Well... they're very lucky because plasma TVs were not very bright to begin with and they deteriorate over time. After 10 years the luminescence should be at 50% of what it used to be when the TV was new.
I find plasmas and crts more natural and I can say that even for the plasma in this video (when viewing the video from an oled 😂). One the of the reasons may be the higher black levels and lower contrast of plasmas and crts that result in smoother gradients. The high contrast of oleds, the more saturated colors and deeper blacks can look more harsh and digital. The way the plasmas and crts render near black content is way smoother.
My Kuro still amazes me with it's colour! Never looks wrong or off. But compared to new tv's it's dim and has poor blacks compared to QD-OLED. For a tv that's 16 years old it's pretty dam impressive.
I totally agree. I like to think I have an eye for quality. I have a 2014 Panasonic P60ST60 Plasma and have always been impressed by it and the quality of the colors and vividness of its picture. People in general seemed unable to notice the superiority of it compared to a LCD around that time when the sentiment of Plasma went downhill, but it never made sense to me. I recently just got a LG 65" C4 OLED and before it was calibrated I was having my doubts over its picture quality over my Plasma. But now that I had some help calibrating it, I am finally having the WOW factor I needed with OLED over Plasma. I still have the Plasma in my room and I hope it lasts a long time and movies and shows still look great as do games. I mostly play games on the OLED TV and I have been extremely impressed with the C4 for that medium so far!
Yeah I play my Xbox games on a Panasonic Viera Plasma TV from 2009, it still looks great with beautiful colours and lovely motion handling. It looks way nicer than my big but fairly cheap 4K LG LED that's in the main living room and I will not replace it out of sheer respect! Of course, I would like a high quality OLED for the main room though but I would want a really high end one and at the moment I just can't afford it sadly.
Like others in the comments I still actively use a CRT for retro gaming, a panasonic plamsa, and two lg oleds amongst other tvs not worth mentioning but I think it all comes down to content. Of course, modern tvs produce more accurate pictures but I like certain content better on each of them individually. Older content filmed on actual film for me looks better on the plasma where things filmed with hdr in mind look better on the lgs. In the video i found myself at times liking the look of the content on the plasma better. The led popped more but the plasma looked more real or natural. Would love a whole video getting into the differences.
Deep dives when question prompt them are always good! When I’m not interested I can scrub to the next question, but the more information available the better. Definitely don’t limit to just basics. Thanks!
It's not 4k or an OLED BUT my 51" Samsung Plasma still looks PRETTY DANG GOOD!!!! I do like a tv that's in the middle of the scale, a tv can be TOO bright and vivid that makes it look fake to me....but I also don't want dull and flat looking colours either. I'm still a fan of TCL's mid tier tv's because they look very natural to me and you can get a "big" panel (65-75) for less than $1000. I really hope we get some of the new Panasonic MiniLED tv's up here at the Costco I work at because I COULD justify spending a little extra for one of them
The way I see it, old TV's are a lot like vinyl records. Both have attributes people can find compelling. Many people listen on vinyl today, for example. Those people find the way an audio production is "colored" by vinyl mastering and the cartridge pickup needle preferable. I myself really enjoy that on some recordings. It is not better in any absolute technical sense. A CRT displaying interlaced content produced in the 90"s on DVD, for example, will look amazing! Really, that speaks to how the content was produced more than display superiority. The same goes for high end pro CRT displays, with the added extra quality over consumer gear. CRT computer monitors are fast! Run one of those at 100Hz and motion perception will be noticed. I have a couple CRT displays and they do light gun ganes! I like those. I want an OLED to replace my 120hz plasma. That plasma does 3D display, either movies or computer graphics better than anything I have seen , but it can't do a light gun... Rather than argue best, enjoy the tech. I am from the old school where 8 bits were enough and I love where we are today being able to enjoy 3D in the home, still use old gear, and be spoiled by seriously great displays available from almost any vintage! Enjoy because this time will pass before we even know it.
This comment is perfect in my humble opinion. I love my 15 year old Panasonic Viera Plasma TV above almost any modern display even now, I just love the image it produces and always will until the very sad day arrives when it finally dies ( it seems almost indestructible! ). But, this is only my preference, it's not "better" than modern displays that's not what I'm saying, I just still prefer it. We all need to enjoy whatever we like as much as we can while we are here at the end of the day.
Yes, similar with tube amplifiers. Some people still love them over newer tech because of certain things they do very well. BTW I still love my Pioneer Kuro 50” plasma and even returned an early LG OLED despite it having much more brightness and resolution capabilities and expecting it to be superior. For whatever reasons the picture and motion quality just weren’t as satisfying as the old plasma.
@@maxtakular Almost every tech has a similar dynamic. In many cases, a given tech or process will absolutely nail something, or present in a specific way. This does not mean better, or even worse in most cases too. It just means different. And people like what they like for their reasons.
Plasmas are great when it's cold. I was shopping for a plasma when they were still sold, but I never pulled the trigger on one because of how dark the picture was. I ended up getting a Samsung LN52a750 which if I'm not mistaken was backlit with compact florescent light. If it got cold it would take a little while to warm up to operating temperature and full brightness.
Thanks, excellent and broad knowledge. About the TV’s tech: - most that prefer CRT/Plasma are used to those devices and feel newer TVs are too saturated - most brands to emphasize the better color volume and show off, they have default products are too oversaturated, but if you change to a more natural profile, they’ll be fine! Example: my Samsung S95B as default oversaturates (a lot!) red and green on certain situations (flags, green fields in sports, etc) but changing to “natural” corrects that and it looks very natural (sometimes even dull…). As long as the tech is good, the software allows you to tune down or up to match your preferences.
I appreciated fielding the in depth and complicated questions in the video today. And I really enjoyed your way of answering, as interpreting exactly what they meant could be tricky to make as a video format. Spreading the good info and making a slight inference was the right way to go. Especially loved the Plasma/CRT vs modern breakdown. Awesome video!
Thank you Caleb for explaining difference of CRT/Plasma to Modern TV's with OLED and QLED. I have my 48 inch LG C2 OLED is amazing for modern content and 42 inch LG 2010 Plasma TV for a older game consoles and older movies. I love Plasma to my heart as it brought true HD with colors when I was 13 years old in 2008 and grateful for not getting horrible early LCD TV's in living room. But OLED shares space with Plasma in my heart equal. Love them both as cool science of display tech!
Bought a Bravia 8 and moved old Samsung plasma (10 years) into bedroom. I got to say. I have new respect for that old TV. Bravia great and glad I purchased.
Coming from a cheap used Panasonic Plasma TCP42S1, my new LG C1 looked terrible to me in comparison regardless of color accuracy. My Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD is completely inaccurate, having almost no calibration controls and different white balance depending on the window size, yet it looks amazing no matter what. My S95C is objectively far superior to my Plasmas, yet there's still something special about the Plasma technology, not to mention a 2008 TV having better motion clarity than most 2024 TVs. Let's not even mention CRTs when it comes to motion
Have you ever considered that the plasma tv is giving you the image you are used to see and growed to like it? I recently bought myself a 4k laser projector and after calibration gives me 97% of BT2020. I was revisiting things that i was used to watch on a sony tv that has 30% less BT2020 coverage. I am blown away by how many more colors the projector gives me... but i'm still undecided if I like them or not
I don’t think this CRT/plasma being more ‘natural’ than LCD/OLED has anything to do with color production. CRT and plasma were the last two display technologies to not rely on sample and hold. Well, technically, DLP doesn’t use sample and hold either. In any case sample and hold as a concept will forever be tied to computer displays. I watch an LCD or OLED and it looks very good but to my eye all the motion looks very artificial. Black frame insertion can help to a degree. But really the only solution I’ve found is to drive the panel at high refresh around 240Hz or higher. But of course that only works with games…
Fabulous review of display technology. I really appreciate knowing how tech actually performs as it does and this was quite helpful. I have both a Pioneer Kuro 50" and Signature Elite 60" which I still am amazed by, and have had no burn in issues (probably benefited by usually viewing these at night or in a darkened room for the Elite). Yet thanks to OLED, more 4K content and larger screen sizes, I am finally looking to add another TV. This has been quite helpful. Thanks!
Another thing with CRTs is people seem to focus on the absolute best of them, not what the average person had. For example, I've never owned a CRT that didn't have severe black crush problems. Dark scenes I either couldn't see what was going on or had to push up the brightness causing everything to look grey. As such when I got my first LCD TV, it didn't look worse to me in that respect. The IPS monitor I have on my PC right now is night/day better than any CRT monitor I owned. Brightness of course also plays a huge part on that.
Having spent a lifetime in A/V repairs i have experienced the various display technologies as they progressed from CRT to Plasma and then to todays LED and Oled panels. As far as colour accuracy is concerned, yes OLed are the most accurate, but what you find the best varies from one person to the next, so each to their own. For me, give me a CRT or Plasma over an Oled, accuracy is one thing, eye fatiuge is another. After working on LED or Oled panels i can feel my eyes getting stressed by todays high brightness and more accurate images. I can watch a good CRT or Plasma for many hours longer, their more subdued images are kinder to my eyes and since i watch mostly lower resolution content, a CRT or Plasma way outperfrom 4K panels that are designed to show 4K at it's best and they struggle even with 1080p content anything lower is unwatchable.
100% true. I have an oled in my living room and a high end Samsung plasma in my theater and for serious movie viewing I Much prefer the motion and watching movies on my plasma !
The X800 MKII has a Bravia mode, set it to Bravia mode and you'll get the best performance of any 1080p movie. We recently watched the first Twilight movie and it looked great using these settings. Our set up is: Sony X800 MK II into an Phillips Hue Sync box 8K, that goes into an Sony HT-A9 box then out to the eARC HDMI (HDMI 3 set to Dolby Vision enhanced) of our Bravia XR 75" x95L tv. But just a warning. 1080p will never look good on a 85" tv. 75" is already stretching it, 85" is unfortunately too large for the amount pixels, This is why most who own 75" and 85" hdmi 2.1 tvs are upgrading to a PS5 PRO.
He DuZ hIz OwN rEsEaRcH! You don't need to apologize for having gone into detail on this topic, Caleb - I think we all learned a great deal from what you were saying, and it really helps to know how modern televisions work versus how old CRT and plasma televisions worked. It's kind of hilarious that somebody would say a CRT would have a more accurate picture when even the blackest black is going to be a shade of dark gray! Maybe you could make the point that a plasma TV gives you more accurate colors because black is truly black thanks to being the absence of light rather than the absence of color, which makes the colors stand out more-but that's pretty much the same way OLEDs produce blacker blacks and more vibrant, accurate colors.
I really like all types of episodes that you guys make. They have a lot of intentionality and are very interesting. I just only wish that there was more. Thank you for all the work you guys do.
There’s perhaps a bit of confusion when talking about color accuracy, additive RGB light and CRI, because RGB screens, broadly speaking, generate PERCEPTUALLY accurate colors. Meaning they generate a tristimulus using only red, green and blue that matches that of a “pure” wavelength (or mix of wavelengths) inside our eyes. The more saturated the RGB subpixels become, the bigger the display’s native gamut will be. If the display can generate bigger gamuts at higher brightness levels, you get more color volume. And CRTs are great at that. But not as great as a proper QD OLED these days. I love my CRTs but today’s tech caught up with it and left it behind a while ago. As this video properly explains, CRI refers to light sources that generate most of the visible spectrum and therefore show the real colors on objects and not a tristimulus color. That would be impossible when reflecting light off of objects. So the comparison between RGB screens and a CRI index is fundamentally flawed.
I like the deep dive. There should really be a "Nit nerds asked" section or something like that where we go into detailed discussions about TV technology, color science and stuff as enthusiasts also have questions not just casual TV viewers. From personal experience I think you would also benefit from having to answer challenging questions that force you to go deeper into subjects than you otherwise would, Caleb.
My wife and I spent a couple hours at Best Buy today looking at the newer TV's. Our first impressions were that picture quality on all models looked over saturated. The green in the grass was not real looking and the blues in the sky were a blazing blue. Maybe they crank up the color for sales purposes, but it turned us away. I do a lot of Photoshop work and sadly I see most younger photographers cranking up the saturation of their images to a point where they look fake just to gain attention. Our 10 year old Samsung ( what ever model it is ) looks great with no problems, so maybe we will just keep it until it dies, or we do. Thanks for all the great info you provide. PS The Sony Trinitron CRT was one amazing TV, but now I am giving away my age.
Great discussion! I learned a lot of technical info I was heretofore oblivious to. Plus, you explain it all in a very understandable way, which is a gift and a talent indeed! Many thanks! I'd love to see more technical discussions.
14:46 This information is old and is not relevant since 2017. LGD dumped the 2-stack B/Y OLED arrangement for a 3-stack tandem R/G/B arrangement for creating the white OLEDs.
I believe you are exactly right, and to be totally transparent, as I wrote that I thought to myself “are they still doing it this way? I think they changed it?” And next thing I know I was distracted by trying to take this massive issue and make it understandable. I should have gotten that part corrected and I’ll do better. Thanks for calling it out!
@Caleb_Denison Sure thing. There is a lot of work involved in creating the content of this magnitude, so errors are unavoidable sometimes, so it is totally understandable. It was not my intention to undermine your content, but rather, as a display enthusiast, add to it by helping correcting these minor mistakes!
Panasonic is the Reference, when it comes to Plasma TV’s, not Samsung. My 65” and 50” Plasma TV’s have a Superb Picture, and it’s more Natural without being artificially boosted, than any of my Friend’s OLED TV’s. Natural, Gorgeous, accurate Colors, not adding or taking away, Beautiful, Rich, and NATURAL! No fatigue.
Keep up the deep dives! There's a lot of NITnerd wannabees out there. More explanations of the meanings of the graphs you're displaying and the tools that produced them and overviews of the technology behind what we're seeing on our screens would be greatly appreciated.
So fun to see a comparison with the SAMSUNG F8500 Fitting as if I remember correctly when discontinued it had claim to being the brightest plasma produced. Until recently, I still had one in the field. It was replaced with a Sony A95k 🤩 As a calibrator, I completely understood all of which was discussed, I’m curious to know how it landed with others as well. I say keep the detail coming Cheers
Enjoyed the deeper dive on how TV colors are produced. Would like to have seen you finish with the things someone might like from the plamsa or CRT. I sometimes see some content on my ZT60 or Kuro plasmas that looks more natural than my OLED. Is it motion?
It might be the motion or it could be that the colors don’t look as saturated as modern TVs. What say you, what do you think makes your plasmas look more natural?
remember when i saw a TV program that was about volcanic eruptions. I remember it was beautiful on a CRT television. The lovely glowing color. I remember the time when you read a promotion for a crt projector. then the message was that it could reproduce warm colors that an LCD projector could not. that's what the marketing for a CRT projector could say back then
Thank you very much, I really needed an episode of old tvs especially crt tvs they were perfect in terms of picture quality, I hope you make an episode for crt tvs and why they were so good.... Thank you 👍🙏
I'm currently using a 32" LG TV in our bedroom that must be 15 years old ...it's an LED, to my knowledge and not LCD, and was my mum's when she passed away 13 years ago and it has the best picture quality I've ever seen
Yeah, I’ll make it even simpler for you. CRI is a measurement of reflected light. Not transmitted light. Therefore, any TV manufacturer can calibrate their LED light sources to render any colors as accurately as is possible. You can’t calibrate the color of the fabric on your sofa or the paint on your wall, so the CRI is only relevant for how accurately it renders those colors as they are viewed from the light landing on them.
I understand why QD-OLED is potentially the most accurate out of the discussed types, but do you remember Vincent Teoh being unable to accurately calibrate a 2021(?) QD-OLED TV? He said that the Samsung panel division and TV division hadn't communicated sufficiently when it came to the firmware to drive the QD-OLED panels correctly leading to such a large discrepancy in colour accuracy that it was unfixable via calibration. That's what led me to buy an LG CX instead in the 2021 sales which I'm still delighted with. I only have very basic calibration equipment, but it showed that the CX was very close to perfect when set to "Warm1" in "Expert(Bright Room)" mode and has stayed that way ever since.
if colour accuracy is important than for OLEDs it is truly important that the RED is 650nm, BLUE is 450nm and Green is either 525nm or 520nm. these wavelengths are the peak of each colour in the RGB spectrum. however a big issue with most Green LED's is that they may have a strong spectral peak at 520nm or 525nm but they will also have an additional peak between 540nm-560nm (which makes them warmer then they actually should) a high quality green LED which has a minimal peak outside of 525nm would be pretty expensive to use. to compensate this what most TV manufacturers do with their OLED TV's is they simply run the GREEN LED at a lower duty cycle, however singe the human eye is more sensitive to green light the result would appear less bright and more blueish. in fact, i think why many people believe that older plasma TVs and CRT's had better colour reproduction is because it is a lot easier to bend a white light into a specific wavelength using specific cut-off filters (which is what was used in CRT TV's, and in non-DLP projectors with colour wheels etc.). as for plasma, its pretty easy to create a specific wavelength gas emitter - which is why Plasma is actually superior in many ways when it comes to colour accuracy (the red is 650nm, the blue is 450nm and the green is exactly and only 520nm or 525nm) for OLED's its a different story, since high quality green LED's that dont reproduce excess light in the 540-560nm bandwidth are very expensive you will only see true high quality and good colour reproduction in the most expensive OLED tv's, any other cheap consumer OLED is just going to use software manipulation to try and filter out the 540-560nm peak - but its never going to be as perfect as not having it in the first place... for older LCD tv's by the way it was a pretty easy way to get 520nm green without peak, since like i mentioned before - the LCD's rear glass had a special cut-off filter that would block out any light that is coming from the backlight which is not 450nm, 520nm and 650nm - due to this LED and fluorescent backlit LCD TV's could never be as bright as OLEDs or as modern QLED TV's, but they were much easier to work with and could get a much better colour accurate image (albeit on the expense of brightness and additional heat). the reason why high end colour accurate PC monitors cost so much, is because as i mentioned a perfect 520nm or 525nm LED is a lot more expensive then a regular 520nm LED. but what i don't understand here is why you didn't talk about projectors? modern projectors, especially high end ones can actually do a much better job than most TV's for colour accurate presentation. especially with DLP technology, where you have a small DMD that shifts only the light you actually require for any specific pixel. Laser based DLP projectors produce a super colour accurate image (since lasers are much easier when it comes to wavelength spectrum - a 450nm laser will ONLY have a peak at 450nm, a 650nm laser will ONLY have a sharp peak at 650nm and a green laser will only have a sharp peak at 520nm or 525nm, as compared to LEDs all have a gradual Wavelength spectrum with a peak at their rated wavelength but they also emit out more light slightly below and slightly above their rated wavelength. the problem with colour accurate TV's however is that they are not that enjoyable to watch, yeah the picture would be true to the source when it comes to colour accuracy but in the vast majority of cases it doesn't even really matter? because most content is produced with a shifted colour filter anyway so this whole debacle about colour accuracy in TV's is nonsensical since almost all of the content you are going to watch except for maybe the news, has a colour filter (LUT) applied to it anyways lmao
Do more in-depth questions. By answering and explaining them you make everything more easily understood by everyone and thus everything is more approachable.
CRT's were wonderful and I preferred it to early flat screens. Only when I bought a stunning Sony XBR8 in 2008 that I first encountered how beautiful blues and whites look on a TV. Everything before seem to have a reddish tint (to emphasize skin color?) that drove me crazy. It's taken forever for filmmakers to move away from the red/green palette (perhaps driven by David Fincher with Fight Club) and move into blues and whites which look stunning on OLED's and certain LED's.
My early 2000s lcd monitors and tvs were backlit with compact florescent. People just romanticize old stuff. I would have liked a pioneer plasma, but I never got one. I also liked Panasonic. Its nice to see them selling stuff in the US again.
Definitely need this type of extended deep dive on occasion to clarify the hopefully unintentional misinformation produced or forwarded by keyboard warriors. “I read it on my social media” etc just doesn’t cut it. Nicely crafted.
The same argument can be made about older LED TVs (circa. 2013) versus current gen LED TVs in 2024. For example, some argue that the Cadmium-based “Color IQ” panels found in the Sony W900/905 or X900 in 2013 were some of the best that Sony released prior to gearing up Triluminos branding and steering away from Cadmium for all models afterwards. It’s probably why it’s really hard to buy those models at the moment. Either they’re sought after due to their awesome picture, or they’re hard to find as they’ve aged a decade and will probably mostly be broken by now.
What does it mean for cadmium in TV color? is it like in art paints? And was cadmium used in TVs prior (like CRTs)? I remember the EU tried to rule against the selling of cadmium paints but artists in Europe would not have it. (They did outlaw lead white, however).
There was a TH-cam question that would answer the question How high is the resolution of an analog camera that uses 35 mm film. in that video he says that each color such a camera has a color resolution corresponding to 24 bit and for each color. which does not apply to him in a digital camera
Unfortunately, the Panasonic UB820 and UB9000 don’t have an option to match source resolution, but I have no complaints about the 4K upscaling of the Pannys on my 77S89C. Do the Magnetars have match source resolution?
as a panasonic owner, i can confirm if my tv does upsaling, the picture quality is better, the picture is sharper. If I watch general bluray, I manually set the resolution on the player to 1080, if I watch UHD, I manually set 4K. :)
I really appreciated the educational approach to answering the last question. Yes, it will inevitably touch off even more debate. But I feel that the unnamed TH-camr, though the question submitter may not have provided the full context, wasn't using this same approach. Not sure why they would have incandescent light sources entering this discussion. Incandescent light is largely loathed for it's color as it is not "natural" by any means.
I do have an HDCRT TV, the Sony KD- XBR970, and I can say there are certain mediums I prefer on it over my Sony X90J. For one thing, games on my PS5 may look better simply because a lot of them aren't native 4k and the console does super sampling on lower resolution displays. On top of that, some games like RE2 Remake, have multiple brightness sliders to create the best possible image with precise brightness controls. Now newer TVs wreck this display in a number ways. For instance, a lot of new media is designed with higher base brightness. On my CRT, this can mean things can be black crushed or over blown if I set the brightness too high. I can't set the colors to Deep Color settings and using the Full Color option crushes the image as well. The 970 has an HDMI input, but can't pull all the color info like a newer TV. Still, there are some movies that look dynamite on it. My advice is unless you're strong and have an equally strong buddy, just buy a newer TV.
My Samsung PN50B650 was absolutely beautiful, none of my 4k tvs have looked that good for the same price. To come close or beat a CRT or Plasma, you really gotta spend some cash.
Phospers (what crt used) had amazing color, only problem is the amount of light output. This killed plasma because they used phospers also, and to make them small enough for 4k would have meant insuficient light. But those pictures were great
Your cardigan appears to shimmer / flicker on my Hisense U6N. I see this flickering on any object with closely placed parallel lines like roofs, buildings and even your brown slatted media stand. Much appreciated if you can share a solution (other than turning on motion smoothing). 😊
I have the last great plasma TV (Panasonic) and I hope it never breaks (I’m sure it will). But … a lot of your comparisons at the end seemed to show lower total light levels on the plasmas. Is that an appropriate comparison?
Yes. Most plasma TVs tend to be dim, especially the last plasma models that were produced. Plasma TVs from earlier years (around 2008 or thereabouts) were a bit brighter.
A different way to see the issue, is that TVs are stimulating the three types of cones cells in our eyes, and our brains would interpret the signals as colors (in other words, our brains are tricked into believing those colors actually exist). The cone cells correspond to short, medium, and long wavelengths respectively. We want the blue pixels to stimulate the short wavelength cone cells, the green pixels on medium ones, and red pixels on long ones, while not generating stimulations of other cones cells. But since our cones cells can respond to a spectrum of colors, to minimize the "crosstalk", the spectrum of the pixels should be as narrow as possible so that the TVs can precisely control how the cones cells are stimulated, thus generating a wider gamut. An interesting fact is that if we show the screens tech to other animals with different color vision systems (cells that have different response to the color spectrum), the colors they interpret would not be the same as if the objects were shown in real life. That's because their eyes are not receiving the correct stimulations.
I know some people that actually prefer CRT and Plasma, especially those with light sensitivity? The CRT and Plasma defenders should really ask themselves why Sony and Canon no longer use them for their mastering monitors. Let’s be fair, LCD technology wasn’t the best technology to replace CRT and Plasma, and it took almost ten years for OLED to save the day. The color advantages of today’s TVs is undeniable.
Pictures on the screen the iPhone 8 Plus looked really good. i were impressed when i saw picture on phone screen for the first time and its have LCD screen
QD-OLED for sure. LG doesn't have a QD-OLED. If you’re in the US, your only choices are Samsung S95c, S90c, S90D and Sony A95l. Please note that 83” and 48” Samsung S90D models are not QD-OLED.
I’m in the market for a new TV (my first “good” one) and there’s a lot of information to digest. One thing I’ve been wondering is if someone could explain why TV’s this day and age and at the price point I’m looking at (around $2k) need calibration at all? I understand tweaks here and there but for that price I’d think they should be plug and play. Thanks.
My parents have a 14 year old Panasonic plasma and it still rocks
Well... they're very lucky because plasma TVs were not very bright to begin with and they deteriorate over time.
After 10 years the luminescence should be at 50% of what it used to be when the TV was new.
@@leom9286they’ve only used it on “THX” mode which halves the brightness so it’s surviving
I find plasmas and crts more natural and I can say that even for the plasma in this video (when viewing the video from an oled 😂). One the of the reasons may be the higher black levels and lower contrast of plasmas and crts that result in smoother gradients. The high contrast of oleds, the more saturated colors and deeper blacks can look more harsh and digital. The way the plasmas and crts render near black content is way smoother.
Do more debunking questions, like that last one, Caleb.
They are very insightful and can help the rest of us from falling into traps of faulty logic.
I second that!
My Kuro still amazes me with it's colour! Never looks wrong or off. But compared to new tv's it's dim and has poor blacks compared to QD-OLED. For a tv that's 16 years old it's pretty dam impressive.
I totally agree. I like to think I have an eye for quality. I have a 2014 Panasonic P60ST60 Plasma and have always been impressed by it and the quality of the colors and vividness of its picture. People in general seemed unable to notice the superiority of it compared to a LCD around that time when the sentiment of Plasma went downhill, but it never made sense to me. I recently just got a LG 65" C4 OLED and before it was calibrated I was having my doubts over its picture quality over my Plasma. But now that I had some help calibrating it, I am finally having the WOW factor I needed with OLED over Plasma. I still have the Plasma in my room and I hope it lasts a long time and movies and shows still look great as do games. I mostly play games on the OLED TV and I have been extremely impressed with the C4 for that medium so far!
The motion will still be vastly superior.
@@Stoddardian Yep! 60fps gaming on a plasma is clean as a whistle. But very expensive to run. Mine is 530w😖
Even 30fps looks good on a plasma. On an OLED it's unplayable.
Yeah I play my Xbox games on a Panasonic Viera Plasma TV from 2009, it still looks great with beautiful colours and lovely motion handling. It looks way nicer than my big but fairly cheap 4K LG LED that's in the main living room and I will not replace it out of sheer respect! Of course, I would like a high quality OLED for the main room though but I would want a really high end one and at the moment I just can't afford it sadly.
Like others in the comments I still actively use a CRT for retro gaming, a panasonic plamsa, and two lg oleds amongst other tvs not worth mentioning but I think it all comes down to content. Of course, modern tvs produce more accurate pictures but I like certain content better on each of them individually. Older content filmed on actual film for me looks better on the plasma where things filmed with hdr in mind look better on the lgs. In the video i found myself at times liking the look of the content on the plasma better. The led popped more but the plasma looked more real or natural. Would love a whole video getting into the differences.
Qd oled everything looks great on it
I think there is a bias built in from past experiences
QD OLED makes everything amazing with a single display
HDR looks horrible, biggest hoax of technology
@@drunkhusband6257 Please see an optometrist or acquire a modern TV
Deep dives when question prompt them are always good! When I’m not interested I can scrub to the next question, but the more information available the better. Definitely don’t limit to just basics. Thanks!
It's not 4k or an OLED BUT my 51" Samsung Plasma still looks PRETTY DANG GOOD!!!!
I do like a tv that's in the middle of the scale, a tv can be TOO bright and vivid that makes it look fake to me....but I also don't want dull and flat looking colours either. I'm still a fan of TCL's mid tier tv's because they look very natural to me and you can get a "big" panel (65-75) for less than $1000. I really hope we get some of the new Panasonic MiniLED tv's up here at the Costco I work at because I COULD justify spending a little extra for one of them
The way I see it, old TV's are a lot like vinyl records. Both have attributes people can find compelling.
Many people listen on vinyl today, for example. Those people find the way an audio production is "colored" by vinyl mastering and the cartridge pickup needle preferable. I myself really enjoy that on some recordings.
It is not better in any absolute technical sense.
A CRT displaying interlaced content produced in the 90"s on DVD, for example, will look amazing! Really, that speaks to how the content was produced more than display superiority. The same goes for high end pro CRT displays, with the added extra quality over consumer gear.
CRT computer monitors are fast! Run one of those at 100Hz and motion perception will be noticed.
I have a couple CRT displays and they do light gun ganes! I like those.
I want an OLED to replace my 120hz plasma.
That plasma does 3D display, either movies or computer graphics better than anything I have seen , but it can't do a light gun...
Rather than argue best, enjoy the tech.
I am from the old school where 8 bits were enough and I love where we are today being able to enjoy 3D in the home, still use old gear, and be spoiled by seriously great displays available from almost any vintage!
Enjoy because this time will pass before we even know it.
This comment is perfect in my humble opinion. I love my 15 year old Panasonic Viera Plasma TV above almost any modern display even now, I just love the image it produces and always will until the very sad day arrives when it finally dies ( it seems almost indestructible! ). But, this is only my preference, it's not "better" than modern displays that's not what I'm saying, I just still prefer it. We all need to enjoy whatever we like as much as we can while we are here at the end of the day.
@@retroshade75 I still am using my 2007 Vieta 50" . Still gets compliments from guests too.
I'm actually frightened to replace it !
@@kastaways1259 I completely understand I feel exactly the same and yes people always comment what a lovely picture it has even after all these years!
Yes, similar with tube amplifiers. Some people still love them over newer tech because of certain things they do very well.
BTW I still love my Pioneer Kuro 50” plasma and even returned an early LG OLED despite it having much more brightness and resolution capabilities and expecting it to be superior. For whatever reasons the picture and motion quality just weren’t as satisfying as the old plasma.
@@maxtakular Almost every tech has a similar dynamic.
In many cases, a given tech or process will absolutely nail something, or present in a specific way.
This does not mean better, or even worse in most cases too. It just means different.
And people like what they like for their reasons.
I’m happy with my plasma.
Keep it. It's still superior when it comes to motion and uniformity.
Agreed. Have no plans of replacing it.
Plasmas are great when it's cold. I was shopping for a plasma when they were still sold, but I never pulled the trigger on one because of how dark the picture was. I ended up getting a Samsung LN52a750 which if I'm not mistaken was backlit with compact florescent light. If it got cold it would take a little while to warm up to operating temperature and full brightness.
Owned Panasonic viera (2013) the color production still solid & vibrant until today...
Great episode! I love these deeper dives into settings and display color theory. 👍
Enjoyed the deep dive into color in today’s TVs versus CRT and Plasma TVs of yore. 😊
Of yore, like the Flintstones tv?
@@OpinionFactChecker🤣😂🤣
@@OpinionFactChecker Have a bird flip a switch to turn on the TV for you lol
I enjoyed it too. Wouldn’t want every episode of “You Asked” to go to that level of complex detail, but great to expand our knowledge in some episodes
Caleb this was a great and very informitive video! THANKS
How ever you do it works for me. You always give a good presentation what ever topic you do. Thank you.
Really enjoyed the video Caleb, these are the types of videos that you should keep making in the future. Keep up the great work!
Deep dive was excellent! A very clear and concise presentation.
I liked that last question, definitely add those when they come in.
More in-depth detail is always welcome. Thanks.
Thanks, excellent and broad knowledge.
About the TV’s tech:
- most that prefer CRT/Plasma are used to those devices and feel newer TVs are too saturated
- most brands to emphasize the better color volume and show off, they have default products are too oversaturated, but if you change to a more natural profile, they’ll be fine!
Example: my Samsung S95B as default oversaturates (a lot!) red and green on certain situations (flags, green fields in sports, etc) but changing to “natural” corrects that and it looks very natural (sometimes even dull…).
As long as the tech is good, the software allows you to tune down or up to match your preferences.
I appreciated fielding the in depth and complicated questions in the video today. And I really enjoyed your way of answering, as interpreting exactly what they meant could be tricky to make as a video format. Spreading the good info and making a slight inference was the right way to go. Especially loved the Plasma/CRT vs modern breakdown. Awesome video!
Thank you Caleb for explaining difference of CRT/Plasma to Modern TV's with OLED and QLED. I have my 48 inch LG C2 OLED is amazing for modern content and 42 inch LG 2010 Plasma TV for a older game consoles and older movies. I love Plasma to my heart as it brought true HD with colors when I was 13 years old in 2008 and grateful for not getting horrible early LCD TV's in living room. But OLED shares space with Plasma in my heart equal. Love them both as cool science of display tech!
love these more technical videos. you could've also covered how the cones in our eyes sense light, but maybe that would've been too much haha
Bought a Bravia 8 and moved old Samsung plasma (10 years) into bedroom. I got to say. I have new respect for that old TV. Bravia great and glad I purchased.
Coming from a cheap used Panasonic Plasma TCP42S1, my new LG C1 looked terrible to me in comparison regardless of color accuracy.
My Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD is completely inaccurate, having almost no calibration controls and different white balance depending on the window size, yet it looks amazing no matter what.
My S95C is objectively far superior to my Plasmas, yet there's still something special about the Plasma technology, not to mention a 2008 TV having better motion clarity than most 2024 TVs. Let's not even mention CRTs when it comes to motion
Have you ever considered that the plasma tv is giving you the image you are used to see and growed to like it? I recently bought myself a 4k laser projector and after calibration gives me 97% of BT2020. I was revisiting things that i was used to watch on a sony tv that has 30% less BT2020 coverage. I am blown away by how many more colors the projector gives me... but i'm still undecided if I like them or not
Still using a 50" Panasonic Vieta we bought new in 2007.
It still gets compliments on its color, clarity and brightness.
I'm scared to replace it 😂
I hope you put an Amazon fire stick on it or Google stick etc for streaming since those are non smart.
This is how it's done. Thank you
Thanks for the detailed explanation when comparing screen technologies.
I don’t think this CRT/plasma being more ‘natural’ than LCD/OLED has anything to do with color production. CRT and plasma were the last two display technologies to not rely on sample and hold. Well, technically, DLP doesn’t use sample and hold either. In any case sample and hold as a concept will forever be tied to computer displays. I watch an LCD or OLED and it looks very good but to my eye all the motion looks very artificial. Black frame insertion can help to a degree. But really the only solution I’ve found is to drive the panel at high refresh around 240Hz or higher. But of course that only works with games…
Fabulous review of display technology. I really appreciate knowing how tech actually performs as it does and this was quite helpful. I have both a Pioneer Kuro 50" and Signature Elite 60" which I still am amazed by, and have had no burn in issues (probably benefited by usually viewing these at night or in a darkened room for the Elite). Yet thanks to OLED, more 4K content and larger screen sizes, I am finally looking to add another TV. This has been quite helpful. Thanks!
Enjoyed the show very much. Including the deep dive.
Another thing with CRTs is people seem to focus on the absolute best of them, not what the average person had. For example, I've never owned a CRT that didn't have severe black crush problems. Dark scenes I either couldn't see what was going on or had to push up the brightness causing everything to look grey. As such when I got my first LCD TV, it didn't look worse to me in that respect.
The IPS monitor I have on my PC right now is night/day better than any CRT monitor I owned. Brightness of course also plays a huge part on that.
Having spent a lifetime in A/V repairs i have experienced the various display technologies as they
progressed from CRT to Plasma and then to todays LED and Oled panels.
As far as colour accuracy is concerned, yes OLed are the most accurate, but what you find the best
varies from one person to the next, so each to their own.
For me, give me a CRT or Plasma over an Oled, accuracy is one thing, eye fatiuge is another.
After working on LED or Oled panels i can feel my eyes getting stressed by todays high brightness and more
accurate images.
I can watch a good CRT or Plasma for many hours longer, their more subdued images are kinder to my eyes
and since i watch mostly lower resolution content, a CRT or Plasma way outperfrom 4K panels that are designed
to show 4K at it's best and they struggle even with 1080p content anything lower is unwatchable.
interesting take
I think the key is that CRT and Plasma have superior motion handling to the best LED and OLED TVs.
Think the key is they are different and it's a preference. But I agree with what u said.
100% true. I have an oled in my living room and a high end Samsung plasma in my theater and for serious movie viewing I Much prefer the motion and watching movies on my plasma !
The X800 MKII has a Bravia mode, set it to Bravia mode and you'll get the best performance of any 1080p movie.
We recently watched the first Twilight movie and it looked great using these settings.
Our set up is:
Sony X800 MK II into an Phillips Hue Sync box 8K, that goes into an Sony HT-A9 box then out to the eARC HDMI (HDMI 3 set to Dolby Vision enhanced) of our Bravia XR 75" x95L tv.
But just a warning.
1080p will never look good on a 85" tv. 75" is already stretching it, 85" is unfortunately too large for the amount pixels,
This is why most who own 75" and 85" hdmi 2.1 tvs are upgrading to a PS5 PRO.
He DuZ hIz OwN rEsEaRcH!
You don't need to apologize for having gone into detail on this topic, Caleb - I think we all learned a great deal from what you were saying, and it really helps to know how modern televisions work versus how old CRT and plasma televisions worked.
It's kind of hilarious that somebody would say a CRT would have a more accurate picture when even the blackest black is going to be a shade of dark gray! Maybe you could make the point that a plasma TV gives you more accurate colors because black is truly black thanks to being the absence of light rather than the absence of color, which makes the colors stand out more-but that's pretty much the same way OLEDs produce blacker blacks and more vibrant, accurate colors.
I really like all types of episodes that you guys make. They have a lot of intentionality and are very interesting. I just only wish that there was more. Thank you for all the work you guys do.
There’s perhaps a bit of confusion when talking about color accuracy, additive RGB light and CRI, because RGB screens, broadly speaking, generate PERCEPTUALLY accurate colors. Meaning they generate a tristimulus using only red, green and blue that matches that of a “pure” wavelength (or mix of wavelengths) inside our eyes. The more saturated the RGB subpixels become, the bigger the display’s native gamut will be. If the display can generate bigger gamuts at higher brightness levels, you get more color volume. And CRTs are great at that. But not as great as a proper QD OLED these days. I love my CRTs but today’s tech caught up with it and left it behind a while ago. As this video properly explains, CRI refers to light sources that generate most of the visible spectrum and therefore show the real colors on objects and not a tristimulus color. That would be impossible when reflecting light off of objects. So the comparison between RGB screens and a CRI index is fundamentally flawed.
Yes, I very much enjoyed the deep dive information, and please continue on that road! It was fascinating to learn about all of that stuff!
I like the deep dive. There should really be a "Nit nerds asked" section or something like that where we go into detailed discussions about TV technology, color science and stuff as enthusiasts also have questions not just casual TV viewers. From personal experience I think you would also benefit from having to answer challenging questions that force you to go deeper into subjects than you otherwise would, Caleb.
My wife and I spent a couple hours at Best Buy today looking at the newer TV's. Our first impressions were that picture quality on all models looked over saturated. The green in the grass was not real looking and the blues in the sky were a blazing blue. Maybe they crank up the color for sales purposes, but it turned us away. I do a lot of Photoshop work and sadly I see most younger photographers cranking up the saturation of their images to a point where they look fake just to gain attention. Our 10 year old Samsung ( what ever model it is ) looks great with no problems, so maybe we will just keep it until it dies, or we do. Thanks for all the great info you provide. PS The Sony Trinitron CRT was one amazing TV, but now I am giving away my age.
Great discussion! I learned a lot of technical info I was heretofore oblivious to. Plus, you explain it all in a very understandable way, which is a gift and a talent indeed! Many thanks! I'd love to see more technical discussions.
Love the video. It blows my mind how complex and intricate display technologies are.
14:46 This information is old and is not relevant since 2017. LGD dumped the 2-stack B/Y OLED arrangement for a 3-stack tandem R/G/B arrangement for creating the white OLEDs.
I believe you are exactly right, and to be totally transparent, as I wrote that I thought to myself “are they still doing it this way? I think they changed it?” And next thing I know I was distracted by trying to take this massive issue and make it understandable. I should have gotten that part corrected and I’ll do better. Thanks for calling it out!
@Caleb_Denison Sure thing. There is a lot of work involved in creating the content of this magnitude, so errors are unavoidable sometimes, so it is totally understandable. It was not my intention to undermine your content, but rather, as a display enthusiast, add to it by helping correcting these minor mistakes!
You go above and beyond with the information you give to these questions. Keep up the great work.
Loved the deeper take and would love to see more like it!
Panasonic is the Reference, when it comes to Plasma TV’s, not Samsung. My 65” and 50” Plasma TV’s have a Superb Picture, and it’s more Natural without being artificially boosted, than any of my Friend’s OLED TV’s. Natural, Gorgeous, accurate Colors, not adding or taking away, Beautiful, Rich, and NATURAL! No fatigue.
Keep up the deep dives! There's a lot of NITnerd wannabees out there. More explanations of the meanings of the graphs you're displaying and the tools that produced them and overviews of the technology behind what we're seeing on our screens would be greatly appreciated.
Definitely like the deep dive approach!
So fun to see a comparison with the SAMSUNG F8500
Fitting as if I remember correctly when discontinued it had claim to being the brightest plasma produced.
Until recently, I still had one in the field. It was replaced with a Sony A95k 🤩
As a calibrator, I completely understood all of which was discussed, I’m curious to know how it landed with others as well.
I say keep the detail coming
Cheers
Umm.... Both. Clear and precise. Loved it.
Thanks for sharing your extensive knowledge
Saying “Garbage in garbage out” is more rude than “You can’t polish a turd” when referring to someone’s art is wild🤣
Thanks Caleb! Love the deep dive questions! Very interesting and informative. More You asked episodes like this :-)
Enjoyed the deeper dive on how TV colors are produced. Would like to have seen you finish with the things someone might like from the plamsa or CRT. I sometimes see some content on my ZT60 or Kuro plasmas that looks more natural than my OLED. Is it motion?
It might be the motion or it could be that the colors don’t look as saturated as modern TVs. What say you, what do you think makes your plasmas look more natural?
remember when i saw a TV program that was about volcanic eruptions. I remember it was beautiful on a CRT television. The lovely glowing color. I remember the time when you read a promotion for a crt projector. then the message was that it could reproduce warm colors that an LCD projector could not. that's what the marketing for a CRT projector could say back then
Thank you very much, I really needed an episode of old tvs especially crt tvs they were perfect in terms of picture quality, I hope you make an episode for crt tvs and why they were so good.... Thank you 👍🙏
I'm currently using a 32" LG TV in our bedroom that must be 15 years old ...it's an LED, to my knowledge and not LCD, and was my mum's when she passed away 13 years ago and it has the best picture quality I've ever seen
Yeah, I’ll make it even simpler for you. CRI is a measurement of reflected light. Not transmitted light. Therefore, any TV manufacturer can calibrate their LED light sources to render any colors as accurately as is possible. You can’t calibrate the color of the fabric on your sofa or the paint on your wall, so the CRI is only relevant for how accurately it renders those colors as they are viewed from the light landing on them.
I understand why QD-OLED is potentially the most accurate out of the discussed types, but do you remember Vincent Teoh being unable to accurately calibrate a 2021(?) QD-OLED TV? He said that the Samsung panel division and TV division hadn't communicated sufficiently when it came to the firmware to drive the QD-OLED panels correctly leading to such a large discrepancy in colour accuracy that it was unfixable via calibration. That's what led me to buy an LG CX instead in the 2021 sales which I'm still delighted with. I only have very basic calibration equipment, but it showed that the CX was very close to perfect when set to "Warm1" in "Expert(Bright Room)" mode and has stayed that way ever since.
Hi Caleb, great video, I learned so much from this, keep up deep dive when it makes sense.
Love the in depth content. Well done. 👍
Hello! Are we getting a full Sonos Arc Ultra / Era 300 / Sub 4 review at some point?
Definitely talk about the sony bravia KDL-40X3500 a must when it comes to older tv outperforming new tv
if colour accuracy is important than for OLEDs it is truly important that the RED is 650nm, BLUE is 450nm and Green is either 525nm or 520nm.
these wavelengths are the peak of each colour in the RGB spectrum.
however a big issue with most Green LED's is that they may have a strong spectral peak at 520nm or 525nm but they will also have an additional peak between 540nm-560nm (which makes them warmer then they actually should)
a high quality green LED which has a minimal peak outside of 525nm would be pretty expensive to use.
to compensate this what most TV manufacturers do with their OLED TV's is they simply run the GREEN LED at a lower duty cycle, however singe the human eye is more sensitive to green light the result would appear less bright and more blueish.
in fact, i think why many people believe that older plasma TVs and CRT's had better colour reproduction is because it is a lot easier to bend a white light into a specific wavelength using specific cut-off filters (which is what was used in CRT TV's, and in non-DLP projectors with colour wheels etc.).
as for plasma, its pretty easy to create a specific wavelength gas emitter - which is why Plasma is actually superior in many ways when it comes to colour accuracy (the red is 650nm, the blue is 450nm and the green is exactly and only 520nm or 525nm)
for OLED's its a different story, since high quality green LED's that dont reproduce excess light in the 540-560nm bandwidth are very expensive you will only see true high quality and good colour reproduction in the most expensive OLED tv's,
any other cheap consumer OLED is just going to use software manipulation to try and filter out the 540-560nm peak - but its never going to be as perfect as not having it in the first place...
for older LCD tv's by the way it was a pretty easy way to get 520nm green without peak, since like i mentioned before - the LCD's rear glass had a special cut-off filter that would block out any light that is coming from the backlight which is not 450nm, 520nm and 650nm - due to this LED and fluorescent backlit LCD TV's could never be as bright as OLEDs or as modern QLED TV's, but they were much easier to work with and could get a much better colour accurate image (albeit on the expense of brightness and additional heat).
the reason why high end colour accurate PC monitors cost so much, is because as i mentioned a perfect 520nm or 525nm LED is a lot more expensive then a regular 520nm LED.
but what i don't understand here is why you didn't talk about projectors?
modern projectors, especially high end ones can actually do a much better job than most TV's for colour accurate presentation.
especially with DLP technology, where you have a small DMD that shifts only the light you actually require for any specific pixel.
Laser based DLP projectors produce a super colour accurate image (since lasers are much easier when it comes to wavelength spectrum - a 450nm laser will ONLY have a peak at 450nm, a 650nm laser will ONLY have a sharp peak at 650nm and a green laser will only have a sharp peak at 520nm or 525nm, as compared to LEDs all have a gradual Wavelength spectrum with a peak at their rated wavelength but they also emit out more light slightly below and slightly above their rated wavelength.
the problem with colour accurate TV's however is that they are not that enjoyable to watch, yeah the picture would be true to the source when it comes to colour accuracy but in the vast majority of cases it doesn't even really matter? because most content is produced with a shifted colour filter anyway so this whole debacle about colour accuracy in TV's is nonsensical since almost all of the content you are going to watch except for maybe the news, has a colour filter (LUT) applied to it anyways lmao
Do more in-depth questions. By answering and explaining them you make everything more easily understood by everyone and thus everything is more approachable.
Great episode! Thank you for your thoughtful in-depth explanation. Please keep them
CRT's were wonderful and I preferred it to early flat screens. Only when I bought a stunning Sony XBR8 in 2008 that I first encountered how beautiful blues and whites look on a TV. Everything before seem to have a reddish tint (to emphasize skin color?) that drove me crazy. It's taken forever for filmmakers to move away from the red/green palette (perhaps driven by David Fincher with Fight Club) and move into blues and whites which look stunning on OLED's and certain LED's.
Loved the details on tvs. Great job. Keep it up.
Thanks for the great explanation Homelander!
My early 2000s lcd monitors and tvs were backlit with compact florescent. People just romanticize old stuff. I would have liked a pioneer plasma, but I never got one. I also liked Panasonic. Its nice to see them selling stuff in the US again.
Definitely need this type of extended deep dive on occasion to clarify the hopefully unintentional misinformation produced or forwarded by keyboard warriors.
“I read it on my social media” etc just doesn’t cut it.
Nicely crafted.
Film grain is very difficult for compression, too. Lower bitrates just smooth it out.
The same argument can be made about older LED TVs (circa. 2013) versus current gen LED TVs in 2024.
For example, some argue that the Cadmium-based “Color IQ” panels found in the Sony W900/905 or X900 in 2013 were some of the best that Sony released prior to gearing up Triluminos branding and steering away from Cadmium for all models afterwards.
It’s probably why it’s really hard to buy those models at the moment. Either they’re sought after due to their awesome picture, or they’re hard to find as they’ve aged a decade and will probably mostly be broken by now.
What does it mean for cadmium in TV color? is it like in art paints? And was cadmium used in TVs prior (like CRTs)? I remember the EU tried to rule against the selling of cadmium paints but artists in Europe would not have it. (They did outlaw lead white, however).
Brilliant! So insightful. I love it. Thanks a lot!
Enjoyed that segment. And the other ones. :)
There was a TH-cam question that would answer the question How high is the resolution of an analog camera that uses 35 mm film. in that video he says that each color such a camera has a color resolution corresponding to 24 bit and for each color. which does not apply to him in a digital camera
Don't know if this was intentional but really enjoyed the video that was in HDR and i hope you can do it for all tv reviews.
17:38 huh ? Why?!
Eyes are subjective while tools are objective
So why would they do that
Unfortunately, the Panasonic UB820 and UB9000 don’t have an option to match source resolution, but I have no complaints about the 4K upscaling of the Pannys on my 77S89C. Do the Magnetars have match source resolution?
as a panasonic owner, i can confirm if my tv does upsaling, the picture quality is better, the picture is sharper.
If I watch general bluray, I manually set the resolution on the player to 1080, if I watch UHD, I manually set 4K. :)
Fantastic stuff, more going deep please! 🤘
I really appreciated the educational approach to answering the last question. Yes, it will inevitably touch off even more debate. But I feel that the unnamed TH-camr, though the question submitter may not have provided the full context, wasn't using this same approach. Not sure why they would have incandescent light sources entering this discussion. Incandescent light is largely loathed for it's color as it is not "natural" by any means.
I do have an HDCRT TV, the Sony KD- XBR970, and I can say there are certain mediums I prefer on it over my Sony X90J. For one thing, games on my PS5 may look better simply because a lot of them aren't native 4k and the console does super sampling on lower resolution displays. On top of that, some games like RE2 Remake, have multiple brightness sliders to create the best possible image with precise brightness controls. Now newer TVs wreck this display in a number ways. For instance, a lot of new media is designed with higher base brightness. On my CRT, this can mean things can be black crushed or over blown if I set the brightness too high. I can't set the colors to Deep Color settings and using the Full Color option crushes the image as well. The 970 has an HDMI input, but can't pull all the color info like a newer TV.
Still, there are some movies that look dynamite on it. My advice is unless you're strong and have an equally strong buddy, just buy a newer TV.
Golly geez I wish the QD OLED wasn't purple instead of black, I want all the color!!!!
Hi Caleb, how are you, how highly would you rate the 55” Samsung Neo QLED qn55d, I entered myself into a competition draw via Dolby, John UK
My Samsung PN50B650 was absolutely beautiful, none of my 4k tvs have looked that good for the same price. To come close or beat a CRT or Plasma, you really gotta spend some cash.
Phospers (what crt used) had amazing color, only problem is the amount of light output.
This killed plasma because they used phospers also, and to make them small enough for 4k would have meant insuficient light. But those pictures were great
CRTs were actually extremely bright.
Your cardigan appears to shimmer / flicker on my Hisense U6N. I see this flickering on any object with closely placed parallel lines like roofs, buildings and even your brown slatted media stand. Much appreciated if you can share a solution (other than turning on motion smoothing). 😊
Is Hisense U8N a good upgrade from TCL Q7 mostly for sound quality? Q7 sound is not good, and i don't really want a soundbar
I have the last great plasma TV (Panasonic) and I hope it never breaks (I’m sure it will). But … a lot of your comparisons at the end seemed to show lower total light levels on the plasmas. Is that an appropriate comparison?
Yes. Most plasma TVs tend to be dim, especially the last plasma models that were produced. Plasma TVs from earlier years (around 2008 or thereabouts) were a bit brighter.
loved the deep dive, maybe slap a warning next time like you do for the nerd nits section
A different way to see the issue, is that TVs are stimulating the three types of cones cells in our eyes, and our brains would interpret the signals as colors (in other words, our brains are tricked into believing those colors actually exist).
The cone cells correspond to short, medium, and long wavelengths respectively. We want the blue pixels to stimulate the short wavelength cone cells, the green pixels on medium ones, and red pixels on long ones, while not generating stimulations of other cones cells.
But since our cones cells can respond to a spectrum of colors, to minimize the "crosstalk", the spectrum of the pixels should be as narrow as possible so that the TVs can precisely control how the cones cells are stimulated, thus generating a wider gamut.
An interesting fact is that if we show the screens tech to other animals with different color vision systems (cells that have different response to the color spectrum), the colors they interpret would not be the same as if the objects were shown in real life. That's because their eyes are not receiving the correct stimulations.
a bit off topic but will you be doing a review of the new SONOS ARC ULTRA soundbar ? thx love your channel they are amazing reiews cheers from Canada
I love my x90L but my old 2013 Panasonic S60 still looks like I'm watching a beautiful 'painting'. Nothing to do with colour accuracy.
The S60 is a thing of beauty. No AR filter to hinder its colors.
I know some people that actually prefer CRT and Plasma, especially those with light sensitivity? The CRT and Plasma defenders should really ask themselves why Sony and Canon no longer use them for their mastering monitors. Let’s be fair, LCD technology wasn’t the best technology to replace CRT and Plasma, and it took almost ten years for OLED to save the day. The color advantages of today’s TVs is undeniable.
Loved it ❤
Pictures on the screen the iPhone 8 Plus looked really good. i were impressed when i saw picture on phone screen for the first time and its have LCD screen
Man that comparison at the end, there is no comparison. The oled/quantum dots are way better than plasma.
If own a Panny ZT60,VT60,S60 Samsung F8500, Pioneer 101FD and Pioneer 111FD.
Which Oled should I upgrade to?
QD-OLED for sure. LG doesn't have a QD-OLED. If you’re in the US, your only choices are Samsung S95c, S90c, S90D and Sony A95l. Please note that 83” and 48” Samsung S90D models are not QD-OLED.
There is no upgrade.
You are the best! Thanks!
I’m in the market for a new TV (my first “good” one) and there’s a lot of information to digest. One thing I’ve been wondering is if someone could explain why TV’s this day and age and at the price point I’m looking at (around $2k) need calibration at all? I understand tweaks here and there but for that price I’d think they should be plug and play. Thanks.