NEWS: OLED Shootout Results in a win for Philips

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
I should have said additional motion handling modes as opposed to base motion handling but assume everyone will realise that's what I meant. Re the above - do we know that to be the case? Is additional motion handling maxed out on all four manufacturers dynamic modes?

Or can we just say that LG's is the worst in that particular mode? It would be of great use to know how these modes compare when manually set to similar levels.
Personally I would prefer to have the baseball disappear for a few milliseconds compared to the Sony that is just constant judder...

However as said few of us will actually use this setting. It is one of the first things I switched off...One thing I've learned is that I'll be a bit more open to it and give it a try to see whether I like it as what I seen on the Philips I liked a lot.
 

shoemaker666

Distinguished Member
i think its interesting that calibarated they all looked the same and vivid phillips looked best. so i would take away from it that what ever settings you use on the phillips tv it should have a good picture certainly not worse than the other sets
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
I would have like the calibrated mode of any of the sets as they simply were so close as to be expected. However I would personally then prefer the Philips and enable it’s motion processing if that is possible. To me it was really that good.
 

MultiRoom

Well-known Member
I should have said additional motion handling modes as opposed to base motion handling but assume everyone will realise that's what I meant. Re the above - do we know that to be the case?

I can quite confidently tell you without any shadow of doubt that LGs motion processing is utterly laughable. Regardless of setting you get image breakups and all sorts of artefacts. If everything else PQ wise was equal, LG would sit comfortably in last place.
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
I can quite confidently tell you without any shadow of doubt that LGs motion processing is utterly laughable. Regardless of setting you get image breakups and all sorts of artefacts. If everything else PQ wise was equal, LG would sit comfortably in last place.
And that just shows we all have a preferences. I rather loose a baseball ball for a few ms than the judder constantly from the Sony.

But granted that part wasn’t necessarily a test of the “best” settings. It was a test of everything enabled.
 

MultiRoom

Well-known Member
I would have like the calibrated mode of any of the sets as they simply were so close as to be expected. However I would personally then prefer the Philips and enable it’s motion processing if that is possible. To me it was really that good.
Exactly how I have my E6, calibrated but with TrueMotion on. As you know I intend to acquire a 9002 to replace it, which I will be having calibrated next month. I will engage motion processing and so I'll have just as good an image as on the LG (which is stunning) but with a much better interpolation performance of the Philips. Which ever way you slice it the Philips will out perform the LG for me.

Being a regular follower of several threads in the LG forum I can say now that there are a lot of dissatisfied LG owners who wanted to use TrueMotion but now have to make the unenviable decision between two unwanted choices: judder or artefacts.

As others have said, if all sets are pretty much indistinguishable in terms of picture quality, then the choice absolutely comes down to the performance of the other features carried out by the processor.

And the Android OS, so what? How often does anyone sit in the menu tweaking settings once you've got it set up the way you like it? My guess is less than 1% of the overall time you use the TV, particularly if you have an external AV amp and satellite/cable box.
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
Yes fully agreed. I don’t use the inbuilt apps of the TV. Heck I don’t even use the sound. Couldn’t care less what operating system it is running.
 

thx75

Active Member
You seem to be saying that people should only be allowed to prefer a picture that is the most accurate. However, nobody can dictate what other people "should" like. People can decide on their own what is best to them and they are always right - in their opinion.

..........

Anyway, I am all for encouraging realistic colours with calibration. However, trying to tell someone that they shouldn't like whatever it is that they happen to prefer (be it over saturated colours, high sharpness, overly bright image, maximum motion interpolation, etc.) seems a bit pointless. A TV is a mass market product that is there for people to enjoy watching. Telling people how to watch it is similar to telling them what to watch.

(Although I would pay extra for a TV that actively filtered out soaps and relaity TV. :) )

Maybe you did not get my point. It's not my intention at all to dictate anything to anybody. As far as I'm concerned you or anybody else is free to live with vivid mode set on his tv instead of having it calibrated.
What I find weird is how a reliable and qualified technical site/forum like avforums is not so inclined or firm let me say, to promote a reference picture as the way to go. Please let me have the right to be a little bit astonished and disappointed. Hope I'm free to feel like that exactly like everybody is free to push over saturated colors, high sharpness and maximum motion interpolation.
By my side since now onward I'll be no longer interested in reading these kind of shoot out, I will just read technical reviews by Steve as usual, that's for sure. :)


We did have two sessions? (Actually there were three.) The first session was all the TVs calibrated - which no TV really won as they were all too close. In the second all sets were set to Vivid - as a shortcut for turning all the processing on. However, 3 of the 4 sets were effectively not in their best settings as for three of the four manufacturers Vivid seems to be pretty poor whereas Danny has spent time creating a Vivid mode that actually seems pretty good. (So there is a reasonable argument about the fairness of this Vivid test.) The third phase was watching in Cinema mode - a fair test again and one that also had no clear winner.

The telecine judder in one of the motion tests will have been worse than any telecine judder that you have seen before. This is because it was deliberately shot to be the worst example of judder possible i.e. sharp detailed frames with no blurring. So the judder was as painful to watch as it could be. (That was the directors intent.) I think it is fair to say that for these scenes everyone preferred the frame interpolation.

Honestly speaking I'm not interested in any comparison between vivid modes, by my side is a nonsense. My idea was two sessions with motion interpolation on and off (best setting) both based on calibrated modes.


Am I unusual in not dreaming of owning a supercar? :)

That's the reason why I wrote "almost". ;)
 
Last edited:

Phil Hinton

Editor
Staff member
THX75 I think you have missed the point a little.

Nobody is saying watch in vivid mode. The point of the shootout was to show video processing and how it could be done correctly without all the issues on the other manufacturers TVs in the shootout. This was Philips part of the evening.

Our (first) part was very much on calibration and best practice. But we are also open to debating and discussing the merits of good picture processing for content other than film and drama, where motion and artefact free images would work better for things like fast moving sports.

I guess you have to read the full article and see the video to get that point and even then, it is probably better to be there to see the event and understand what was being discussed in person. And the AVForums audience are exactly the right people to be attending this kind of event. I found your original comments about the attendees to be unfair and somewhat insulting, so let's discuss and debate without making generalisations, please.
 

thx75

Active Member
Regret to hear that Phil, I believe to have not missed the point at all. I understood very well your intentions but I'm not agree in how this shoot out was made, plain and simple.
If you think a user of this forum cannot freely explain an opinion I'm open to delete all of my posts on this matter, no problem at all by my side. Please let me know if I have to do it, I'll do it immediately.
Insulting??? I do think you'll never find any insult inside them and it definitely wasn't my intention, maybe you have missed my point too. Unless you consider an insult "casual viewers".
 

PC1975

Distinguished Member
I don't find your comments insulting but feel that you're being pedantic and elitist. The shootout was described as being judged by avf members from the beginning - it is exactly as described.

I do feel you should have the right to have an opinion on it but once made don't need to keep repeating it. That's when it starts to come across as an attempt to undermine the whole thing.
 

thx75

Active Member
Just replying to GadgetObsessed... however, end of the story by my side. ;)
 

PC1975

Distinguished Member
Personally I would prefer to have the baseball disappear for a few milliseconds compared to the Sony that is just constant judder...

But do we know if that was the best the Sony can do with motion handling? Simply using the default vivid mode setting doesn't necessarily reflect the Sony's motion handling at it's best. It may well be the case that the Sony does suffer from judder full stop but without manually adjusting its motion control settings we'll never know.

That's where the test somewhat falls down for me. A true comparison of motion handling would be to manually adjust each set's motion controls to try and get the best result from each one.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy reading about the shootout or that it doesn't have its merits. By the sounds of it the Philips has very good motion handling which is useful information and I was also unaware of the LG models potential weakness in that area. As I said previously it's something I'll be putting under greater scrutiny when auditioning them.
 
Last edited:

thx75

Active Member
That's where the test sonewhat falls down for me. A true comparison of motion handling would be to manually adjust each set's motion controls to try and get the best result from each one.

Exactly one of my points. :)
 

PC1975

Distinguished Member
But granted that part wasn’t necessarily a test of the “best” settings. It was a test of everything enabled.

People need to be careful as to exactly what they take from the dynamic picture mode comparison. There is a danger that things are being missed with regard to motion handling controls. A few comments are attributing facts that may not necessarily be the case. Motion processing modes have different levels that can be adjusted manually to get the best results. The higher it is set, the worse the artifacts and soap opera effect.

It's not as simple or possibly even the case to say that it was a test with everything enabled nor do we know that motion processing is maxed out on all sets in vivid mode. Also, even though picture modes (standard, vivid etc) are separate settings from motion controls - different picture modes can have different motion settings by default.

The bottom line is that what we can take from this - specifically in relation to motion handling - is that the Philips handles motion better in vivid picture mode default settings. And just to be clear - I'm specifically discussing motion handling here and not colours, blacks etc (although the same principle applies).
 
Last edited:

PC1975

Distinguished Member
The final post of the Philips P5 processing engine is now available at:
Philips TV invites you to discuss best picture processing tech

We'll be collecting questions for the AV Forums team to ask Philips PQ Guru Danny Tack in a podcast next week - So please feel free to leave a question. We'll pick the best ones with the help of the editorial team.
My suggestion would be:

Do Philips acknowledge that overall quality of performance cannot be gauged based purely on vivid picture mode alone? (Am I being too pedantic here? I don't know, maybe I am)

Also a feature related question:

Can we expect to see dynamic hdr and/or vrr and if so when?
 
Last edited:

PC1975

Distinguished Member
Shootouts arranged by one company or another have no validity whatsoever.
The calibrated shoot out is completely valid imo and the vivid mode to an extent in that it demonstrates Philips superiority in that particular mode. The latter also hints at potentially superior motion handling albeit that would have to be validated with further comparisons.
 

c__w

Active Member
If vivid mode turned Philips NM on low, and the Sony was completely off then that may account for the judder seen on the Sony.

Even a few years ago when buying a 4k LCD, the Sony was the best motion I found (went for a Samsung in the end due to Sony using an IPS panel tho) and their bfi has an appealing cinematic effect. Before that I had a Philips 7404 with amazing motion handling.

Philips and Sony lead with their motion [interpolation] Imo, Samsung next and LG trailing. Panasonic not sure about, I was very disappointed with a dx802 as it couldn't smooth anything out. They seem to be for the purist that want to watch lower frame rate.
 

Philips TV PQ

Active Member
AVForums Sponsor
Still not available on the John Lewis website... perhaps they are waiting for "Black Friday" to pass?
Apologies, there has a been a delay on delivering the stock to JLP. Target date is now the 23rd Nov but the great news is that the launch price will be £1799.
 

Pogg

Member
AE082A9B-AEB1-498E-B2BD-7031B747CB38.jpeg
Apologies, there has a been a delay on delivering the stock to JLP. Target date is now the 23rd Nov but the great news is that the launch price will be £1799.


Good to know. The LG OLED55B7 is now on Amazon Black Friday price of £1,529. Sold and fulfilled by Amazon and free delivery, 30 days Returns.

Time to compete.

LG OLED55B7V 55 inch Premium 4K Ultra HD HDR Smart OLED TV (2017 Model) https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B06XVMNVD5/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_fsVdAbD6XFJS1
 
Last edited:

desinho

Member
What people seem to be forgetting is we only really saw LG's motion handling (and everyone else's) at full bore (Vivid mode), not on a setting where it's useful but not destructive

The calibrated shoot out is completely valid imo and the vivid mode to an extent in that it demonstrates Philips superiority in that particular mode. The latter also hints at potentially superior motion handling albeit that would have to be validated with further comparisons.

As we could see from the Vivid Mode settings that were posted, the Philips is at 'Standard' mode in Vivid, not exactly full bore (there is a Sports and Smooth preset as well that you would imagine to do more processing) but maybe @peggle can delve deeper into what Natural and Perfect Motion are actually on in Standard. There is no way Motionflow is completely off on the Sony in Vivid, probably a toxic mix of Cinemotion on High and high on the Smoothness (but let me check or someone from the A1 thread can answer).
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Sky Glass, Epson Laser Projectors plus Home Cinema Subwoofers and More…
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

What's new on Netflix UK for November 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
PrimaLuna debuts Evo 300 Hybrid integrated amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Astell&Kern announces AK ZERO1 in ear monitor
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
McIntosh launches MI1250 power amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 13th October 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom