Samsung's F8500 PDP owners thread with reviews

[Robert Zohn]

I just got in our very last allocation of 51" F8500s. No 60" and 64" for more than a month.

-Robert

[poke smot]

Just ordered the 51 inch f8500. This will be a huge upgrade since I'm on a 42 in Vizio right now. Merry Christmas to me!

[v_squared123]

I took delivery of a 64F8500 last week and all this week I spent watching 3D movies.

By far the best 3D experience I have seen. Tops the ZT60 in 3D easily. Letterbox bars in 3D movies were noticeable darker than the ZT60 as well. Didnt expect that!

[Sixx]

Originally Posted by v_squared123

I took delivery of a 64F8500 last week and all this week I spent watching 3D movies.



By far the best 3D experience I have seen. Tops the ZT60 in 3D easily. Letterbox bars in 3D movies were noticeable darker than the ZT60 as well. Didnt expect that!

I have a VT65 in my main system. I'm hearing the comparison is all personal preference( and obviously settings). I'll be surprised if the Sammy is a better performer, except for more well lit rooms. Congrats on your new display!

[v_squared123]

Originally Posted by Sixx

I have a VT65 in my main system. I'm hearing the comparison is all personal preference( and obviously settings). I'll be surprised if the Sammy is a better performer, except for more well lit rooms. Congrats on your new display!

From what I can see, its not a personal opinion. If you haven't noticed, I own both the ZT60 and F8500. 65" and 64" respectively. The performance gap in 3D is very very obvious.

To put this in data we can understand:

ZT60 3D tops out at just 5.0 ftL.

The F8500 tops out over 12 ftL. Thats more than twice as bright.

Also, the interlaced reset pulses are disabled in the ZT60/VT60 in order to achieve maximum brightness. This is why the letterbox bars are noticeably brighter ( worse ) in 3D mode. Its obvious Panasonic engineers tried to maximize brightness output as much as possible through this sleight of hand.

[v_squared123]

Originally Posted by Sixx

I have a VT65 in my main system. I'm hearing the comparison is all personal preference( and obviously settings). I'll be surprised if the Sammy is a better performer, except for more well lit rooms. Congrats on your new display!

In dark room viewing, the ZT/VT does lead by a margin however in black level reproduction only.

According to professional reviews, both ZT/VT and F8500 reach 100% of the rec 709 colour accuracy and saturation charts

Cnets review stated that the F8500 and Kuro were matched in their skin tone reproduction in a side by side comparison. The Kuro for quite some was the reference display for colour accuracy and black levels.

The ZT/VT has a slightly more preferable ( pinker as opposed to neutral ) reproduction in skin tone but this was only visible in a side by side comparison.

Suffice to say this is getting into the videophile realm of qualitative and quantitative differences, the differences are nonetheless minimal in 2D viewing.

3D is the only large performance gap between the two displays.

[Sixx]

Originally Posted by v_squared123

From what I can see, its not a personal opinion. If you haven't noticed, I own both the ZT60 and F8500. 65" and 64" respectively. The performance gap in 3D is very very obvious.

To put this in data we can understand:

ZT60 3D tops out at just 5.0 ftL.

The F8500 tops out over 12 ftL. Thats more than twice as bright.

Also, the interlaced reset pulses are disabled in the ZT60/VT60 in order to achieve maximum brightness. This is why the letterbox bars are noticeably brighter ( worse ) in 3D mode. Its obvious Panasonic engineers tried to maximize brightness output as much as possible through this sleight of hand.

In the reviews I've seen, brightness was certainly in the Sammy's corner. I'm no fan of 3D, but I'm looking forward to seeing the 51 in action this week when I receive mine. My Panny is in a dark room and the 51 will be in a brighter room as part of my secondary system.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Sixx

I have a VT65 in my main system. I'm hearing the comparison is all personal preference( and obviously settings). I'll be surprised if the Sammy is a better performer, except for more well lit rooms. Congrats on your new display!

The f8500 is the better display for 3d. The zt60 is the better display for 2d. Both essentially kill all other tv's in both areas.

Originally Posted by v_squared123

In dark room viewing, the ZT/VT does lead by a margin however in black level reproduction only.

According to professional reviews, both ZT/VT and F8500 reach 100% of the rec 709 colour accuracy and saturation charts

Cnets review stated that the F8500 and Kuro were matched in their skin tone reproduction in a side by side comparison. The Kuro for quite some was the reference display for colour accuracy and black levels.

The ZT/VT has a slightly more preferable ( pinker as opposed to neutral ) reproduction in skin tone but this was only visible in a side by side comparison.

Suffice to say this is getting into the videophile realm of qualitative and quantitative differences, the differences are nonetheless minimal in 2D viewing.

3D is the only large performance gap between the two displays.

Cnet if I recall correctly don't have professional calibration quality done when assessing displays though. With such displays I would assume many would be getting such a calibration done. The vt60 pushes skin tones towards the green spectrum pre calibration not pink (this may be a difference between the au and us models though). In any case this 'issue' isn't an inherent display problem as calibration makes both essentially have reference everything. The zt and vt60 still edge out the f8500 in 2d performance. The f8500 is only slightly better in 3d imho as whilst it was brighter it was more prone to crosstalk from my viewing. It was still better, but not the night and day you seem to be suggesting.

[Sixx]

3d performance makes almost no difference to me. I watched two movies in 3D when I bought my Panny.....I just don't like 3D much. I saw many comparison's between the VT and the 8500 and I'm excited to have 2 of the best in my home. Plasma rules!!

[v_squared123]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

The f8500 is the better display for 3d. The zt60 is the better display for 2d. Both essentially kill all other tv's in both areas.



Cnet if I recall correctly don't have professional calibration quality done when assessing displays though. With such displays I would assume many would be getting such a calibration done. The vt60 pushes skin tones towards the green spectrum pre calibration not pink (this may be a difference between the au and us models though). In any case this 'issue' isn't an inherent display problem as calibration makes both essentially have reference everything. The zt and vt60 still edge out the f8500 in 2d performance. The f8500 is only slightly better in 3d imho as whilst it was brighter it was more prone to crosstalk from my viewing. It was still better, but not the night and day you seem to be suggesting.

There is significantly less crosstalk on the F8500 than the ZT/VT60. Brightness could be the factor here.

Originally Posted by Sixx

3d performance makes almost no difference to me. I watched two movies in 3D when I bought my Panny.....I just don't like 3D much. I saw many comparison's between the VT and the 8500 and I'm excited to have 2 of the best in my home. Plasma rules!!

I wasnt a big fan of 3D pre-f8500. The 3D was okay on the ZT60. I watched quite a few movies on the ZT60 over the months. It wasn't bad but wasn't great. Just adequate.

On the F8500, the first 3D movie I popped in, The Croods 3D, blew me away. I was soo impressed by the extra headroom and brightness I ended up sitting through 2 more 3D movies. It was that good.

FWIW, 2D on the F8500 is a very very close affair on the ZT60 in my opinion. In fact, the gains I noticed on the ZT60 were minimal ( with exception of black levels ) at most as opposed to the F8500 and when I factor in the cost different ( which is substantial in Canada ) the ZT60 is starting to feel more and more out-classed and even unnecessary now. It doesnt help either that my ZT60 has DSE all across the screen. Pisses me right off. I can see it on all hockey content and bright apl scenes in movies.

The f8500 however has one faint light band on the left side and no DSE anywehre else. Soo much for the ZT60's "exclusive bonded glass panel" feature. It made no difference whateversoever with respect to having a display without DSE. Its the main reason why I wanted and purchased the ZT60.

[Sixx]

Originally Posted by v_squared123

There is significantly less crosstalk on the F8500 than the ZT/VT60. Brightness could be the factor here.



I wasnt a big fan of 3D pre-f8500. The 3D was okay on the ZT60. I watched quite a few movies on the ZT60 over the months. It wasn't bad but wasn't great. Just adequate.

On the F8500, the first 3D movie I popped in, The Croods 3D, blew me away. I was soo impressed by the extra headroom and brightness I ended up sitting through 2 more 3D movies. It was that good.

FWIW, 2D on the F8500 is a very very close affair on the ZT60 in my opinion. In fact, the gains I noticed on the ZT60 were minimal ( with exception of black levels ) at most as opposed to the F8500 and when I factor in the cost different ( which is substantial in Canada ) the ZT60 is starting to feel more and more out-classed and even unnecessary now. It doesnt help either that my ZT60 has DSE all across the screen. Pisses me right off. I can see it on all hockey content and bright apl scenes in movies.

The f8500 however has one faint light band on the left side and no DSE anywehre else. Soo much for the ZT60's "exclusive bonded glass panel" feature. It made no difference whateversoever with respect to having a display without DSE. Its the main reason why I wanted and purchased the ZT60.

I've tried 3D at the theaters quite a few times, and have been disappointed. I don't think 3D will ever be something I enjoy, but I'm sure to try at least one movie on the 8500.
Here is one of the many reviews I read on the displays. This was one of the few that had side by side comparison. Enjoy it if you haven't already.
http://plasmatvbuyingguide.com/hdtv/...ung-f8500.html

[v_squared123]

Originally Posted by Sixx

I've tried 3D at the theaters quite a few times, and have been disappointed. I don't think 3D will ever be something I enjoy, but I'm sure to try at least one movie on the 8500.
Here is one of the many reviews I read on the displays. This was one of the few that had side by side comparison. Enjoy it if you haven't already.
http://plasmatvbuyingguide.com/hdtv/...ung-f8500.html

3D at the theatres is a joke. Too dim and far too unclean to enjoy. It really is the worst way to get the audience to see what 3D can do.

i think people have accepted it nonetheless because its a novelty feature that doesn't cost much and it probably shuts the kids up too.

Hell, i go with my buds ( we're all mid 20's ) and all they want is the 3D version of the movie. They don't care about pq or anything.

When I turn on my videophile switch and start viewing, its a messy affair so I just dumb myself down and enjoy the movie for what it is.

[v_squared123]

I checked out that link and noticed several comments that do not align with the industries best reviews and opinions by the best independent calibrators.

"It's actually a slight bit better for bright room performance."

The F8500 is miles better than the VT60 for bright room performance.

The VT60 can max out at 55-56 ftL in a window pattern.

The f8500 can max out at a 80 ftL in a window pattern.

Thats a HUGE difference.

ABL wise

THe VT60 is around 10-12 ftL full screen

The F8500 is around 20 ftL full screen

Thats nearly twice the amount of headroom for dynamic range.

Color Rendition

"Coloration is certainly distinctly different for these two. The Panasonic has a more blue tint, while the Samsung's warmer tones can turn a little green. It's just preference. The Samsung probably has closest to cinema type picture, but the Panasonic can have richer color at times. They are both great."

This is zoo far off from what CNET and HDTV.CO.UK reviews mention about colour rendition. In fact, even at the 2013 Value Electronic shootout, the independent calibrators agreed that the VT/ZT60 had the preferable picture because of its "pinker" and more natural rendition of skin tones. The F8500 however had a cooler tinge for skin tones and was tied with that of the Pioneer Kuro.

I don't know how these guys at plasmatvbuyingguide come up with these

[v_squared123]

Ok this is nuts. This is what plasmatvbuyingguide had to say about the 3D comparison.

"3D Picture Quality
Both TVs use active 3D glasses and both have a great 3D picture image, though not as good as the passive 3Ds from LG and Sony. We'll give it a draw even though the Panasonic VT60 took more picture setting adjustment to bring out a great picture."

Seriously? A draw even?

This is what cnet said about the F8500:

"3D: The F8500 is probably the best 3D performer of any plasma TV I've tested. Its image quality in the default settings for Cinema mode was better than what I saw on the VT60, mainly due to superior light output and better shadow detail."

"The image of the Samsung F8500 had more punch and impact, however, because it got substantially brighter. No, it didn't reach the same level as the LED ES8000, but it was still visibly superior to any of the plasmas, particularly in brighter scenes"

This is what HDTV.CO.UK had to say about 3D on the F8500:

"Especially after calibration, the PS64F8500′s tri-dimensional images were great, being fairly bright (compared to the plasma competition), full-res, and naturally coloured enough to keep us happy."

Two of the most reliable and unbiased review sites offer similar sentiment on 3D for the F8500. Also, the guy behind HDTV.CO.UK is David Mckenzie. He's one of the guys the helps run the Value Electronics Shootout. Probably one the most well informed experts on HDTVs ever.

[Suntory_Times]

^ The f8500 is more prone to crosstalk though from what I have seen, and that makes a big to huge difference to ones 3d experience. The vt60 in a dark/darkened room (how one really should view 3d content) does hit the level where few will not find it more then bright enough and those other factors become more important (eg: crosstalk). The degree to which crosstalk is an issue or percieved is highly subjective and cannot be objectively measure.

What I know is I would be more then happy with either of these sets. The zt isn't available where I live and I got the vt60 over the f8500 as it had superior 2d performance in a dark/darkened room (how I do all my viewing), and whilst the f8500 was brighter I saw more crosstalk. Both are reference displays and arguing over the rather small differences even for a videophile is getting rather pedantic. Th vt/zt0 isn't available, so if I was looking to get a set the f8500 would be what I would get if I could still find one (They are still available in America I know).

Originally Posted by v_squared123

3D at the theatres is a joke. Too dim and far too unclean to enjoy. It really is the worst way to get the audience to see what 3D can do.

i think people have accepted it nonetheless because its a novelty feature that doesn't cost much and it probably shuts the kids up too.

Hell, i go with my buds ( we're all mid 20's ) and all they want is the 3D version of the movie. They don't care about pq or anything.

When I turn on my videophile switch and start viewing, its a messy affair so I just dumb myself down and enjoy the movie for what it is.

It really depends on the cinema. I have seen some fantastic presentations of 3d in cinemas. With an actual 3d imax documentary on a ral imax screen, nothing at home compares. Regarding normal cinemas one sadly cannot simply assume that just because a cinema does great 2d presentations, that they even do competent 3d presentations as that sadly just isn't the case. Also back when Avatar came out most cinemas seemed to make an effort to keep the bulbs new and so on for 3d to keep the image bright. They have since started charging more and cared less about the quality of the presentation. Their are however some exceptions, I have one cinema in particular nearby that really dose a very great job. Part of what they did is they didn't make the screens to large for their setups in 3d, which was a move many seem to have ignored as bigger is better in their mind no matter what. I still don't go often as I find even clean cinemas dirty and not very pleasant, but give me something like hfr or the occasional must view film and I do go (it doesn't help most films I have an interest in do not see a theatrical release where I live).

But yes, in terms of overall pq, of course a high end plasma is going to have a better contrast ratio etc then a screen that is significantly larger. The projectors used at cinemas will have better motion though (dlp trumps plasma in this area).

Originally Posted by Sixx

I've tried 3D at the theaters quite a few times, and have been disappointed. I don't think 3D will ever be something I enjoy, but I'm sure to try at least one movie on the 8500.
Here is one of the many reviews I read on the displays. This was one of the few that had side by side comparison. Enjoy it if you haven't already.
http://plasmatvbuyingguide.com/hdtv/...ung-f8500.html

I strongly urge you to try Hugo or if your looking for a kids film How to Train Your Dragon 2. Those are films that are significantly worse in 2d. Essentially you just have to avoid the cash in converted to 3d at the last moment films as they rarely are worth a premium. However native 3d that is well done (or even a conversions intended to be converted and done well) is something special.

A quick list of films with 3d that I think one should consider before abandoning the format or being disinterested:
Hugo (native)
Life of Pi (native)
Edge of Tomorrow (like action converted cgi native, intended for 3d)
Gravity (like action converted cgi native, intended for 3d), both gravity and eot where handeled by the same team from what I understand.
Avatar (native)
HTTYD2 (native)
Oz The Great and Powerful (native)
Titanic (entire conversion overseen by director)
Guardians of the Galaxy (converted but every shoot overseen by the director and I believe some of the cgi in the final fight is a weird hybrid native 'thing' that I can't explain).

If none of the above did anything for you, I would say 3d just isn't for you. The key is to avoid films not intended for 3d and only converted as a cynical cash grab.

[Sixx]

Robert Wiley certainly has the credentials to give a very respected review!

[Sixx]

Is Kevin Millers calibration settings still the current recommendation, or is there some updated settings that are better?

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by Sixx

Is Kevin Millers calibration settings still the current recommendation, or is there some updated settings that are better?

You might want to check out D-Nice's setting for comparison.

[v_squared123]

Originally Posted by Sixx

Robert Wiley certainly has the credentials to give a very respected review!

He certainly has the credentials and may be highly decorated in the field but if his views are far off from the industries best reviewers, who's reviews almost share the same sentiment, than thats an issue if you're looking for an accurate story

Just saying

[zacko24]

I'm curious if anyone can comment on the DSE that is on my set. This is the third plasma I've owned and the first time that I've ever noticed DSE like this, but I don't know if it's very severe compared to others or not. It's the only complaint I have with the TV, which puts me in a better position than a lot of other people who are reporting horribly loud buzz and super long input lag.

In case it's hard to find in the pictures(which would probably mean it's not too bad), it's on the top half of the TV across most of the center.

Thoughts? Thanks!