AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is the new king of tv's for now...........

"Last week we saw Panasonic's latest 50-inch TH-50PZ850U posing a serious challenge to the long-enshrined King of All TVs, the Pioneer Kuro plasma. But now our buddy Gary at HD Guru put the all-new second-gen Kuro 50-incher, the Kuro Elite PRO-111FD, up against the potential throne-usurping Panasonic 850. The verdict? As we predicted, the Kuro is once again "best TV ever," says Gary.


While it looked like the Panasonic's better color reproduction, more accurate gamma, reduced power consumption and $1100 price advantage over last year's Kuros was going to give Pioneer a run for their money, the new Kuro has stepped up with improved noise reduction and matched color reproduction and power consumption to the Panasonic. Pile that onto what Kuro is most famous forthe blackest blacks on any TV anywhere."



Check links and full story @ http://gizmodo.com/5022589/pioneer-g...got-the-ransom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,983 Posts
I am just appalled that a reviewer would write something like this:


"I preferred the Color Space 1 setting for viewing of movies on Blu-ray disc and FIOS, observing a more pleasing and higher saturated colors that appeared more natural (albeit less accurate, as the current standard for each source is the REC. 709)."


In other words, he prefers (and finds more "natural") colors that substantially inaccurate. Why bother to do a gray scale calibration? Might a very bluish white also look more "pleasing"?


This is not a criticism of the display, which I am sure is excellent, but of the reviewer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,851 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHuffman /forum/post/14238225


I am just appalled that a reviewer would write something like this:


"I preferred the Color Space 1 setting for viewing of movies on Blu-ray disc and FIOS, observing a more pleasing and higher saturated colors that appeared more natural (albeit less accurate, as the current standard for each source is the REC. 709)."


In other words, he prefers (and finds more "natural") colors that substantially inaccurate. Why bother to do a gray scale calibration? Might a very bluish white also look more "pleasing"?


This is not a criticism of the display, which I am sure is excellent, but of the reviewer.

This review, like his 50PZ850, is scary IMO. 1.91 gamma????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
It appears Mr. Merson simply prefers over-saturated reds to more accurate reds. I remember reading his review of the PZ750 when it was first released, he compared it to the PRO-FHD1, talking about how the red on the Pioneer was more "orange" than the over-saturated reds on the Panny. He concluded that the 750 was (at the time) the best HDTV he had ever reviewed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,627 Posts
TomGreen, so if you go into a room with no lights and you can't see anything, do you claim that there is bad shadow detail compared to a room with dimly lit lights?


Well, it's a pitch black room. There's your answer. Darker light levels means less that you can see. It's not that the objects are not there in the room, it's that the lack of lights makes it so you can't see them.


Because you're used to grays for absolute black, you will notice more detail where you are not even supposed to necessarily notice it.


Just because it's on the film source, doesn't necessarily mean it's supposed to be seen. I could crank my brightness up +10 to +15 notches and claim I have fantastic shadow detail...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aetherhole /forum/post/14240266


TomGreen, so if you go into a room with no lights and you can't see anything, do you claim that there is bad shadow detail compared to a room with dimly lit lights?


Well, it's a pitch black room. There's your answer. Darker light levels means less that you can see. It's not that the objects are not there in the room, it's that the lack of lights makes it so you can't see them.


Because you're used to grays for absolute black, you will notice more detail where you are not even supposed to necessarily notice it.


Just because it's on the film source, doesn't necessarily mean it's supposed to be seen. I could crank my brightness up +10 to +15 notches and claim I have fantastic shadow detail...

I would love to see D-Nice's opinion on the accuracy of the above quote. Surely there's grist for the mill in it, no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,847 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aetherhole /forum/post/14240266


TomGreen, so if you go into a room with no lights and you can't see anything, do you claim that there is bad shadow detail compared to a room with dimly lit lights?


Well, it's a pitch black room. There's your answer. Darker light levels means less that you can see. It's not that the objects are not there in the room, it's that the lack of lights makes it so you can't see them.


Because you're used to grays for absolute black, you will notice more detail where you are not even supposed to necessarily notice it.


Just because it's on the film source, doesn't necessarily mean it's supposed to be seen. I could crank my brightness up +10 to +15 notches and claim I have fantastic shadow detail...

I would think that any detail (shadow details such as fine wrinkles in a dark suit, small pebbles in the shadowy corner of a dimply lit room, etc.) on a film source is meant to be seen. I could be wrong. But whenever I adjust settings on a TV I am trying to find that compromise position between Pop in the picture due to dark black levels and maintaining the subtle details in the dark areas. I have never had a set that I didn't have to compromise. I always choose to crush a little detail for the sake of darker blacks. The better the Tv the less shadow detail compromised for dark blacks. My Golden rule....



Edit: A $50,000 professional CRT monitor used by hollywoood editors probably shows all the details in the film....I would think. Anyone, anyone.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
It ever amazes me how folks hinge on one topic and belch it out like it's truth.

If you read Gary's review, he used careful wording to downplay a lot of the 111's

strength. It's like the guy's teeth were clenched tight as he had to admit the

TV was pretty awesome (so it seems). So if there were any weaknesses or

what have you with the TV, for sure Gary would have mentioned it. I guess he

didn't get a buzzing set
since it would have been menioned.


Did he mention a lack of shadow detail on the 9G's? NO. So why are folks so

up in arms and accusing this fine generation of TVs (especially the elite) to be

lacking in the shadow details department? The only times I've seen some crush

on my 8g is on broadcasts and *NEVER* on stuff like DVD/Blu-ray. It gets the

movies right. Why would the 9g elite be worse? Also, this TV is apparently plenty

bright which is something that is certainly encouraging.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,627 Posts
Have you heard of digital manipulation? Just because it was filmed doesn't necessarily mean the director ultimately intended for it to be seen. High Contrast digital manipulation, like Michael Bay comes to mind. He crushes some black detail on purpose. You can boost your brightness up and be able to see more, but that's not what the director intended.


Also, for the record, I can see MORE detail in dark spots on my Pioneer 151 compared to ANY other digital display I've owned. Which goes against the "blacker blacks" means less detail argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts

Quote:
I am just appalled that a reviewer would write something like this:

"I preferred the Color Space 1 setting for viewing of movies on Blu-ray disc and FIOS, observing a more pleasing and higher saturated colors that appeared more natural (albeit less accurate, as the current standard for each source is the REC. 709)."

In other words, he prefers (and finds more "natural") colors that substantially inaccurate. Why bother to do a gray scale calibration? Might a very bluish white also look more "pleasing"?

The correct reading of the review is that "the reviewer" (Gary Merson) was expressing a preference for "Color Space 1" over the "Color Space 2" options as they are represented on the 111FD. NOT that he was expressing a preference for inaccurate colors instead of accurate ones.


Th HD Guru review is similar to one in Widescreen Review with respect to the results of instrument testing: neither of the two Color Space options available in the 111FD yields exactly the correct coordinates and proper colors. At that point the user or reviewer must thus pick the more acceptable option, with the choice being a judgment call. Merson chose "1." WSR made the same choice, saying that a slight reduction in the color level (saturation) provided the more acceptable results in comparison with "2" and a correction in the tint control.


Grey scales were taken into account.


There doesn't appear to be much at which to be appalled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,851 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter /forum/post/14244097


Th HD Guru review is similar to one in Widescreen Review with respect to the results of instrument testing: neither of the two Color Space options available in the 111FD yields exactly the correct coordinates and proper colors.

Gary's review is riddled with errors. For example the Rec709 coordinates for blue are x.150 y.060 and not the x.150 y.600 he has in his review. Now lets look at his CS2 mesurements and compare them to the correct coordinates:
  • Color Space 2 Red x .642 y.331 vs Rec. 709 Red x .640 y.330....hmm looks spot on to me
  • Color Space 2 Green x.293 y.601 vs Rec. 709 Green x .300 y.600....again spot on
  • Color Space 2 Blue x.150 y.061 vs Rec. 709 Blue x.150 y.060....spot on buddy.


So, can you clarify how CS2 on the 111FD isn't close to the reference color points????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
This is why we are all eagerly awaiting your Elite review, D-Nice!


Also, congrats on post #8000, lol


Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Nice /forum/post/14244312


Gary's review is riddled with errors. For example the Rec709 coordinates for blue are x.150 y.060 and not the x.150 y.600 he has in his review. Now lets look at his CS2 mesurements and compare them to the correct coordinates:
  • Color Space 2 Red x .642 y.331 vs Rec. 709 Red x .640 y.330....hmm looks spot on to me
  • Color Space 2 Green x.293 y.601 vs Rec. 709 Green x .300 y.600....again spot on
  • Color Space 2 Blue x.150 y.061 vs Rec. 709 Blue x.150 y.060....spot on buddy.


So, can you clarify how CS2 on the 111FD isn't close to the reference color points????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
shadow detail comments near the top of this thread don't make sense to me. Don't deep blacks improve the range of colors able to be reproduced, increasing detail? Light blacks have the worst crush as everything dark just blends into the lowest black the display can reproduce. Thus dark areas look like a mass of grey because it can't physically get darker.


There is no way that producing a higher range of colors and shades could hurt in any possible way. Of course if gamma is off then blacks can still be crushed as that is the other way to have bad shadow detail. Light blacks automatically cause it though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Nope. Can't. Don't have the numbers and don't have the reviews. (Currently at office.)



All I know is that the WST review also stated some (slight) dissatisfaction with the coordinates, and the preference for an adjusted CS 1 over an adjusted CS 2. That's all.


And, whether or not the review is "riddled with errors" I believe do not think that Merson was stating a preference for inaccurate colors. That's all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,736 Posts
Well, I can tell you that I was concerned with the 6020 having a downgrade in shadow details over the 6010. However, after selling my 6010 and replacing it with a 6020 I can say that shadow details have improved. Now if you use a mode like Optimum then that's another story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,528 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHuffman /forum/post/14238225


I am just appalled that a reviewer would write something like this:


"I preferred the Color Space 1 setting for viewing of movies on Blu-ray disc and FIOS, observing a more pleasing and higher saturated colors that appeared more natural (albeit less accurate, as the current standard for each source is the REC. 709)."


In other words, he prefers (and finds more "natural") colors that substantially inaccurate. Why bother to do a gray scale calibration? Might a very bluish white also look more "pleasing"?


This is not a criticism of the display, which I am sure is excellent, but of the reviewer.


I actually happen to agree with Gary. If you read his review carefully, you'll see he's said exactly what I've said for a long long time. Yes, CS2 conforms to Rec 709 better than does CS1, but Gary prefers CS1 because the colors look more like the real world to him as they do me. Keep in mind that Rec 709 is an arbitrary standard and conforming to Rec 709 does not guarantee you the most accurate real-world color reproduction. I strive for the latter where many/most strive for the former. I've done swapping of the two color spaces until I've become dizzy and CS1 always, IMO, wins in the end for coming closer to duplicating the colors I see in the real world. I've used sources ranging from broadcast via FIOS to my HD camcorder outputting live, to BR. Of course in using CS1, one needs to adjust a bit further in to the Kuro menu so that colors retain a natural appearance across the spectrum and reds are not accentuated. When done properly, I see no over-saturation using CS1.


It's all viewer preference guy.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top