Black levels in LCD tvs.

[MaleManGuy]

Originally Posted by Kruzifixxion

Yeah i agree that 52 inch Sony is amazing and it's my next purchase!

Well... the 50" Kuro I am sure has the same picture... at $3600 or less. The samsung 4681 is rated better than the sony... and the kuro was rated better than the samsung... at least according to Sound and Vision latest magazine.
I was considering the XBR4 too until I saw the plasmas... panasonic and pioneer. I thought the motion flow was cool but no need to display interpolated frames when there is something fast enough to not even bother. The new panels are 100,000 hours too... longer than the LCD's by 40,000 hours. So, I can watch TV now for 30 years before getting a new one... but... I am gonna get a new plasma anyways unless the OLEDS are better by next year. hehe. With OLED and plasma... there is no need for LCD it seems. Plasma and LCD will have a short life once OLED is working. (and I heard blue has a longer life now... 30K hours?)

[btf1980]

No, the black levels of LCD's are still not up to par with a quality plasma. It's inherent in the technology, and I doubt it will ever catch up. The LED Samsung models have good blacks for an LCD, but they still fall short. No videophile will choose an LCD over a plasma under any circumstances. I have an LCD in the bedroom for casual watching, but my main tv will always be a plasma. My main problem isn't just blacks with LCD's, it's the following below, especially in larger LCD's. I'm fine with smaller LCD's because alot of these issues are not problematic to me since I can't see them as easily.

My problems with LCD's....

1. Artifacting and dithering.
2. Motion problems, stuttering. TBE is a big problem with the 71 series Samsungs.
3. Poor viewing angles.
4. Too bright, almost jarring.
5. Clouding - Hello XBR series!!
6. Banding - Hello Sharp Aquous!!
7. Lacks the 3D, looking through a window feel that plasmas have.

Another thing i've noticed with many of the newer LCD's apart from blown out whites is the inaccuracy with rendering proper skin tones, even with ISF-Calibrated sets. Everything seems to have a slight orange hue, like an episode of CSI Miami. Now, many people like this bright visual style as it has "pop" to them, and when watching stuff like Crank, everything looks like a pack of skittles exploded all over the screen. This looks good to many at the local Best Buy and Circuit City with the 120hz sets and AMP on, but the problem is that it isn't accurate in the least. It just looks phony and detracting to me. Sadly, so many people are used to watching HD this way, it's what they have come to expect, and it's what they know.

I remember when I was at a hifi shop and there was a beautiful calibrated Fujitsu Aviamo Plasma, just fantastic. Deep blacks, depth like you were looking through a window, lush, vibrant, lifelike, and direct from it was a 52" Sharp Aquous LCD and a 52 XBR. It was no contest. If I were a Sony or Sharp rep, I would demand that they display my tv's in another room. Granted the Aviamo is $10K, but that depth, accuracy, fantastic viewing angles etc will never be seen in an LCD, at least not in the near future, certainly nothing on the market looks like that now. Even if there was, the uninformed will complain since it won't look like CSI Miami or Crank with AMP. Look how many people complain about 300, a beautiful stylized film!! Watch it on a Kuro, where dark films shine, then you won't complain at all. Anything that doesn't look like a botanical garden is bad to them. That's what people want to watch 24/7 all the time. Like a HD home movie.

[btf1980]

You guys should look through this Kuro picture thread on AVS. It's fantastic. Love the shots of 300 and Planet Earth by Cybertec. The depth is just not there with LCD's. And that's on a set that has not been calibrated professionally.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=920011

[pokerface]

My Sony is awesome as far as black level, I would put it up there with the plasmas.

[btf1980]

Originally Posted by pokerface

My Sony is awesome as far as black level, I would put it up there with the plasmas.

Look at this pic from the AVS Kuro thread, your XBR looks like this on a pitch black screen?

[Bobby Henderson]

Well... the 50" Kuro I am sure has the same picture... at $3600 or less.

And it has only half the pixel count as the 60" model sporting native 1080p (it's a 720p monitor). I've seen quite a bit of reviews that don't place its color quality in the class of the 60" Kuro either.

No, the black levels of LCD's are still not up to par with a quality plasma.

The key word is "quality" there.

I've seen quite a few affordable plasmas that don't look very good. Black levels are decent, but hardly great -like the difference between an OK quality CRT monitor and one with much better quality. And native resolution is often lower, such as 720p or set in those strangely odd resolutions like 1024 X 768. Yuck.

The 60" Pioneer Kuro is an excellent TV, but its excellence comes at a really high price. Panasonic has a good plasma that is less expensive, but it's still well over the $4000 price level.

Most people are looking for best value for the money. Very few people can afford to run out and spend several grand for a TV monitor alone. This is essentially why LCD-TVs are selling so much better than plasmas. For another analogy, I'd like to drive to work in a $80,000 Dodge Viper Coupe with 600 horse power. But I drive a Chevy pickup truck instead. It's a little more practical choice.

Now, many people like this bright visual style as it has "pop" to them, and when watching stuff like Crank, everything looks like a pack of skittles exploded all over the screen.

Crank, like so many modern action movies has cinematography that is deliberately screwed up and grungy looking. I saw this movie in a top notch 2K digital cinema movie theater whose image quality blows away anything in any flat panel TV monitor. And Crank looked crummy there too. Blown out highlights, under-exposed shadows, very muted color, etc. It's hardly a movie anyone should use as reference material to compare image quality on HDTV monitors.

[btf1980]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

And it has only half the pixel count as the 60" model sporting native 1080p (it's a 720p monitor). I've seen quite a bit of reviews that don't place its color quality in the class of the 60" Kuro either.



The key word is "quality" there.

I've seen quite a few affordable plasmas that don't look very good. Black levels are decent, but hardly great -like the difference between an OK quality CRT monitor and one with much better quality. And native resolution is often lower, such as 720p or set in those strangely odd resolutions like 1024 X 768. Yuck.

The 60" Pioneer Kuro is an excellent TV, but its excellence comes at a really high price. Panasonic has a good plasma that is less expensive, but it's still well over the $4000 price level.

Most people are looking for best value for the money. Very few people can afford to run out and spend several grand for a TV monitor alone. This is essentially why LCD-TVs are selling so much better than plasmas. For another analogy, I'd like to drive to work in a $80,000 Dodge Viper Coupe with 600 horse power. But I drive a Chevy pickup truck instead. It's a little more practical choice.



Crank, like so many modern action movies has cinematography that is deliberately screwed up and grungy looking. I saw this movie in a top notch 2K digital cinema movie theater whose image quality blows away anything in any flat panel TV monitor. And Crank looked crummy there too. Blown out highlights, under-exposed shadows, very muted color, etc. It's hardly a movie anyone should use as reference material to compare image quality on HDTV monitors.

Well, i'm comparing quality LCD's (Sony, Samsung Sharp) to quality plasmas (Pioneer Kuros, Panasonics) so I think it's a fair comparison. I'm not comparing Maxents and Olevias to Kuros here. The Aviamo was just my experience with a drool worthy panel. The non elite kuros are competively priced now. I just picked up a 5010 for a very competitive price. J&R has it for $3,299. That's puts it right there with the 81 series Samsungs (cheaper actually) and XBR5's etc.

I agree with everything you said, and like you agree that Crank was intentionally shot that way and i'm all for artistic liberties and directors intent, but many people do infact use that as a "reference" title, and refer to it as such. They do in fact want everything to look that way.

[MaleManGuy]

I forgot about the banding... my old Aquos had banding issues... I am glad I got rid of that old LCD... LOL. Yup, viewing angle and many things suck about LCD... altho for the last 10 years I never gave it a thought... just believed blindly that plasma sucked... and I never even looked at them... actually glad to have a plasma now. Never thought I'd be saying that. My 46" Aquos LCD 62U had serious banding issues... drove me batty. Plus crappy contrast even tho it was the best at the time, 2000:1 (a tad more than a year ago). The Kuro is best. Hell, even my panasonic blows most LCD's away. I almost replaced my 62U aquos with the new 92U or I was considering the Sony XBR4... until I saw the plasmas.

JL

[MaleManGuy]

[QUOTE=Bobby Henderson;578294]And it has only half the pixel count as the 60" model sporting native 1080p (it's a 720p monitor). I've seen quite a bit of reviews that don't place its color quality in the class of the 60" Kuro either.

The 5010 is 1080p, 50", and $3600

[Johk]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

My new 52" Sony Bravia XBR4 TV has fantastic image quality. It looked better than a lot of plasma TVs I examined. The only TV I saw that looked any better was Pioneer's 60" Kuro plasma, selling for around $6000.

Here in Montreal, the 52" Sony Bravia XBR4 currently sells at the same price as the 50" Pioneer Kuro (1080p), 4000$...

I think that it is closer to compare a 52" to 50" than a 52" to a 60" and the 50" and 60" Kuro should have the same PQ!