[3reach]

 http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...1.3;riverPost1



A New report from David K shows that both Samsung AND Panasonic plasma's black rise with time.


It also shows both tvs colors change, with both getting redder with time.



"In general terms of black level, the Panasonic plasma TVs got slightly darker (better) over the first 1,500 hours, and the Samsungs got somewhat lighter (worse). "


"Black on all three Panasonics got slightly darker over time until 1,500 hours, after which it brightened slightly (aside from the VT30, which hasn't aged beyond 1500 hours yet)"


"On all five TVs, the color temperature, which determines the overall color palette of the display, has become somewhat lower (redder) as the TVs aged over the first year-equivalent. "

 

[Sunkist]

There is already a thread started:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1357326

and it shows Panasonic blacks getting better, not worse, with time. The article also says if you readjust the samsung settings they go back to their original black levels.

 

[3reach]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunkist /forum/post/20885922


There is already a thread started:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1357326

and it shows Panasonic blacks getting better, not worse, with time. The article also says if you readjust the samsung settings they go back to their original black levels.

no, look below and at the chart.


"Black on all three Panasonics got slightly darker over time until 1,500 hours, after which it brightened slightly (aside from the VT30, which hasn't aged beyond 1500 hours yet)."

 

[Sunkist]

So looking at the chart Pany plasmas got darker than their initial reading but then rose slightly (not even reaching close to being as high as where they started) and your overall statement is that "both Samsung AND Panasonic plasma's black rise with time."

 

[3reach]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunkist /forum/post/20886110


So looking at the chart Pany plasmas got darker than their initial reading but then rose slightly (not even reaching close to being as high as where they started) and your overall statement is that "both Samsung AND Panasonic plasma's black rise with time."

They rose on the chart. I am reporting what Cnet reported.

 

[HTguru3]



Quote:
Originally Posted by 3reach /forum/post/20885903

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...1.3;riverPost1



A New report from David K shows that both Samsung AND Panasonic plasma's black rise with time.


It also shows both tvs colors change, with both getting redder with time.



"In general terms of black level, the Panasonic plasma TVs got slightly darker (better) over the first 1,500 hours, and the Samsungs got somewhat lighter (worse). "


"Black on all three Panasonics got slightly darker over time until 1,500 hours, after which it brightened slightly (aside from the VT30, which hasn't aged beyond 1500 hours yet)"


"On all five TVs, the color temperature, which determines the overall color palette of the display, has become somewhat lower (redder) as the TVs aged over the first year-equivalent. "

Nice handpicked quotes. You didn't mention this quote though:


"Plasma TVs get a bit dimmer and redder as they age, but they still maintain excellent picture quality during the first year. None of these findings spoils my positive impression of high-end Samsung and Panasonic plasmas."


In other words it seems it's much ado about nothing.

 

[HTguru3]



Quote:
Originally Posted by 3reach /forum/post/20886426


They rose on the chart. I am reporting what Cnet reported.

You're manipulating the information to sensationalize a non issue as was mentioned they rose to a level below their initial measurement. In other words in 1500 hours the blacks are better than what they initially started out at.

 

[dlplover]



Quote:
Originally Posted by HTguru3 /forum/post/20886448


You're manipulating the information to sensationalize a non issue as was mentioned they rose to a level below their initial measurement. In other words in 1500 hours the blacks are better than what they initially started out at.

Well actually, I agree with 3reach to an extent here. It does show them rising. The question is at what point they stop. If it's at or below the starting point, then no biggie. If it's 3x the starting point like previous generations, then it's a little bit more of a big deal.

 

[HTguru3]



Quote:
Originally Posted by dlplover /forum/post/20886481


Well actually, I agree with 3reach to an extent here. It does show them rising. The question is at what point they stop. If it's at or below the starting point, then no biggie. If it's 3x the starting point like previous generations, then it's a little bit more of a big deal.

But the graph shows the Panny's are actually lower than what they started at after 100 hours. In the case of the ST30, it was tested at .0094mll after 100 hours, .0066mll after 1500 hours and .007 after 2000 hours. That's a net reduction of .0024 mll and only a .0004mll gain after 500 hours more of viewing after it reached its lowest.

 

[dlplover]



Quote:
Originally Posted by HTguru3 /forum/post/20886762


But the graph shows the Panny's are actually lower than what they started at after 100 hours. In the case of the ST30, it was tested at .0094mll after 100 hours, .0066mll after 1500 hours and .007 after 2000 hours. That's a net reduction of .0024 mll and only a .0004mll gain after 500 hours more of viewing after it reached its lowest.

Not exactly. So far the chart shows them rising at the right end of it. It doesn't show any of them leveling out. We need more hours to see where they all finish.

 

[HTguru3]



Quote:
Originally Posted by dlplover /forum/post/20886807


Not exactly. So far the chart shows them rising at the right end of it. It doesn't show any of them leveling out. We need more hours to see where they all finish.

The decline was rather steep while the rise has been ever so slight. I would think that's an indication that over a period of a longer time and by extending the line out as it appeared to decline in a pretty much steady straight line and rose in a straight line over time that the mll will be no worse that what was originally tested and Katzmair pretty much came to that conclusion. 3reach wasn't exactly disclosing all the information and decided to sensationalize an issue that is most likely not even an issue.

 

[hhaller]

It will be interesting to see what the data reveals at the 2k and 3k mark, assuming the tests go on that long. Not surprised about the GT and ST creeping back up, but I am pleasantly surprised about the VT holding it's own thus far.

 

[AtDaBeach]

Have seen a red error increase before, this is nothing new, and is why you should have your display touched up every year.


Also, some have tested their D7000's, and will continue testing them, with no rise detected.

 

[JWhip]

For me, the article was a total non issue. Frankly, I would have thought that Dave K. would have know this already. The electronics in all sets drift over time. I have seen it in all types of displays, which is why I have my main set calibrated every 12 to 15 months. All of these "issues" mentioned in the Cnet article are easily fixed in a calibration and frankly, occur so gradually that most viewers won't even notice them, until the set is calibrated again and brought back to where it should be.

 

[haloimplant]

I would be interested in seeing similar drift data for LCDs, which although they have weaknesses I don't think have the same aging issues as plasma. (I have seen LCDs where the CCFL backlight dimmed after a really long time, LEDs might age even less.)


I don't think dropping the cash on recalibration every 12-15 months is typical. I could be wrong but I get the impression people assume that the set is fairly stable after 100-200 hours other than perhaps brightness loss over a long period of time. Isn't this assumption sort of built-in to the business model I see on here of stores aging the panels 100-200 hours, cal'ing them and shipping them?


Maybe some more folks who have paid for cal can chime in on how they feel about their color changing by so much after the first 100 hours. That cal at 100 hours is 'gone' so quickly. Looking at the data it seems like if you are going to pay to cal once you should wait until the 1-year/2000 hour mark at least (as the article suggests).

 

[elmalloc]

i guess i need to watch more TV, the time I reach 2-3000 hours, I'm fishing for a new TV set.


don't turn your TV on everyday...

 

[3reach]

I am surprised to learn that it is recommended that you have a re-calibration every 3k hours. I don't have the money to do that. I was going to get my new set calibrated but if I have to do it every 3k hours then it would be a waste of money, because I am not going to do it multiple times. I guess I will just buy a blu ray calibration disc and it will come close enough to a full calibration for a lot cheaper. I am sure a full calibration isnt night and day compared to the disc cal anyways.

 

[D-Nice]



Quote:
Originally Posted by 3reach /forum/post/0


I am surprised to learn that it is recommended that you have a re-calibration every 3k hours. I don't have the money to do that. I was going to get my new set calibrated but if I have to do it every 3k hours then it would be a waste of money, because I am not going to do it multiple times. I guess I will just buy a blu ray calibration disc and it will come close enough to a full calibration for a lot cheaper. I am sure a full calibration isnt night and day compared to the disc cal anyways.

All displays require a recalibration after a certain number of hours. On top of that a recal via a pro should be much less than the original calibration... like 50% less or more.

 

[DavidHir]



Quote:
Originally Posted by 3reach /forum/post/20889835


I am surprised to learn that it is recommended that you have a re-calibration every 3k hours. I don't have the money to do that. I was going to get my new set calibrated but if I have to do it every 3k hours then it would be a waste of money, because I am not going to do it multiple times. I guess I will just buy a blu ray calibration disc and it will come close enough to a full calibration for a lot cheaper. I am sure a full calibration isnt night and day compared to the disc cal anyways.

The problem is you will not be able to accurately calibrate greyscale - which is basically the foundation of your image. Gamma is another crucial area you won't be able to do accurately. Color primaries yet another, etc. While ever 3K hours are recommended, depending on the display, you might be able to go longer before the image looks objectionable. As mentioned, re-cals are usually about half the price, as well. I cannot over-state the importance of having one of the top calibrators do your set if accuracy matters to you.

 

[3reach]

^ Ya thanks guys, didn't know the second touch up was discounted. If true I will do the cal after all.



Oh, there is a guy over the on the HDJ forum who also confirmed that his Samsung has rising blacks.