AVS Forum banner

3001 - 3020 of 4791 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,339 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhughy2010  /t/1510153/2014-sharp-aquos-line-up/2970#post_24781286


Agreed! I personally couldn't justify the UQ but the SQ with the settings posted here make this set exceptional. The 60 inch was $1499 a few weeks ago when I bought it. Can't beat that price.

Did you end up trying my last posted settings? Yesterday morning I decided to see if I was crazy saying there was a difference and it turns out I was not as colours were indeed bolder, skin tones seem to be a touch more realistic and the image did have just a bit more depth. I did this comparison by putting in my settings from earlier in the week into the vintage movie mode so it was easy to flip back and forth. It's not night and day yet I am pleased with the last calibration run I did and the results.


I do not know why there is this difference. The only thing I can think of is the meter being in a slightly different spot during the run I did Friday and that slightly uniformity (not talking about clouding but general panel uniformity) issues factored in and that's why I got changes that were visible since in theory they shouldn't have been.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,339 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by domingos38  /t/1510153/2014-sharp-aquos-line-up/3000#post_24782049


I really don't care what CNET says about the 60SQ15U

Mine is coming Wednesday and I am going to enjoy it.

Which is exactly the mentality more need to have when it comes to things! All too often people see a review (usually if it is mediocre or poor) and just go by that instead of checking out the product on their own. It's annoying when I see people gush over something only for a "pro" review to come out for it and suddenly they act like what they got or what they like is lousy. People shouldn't need strangers to validate what they bought or what they like or don't like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlindo  /t/1510153/2014-sharp-aquos-line-up/3000#post_24782050



Did you end up trying my last posted settings? Yesterday morning I decided to see if I was crazy saying there was a difference and it turns out I was not as colours were indeed bolder, skin tones seem to be a touch more realistic and the image did have just a bit more depth. I did this comparison by putting in my settings from earlier in the week into the vintage movie mode so it was easy to flip back and forth. It's not night and day yet I am pleased with the last calibration run I did and the results.


I do not know why there is this difference. The only thing I can think of is the meter being in a slightly different spot during the run I did Friday and that slightly uniformity (not talking about clouding but general panel uniformity) issues factored in and that's why I got changes that were visible since in theory they shouldn't have been.
I just gave your settings a try and they look pretty good:



I have a question for you.  Using the white/black clipping test, WOW recommends setting contrast to +29 and brightness to +1 for movie, and contrast to +29 and brightness to +2 for game.  Could you provide a little extra detail on why you set contrast at +24 (movie) and +26 (game)?  Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,339 Posts
pixelexip,


With the set having such a blue push in the greyscale, I had to drop the contrast to get some of the blue out so the upper range of the greyscale and gamma were in line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,339 Posts
I am watching golf today and I noticed that with motion enhancement on 120Hz low that I sometimes got really bad ghosting/trailing on the ball in flight as in there were two distinct balls showing with a decent gap between them. I turned it off and this went away though overall motion was a bit blurrier as I would expect. I didn't try the high setting since it causes the audio/video to be out of sync.


I'm not familiar with using motion enhancement features...is stuff like this sometimes common? I haven't seen any issues with it, at least not as glaring as that ball problem and the ball problem wasn't on every overhead shot so it seems like it was just the occasional hiccup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlindo  /t/1510153/2014-sharp-aquos-line-up/2970#post_24782038


Likewise in this review he brought up the low gamma value which is out of the box as calibrating can get you to 2.2 or above.


I fully agree with commenting on out of the box picture quality (and Sharp dropped the ball big time in that area) in a review since that is how most will view yet one needs to keep in mind that you can calibrate away many issues in this or other sets.

Here is this TV's calibration report from the CNET review: http://www.scribd.com/doc/227267937/Sharp-Quattron-Q-calibration-report


Here is CNET's link on how they review a display device: http://www.cnet.com/how-we-test-tvs/

From the above link:

"Every TV CNET reviews is calibrated prior to evaluation using this procedure, and the reports and many of the numeric evaluation results at the end of the review are generated by CalMAN."


It's not too hard to see the issues when a report is presented, rest is all conjecture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
When can we expect anything other than youtube in 4K?
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
27,427 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts

I have been following this forum for months in addition to a couple of Samsung UNxxF8000 threads because I have narrowed down my search for a new TV to either a Sharp LC 80UQ17U or the Samsung 75F8000.  I would appreciate an opinion as to which way to go.  I can get either set for under $4,000 from a local appliance dealer, but the Samsung costs about $250 more even though it is 5" "smaller".  I am not into gaming and get my low-end internet service through satellite, so I do not stream movies.  My viewing time is about equally split between network TV via DIRECTV and DVD's (with a Blu-ray HD, 3D player).  My viewing distance is 15 ft. in a living room that is lit a bit by sunlight in the afternoon and evening hours even with the blinds drawn (so I would think the "matte" screen on the 80UQ might help a bit with reflections).  The TV audio features are of no concern, since I channel everything through my 7.2 AV receiver and in-wall speaker array.   I have been able to see both sets playing the same DVD disc in one store, but not side-by-side.  It appeared that the 75F8000 did have deeper blacks, but in general I saw little difference between the two, but of course I did not know what the calibrations settings were for either set.  

 

I currently have a ten-year old 70" Sony LCD-projection TV with the light engine beginning to fail but, like others on this forum, I want to wait 5+ years before going 4K when presumably there will be more 4K sources and the price comes down.  I thought I would post this request here because it seems folks on this forum are more attuned to the Sharp UQ pluses and minuses and how this series compares to other brands/models in the 75"- 80" screens size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,475 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Plasma  /t/1510153/2014-sharp-aquos-line-up/3000#post_24782725


I wish they would drop the price of the 90"

This.


If it were $4,999 I would jump on it and stop worrying about FALD and 4K and let the dust settle for a few years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,339 Posts
Wow, I can't believe that 1.91 gamma is for after calibration. I can only guess then the UQ they got was severely gimped or they simply screwed up somewhere which is doubtful. If gimped, good job by Sharp then to not send them a hand picked set.


Almost seems like they tried to get 10 and 100 ire as accurate as possible at the expense of the middle range.


Weird results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
781 Posts
Hopefully AVmaniac will be able to get the q+ settings from his friends sharp soon. I am about ready to get a professional calibration.


Chip
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
LOVING MY 80" UQ! Rilondo and AVmaniac, thanks for all the pic settings. Just curious, why did the settings abandon the expanded color gamut? Did I miss a post about the advantages over standard versus expanded discussion? I thought AVmaniac suggested it was the thing to do, seeing it is a 10 bit panel. Yet, the new rilando settings has it set to standard. Also, I have noticed a slight judder with my second generation Apple TV, unless I activate Film Mode to "Advanced" at it's lower setting. Any thoughts on that one? I thought it was because of an old HDMI cable, until I did internet research and realized that the second generation also only outputs to 720p. That sucks! Time for an AppleTV upgrade. In the meantime, anyone experience lag and judder on just the Apple TV stream?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts



Here is a pic of The Bodyguard directly after the set was delivered. No pic settings applied. Just THX movie mode. I was SO stressed about making the leap from plasma to LED, but my pic experience so far has been positive. DIRECT TV is coming in the morning to bring me an extra genie client. So, can't wait to see the pic results from HDTV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,339 Posts
I don't know how to calibrate expanded using the CMS in Calman. I tried and couldn't get things to be accurate enough. I think the issue is a different standard than rec.709 (the colour standard used for HDTV sources) needs to be used given it is an extended gamut and I have no idea which one in the program should be used. Since Blu-ray and TV use the 709 standard there is no actual benefit/use to the extended as in it doesn't reproduce the image any better..


Game mode is locked into expanded and I like the extra vibrancy it gives video games. I felt it was a bit too oversaturated with blu-ray though.


I'd definitely say if one prefers the look of expanded to use it as it does give the image an extra layer of richness and I feel that added richness/boldness makes the display look like its contrast ratio is higher than it is.


Good to hear you're enjoying your set!
 
3001 - 3020 of 4791 Posts
Top