B&O CRT to VT30 disappointment...
Discussion
Just a rant/
I've owned and enjoyed a Beovision 3 for about 8 years or so. It's not perfect, there can be some motion issues, if someone walks in front of a hedge say, there can be a shimmer around the edges, but this is something I notice about once or twice a year... if that. Otherwise, I've been very happy (as I should be at what it cost!). A couple of years ago, the tube went. After looking at the then current crop of modern LCD and Plasmas, I knew I wouldn't be happy, so paid the £600 for a new tube.
With the digital switch over, things have become more of a pain. I had a set top box controller installed so I can operate the virgin box from the B&O remote, but it's bit clunky and slow. Also due to age, the Beovision 3 is just to long in the tooth, so I can't add a digital tuner and without any way of adding HDMI connections, things like Apple TV are out too.
So, reading loads of reviews bout the latest TVs, thought I'd try a new one. The Viera TX-P42VT30 Plasma seemed like the one to go for. I'm extremely fussy when it comes to picture quality and after reading reviews over at at places like AV forums rating it as excellent to 'Reference' standard for most things, didn't think I could go wrong.
After 3 day days of farting about with every adjustment under the sun I've decide I have gone wrong. The good news was it didn't have any green blotchiness or buzzing, which are widely reported possible problems. Out of the box it did indeed have good black levels, mainly because everything was so dark! So, after switching on the advanced features, tried in vain to get a good picture with the Pro settings, but the adjustments seem limmited. Moving RGB sliders for hue for example, from one end of the scale to the other had very little effect. The best setting seemed to be the THX. I can get a tolerable picture but it's still varies in quality depending on the program. A film may be OK, but then if you accidentally switched over to a late night casino show the colours are hideously bright. It's like you need to keep constantly change settings for different programs.
Overall, I found at best the picture to be either garish or very muddy, depending on source. Skin tones are awful at every setting. everyone seem to be varying shades of beige. Even red haired people with white skin and rouge checks are just a lighter shade of beige. Highlights are dull, even when you crank up brightness, but that inevitably starts affecting the blacks. The built in sound is just woeful (I don't run the TV as home cinema with external speakers as I have a dedicated system with projector elsewhere).
What amazes me is how people and reviewers wax lyrical about these amazing modern TVs, even the cheaper GT range of Panasonic. I would have expected to be stunned by this TV, but instead I remain amazed at the clean, natural colours of an old crt. People have different skin colour, sky is blue instead of cyan, contrast is great and the picture very forgiving across all types of programs. I've never had to adjust it, but then again, theres hardly any adjustments you can make! No Dynamic, Natural, cinema, THX options, just great picture straight out of the box. The sound quality is just fantastic.
Maybe there is something wrong with the Panny, as I have just noticed a vertical line about 300 mm from the left hand side, which appears either black, or green on light backgrounds. So it's going back for a refund.
So, if I want a new TV, what else should I look at. If this is the best Panasonic can do, they won't be getting my money. Anyone own a Loewe? I don't mind paying for quality, or should I just sell a Kidney and get a new B&O?
/rant
I've owned and enjoyed a Beovision 3 for about 8 years or so. It's not perfect, there can be some motion issues, if someone walks in front of a hedge say, there can be a shimmer around the edges, but this is something I notice about once or twice a year... if that. Otherwise, I've been very happy (as I should be at what it cost!). A couple of years ago, the tube went. After looking at the then current crop of modern LCD and Plasmas, I knew I wouldn't be happy, so paid the £600 for a new tube.
With the digital switch over, things have become more of a pain. I had a set top box controller installed so I can operate the virgin box from the B&O remote, but it's bit clunky and slow. Also due to age, the Beovision 3 is just to long in the tooth, so I can't add a digital tuner and without any way of adding HDMI connections, things like Apple TV are out too.
So, reading loads of reviews bout the latest TVs, thought I'd try a new one. The Viera TX-P42VT30 Plasma seemed like the one to go for. I'm extremely fussy when it comes to picture quality and after reading reviews over at at places like AV forums rating it as excellent to 'Reference' standard for most things, didn't think I could go wrong.
After 3 day days of farting about with every adjustment under the sun I've decide I have gone wrong. The good news was it didn't have any green blotchiness or buzzing, which are widely reported possible problems. Out of the box it did indeed have good black levels, mainly because everything was so dark! So, after switching on the advanced features, tried in vain to get a good picture with the Pro settings, but the adjustments seem limmited. Moving RGB sliders for hue for example, from one end of the scale to the other had very little effect. The best setting seemed to be the THX. I can get a tolerable picture but it's still varies in quality depending on the program. A film may be OK, but then if you accidentally switched over to a late night casino show the colours are hideously bright. It's like you need to keep constantly change settings for different programs.
Overall, I found at best the picture to be either garish or very muddy, depending on source. Skin tones are awful at every setting. everyone seem to be varying shades of beige. Even red haired people with white skin and rouge checks are just a lighter shade of beige. Highlights are dull, even when you crank up brightness, but that inevitably starts affecting the blacks. The built in sound is just woeful (I don't run the TV as home cinema with external speakers as I have a dedicated system with projector elsewhere).
What amazes me is how people and reviewers wax lyrical about these amazing modern TVs, even the cheaper GT range of Panasonic. I would have expected to be stunned by this TV, but instead I remain amazed at the clean, natural colours of an old crt. People have different skin colour, sky is blue instead of cyan, contrast is great and the picture very forgiving across all types of programs. I've never had to adjust it, but then again, theres hardly any adjustments you can make! No Dynamic, Natural, cinema, THX options, just great picture straight out of the box. The sound quality is just fantastic.
Maybe there is something wrong with the Panny, as I have just noticed a vertical line about 300 mm from the left hand side, which appears either black, or green on light backgrounds. So it's going back for a refund.
So, if I want a new TV, what else should I look at. If this is the best Panasonic can do, they won't be getting my money. Anyone own a Loewe? I don't mind paying for quality, or should I just sell a Kidney and get a new B&O?
/rant
Great write up there, Paul! 
I agree with everything you said. I have been under barrage of snidey comments from friends to 'upgrade' to a more modern television (i bought a Beocenter 1 from new) as they feel i need a larger, more modern television.
I disagree, the CRT image is superb and i'm not sold on picture quality of the likes of Samsung et al.
The lack of HDMI ports is a bummer, as I also wanted Apple TV.
When the time comes, i'll be sticking to B&O.
I agree with everything you said. I have been under barrage of snidey comments from friends to 'upgrade' to a more modern television (i bought a Beocenter 1 from new) as they feel i need a larger, more modern television.
I disagree, the CRT image is superb and i'm not sold on picture quality of the likes of Samsung et al.
The lack of HDMI ports is a bummer, as I also wanted Apple TV.
When the time comes, i'll be sticking to B&O.
Glad I'm not alone in my thoughts.
My Uncle and a friend bought Loewes (CRT) at about the same time I bought the Beovision. I'm glad I spent the extra £1k, for the sound alone!
Most friends have modern TVs, Plasmas or LCDs. I don't pay much attention to them (as it's unsociable), but Saturday night I did look critically at a mate's LCD/LED Panasonic. The end of a film was on and it looked fine, but when it went to another program it turned to mush, no consistency.
You often hear people slagging off B&O as overpriced style over substance, but I guess they haven't owned one. I was so pleased with the TV, I bought a telephone system and have been equally delighted.
As Sir Henry once said "Quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten."
“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten”. – Benjamin Franklin
"It is a wretched taste to be gratified with mediocrity when the excellent lies before us." Isaac Disraeli.
Looks like I better get that kidney listed on ebay then....
My Uncle and a friend bought Loewes (CRT) at about the same time I bought the Beovision. I'm glad I spent the extra £1k, for the sound alone!
Most friends have modern TVs, Plasmas or LCDs. I don't pay much attention to them (as it's unsociable), but Saturday night I did look critically at a mate's LCD/LED Panasonic. The end of a film was on and it looked fine, but when it went to another program it turned to mush, no consistency.
You often hear people slagging off B&O as overpriced style over substance, but I guess they haven't owned one. I was so pleased with the TV, I bought a telephone system and have been equally delighted.
As Sir Henry once said "Quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten."
“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten”. – Benjamin Franklin
"It is a wretched taste to be gratified with mediocrity when the excellent lies before us." Isaac Disraeli.
Looks like I better get that kidney listed on ebay then....
CRT vs standard def on led LCD plasma = CRT win Although typically CRT is smaller so looks like better clarity anyway.
But when 1080p panny plasma by a country mile.
And why the f
k would you not have your tv hooked up to a 2.1 or better hi fi anyway??? The speakers in tvs are not in anyway good as they will be far to small and housed in a placky box !
But when 1080p panny plasma by a country mile.
And why the f
k would you not have your tv hooked up to a 2.1 or better hi fi anyway??? The speakers in tvs are not in anyway good as they will be far to small and housed in a placky box !hman said:
And why the fk would you not have your tv hooked up to a 2.1 or better hi fi anyway??? The speakers in tvs are not in anyway good as they will be far to small and housed in a placky box !
Firstly the OP has stated he has a dedicated cinema set up with a projector. Do you have separate speakers for all of your tvs?k would you not have your tv hooked up to a 2.1 or better hi fi anyway??? The speakers in tvs are not in anyway good as they will be far to small and housed in a placky box !Secondly:
B&O TV speakers are very good.
B&O TVs are not housed in a "placky" box.
Edited by HowMuchLonger on Sunday 18th December 21:59
I owned a 28" B&O TV, looked much nicer than other sets and the remote was a thing of beauty and good for building arm muscles! To say that the picture is better than a well set up modern plasma/LCD is somewhat surprising but I think there are a couple of issues to address:
Sound - not arguing there, easy win for a B&O, always sounded good and much more space in the cabinet
Picture - CRT vs HD is nowhere close. HD pictures are superb, no CRT can get close. However standard picture with some of the compression used gives for some very tricky issues. Saying that the picture looks good with one channel and then garish on another may have a lot more to do with broadcast quality than TV quality. A CRT may have been more even in handling both good and bad transmissions whilst a plasma/LCD can struggle to make a poor transmission look good. Bit more susceptable to the old hi fi adage of "rubbish in, rubbish out"
Sound - not arguing there, easy win for a B&O, always sounded good and much more space in the cabinet
Picture - CRT vs HD is nowhere close. HD pictures are superb, no CRT can get close. However standard picture with some of the compression used gives for some very tricky issues. Saying that the picture looks good with one channel and then garish on another may have a lot more to do with broadcast quality than TV quality. A CRT may have been more even in handling both good and bad transmissions whilst a plasma/LCD can struggle to make a poor transmission look good. Bit more susceptable to the old hi fi adage of "rubbish in, rubbish out"
The Beovision 3 is a 32" standard def. The Viera 42" I had them both side by side. Sure, the bigger screen in hi def has more detail, but it just wasn't pleasant to look at and that's my issue. Colour fidelity, dynamic range, consistency, smoothness, all missing from the Panasonic. When it wasn't muddy, it threw the picture at you, full blast, here I am, nice and digital complete with beige people!
Yes, I knew the sound was going to be a backward step, but I didn't think that far backwards! If the picture had been OK, I may have added a front speaker, but it's just more boxes, cables and crap. I want a living room, not a studio. The Active speakers and placement in the Beovison 3 creates near hi fi quality sound. The sound coming out of the Panasonic was dire. I just expected better from their top of the range, premium product. Relative to the 8 year old B&O, the Panasonic is half the price, but again, reading all the reviews and advancement in technology, why am I not blown away, instead of being so disappointed?
I didn't find picture quality different from channel to channel, more from program to program. The B&O picture seems much more forgiving with differing sources, by that I mean whether it's an old film, shot on video, or modern broadcast and compared to the Panasonic a joy to look at. I guess I've been spoiled.
Yes, I knew the sound was going to be a backward step, but I didn't think that far backwards! If the picture had been OK, I may have added a front speaker, but it's just more boxes, cables and crap. I want a living room, not a studio. The Active speakers and placement in the Beovison 3 creates near hi fi quality sound. The sound coming out of the Panasonic was dire. I just expected better from their top of the range, premium product. Relative to the 8 year old B&O, the Panasonic is half the price, but again, reading all the reviews and advancement in technology, why am I not blown away, instead of being so disappointed?
I didn't find picture quality different from channel to channel, more from program to program. The B&O picture seems much more forgiving with differing sources, by that I mean whether it's an old film, shot on video, or modern broadcast and compared to the Panasonic a joy to look at. I guess I've been spoiled.
HowMuchLonger said:
Firstly the OP has stated he has a dedicated cinema set up with a projector. Do you have separate speakers for all of your tvs?
Personally I do (apart from the kitchen 32" one which I just accept sounds tiny, but does for news and the kids TV).For those CRT owners concerned about how HD TVs display SD, then there is another option: It's not cheap (but then neither are some of the other options on here), but if you connect a quality video processor such as a Lumagen to a flat panel, not only can it correct the often oversaturated colours (and greyscale/gamma) it can do a much better job of upscaling and deinterlacing. I have a very modest LCD TV as my main 'critical' viewing is done on my projector but I have calibrated (note: not copied someone's settings, but fully calibrated) my displays using my Lumagen Radiance video processor and even my LCD set produces a decent enough image (can't help with the motion, but it is 4 years old and better displays exist now).
http://www.lumagen.com/testindex.php?module=produc...
The Mini3D is the cheaper option (the one I use) if you can get away with 2 HDMIs or switching prior to the VP. The only issue is that it doesn't do anything for the built in tuner on the TV, only external sources, so I watch using my PVR anyway.
Just an alternative as I've often heard about poor SD on flat panels and yet I often watch DVDs on my projector via my Lumagen and they are quite acceptable (IMHO) even at 10' across. Upscaled onto my modest 40" TV they look almost HD (I sit a fair way back to be fair). It's only ITV4 and the like that look a bit soft, but then I don't think they look very good on our old 21" CRT in the spare bedroom via a Freeview box.
Madness60 said:
Picture - CRT vs HD is nowhere close. HD pictures are superb, no CRT can get close. However standard picture with some of the compression used gives for some very tricky issues. Saying that the picture looks good with one channel and then garish on another may have a lot more to do with broadcast quality than TV quality. A CRT may have been more even in handling both good and bad transmissions whilst a plasma/LCD can struggle to make a poor transmission look good. Bit more susceptable to the old hi fi adage of "rubbish in, rubbish out"
Sorry but that's just not true. My Vision One is CRT and will blow the doors off of HD material. I've also got a 50" Panny and LG, the Panny and Videkron were both ISF calibrated too, and the images from the CRT projector just jump out of the screen at you. The picture is breathtaking and it looks miles better than the other two at ANY resolution and frame rate. Yes it's a bit special, but to issue a blanket statement that all CRT's are 'nowhere close' is just not correct.CRT projectors aren't all roses though to be fair...low ANSI contrast and not much light output so unless you start stacking them up hard to have a really big screen and view at more than 3-4fL compared to the THX recommended 12fL or so. I know the black levels aren't as good, but you should look at some of the newer JVCs as they manage much higher on/off contrast without resorting to dynamic irises. ANSI contrast over 300:1 compared to arond 100:1 for CRT (I've compared 75:1 and 230:1 and that's a noticable difference FWIW).
I can't live with CRT flicker these days, but I guess you're running at 72Hz for BluRay?
I can't live with CRT flicker these days, but I guess you're running at 72Hz for BluRay?
Dear God......! 
How'd we change from talking about direct view TVs to projectors (& film screens)?
Getting back on topic, OP, how long have you had the Panny?
If used for less than 100-200 hours, you'll need to give it until then to bed in, before looking at it critically.
Regarding THX mode - you do realise only movies are THX'd, not Broadcast transmissions?
As for PQ, you're comparing Apples with Apricots - analog SD on an excellent CRT will never be surpassed by the same transmission on a digital display. If you thought it would, you've made a gross error in presumption, since the signal has to be converted to digital for the panel to make use of, and deinterlaced too.
Digital transmissions vary in compression rates used, which affects the quality you'll see displayed - since low bit rates means cheaper costs for the broadcaster.
Loewe are the poor man's B&O, and stopped doing Plasma many moons ago - more profit in LCD panels (with conventional cold cathode or LED backlighting).
B&O only do LCD too, at an eye-watering cost - but you retain the interoperability with their other products (telephone handset mutes TV when it rings or answered, etc)
Maybe you're best to employ Virgin for your viewing source, as their digital HD set-top boxes still have a SCART output. Not sure if Humax boxes have it too, if you wanted to opt for Freeview/Freeview HD.
Beyond that, there's not much left to offer other than get used to it for the interim period before all broadcasting is HD (upscaled SD older non-film material).
How'd we change from talking about direct view TVs to projectors (& film screens)?
Getting back on topic, OP, how long have you had the Panny?
If used for less than 100-200 hours, you'll need to give it until then to bed in, before looking at it critically.
Regarding THX mode - you do realise only movies are THX'd, not Broadcast transmissions?
As for PQ, you're comparing Apples with Apricots - analog SD on an excellent CRT will never be surpassed by the same transmission on a digital display. If you thought it would, you've made a gross error in presumption, since the signal has to be converted to digital for the panel to make use of, and deinterlaced too.
Digital transmissions vary in compression rates used, which affects the quality you'll see displayed - since low bit rates means cheaper costs for the broadcaster.
Loewe are the poor man's B&O, and stopped doing Plasma many moons ago - more profit in LCD panels (with conventional cold cathode or LED backlighting).
B&O only do LCD too, at an eye-watering cost - but you retain the interoperability with their other products (telephone handset mutes TV when it rings or answered, etc)
Maybe you're best to employ Virgin for your viewing source, as their digital HD set-top boxes still have a SCART output. Not sure if Humax boxes have it too, if you wanted to opt for Freeview/Freeview HD.
Beyond that, there's not much left to offer other than get used to it for the interim period before all broadcasting is HD (upscaled SD older non-film material).
Edited by PJ S on Monday 19th December 12:51
I've had the Panny less than a week. I did wonder about a 'bedding in' period as I'm sure I read something to that affect. Yes, I know that THX is for THX movies, but nevertheless, changing to this setting improved the broadcast picture? All the viewing was done through a Virgin box. The built in tuner and freeview picture via the aerial was simply atrocious. But as I mentioned, there is a fine line running top to bottom on the picture, maybe I just have a lemon, so it's going back.
I clearly have made a gross error in judgment to think a modern HD sate of the art television would look better than an 8 year old fashioned one. Silly old me!
When I upgraded my old projector to a Sim2, that was at a fairly eye watering cost, although it was still one of the base models at the time and only 720p. However, the picture quality remains great, so I guess the get what you pay for.
I clearly have made a gross error in judgment to think a modern HD sate of the art television would look better than an 8 year old fashioned one. Silly old me!
When I upgraded my old projector to a Sim2, that was at a fairly eye watering cost, although it was still one of the base models at the time and only 720p. However, the picture quality remains great, so I guess the get what you pay for.
Lemon issue aside, you've not given the TV a chance to settle before critiquing it.
Your Virgin (HD?) box, should be set to 720p wide screen, not 1080i, and run over the HDMI output.
Regarding the B&O, how long has CRT development been ongoing?
Don't be so quick to put down panel displays - they've come a long way in a relatively short space of time, and will continue to improve, but bear in mind transmission quality fluctuates quite widely, and CRT masks a lot of SD shortcomings.
That the two go hand-in-hand is no mere coincident, and it's the HD nature of panel displays in a (still) predominantly SD era that results in the crossover phase annoyance for high end users like yourself.
These displays have to be all things to all people, since for most it's their only viewing medium for stty broadcasts as well as their BR movie collection.
On that aspect, they are "engineered" with a slant towards the BR/HD processing more so than SD beautification.
If that's of importance, then outboard deinterlacing and upscaling using more expensive/expressive algorithms within the chipsets used, is the workaround.
I'm sure if Panasonic wanted to sell £10K TVs like Fujitsu did many moons ago, packed with the absolute creme de la creme processing chipsets from Lumagen et al, they could do so - but how many buyers do you think they'd cater for?
Unlike B&O, they cater for a lower common denominator, leaving B&O to cater for B&O buyers, or high enders to spend the extra on the Lumagen/etc processors to satisfy their needs.
If you bother with a replacement, I hope you give it time to impress, or at least settle before calling in an ISF calibrator.
It might be worth spending time on AV Forums, and chatting to the likes of Gordon there about what's realistically achieveable.
Should be vastly cheaper than £11K of B&O, but without the communication element, and possibly aesthetics too.
Your Virgin (HD?) box, should be set to 720p wide screen, not 1080i, and run over the HDMI output.
Regarding the B&O, how long has CRT development been ongoing?
Don't be so quick to put down panel displays - they've come a long way in a relatively short space of time, and will continue to improve, but bear in mind transmission quality fluctuates quite widely, and CRT masks a lot of SD shortcomings.
That the two go hand-in-hand is no mere coincident, and it's the HD nature of panel displays in a (still) predominantly SD era that results in the crossover phase annoyance for high end users like yourself.
These displays have to be all things to all people, since for most it's their only viewing medium for s
tty broadcasts as well as their BR movie collection.On that aspect, they are "engineered" with a slant towards the BR/HD processing more so than SD beautification.
If that's of importance, then outboard deinterlacing and upscaling using more expensive/expressive algorithms within the chipsets used, is the workaround.
I'm sure if Panasonic wanted to sell £10K TVs like Fujitsu did many moons ago, packed with the absolute creme de la creme processing chipsets from Lumagen et al, they could do so - but how many buyers do you think they'd cater for?
Unlike B&O, they cater for a lower common denominator, leaving B&O to cater for B&O buyers, or high enders to spend the extra on the Lumagen/etc processors to satisfy their needs.
If you bother with a replacement, I hope you give it time to impress, or at least settle before calling in an ISF calibrator.
It might be worth spending time on AV Forums, and chatting to the likes of Gordon there about what's realistically achieveable.
Should be vastly cheaper than £11K of B&O, but without the communication element, and possibly aesthetics too.
Redmax- No, I haven't checked out the latest B&O flat screens, but will do. I have a mate with a houseful of the stuff and he has a 7-40, but not sure which Mk. Last time I saw it (although not looking at it critically) it looked stunning. I like HD, but not when it's ugly.
PJS- Thanks for your thoughts. The Virgin box is not the latest, although I'm not sure what the difference between an HD box and watching say BBC one HD is? It was connected via HDMI. Again, I have no problem with the amount of definition, just the colours, skin tones and scatty inconstancy across different programs.
I'm sure you are indeed correct that I'm being to hasty too criticise without giving it time to bed in etc. I also suspect most people would be delighted with the picture, but I'm not most people, having spent all my working life with images and as a result am very critical.
I was just hoping for much better from the Panasonic out of the box, after reading glowing reports. Bear in mind the B&O has performed virtually flawlessly out of the box without need for bedding in and ISF calibration. OK, I know I'm comparing apples to apricots and different technologies etc, but I can only compare with what I'm used to. Can you understand my disappointment with what is supposed to be the latest and greatest?
Although I grade and colour correct images daily, I'm not into 'configuring' technology. It's a bit like in the old days and hi fi amps with tone controls and graphic equalisers, all adjustments that make one thing sound good at the expense of others. Whereas the best just have an on/off switch and a volume control and produce the best possible sound without compromise. That's what I want.
I will spend a bit more time researching a replacement.
PJS- Thanks for your thoughts. The Virgin box is not the latest, although I'm not sure what the difference between an HD box and watching say BBC one HD is? It was connected via HDMI. Again, I have no problem with the amount of definition, just the colours, skin tones and scatty inconstancy across different programs.
I'm sure you are indeed correct that I'm being to hasty too criticise without giving it time to bed in etc. I also suspect most people would be delighted with the picture, but I'm not most people, having spent all my working life with images and as a result am very critical.
I was just hoping for much better from the Panasonic out of the box, after reading glowing reports. Bear in mind the B&O has performed virtually flawlessly out of the box without need for bedding in and ISF calibration. OK, I know I'm comparing apples to apricots and different technologies etc, but I can only compare with what I'm used to. Can you understand my disappointment with what is supposed to be the latest and greatest?
Although I grade and colour correct images daily, I'm not into 'configuring' technology. It's a bit like in the old days and hi fi amps with tone controls and graphic equalisers, all adjustments that make one thing sound good at the expense of others. Whereas the best just have an on/off switch and a volume control and produce the best possible sound without compromise. That's what I want.
I will spend a bit more time researching a replacement.
Bacardi said:
Again, I have no problem with the amount of definition, just the colours, skin tones and scatty inconstancy across different programs.
I'm sure you are indeed correct that I'm being to hasty too criticise without giving it time to bed in etc. I also suspect most people would be delighted with the picture, but I'm not most people, having spent all my working life with images and as a result am very critical.
I was just hoping for much better from the Panasonic out of the box, after reading glowing reports. Bear in mind the B&O has performed virtually flawlessly out of the box without need for bedding in and ISF calibration. OK, I know I'm comparing apples to apricots and different technologies etc, but I can only compare with what I'm used to. Can you understand my disappointment with what is supposed to be the latest and greatest?
Although I grade and colour correct images daily, I'm not into 'configuring' technology. It's a bit like in the old days and hi fi amps with tone controls and graphic equalisers, all adjustments that make one thing sound good at the expense of others. Whereas the best just have an on/off switch and a volume control and produce the best possible sound without compromise. That's what I want.
I will spend a bit more time researching a replacement.
The inconsistency you refer to, is not a display problem, but one of the broadcasters making through the selection of bitrate used to transmit the information captured.I'm sure you are indeed correct that I'm being to hasty too criticise without giving it time to bed in etc. I also suspect most people would be delighted with the picture, but I'm not most people, having spent all my working life with images and as a result am very critical.
I was just hoping for much better from the Panasonic out of the box, after reading glowing reports. Bear in mind the B&O has performed virtually flawlessly out of the box without need for bedding in and ISF calibration. OK, I know I'm comparing apples to apricots and different technologies etc, but I can only compare with what I'm used to. Can you understand my disappointment with what is supposed to be the latest and greatest?
Although I grade and colour correct images daily, I'm not into 'configuring' technology. It's a bit like in the old days and hi fi amps with tone controls and graphic equalisers, all adjustments that make one thing sound good at the expense of others. Whereas the best just have an on/off switch and a volume control and produce the best possible sound without compromise. That's what I want.
I will spend a bit more time researching a replacement.
That you don't see this on the B&O CRT proves my point about the technology masking the shortcomings of a low resolution signal, but it won't mask or correct for crappy US-made output. That still looks poor depending on the conversion processing the broadcaster has employed to match their own, or well made PAL, output.
It might be worth appreciating that B&O bought Philips premium graded tubes, then graded them in house, before rejecting those not meeting the required level. They probably use LG/Philips panels in their LCD TVs, but the panel itself is only a part of the equation this time - the backlighting and processing/electronics are more responsible for the overall image displayed.
Plasma is nearest to CRT in naturalness, but as already mentioned needs a couple of hundred hours for the cells to stabilize.
LCD doesn't have that process to contend with, so what you see on tweaking just out of the box, is all you're going to get.
Regarding comparison to your graphic/DTP work - forget it! You've the luxury of 32-bit colour processing on the computer for the 16-bit panel to display - on TVs, it's 8-10 bits per colour still, iirc.
Whilst there are Standards for compatibility, they are not absolutes - hence why outputs differ, resultant from the choice of recording medium, lighting CTO, cameras utilized, post processing, and so on.
As that is the case, I unfortunately believe you're not likely to find favour with the mainstream offerings, and will have to go B&O or call upon external processing of the signal to satisfy your exacting requirements.
That or accept the common denominator rules, and become acclimatised to it.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff