5 ms·

I have a 2010 Panasonic G25 Plasma and for movies and television I prefer it to my LG C1. The picture, colors, and motion handling all just appear more natural

I have a 2010 Panasonic G25 Plasma and for movies and television I prefer it to my LG C1. The picture, colors, and motion handling all just appear more natural to me. The LG is hands down better for games, but everything else tends to look a bit off. The response time is just too quick for movies and video to appear natural. There is filmmaker mode that makes this a lot better, but it is still there.

dbttdft 4y ago
Do you work at Tom's Hardware? This is why you can't buy a TV based on internet reviews.
- etempleton 4y ago
  I bought the LG for games and it is great at that. It is also pretty good for movies and television, just motion handling is worse for low framerate content. I am sensitive to this as I find the motion handling of a lot of LCD tvs to be poor as well. I will add that another part of the issue is that it is almost too good in terms of response time and motion handling. There is not enough blurring. Everything appears so sharp and crisp and motion resolution is so high that movie sets look like movie sets. When something isn’t real in the scene it is very clear. It is a problem of OLEDs being beyond the technology films are shot for. No one expects that you will be able to see everything in sharp detail during fast moving scenes.
  - dbttdft 4y ago
    That definitely doesn't sound like a conclusive analysis.
kcb 4y ago
I have a late gen Samsung plasma and it really is still impressive. I think one thing it handles way better than oled/lcd models is broadcast/lower rez/bitrate content.
thrdbndndn 4y ago
> he response time is just too quick for movies and video to appear natural Sorry, what does this mean? From my understanding (could be very wrong) when you playback video you just display every frame still for 1/framerate seconds. Why would response time affect it in any way, especially the bad way?
- etempleton 4y ago
  Rtings does a good job of reviewing for this and showing screenshots, but basically, because the per pixel response time is so high, an object in motion across the screen does not blur as much on the LG OLEDs and most OLEDs in general. Great for games. Terrible for movies, so the OLEDs do have some tricks to help mitigate this a bit, but it is still there.
  - unnah 4y ago
    Isn't that backwards? AFAIK real-world filming equipment naturally captures motion blur on each frame, but many games only show a series of unnaturally sharp still images. On the other hand GPUs are now powerful enough that they do generate some motion blur as well.
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
  The above post is likely seeing a motion smoothing feature common on tvs today. This takes the digital videos stream and generates "imbetween" frames to artificially raise the frame rate, and in some cases deliberately reduce motion blur. It looks good for sports and video games, but films proper make a lot of specific choices about frame rate vs motion blur, which these filters just crush out of existence if they're cranked up too high. A very good scene to see this clearly is the opening of Saving Private Ryan.

dbttdft 4y ago

Do you work at Tom's Hardware? This is why you can't buy a TV based on internet reviews.

etempleton 4y ago
I bought the LG for games and it is great at that. It is also pretty good for movies and television, just motion handling is worse for low framerate content. I am sensitive to this as I find the motion handling of a lot of LCD tvs to be poor as well. I will add that another part of the issue is that it is almost too good in terms of response time and motion handling. There is not enough blurring. Everything appears so sharp and crisp and motion resolution is so high that movie sets look like movie sets. When something isn’t real in the scene it is very clear. It is a problem of OLEDs being beyond the technology films are shot for. No one expects that you will be able to see everything in sharp detail during fast moving scenes.
- dbttdft 4y ago
  That definitely doesn't sound like a conclusive analysis.

kcb 4y ago

I have a late gen Samsung plasma and it really is still impressive. I think one thing it handles way better than oled/lcd models is broadcast/lower rez/bitrate content.

thrdbndndn 4y ago

> he response time is just too quick for movies and video to appear natural Sorry, what does this mean? From my understanding (could be very wrong) when you playback video you just display every frame still for 1/framerate seconds. Why would response time affect it in any way, especially the bad way?

etempleton 4y ago
Rtings does a good job of reviewing for this and showing screenshots, but basically, because the per pixel response time is so high, an object in motion across the screen does not blur as much on the LG OLEDs and most OLEDs in general. Great for games. Terrible for movies, so the OLEDs do have some tricks to help mitigate this a bit, but it is still there.
- unnah 4y ago
  Isn't that backwards? AFAIK real-world filming equipment naturally captures motion blur on each frame, but many games only show a series of unnaturally sharp still images. On the other hand GPUs are now powerful enough that they do generate some motion blur as well.
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
The above post is likely seeing a motion smoothing feature common on tvs today. This takes the digital videos stream and generates "imbetween" frames to artificially raise the frame rate, and in some cases deliberately reduce motion blur. It looks good for sports and video games, but films proper make a lot of specific choices about frame rate vs motion blur, which these filters just crush out of existence if they're cranked up too high. A very good scene to see this clearly is the opening of Saving Private Ryan.