10 Reasons Plasma Died - Page 11 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 274Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #301 of 322 Old 04-23-2016, 05:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
I was not talking about the ''filmic look'', i was talking about the 24FPS blu-ray look
Most people refer to this as the "filmic look".

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
What i was talking about is the source and a clear misrepresentation of the source caused by smoothing.
What matters to me is like i stated ''one wants a fairly accurate representation of the source''. What i am used to matters less.
I understand what you are saying, but you are mistaken.
When you display 24 FPS at 24Hz on a low-persistence display (e.g. CRT) it looks exactly like you just turned on interpolation.
The smoothness of interpolation restores the original look of 24 FPS motion. It is not "artificially smooth". It is a more accurate representation of the source material.
The problem is that interpolation is an imperfect process and so in addition to restoring the original smoothness of film, you also get ugly interpolation errors along with it.

Displaying 24 FPS at 48/72/96Hz on a Plasma TV (or any other type of display) is not an accurate representation of the source.
Doing this introduces significant judder that is not present when the source is displayed at its native 24Hz.
The "24FPS blu-ray look" (filmic look) is not how 24 FPS motion is supposed to look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
All i can say is that artificial smoothing was unpleasant to watch when i used the LCd for movie watching so i turned off all smoothing. Wanting a fairly accurate representation of the source was another good reason to turn off all smoothing. After watching movies for a year or so on Plasma tech i'dd say LCd Sample & Hold 300 lines of motion resolution is just not good enough, and artificial smoothing sucks which is one of the reasons why i am happy that i am currently not using LCd tech for movies.. Does all of this mean that i like the ''filmic look''? I don't know, you tell me...
Interpolation and sample & hold (full-persistence) displays are separate things.
You can also have a low-persistence display which uses interpolation. My Sony LCD has "MotionFlow: Clear" modes which combine interpolation with low-persistence 120Hz or 240Hz modes which do backlight scanning.
Chronoptimist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #302 of 322 Old 04-23-2016, 07:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,473
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2348 Post(s)
Liked: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
Most people refer to this as the "filmic look".
To me what people refer to as ''filmic look'' is similar to what i see in the real world so to me it is more or less a natural-ish look while smoothness has something weirdness-ish about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist
I understand what you are saying, but you are mistaken.
When you display 24 FPS at 24Hz on a low-persistence display (e.g. CRT) it looks exactly like you just turned on interpolation.
The smoothness of interpolation restores the original look of 24 FPS motion. It is not "artificially smooth". It is a more accurate representation of the source material.
It might be that case that 24FPS at 24Hz on a low-persistence display looks exactly like interpolation it is not interpolation, which i was talking about (''interpolation is an imperfect process and so in addition to restoring the original smoothness of film, you also get ugly interpolation errors along with it'') . Aside from that there must be good reasons why folks in charge did not chose such a look for movies...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist
Displaying 24 FPS at 48/72/96Hz on a Plasma TV (or any other type of display) is not an accurate representation of the source.
Doing this introduces significant judder that is not present when the source is displayed at its native 24Hz.
The "24FPS blu-ray look" (filmic look) is not how 24 FPS motion is supposed to look.
AFAIK Plasma motion is fairly smooth though there is some minor judder. In day to day use one hardly noticeses it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist
Interpolation and sample & hold (full-persistence) displays are separate things.
Well, that might be, but without interpolation Sample & Hold motion is hard to watch. No coincidence they come in pairs
8mile13 is offline  
post #303 of 322 Old 04-23-2016, 09:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
To me what people refer to as ''filmic look'' is similar to what i see in the real world so to me it is more or less a natural-ish look while smoothness has something weirdness-ish about it.
Filmic literally means "like film". High framerates bring us closer to real life, filmic is the opposite of that.
Filmic is the "24FPS blu-ray" motion that you were describing before.

The problem is that the "filmic" look that many people seem to be fond of, is not how movies should look.
Displaying 24 FPS film at 48Hz or higher refresh rates simply by repeating frames is adding judder, not preserving the original look.
If you are displaying film at higher refresh rates without interpolation, what you are seeing is far removed from the original look.

While interpolation is not right either, because of the errors (glitches) that often appear as a result of using it, the smoothness of motion that you get with interpolation is correct.
That's how smooth film really looks when you display it at 24Hz.
Interpolation removes judder that is introduced by displaying film at higher refresh rates, it does not add smoothness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
It might be that case that 24FPS at 24Hz on a low-persistence display looks exactly like interpolation it is not interpolation, which i was talking about (''interpolation is an imperfect process and so in addition to restoring the original smoothness of film, you also get ugly interpolation errors along with it'') . Aside from that there must be good reasons why folks in charge did not chose such a look for movies...
Money is the reason why it hasn't changed. When you were shooting on reels of film it would have cost significantly more to shoot at higher framerates.
It would still cost more to shoot at higher framerates today, but the increase in cost should not be nearly as significant when you're shooting digital.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
AFAIK Plasma motion is fairly smooth though there is some minor judder. In day to day use one hardly notices it.
It's nothing to do with whether the display is a plasma TV or not.
Any low-persistence display which repeats frames will display very bad judder. Even displaying high framerates like 80 FPS at 160Hz looks really bad. (160Hz is the limit of my CRT so I can't test any higher)
The lower persistence is on the display, the sharper motion will be, and the worse this judder will look.
Chronoptimist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #304 of 322 Old 04-23-2016, 09:34 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1406
Judder shouldn't really happen even at 24p if the shutter speed was set according to how fast objects are in motion. And of course, the perfect shutter speed can't, in general, be selected beforehand.

Even for 24p the appropriate amount of motion blur can hide judder, but that would imply post processing adds extra synthetic motion blur for sections of the frame where motion vectors exceed the camera shutter speed.

I wonder if even at 24hz, it's best to film with a very fast shutter speed and add all the frame-to-frame motion blur electronically in post. That way you would have zero motion blur, and would do frame interpolation before adding the motion blur on top of that (motion blur is always necessary because it reduces temporal aliasing, but it should be proportional to how fast things move locally vs the background, and shouldn't be fixed across the entire frame).

If you add motion blur synthetically, which IMO should be just as good (the current state of the art is very, very good in this regard), if not better, as that afforded by the light smearing across the camera sensor, then you can extrapolate intermediary frames from "pristine" / clear frames, to 60 or 120hz and then add the appropriate amount of motion blur on top, proportional to local motion vectors. This would effectively be the equivalent of the camera sensor have a variable shutter speed.

After watching that
about how rolling shutters work I have to also suspect that motion vectors need to be temporally de-skewed. So each "frame" in the camera would need to be considered to have the top of the frame be at t0 and the bottom at t1 and each row of pixels at some intermediary time. The work of videoprocessing tech never stops! The bottom of the frame would have to be temporally reprojected backwards in time slightly, or the top forwards. That should be do-able though with motion vectors, but each vector would have to have a timestamp on it that wasn't fixed across the entire frame.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #305 of 322 Old 04-23-2016, 09:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
Judder shouldn't really happen even at 24p if the shutter speed was set according to how fast objects are in motion.
And it won't, if you're displaying it at 24Hz.
When you start repeating frames, judder is introduced by that process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
I wonder if even at 24hz, it's best to film with a very fast shutter speed and add all the frame-to-frame motion blur electronically in post.
I suspect this would not look very good because you'd have to track the camera's motion and focus perfectly.
You're just likely to end up with artifacts around objects which look like interpolation errors.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #306 of 322 Old 04-23-2016, 02:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,009
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1026 Post(s)
Liked: 455
I just want to say that, on my CRT monitor, 60fps with 2x interpolation @ 120Hz is smoother than 60fps without any interpolation @ 60Hz...
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #307 of 322 Old 04-23-2016, 06:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,473
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2348 Post(s)
Liked: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
Filmic literally means "like film". High framerates bring us closer to real life, filmic is the opposite of that.
Filmic is the "24FPS blu-ray" motion that you were describing before.

The problem is that the "filmic" look that many people seem to be fond of, is not how movies should look.
"filmic'' means a number of things, of importance here seems descriptions like ''pertaining to or characteristic of motion pictures'' ''related to films or cinema'' suggesting that film ( 24fps blu-ray flatscreen movies) should look like the movies in the cinema, for which the movie people, specifically directors, are reponsible. It is they who determin how a movie should look and it is no coincidence that they are the ones who are most fond of that look.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/filmic

Why shouldn't the movie people determin how a movie should look i ask you? It is their job...and make no mistake, when the time comes and 48/60fps replaces 24fps they will be the ones in charge...
8mile13 is offline  
post #308 of 322 Old 04-24-2016, 05:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
"filmic'' means a number of things, of importance here seems descriptions like ''pertaining to or characteristic of motion pictures'' ''related to films or cinema'' suggesting that film ( 24fps blu-ray flatscreen movies) should look like the movies in the cinema, for which the movie people, specifically directors, are reponsible. It is they who determin how a movie should look and it is no coincidence that they are the ones who are most fond of that look.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/filmic

Why shouldn't the movie people determin how a movie should look i ask you? It is their job...and make no mistake, when the time comes and 48/60fps replaces 24fps they will be the ones in charge...
Again: when you display 24 FPS material at 24Hz it looks significantly different to what most people are used to.
Displaying it at higher refresh rates, as is required by today's brighter displays, destroys the motion quality.
It goes from being completely fluid to being a juddering mess.
Scenes where the camera does horizontal panning are just awful to watch if you are trying to follow an object in that scene.

This is not something that is done by choice, no modern display can support a native 24Hz output. The only way I've found to do it is to use a CRT with black frame insertion because inserting black frames on a CRT behaves differently from other display types. (it's not "switching to black" it just doesn't attempt to display anything for the black frames)

You get a bad portrayal of the source material by default on modern displays (and projectors) if you shoot 24p, it's not something that directors get to choose.

Unfortunately this has been done for so long now that it's become "tradition".
What people consider to be the "traditional" look of film is now this bastardized presentation at ≥48Hz rather than its intended look.

Most directors aren't going to risk shooting at higher framerates because it's going to cost more, they don't want that to be what their film is known for, and because there's a very vocal minority that are strongly against technological progress. Unfortunately a lot of that minority seems to be people that work in the industry.
It doesn't matter why the film fails, it will be known as a failure because they took a risk on shooting HFR.
It doesn't matter that The Hobbit was a bad film with terrible CG to begin with, a huge amount of the blame was placed on it being released in HFR.
Movies are already a huge gamble, so why take the risk if it's going to cost more money and you're going to have a lot of the people you're working with complain about it?

I'm thankful that there are at least some directors that are pushing things forwards and shooting HFR despite all the negativity towards it.

When there is literally no good way to display 24p source material without it having a significant flaw, I just don't understand the fondness that people have towards it.
It doesn't matter what display you're using, it is going to have severe flicker, severe judder, or severe interpolation artifacts - or some combination of the three.
There is no fix for this, other than shooting at a high enough framerate that you can show it on a low-persistence display without significant flicker. (ideally 72 FPS or higher)
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #309 of 322 Old 04-24-2016, 06:02 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoTJ View Post
At 9' away, I cannot see the pixels on my 65" VT60. 6' away is REALLY close to your set. I cannot imagine being that close to a TV.
I sit 4' from my 46 inch TV. For a 65 inch display I would probably move back to about 6'. I am probably an oddity though. It gives me great immersion but at 1080p I can see the pixels. Sometimes I think 4k was created for freaks like me.

Most people older than 30 have presbyopia though which makes them hate watching TV from that close because it's uncomfortable for their eyes. I have a very slight myopia so it doesn't bother me (and thanks to sitting so close I don't need glasses).

Last edited by Magnesus; 04-24-2016 at 06:06 AM.
Magnesus is offline  
post #310 of 322 Old 04-24-2016, 08:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,473
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2348 Post(s)
Liked: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
Again: when you display 24 FPS material at 24Hz it looks significantly different to what most people are used to.
Displaying it at higher refresh rates, as is required by today's brighter displays, destroys the motion quality.
It goes from being completely fluid to being a juddering mess.
Scenes where the camera does horizontal panning are just awful to watch if you are trying to follow an object in that scene.

This is not something that is done by choice, no modern display can support a native 24Hz output. The only way I've found to do it is to use a CRT with black frame insertion because inserting black frames on a CRT behaves differently from other display types. (it's not "switching to black" it just doesn't attempt to display anything for the black frames)

You get a bad portrayal of the source material by default on modern displays (and projectors) if you shoot 24p, it's not something that directors get to choose.

Unfortunately this has been done for so long now that it's become "tradition".
What people consider to be the "traditional" look of film is now this bastardized presentation at ≥48Hz rather than its intended look.

Most directors aren't going to risk shooting at higher framerates because it's going to cost more, they don't want that to be what their film is known for, and because there's a very vocal minority that are strongly against technological progress. Unfortunately a lot of that minority seems to be people that work in the industry.
It doesn't matter why the film fails, it will be known as a failure because they took a risk on shooting HFR.
It doesn't matter that The Hobbit was a bad film with terrible CG to begin with, a huge amount of the blame was placed on it being released in HFR.
Movies are already a huge gamble, so why take the risk if it's going to cost more money and you're going to have a lot of the people you're working with complain about it?

I'm thankful that there are at least some directors that are pushing things forwards and shooting HFR despite all the negativity towards it.

When there is literally no good way to display 24p source material without it having a significant flaw, I just don't understand the fondness that people have towards it.
It doesn't matter what display you're using, it is going to have severe flicker, severe judder, or severe interpolation artifacts - or some combination of the three.
There is no fix for this, other than shooting at a high enough framerate that you can show it on a low-persistence display without significant flicker. (ideally 72 FPS or higher)
I can tell you that Martin Scorsese believes that ''blu-ray offers film as close as you can get reliving the movie theater experience'' (13:00). His opinion carries a lot of weight AFAIK.

There is not much support among directors for higher frame rates because they do not like the look of it, risk and money involved making HFR movies is another topic.

h
Dianabol5mg likes this.
8mile13 is offline  
post #311 of 322 Old 04-24-2016, 04:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
I can tell you that Martin Scorsese believes that ''blu-ray offers film as close as you can get reliving the movie theater experience'' (13:00). His opinion carries a lot of weight AFAIK.
Sure, you can replicate the crappy presentation of 24 FPS motion at 48Hz or higher.
It's not like theaters are free of this judder either. It's not a display problem, the fundamental issue is caused by repeating frames.

My point is that this is not an accurate representation of the motion which is captured on the film itself.
When presented at 24Hz natively, motion looks drastically different - and interpolation restores that look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
There is not much support among directors for higher frame rates because they do not like the look of it
So view 72 FPS material at 144Hz if you want to replicate the look of 24 FPS footage at 48Hz.
It's easy to start adding judder back in if that's something you want.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #312 of 322 Old 04-24-2016, 07:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,473
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2348 Post(s)
Liked: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
Why shouldn't the movie people determin how a movie should look i ask you? It is their job...and make no mistake, when the time comes and 48/60fps replaces 24fps they will be the ones in charge...
Interesting Peter Jackson ''Desolation Of Smaug'' comment
''I spent a lot of time in the color-grading room really putting my head into how we make 48 not have a video feel'' ''Some of the criticism of the 48 frames was not actually to do with the frame rate per se, which is just making it easier on your eyes, reducing motion blur. It was to do with the fact that it felt like TV, like soap opera.'' So even a guy like Jackson who is ahead of the troops when it comes to HFR does not want HFR to look like video.
8mile13 is offline  
post #313 of 322 Old 04-24-2016, 08:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Now I just want a 60" CRT.


I think in another 10 to 20 years when the old guard is gone most movies will be shot at 60 or 120fps and people will be used to the natural movement without judder, and they will have the option to display it at 240Hz of they want to reintroduce it.
TheronB is offline  
post #314 of 322 Old 04-28-2016, 04:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
xvfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 410 Post(s)
Liked: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheronB View Post
Now I just want a 60" CRT.


I think in another 10 to 20 years when the old guard is gone most movies will be shot at 60 or 120fps and people will be used to the natural movement without judder, and they will have the option to display it at 240Hz of they want to reintroduce it.
Hmm...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	chavfstvfront.jpg
Views:	246
Size:	14.4 KB
ID:	1411554   Click image for larger version

Name:	chavfstvfit.jpg
Views:	231
Size:	21.2 KB
ID:	1411562  
xvfx is offline  
post #315 of 322 Old 04-28-2016, 08:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Sweet... Lol

I wonder how a modern example could perform. The ones I remember never looked as good as the traditional direct views, so my dad would never buy one.

Lying on the carpet in front of the console was better and achieved the same field of view.
TheronB is offline  
post #316 of 322 Old 04-30-2016, 10:25 PM
Member
 
dioxholster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I dont understand all that technical stuff. All i want is to have TV play films like they do in theaters and Im not talking about that hobbit stuff. 60p is only good for CNN, sports and video games.
dioxholster is offline  
post #317 of 322 Old 05-09-2016, 03:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
xvfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 410 Post(s)
Liked: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnesus View Post
I sit 4' from my 46 inch TV. For a 65 inch display I would probably move back to about 6'. I am probably an oddity though. It gives me great immersion but at 1080p I can see the pixels. Sometimes I think 4k was created for freaks like me.

Most people older than 30 have presbyopia though which makes them hate watching TV from that close because it's uncomfortable for their eyes. I have a very slight myopia so it doesn't bother me (and thanks to sitting so close I don't need glasses).
Try sitting that close with a games console. With different field of view/motion blur with some games I'd guarantee at some point you'll be feeling queasy so badly. Especially the way that some games rotate the view.
xvfx is offline  
post #318 of 322 Old 05-10-2016, 09:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by xvfx View Post
Try sitting that close with a games console. With different field of view/motion blur with some games I'd guarantee at some point you'll be feeling queasy so badly. Especially the way that some games rotate the view.
No problems here with PS4 and Wii U. 5-6'/60"
TheronB is offline  
post #319 of 322 Old 05-11-2016, 02:38 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by xvfx View Post
Try sitting that close with a games console. With different field of view/motion blur with some games I'd guarantee at some point you'll be feeling queasy so badly. Especially the way that some games rotate the view.
I do sit that close with a games console too. Not a problem to me. People react differenly I suppose.
Magnesus is offline  
post #320 of 322 Old 05-11-2016, 05:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by xvfx View Post
Try sitting that close with a games console. With different field of view/motion blur with some games I'd guarantee at some point you'll be feeling queasy so badly. Especially the way that some games rotate the view.
The only things that are a problem for me are low framerates, motion blur, or the turning radius being fixed at a low speed.
Though I prefer a wider FOV, a narrow FOV doesn't make me motion sick. As long as the framerate is 60 FPS+ and there's no motion blur, I can handle anything.

The last game I had a problem with was The Witness, which was also the first game in a long time to do that.
It was not due to the lack of a crosshair or a narrow FOV as the devs thought, but the really slow turning radius which did it for me.
As soon as I switched over to mouse control (using a Steam Controller) instead of a DualShock 4 it was fine.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #321 of 322 Old 05-22-2016, 01:26 AM
Newbie
 
Elton-77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Have to say that I have a 50" Pani plasma and am not a fan. After watching for a while you get used to it and think the picture is good until I go and see the 46" Sony in the other room .... it has a far better picture. Sharper in every detail and a joy to watch. The Pani on the other hand was expensive and clearly trails behind the Sony.

It all comes down to peoples preferences. You pays your money and make your choice!
Elton-77 is offline  
post #322 of 322 Old 05-22-2016, 04:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,586
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4280 Post(s)
Liked: 3704
Whatever 50" Panasonic plasma you had is practically irrelevant. I would put your dinky Sony up against the flagship plasmas of yesteryear any day. I actually can't believe we're having this conversation. Time to let it go.
video_analysis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
frontpage , oled , plasma

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off