Not always.
VA panel have deep blacks that looks black in a room with normal light.
At least according to my experience with my Samsung that now I forgot the series.
I think the contrast ratio is 1:3000 or 3 :4000.
1080p HDR image better than 4k non HDR ?
- Thread starter ultragpu
- Start date
Not always.
VA panel have deep blacks that looks black in a room with normal light.
At least according to my experience with my Samsung that now I forgot the series.
I think the contrast ratio is 1:3000 or 3 :4000.
My belief is that the bulk of the industry being behind LCD will continue to allow for it's weaknesses to be addressed at a faster pace than OLED. If I'm wrong about this, I'd be happy to consider an OLED.
The issue with OLED is ambient blacklevel control.
A tiny led from the console or TV destroys the contrast ratio. Maybe in Head-Mounted-Displays HDR OLED will have practical application.
Science tells that 4k is not effective (16x bandwidth for 0.3% improvement) and the blockbuster is HDR( 0.2 bandwidth for 3X improvement).
http://www.schubincafe.com/2016/09/01/hdr-the-bottom-line-by-mark-schubin/
Why REC.2020, scaled the non-usable regions, like from the 16-235 range now it is 64-960. There many codewords there that could be used for better Quantization error and the "calibration codewords" could been the 16 lowers ( 16- 1004)???
obs: 0-3 and 1020-1023 are control codewords.
A tiny led from the console or TV destroys the contrast ratio. Maybe in Head-Mounted-Displays HDR OLED will have practical application.
Science tells that 4k is not effective (16x bandwidth for 0.3% improvement) and the blockbuster is HDR( 0.2 bandwidth for 3X improvement).
http://www.schubincafe.com/2016/09/01/hdr-the-bottom-line-by-mark-schubin/
Why REC.2020, scaled the non-usable regions, like from the 16-235 range now it is 64-960. There many codewords there that could be used for better Quantization error and the "calibration codewords" could been the 16 lowers ( 16- 1004)???
obs: 0-3 and 1020-1023 are control codewords.
Basically these new tech and standards are still a mess.
Stick with the best panel quality, forget the fancy new tech in 2016.
Dunno about 2017.
2016
- HDR and wide color gamut are a mess
- panel quality still as messy as ever
- local dimming also a mess
- the principles of great panel quality from yesteryear still works.
- IPS panel still shitty at contrast
+ VA panel still superb at contrast and in high end model, the view angle is getting closer to IPS
- OLED still have image retention problem and limited nits.
+ generally 2016 TV can properly pass thru HDMI audio to Optical. It was a total mess in 2014.
+ fake 4k (rgbw subpixel, effective resolution around 3k) already looks good and almost halfed the power consumption compared to real 4k.
- TV default settings still as horrible as ever. Need to manually calibrate that shit.
Stick with the best panel quality, forget the fancy new tech in 2016.
Dunno about 2017.
2016
- HDR and wide color gamut are a mess
- panel quality still as messy as ever
- local dimming also a mess
- the principles of great panel quality from yesteryear still works.
- IPS panel still shitty at contrast
+ VA panel still superb at contrast and in high end model, the view angle is getting closer to IPS
- OLED still have image retention problem and limited nits.
+ generally 2016 TV can properly pass thru HDMI audio to Optical. It was a total mess in 2014.
+ fake 4k (rgbw subpixel, effective resolution around 3k) already looks good and almost halfed the power consumption compared to real 4k.
- TV default settings still as horrible as ever. Need to manually calibrate that shit.
I would add, though, that for the most part the best panels also have the new tech. So, I wouldn't necessarily avoid HDR + 4K if I had to buy a TV today. As you point out though, support for those doesn't automatically indicate a good panel. There are a couple of really good resources out there in Rtings and HDTVtest and people should use them. Rtings do a particularly good job of both delivering the important specs and explaining their significance.
That's the key problem I see with relying on black level performance to deliver the desired contrast ratio. The display itself is a light source and, unless placed in a room with nothing but black non-reflective objects in it, is going to itself raise the ambient light level in the room if there are any significant highlights in a scene.
Better than many
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Cost more than that as mine is a 78" model and no, unfortunately I can't recommend it, at least for HDR content, when the backlight should be kept at a very high value. Light bleed is a major issue in some scenes. A friend of mine had the 55" and that I could still recommend. I did not say that I don't find it satisfactory at all. Most of the times this is great, but I can't live with its weaknesses. It will be returned to the store next monday and I'll just hang on with my 40" curved 4K TV until next spring/summer. The 40" is a solid all around performer, but basically very lacking in HDR eventhough it does support it.
I don't think that model is bright enough for proper HDR, the input lag however is actually good for a TV if the figure you gave is correct, I'm certain it is better than in your current TV, perhaps even by a large margin.
The effectiveness of 4k goes up, when the perceived screen size goes up. I want to hear someone tell me when they try a 4k VR helmet and then a 720p helmet and say to me with a straight face, "the improvement is 0.3%". . On my 40" 4k TV/monitor at my short viewing distance a properly scaled 720p looks like a total mess. My current 78" is now actually giving me a smaller FOV and noticing differences compared to lower resolutions is harder, but still easily seen at this distance, when the source material is of high quality. But yeah I agree that a 55" from 3 meters away is another thing.
Last edited:
Many TVs in the market now are bad at HDR, including this one.
To be clear, the reason I'm so negative about most of these options isn't that they are bad options today. It's that investing in one of these options now will, for most of us, prevent us from being able to invest in what will surely be better options in the next couple of years. I expect adequate HDR performance will fairly quickly trickle down to budget price points as more and more content becomes available and consumer demand for the feature increases.
I had to buy a new TV recently since my 60" DLP died, but I was able (eventually) to replace it with a 50" 4K + (nominal) HDR set for $380. Having gotten off so cheap, I'll have no problem shifting that set to a second room when I see a 65" that checks all of my boxes. If there's an option like that out there, go for it! Otherwise, think long and hard unless you *have* to buy a set now.
Btw you do getting used to your TV incompetence tho.
After playing ffxv for a few days straight, I no longer get irritated by my TV.
After playing ffxv for a few days straight, I no longer get irritated by my TV.
Probably true, though the Plasma in the other room keeps me honest. And the 4K TV I had for a few months prior to selling it (at a loss) and buying this one was AWFUL for my primary uses. This one is actually more than acceptable in most ways. Viewing angles are bad (which isn't really a problem in my setup), HDR is limited (which I can live with for now), and 24p is juddery which is actually the biggest issue and..that's about all I have to complain about.
Aaron Elfassy
Newcomer
To be fair I've had multiple Panasonic and Samsung plasmas, all calibrated. They have very poor full screen brightness and the blacks are just not superior to top VA lcd panels. Most plasmas are in the range of 1500:1 to 3000:1 ansi contrast at best. The only real win for plasma is motion resolution and viewing angle. Other wise my panasonic dx800 led smokes the rest in color accuracy, gamma, APL brightness, black level and energy consumption. Samsung leds do well too.
If you had any of the latest Panasonic (after they bought the Pioneer Kuro tech), then I'm not sure how you can say the blacks are the same as LCD, but hey oh
http://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare
use that to compare and look for these rows
- contrast
- uniformity
dammit. Now i remember my TV have shitty black again
EDIT:
btw the weird thing is, my shitty LG looks muuuuuuuuuuuch better than PSVR.
but PSVR is OLED. How the hell it can look that bad?
PSVR
- muted color
- grainy noise
- bad contrast ratio
use that to compare and look for these rows
- contrast
- uniformity
dammit. Now i remember my TV have shitty black again
EDIT:
btw the weird thing is, my shitty LG looks muuuuuuuuuuuch better than PSVR.
but PSVR is OLED. How the hell it can look that bad?
PSVR
- muted color
- grainy noise
- bad contrast ratio
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I attached a photo of my TV displaying First Light and it's a good example of a very bad situation for this TV. Lots of dark areas in the bottom, where the leds are and quite a few bright highlights in the same frame. It looks a little bit different in person, but I think that is still pretty good example of what I'm dealing with here. I'll see if I have time over the weekend to post some photos where it actually does a decent job.
Last edited:
Aaron Elfassy
Newcomer
man that looks pretty rough. i'll try to snap some pics of First Light on my Panasonic tonight. Screen uniformity is superb for me, but darker shades lighten up on the sides - that's where the curve helps. Is that the KS8500?
Yeah, I dont believe what was written about it either having seen first hand the differences in black levels.
Aaron Elfassy
Newcomer
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/167-plasma-flat-panel-displays/1471147-comparison-black-levels.html
Here's a pretty fair comparison of the top plasmas. A mixed contrast ratio of 6000:1 is realistic at the top end. There are Samsung edge lit leds that can compare to this, and they aren't even the cream of the crop. And you can't forget the issues with APL. I love my plasma, but I definitely learned to let go - faster than my Sony XBR Trinitron lol
Here's a pretty fair comparison of the top plasmas. A mixed contrast ratio of 6000:1 is realistic at the top end. There are Samsung edge lit leds that can compare to this, and they aren't even the cream of the crop. And you can't forget the issues with APL. I love my plasma, but I definitely learned to let go - faster than my Sony XBR Trinitron lol
I had a hell of a time capturing a representative picture of my screen, but here's some shots of what I think might be a worst case scenario image from the UHD BR of Star Trek. The first shot is better representative of the room lighting, the second is better representative of how the screen actually looks and the third is with the lights off. Through it all, the black bars at the top and bottom stay pretty darn black. Keep in mind, $380 LCD.
djskribbles
Legend
Huh? How are you getting your contrast ratio measures? A top end Plasma has an ANSI (checkerboard) contrast ratio of upwards of 10,000:1 on the low end (2012 Panasonic), and ~30,000:1 or better on the high end (Panasonic or 9G Pioneer Kuro). LCDs don't get anywhere near that. My 2012 Panasonic has a ANSI/checkerboard contrast ratio of ~13,000:1.
ANSI/checkerboard contrast is as it sounds: a measure of black and white on a checkerboard test pattern. This will eliminate or limit any local dimming on LCDs and is a better representation of actual content.
Last edited:
