A chance to talk to FlatpanelsHD's reviewers.
Not if it's anything like the Samsung range the other year.
However, what few owners I've read of in other forums, none have noticed the stutter thus far.
This really is a none revolutionary year, whether the printing side, when it happens, will improve homogeneity etc could be good but motion still remains dubious in part overall.
DX900 will remain throughout 2017 as the top LCD model. Coverage was about the same, but back then we used a different software that didn't report coverage. We would have to dig into the raw measurements and convert into a coverage our selves to get an actual number.

What so you mean with Disqus? Our forum is not linked to Disqus in any way.
I'm talking about the comments section of the articles, which was Disqus and gas dissapeared, instead having a link here.

It signs me in with a social media account user name and password that I assume is Disqus, but it doesn't tell me which.
Last edited by Steve on 12 Jul 2017, 21:11, edited 1 time in total.
Now, I'm talking about actual reviews and cover percentages, which were more than OLED.
But how such figures can be right when you get LCD bleed through too much on darker colours, I do not know. You would think the color space would be at least 20% down for this LCD across a complex pattern the led array can't accommodate. That would be a useful mectric fur OLED. However, the main usefulness of the 900 over OLED is not the extra couple percent rec2020 or dci, but having brigher HDR range at the same time. Otherwise buy new OLED.
Hi, I read your review and flat out rejected buying the 950 due to the lower rec2020/DCI P3 score than last years 900. But the review at hdtvtest shows a higher P3 score (but no rec2020 score). What accounts for this Rasmus?

I saw the 950 in the shop, a truely low quality experience, black shows instead of dark details, and not as nice as I've see last year's 900 do in normal pictures, also not as good as last year's LGOLED. If they sell something they can at least set it up first without the need to hire a calibrator.
Last edited by Steve on 07 Aug 2017, 05:48, edited 1 time in total.
Steve wrote:Didn't last year's DX900 get wider colorsiace coverage in dci and 2020? Worth mentioning in the review.

Is there a 900 level replacement LCD coming? For better rec2020 coverage.
i have the DX900 and it has a WIDER colorspace than the OLEDs yes
that can no software change LOL
Green and Red color goes higher and deeper on the DX900.
Red color goes beyond that of DCI P3 here

i used dispcal to check coverage on both the DX900 and the old B6
with that program it reports 110% of DCI P3 for the DX900
and only 96% for the B6.
quite a big difference there

speaking of coloraccuracy here?
for SDR yes but for HDR? nah
how can colors be accurate on this OLED when colorluminance fades after 425 nits?
for correct coloraccuracy with HDR you need to drop peakbrightness on these OLEDs to slight above 400nits to match max colorluminance.

i think the white subpixel is the problem here
it seems to boost brightness only not colors.

i made a chart here that compares colorluminance from max brightness in HDR.
comparing the DX900 with the Sony A1 OLED (should be the same here)

if i take one color as an example
Yellow can glow with almost 1300 nits on the DX900 but only 400 nits on the OLEDs.
Play John Wick 2 UHD on the DX900 and you will see what i mean that colorluminance matters ;)
compare the glow from the neon sings in the opening scene.
Last edited by pgice on 05 Aug 2017, 14:23, edited 11 times in total.
Torben Rasmussen wrote:DX900 will remain throughout 2017 as the top LCD model. Coverage was about the same,
stop blaming on the programs used
even a child can see that the DX900 has a wider colorspace than the OLEDs
why is it so hard to admit?
You are a legend sir. Thanks. I always look out for expert users that pick up on things. What is your work?

I literally have a Hollywood colorist that stalks me online, because he can't admit that so etching like a 900 is worth using on the low end, and everything below $20k is seemingly crap. Some of these guys seem to be types who wound neuroticaly dance around in a single percentage point of difference, been there can pick it, but know 10-20% is also good on low end (not talking about panels but difference between color choices picked). But still a lot of yuck stuff gets released to cinema. :( I prefer the some colourful look of the 90's 00's, and the xfiles and matrix look. But they take things too far I'm the wrong directions often enough. What you have said facinates me, and is what I suspected. Thank you.
But a question, this 110% dci, what does that mean, is it really usable correctly?

I'm interested in the Rec2020 color space throughout the brightness range (a good graph of saturation changes with brightness would be nice on reviews). But at some high brightness the three colours must be at good performance before the accuracy drops off. That would be a handy graph to have in reviews to calibrate too that point.

Now, I could see the wonderful rendering in the red channel you mentioned, made the panel seem a lot better than it was on those images. But what coverage of usable rec2020 do you think it can achieve in real use Pgice?

I forgot to mention, this HDR issue, is why I was hoping for a new 900 model that used Panasonic new double shuttered LCD technology. I watch in a lot room normally, so the technologies ultra low black level is good enough compared to OLED, which means it would be useful for hdr rec2020 viewing compared to OLED. OLED is pretty lame. Thete is one way they could increase the OLED brightness dramatically, should be guaranteed, but I'll keep that to myself.
Torben. The difference between some of the gamut coverage results on the 900 (I suspect the 58 inch is a different panel) and 950, could it be light in different review rooms? I've done some design investigation, and controlling light flow differently for opposing directions is tricky. It took me a while to come up with a directional light valve, but was soundly beaten to it anyway. :( Actually, that's not true there was something I came up with years and years ago, but I suspect I probably have been beaten to that too :( :( (but it wasn't really a desirable light valve).

What happens is that a set passes light out, but also passed light in which interacts and bounves back out washing color purity a bit, reducing gamut. Even.the light from.he screen a itself bouncing off objects back into it could do this. Which means the surounding body of the calibration equipment itself could do it. Wow, which is bad.

For an example. The lsservue rear projection TV got around this by using a 3M glasses bead material, where the light was collected on the exposed rear of a bead embedded in black material, and funneled out through the tip of the bead poking out he front of the material. The black surface on the front was much larger than the back, reducing the amount of light that could get in through the beads from the front. If one wanted expand I is a wider spreader mechanism in front of the bead, the nature of optics is that it probably would let a lot more light in through the front. So, the pinprick pixels of that screen must have been a bit uncomfortable up close.

Could this be a factor?

I'm also interested in how development of the rec2100/ HDR test and calibration tools are working out in the industry?

Steve: We are considering adding color volume measurements (and include a graph in reviews) but we need to invest in new equipment before we can do it. We had hoped that CalMAN 2017 would be a little more flexible but it has quite strict requirements.

Regarding the differences in measurements, it's hard to say for sure but be aware that there are factors to consider here. Brightness on OLED drops if a larger portion of the screen is covered in white (as APL goes up). On the other hand, LCD cannot reproduce the full color space at low luminance levels, simply because they need to filter out too much light and due to reduction in backlight intensity levels. I have in the past referred to this as "inverse APL". See my hands-on articles from CES:
- Samsung "QLED": http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?su ... 1485251457
- LG 2017 OLED: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?s ... 1484640539

There are no TVs that cover 100% DCI-P3 color volume yet. This is misleading because it depends on how you actually measure the values. It is easy to measure higher levels simply by using other APL patterns. Using a 80-100% APL pattern to measure on both LCD and OLED, for example, will give you crazy results (and it can be used to mislead, just like Samsung did at CES when it demonstrated live color volume measurements to journalists - many spectators fell for it).

So, these are the facts right now:
- LCDs can go brighter but sacrifize black levels and color volume at the low end to do so. They don't have very high inter-scene contrast / peak brightness either. For example 65" DX900 has 512 zones. If you divide that by 3840x2160 pixels you will realize that each zone covers 16.200 pixels. It's simply not possibly to reproduce bright stars at >1000 nits while retaining a dark night sky. The zone has to either stay dim (faded stars) or get a lot brigther (ruins black levels).
- OLEDs can retain full color volume up to a certain break-off point for peak brightness. However, they cannot go as bright as the brightest LCDs. You have pixel-level controls so each star can sparkle like it was supposed to while the night sky stays black.

In our opinion, HDR looks better on OLED. We will soon introduce a HDR comparison chart that includes all TVs tested in 2016 and 2017 (and onwards). It will give you some clarity on the subject.