-L-E-S View Post

PWM...yup a little there.
Crushed blacks...I couldn't get my kuro to crush blacks if I tried.


wow, i guess the folks at bb tried a bit harder than you because crush on the kuros was evident next to the samsung lcd's.
post #90 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentsg View Post

I had a 5080 and 4671 side by side in my home. In a lower ambient light situation the 71 could NOT achieve the blacks of the Pioneer in any sort of calibrated state. By calibrated state, what I mean is that maybe the Samsung could get darker if you attempted to shut the backlight down to the point that you destroyed the image, did not attempt anything silly like that.

I really wanted to love and keep the 71 so I really put time into trying to make it equal the 5080 in this area.

I currently have a 5010 and the 4671 did best the 5010 on detail/resolution for a static image such as a test pattern. Unfortunately if anything is moving on the screen, which is pretty common when watching content, the 5010 absolutely destroys the LCD.

I would bet the "noise" they are referring to is due to the plasma not being a sample and hold technology like LCD is. Unfortunately it's that fundamental difference in the two technologies that produces the motion blur/smearing effect that LCD is still trying to overcome.



i've spent way too much time comparing the two technologies. nothing technical, just eyeing it. all depends on the source, the lighting situation and calibration.

in a store you can only do so much. once dial in a much as you can you just have to decide what advantages of each you can live with more.

sometimes the picture on the plasma will look better because a scene was bright, dark, saturated, had whites, had blacks etc....

i'd stare at one scene and like the plasma then another would come up and the lcd kicked the pants off the plasma, then i started to notice that even with the kind of saturated contrasty result of the plasma it just wasn't more "convincing" in it's performance than what i saw in lcd. lcd looks more natural to me.

at one point in this process, i bought a plasma to have at home and seriously considered keeping it, till i started seeing reflections in the dark part of the screen even in low light.

soon i dreaded really dark scenes on my plasma because of the reflections of my table, cups, lamps, myself!! what the heck was all this dark performance good for if i see myself in the darn screen.

boxed up and returned the plasma.

later ended up with an lcd in the main room and a plasma in the bedroom where it performs nicely if it's not getting sunlight through the windows. luckily i don't sit home all day watching tv.

just sayin.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Pioneer Kuros and Samsung LCD-How could this be??