Panasonic SD900 vs HC X900

SteBuck

Active Member
Hello thank you for the replys these are a couple of videos of the birds in question. I dont want bbc quality close ups i just want a better quality and less shake than these shot with my old sony mini dv. The birds dive very very fast



 

12harry

Distinguished Member
That's pigeons?
Well I hope the new Purchase comes up to yr expectations; as your target is somewhat demanding....IMHO.

Did you add some audio as the birds get close? Sounds like a vacuum cleaner, but maybe it's special homing beacon..?

Let us know. I mean, about the new camcorder....
 

manuoz

Novice Member
hi there,
thanks to all for the interesting and informative conversation of these two Panasonic models.
I'm having a really hard time understanding exactly what buttons (physical buttons) each model has just by looking at the specifications and reviews I have found online. I'm based in Australia and I can't find any of these camcorders in the shops so I can't check before I order one.

Would you be so nice to help me out with this?
Which model (of the many 900 series available) has actual buttons (not LCD screen menu buttons) for shutter speed and aperture?
That will most likely help me decide...
From reading your conversation it's apparent to me that there is a preference for the older SD model, but I do like the newer stabiliser and the wider angle.
Thanks for the help,
cheers!
Emanuel
 

Gramuk

Member
Emanuel - for what it's worth - my X900 only has button for slelecting the highest recording setting and then two more - one for iA auto mode and another for image stabalisation. There is a control ring around the lens which can be configured as a manual control although I haven't actually gone into that. I assume focus, aperture shutter speed but only one at a time of course. Everything else is via the touchscreen. For sure there will be many other users who can give you more information but just wanted to let you know what my X900 has. You can always visit Panasonic web site where you can download the PDF manuals which should have all the info you need. I looked at the X900 manual which helped me with the purchase decision. I have to admit that everything has been shot in iA mode and 1080/50P as I've not much time to play around.
 

manuoz

Novice Member
thank you Gramuk for your reply!
This tells me that probably none of these models have dedicated buttons.
Guess I can live without (if this allows me to buy a semidecent cam for less than 3 grand!).

I have read that basically the X series doesn't have any performance improvements from the previous models and I have read (here) that these newer models have some negatives like the on/off button and the look and feel of the camera.
This means that there is no point upgrading to the X series.
It also means that people who had an older model can get frustrated with the newer position of the on/off button, the finish and ergonomics and the LCD monitor of the X series.
But my question is, would a new user, who has not used an older model and so doesn't have a reference, appreciate the new X series model?
Having to spend AU$1,000, wouldn't it make sense the get the latest model and technology of anything? Considering that camera age so quickly, I feel like it's a bit smarter to get a 2012 model rather than a 2011 or 2010 model.

Your thoughts?
 

Gramuk

Member
Monouz - I was pretty much in the same position you find yourself. This is the first HD camcorder for me (had an older Sony handycam) and wasn't convinced with the shape of the newer camera's. Again many people here mentioned the X900 doesn't sit in the hand so nicely but to be honest most camera's are this design. From my point of view the positives for me were - Newest technology - Wider angled lense with support for the new 3D attachment to give full screen 3D if I choose to go that way in the future - Also the extra image stabilisation. Not sure what you mention of the LCD monitor - not had any issues with that at all. Yes it has a 3D capability but I just leave it set to 2D and looks no different to any other LCD. Others may say I bought a "worse" model but for me this is all new and is absolutely fantastic. Each to thier own but there are many more people teking up the X900's and none reporting any problems. Ony ones seem to be with editing the footage - as you need a decent PC to edit full HD content (but there'e plent on here about that).
Oh - I just thought - one thing is the LCD screen has opened when picking the camera which turns on the camera when iys been in standby mode. It's not so much of a problem though since it only happens when you want to use the camera anyway. I always power off completely when storing away. Others will have thier own opinions but I love this thing. Good luck
 

12harry

Distinguished Member
manuoz - have a look on YouTube - often new buyers will unpack the cameras and explain the basic features and operation. . . . but theya ren't Reviewers and most have limited experience. Also remember they've just spent real money and are unlikley to find any "Faults" even if pretty obvious to the general Market.
Sadly many features are being included in endless "Menu" lists, so having it to hand is difficult. Personally I'm none too keen on these focus rings (and even less when they can configure WB, etc) since there is no scale you have to fiddle to see where it's set.
In the days of "real" kit you got a caliibrated scale for ft/m
However, manual focus has it uses.
 
Last edited:

ClassicalMan

Active Member
I bought an X900 this week after using a Canon XM2 for over a decade. I use the camcorder solely for family videos and for video material only (not stills).

To cut to the chase, I am disappointed with the X900. In decent natural light outside, I could live with the results, though find the picture somewhat synthetic looking, lacking the naturalness of the Canon (it all looks rather over processed). I suppose some might say that the Canon's colours are warm and a little over-saturated, but I certainly prefer the results (with skin tones in particular) to the rather chilly pictures of the X900. Operationally the X900 is fairly dire compared to the XM2, but I realised that everything had now gravitated to irksome menus, so this was not a shock, however unwelcome. However, it's indoors in artificial light that the X900 did shock me with its results. Our living room is very well lit but the X900's results look soft, washed-out and substantially more synthetic still than the ones in natural light (and this is before noise becomes an obvious issue). I also see what appear to be compression artifacts when too many pixels are moving. Given that pictures in decent daylight are sharp, I have evidently not got an X900 with a dud lens. And I've checked the focussing in artificial light and there's nothing wrong with it (so this doesn't explain the softness either - I'm guessing the softness comes from smoothing after aggressive noise reduction). On the plus side, the image stabilisation system of the X900 is streets ahead of the old XM2, and detail resolution in good light is often impressive. But I'm striving to find the camera I expected after reading many rave reviews.

I'd be glad to receive any views from others who've used an XM2 and then an X900 - am I simply expecting too much in looking for the 'naturalness' of the XM2's images and its low-light performance in an HD camcorder costing just £800? Would I be better served with the Sony CX730 or Canon GF1, or would I need to double or treble the amount spent in order to gain the kind of performance I'd like?

I am wondering whether the X900's performance has been compromised in the ways detailed in order to facilitate its use as a 3D camcorder (which would not be of interest to me).

I should stress that I'm not seeking to impugn the judgement of anyone who thinks very highly of their X900 - this is my first camcorder purchase in over a decade and perhaps I have made a 'category error' in buying this model.

ClassicalMan
 

Gramuk

Member
So far as image quality I have nothing to compare the X900 to other than an older Sony MiniDV camera. All I can say is that the X900 on my PC monitor (7 yr old LCD) looks over-processed until I played around with the settings on the monitor / card but still only get a reasonalble picture for editing. However on my calibrated Panasonic Plasma the image is stunning - everyone has commented that it is near broadcast quality. Likewise when i took my camera to my mums house an played on her cheaper non calibrated LED TV - again the image was of course not as good as on my Plasma. So I guess it all depends what you're watching it back on. If you look at the TV sections of the forums then there are so many cases where people are reporting poor TV / image quality on high end displays - until of course they get them calibrated. Just a thought.
 

ClassicalMan

Active Member
Many thanks for your thoughts. I'm viewing the X900's output via my Samsung 40" LCD (ES7000), on which the heavy-duty processing (motion 'smoothing', frame rate doubling/interpolation etc) is switched off, as to me these functions result in a more synthetic picture. I've tried the X900 connected directly to the TV via HDMI and also by putting the SD card into my Panasonic BD recorder (which records to its HDD in its native AVCHD).

Footage taken outside is essentially quite okay - lacking a little the naturalness and warmth of the old Canon XM2 yet sharp and with plenty of detail. I should perhaps mention in passing that the X900's auto exposure computation is far more reliable than the XM2's (though if only the X900 also had a direct exposure compensation ring!). I could live with the X900 if I were only using it outside. And the fact that the footage looks decent on the Samsung suggests there's no fundamental mismatch between the two.

However, in artificial light (even strong artificial light), the picture becomes soft, the colours washed out, compression artifacts start to show... Presumably the aperture will be at its widest in most such situations and gain used, and perhaps the noise-reduction algorithms applied by the X900 (given the camera's gain is bound to produce noise) do not gel with those applied by LCD TVs such as the Samsung, even though I have the Samsung turned to modest levels of noise reduction. (I suppose the Samsung is optimised for reducing MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 artifacts and noise, and not the type produced by the H.264 of AVCHD.)

ClassicalMan
 

grahamlthompson

In memoriam
. (I suppose the Samsung is optimised for reducing MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 artifacts and noise, and not the type produced by the H.264 of AVCHD.)

ClassicalMan

I doubt that, broadcast HD TV uses AVCHD compression (H264/AVC) vitually the same as the camcorder. Recording 1080i should produce recordings similar to BBC-HD.

eg

Video
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : [email protected]
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 4 frames
Format settings, GOP : M=4, N=12
Codec ID : 27
Duration : 36s 40ms
Bit rate : 10.1 Mbps
Width : 1 920 pixels
Height : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 25.000 fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Interlaced
Scan order : Top Field First

For comparison footage from a Sony HD camcorder (1080i)

Video
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : [email protected]
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 2 frames
Format settings, GOP : M=2, N=13
Bit rate mode : Variable
Maximum bit rate : 16.0 Mbps
Width : 1 920 pixels
Height : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 25.000 fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Interlaced
Scan order : Top Field First
 
Last edited:

ClassicalMan

Active Member
Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding here.

Having done some more experimentation, the issues I'm getting with footage shot in artificial light (albeit quite strong artificial light) - soft images, poor colour saturation, detail loss (hair being a prime example), 'synthetic' look, artifacting - do seem closely related to the amount of gain the X900 is applying (higher ISO in still camera terminology), as well as the amount of pixel movement from any one frame to the next.

What surprises me is that the Canon XM2 (over 10 years old) produces still pleasing footage with good colour saturation, no obvious noise or artifacts etc in lighting conditions in which the X900 is very clearly struggling. Although the XM2 was a prosumer camcorder, I'd assumed that all the advances in sensors and processing over the 10+ since I bought it would mean I could expect superior results (in HD) to those I get from the XM2 (in SD) in virtually all conditions, but evidently this was unrealistic.

If any members have had an opportunity to compare the X900 with the Canon Legria G10 and Sony CX730E (particularly when shooting indoors under artificial light), I'd be most interested in conclusions.

ClassicalMan
 

12harry

Distinguished Member
You refer to a camcorder that (you say) is over 10 years old - so that's not HD (is it?) and comparison with the X900 is a little unfair - surely the compressions will be different? Furthermore a propper prosumer camcorder will have "better" circuits, etc. - - - it is those qualities which lifts them above the others.

However, the Pana X900 has excelent performance in good light (easy for ClassicalMan to compare) . . . that would be fairer.

The issue with the X900 would seem to be low-light and Computer Shopper has remarked on this with the 3MOS cameras, since their combined Sensor-Area is somewhat short of some single-sensor cameras. However, this is a tricky subject and the "minimum lux" is a somewhat "moveable feast" when it comes to comparing different Mfr specs - since each is trying to convince us theirs is the best.
 

ClassicalMan

Active Member
As I mentioned, I'm not intending to deride the X900, but rather to establish from those experienced in current machines what I can reasonably expect now from a camcorder in this general category/price area. The Canon XM2 was a prosumer SD camera that recorded to mini-DV. If I remember rightly, the bitrate of the mindDV codec is 15Mbps.

By contrast, the X900 is recording in HD (four times as many pixels) at 24Mbps. Obviously, if we were comparing two machines of the same vintage, the comparison would be idle.

However, the XM2 was released at a time when the highest-end pro DSLRs had 4 or 5 MP sensors, and when processors were many times less powerful and slower than current chips used in cameras/camcorders, and RAM very expensive (think of the spec of a typical c.2000 PC versus one from 2012 - a huge step change in power and speed). Additionally, I believe the AVCHD codec (and indeed MPEG4) is more efficient than that of mini-DV.

For all these reasons, I'd assumed that a top-end consumer (or prosumer?) HD camcorder released in 2012 would surpass the old XM2 is all areas. And this assumption had been underlined by various rave reviews on camcorder/camera review sites, which wrote of the X900's excellent low-light performance. However, this is all too evidently not the case in (even relatively good) artificial light, even though the X900's performance in daylight outside clearly surpasses that of the XM2 in most (not quite all) respects.

Earlier today I did some tests in manual mode, in a living room lit by reasonably good exterior daylight. I used the X900's lens at its widest angle so that the aperture could be at its maximum. I found that the X900 was having to use maximum aperture (f1.5) and about 6dB of gain to boot. In the same light, the old XM2 was needing to use no gain. So this is at the root of the problem - the X900 is having to apply substantial gain (high ISO in still camera parlance), which inevitably results in noise in the post-sensor amplified signal, with noise suppression processing then resulting in the predictable visual artifacts. And the X900 was using 1/50 as the shutter speed (I hadn't switched on the option to use 1/25, since this is really of no use when there's any movement).

The XM2 also has three sensors, so each of those sensors is receiving a third as many photons as enter the lens (as with the X900). This aspect doesn't therefore explain the wide disparity in performance between the two camcorders in other than reasonable daylight outdoors. In still camera terms, the sensors of the X900 appear to have a very low base ISO, meaning that they are relatively insensitive, such that substantial gain is needed relative to sensors that are inherently more sensitive. Given so much advance in sensor technology over the last 12 years, this also puzzles me, not least since Panasonic makes very decent sensors for its micro four-thirds still cameras.

It might be that there are good reasons for all of this. As stated, my intention is not to criticise the X900 in any absolute sense but to enquire of other members whether the other two cameras in this category - the Canon Legria G10 and Sony CX730 - are likely to give substantially better performance in lower light conditions. I've set out my problems with the X900 in this area so that any member with the relevant experience can assist. Or perhaps a member has been through similar travails and found that only by spending substantially more can an HD camcorder work well in decent artificial light - any wisdom along these lines would be of much interest.

ClassicalMan
 

chrishull3

Well-known Member
As I mentioned, I'm not intending to deride the X900, but rather to establish from those experienced in current machines what I can reasonably expect now from a camcorder in this general category/price area. The Canon XM2 was a prosumer SD camera that recorded to mini-DV. If I remember rightly, the bitrate of the mindDV codec is 15Mbps.

By contrast, the X900 is recording in HD (four times as many pixels) at 24Mbps. Obviously, if we were comparing two machines of the same vintage, the comparison would be idle.

However, the XM2 was released at a time when the highest-end pro DSLRs had 4 or 5 MP sensors, and when processors were many times less powerful and slower than current chips used in cameras/camcorders, and RAM very expensive (think of the spec of a typical c.2000 PC versus one from 2012 - a huge step change in power and speed). Additionally, I believe the AVCHD codec (and indeed MPEG4) is more efficient than that of mini-DV.

For all these reasons, I'd assumed that a top-end consumer (or prosumer?) HD camcorder released in 2012 would surpass the old XM2 is all areas. And this assumption had been underlined by various rave reviews on camcorder/camera review sites, which wrote of the X900's excellent low-light performance. However, this is all too evidently not the case in (even relatively good) artificial light, even though the X900's performance in daylight outside clearly surpasses that of the XM2 in most (not quite all) respects.

Earlier today I did some tests in manual mode, in a living room lit by reasonably good exterior daylight. I used the X900's lens at its widest angle so that the aperture could be at its maximum. I found that the X900 was having to use maximum aperture (f1.5) and about 6dB of gain to boot. In the same light, the old XM2 was needing to use no gain. So this is at the root of the problem - the X900 is having to apply substantial gain (high ISO in still camera parlance), which inevitably results in noise in the post-sensor amplified signal, with noise suppression processing then resulting in the predictable visual artifacts. And the X900 was using 1/50 as the shutter speed (I hadn't switched on the option to use 1/25, since this is really of no use when there's any movement).

The XM2 also has three sensors, so each of those sensors is receiving a third as many photons as enter the lens (as with the X900). This aspect doesn't therefore explain the wide disparity in performance between the two camcorders in other than reasonable daylight outdoors. In still camera terms, the sensors of the X900 appear to have a very low base ISO, meaning that they are relatively insensitive, such that substantial gain is needed relative to sensors that are inherently more sensitive. Given so much advance in sensor technology over the last 12 years, this also puzzles me, not least since Panasonic makes very decent sensors for its micro four-thirds still cameras.

It might be that there are good reasons for all of this. As stated, my intention is not to criticise the X900 in any absolute sense but to enquire of other members whether the other two cameras in this category - the Canon Legria G10 and Sony CX730 - are likely to give substantially better performance in lower light conditions. I've set out my problems with the X900 in this area so that any member with the relevant experience can assist. Or perhaps a member has been through similar travails and found that only by spending substantially more can an HD camcorder work well in decent artificial light - any wisdom along these lines would be of much interest.

ClassicalMan


It is well known the Canon G10 and its bigger brother the XA10 have the best low light performance in the consumer/prosumer range under £1500.
Regarding your XM2 it was a good cam at the lower end of the prosumer range,i owned a a sony VX2000 which was min dv like the XM2

http://reviews.cnet.com/4505-6500_7-6145072.html
That cams low light was superb. Unless you get a modern prosumer or use DSLR small consumer cams will be fiddly compared to your XM2.
 
Last edited:

ClassicalMan

Active Member
Many thanks for this very helpful guidance. (As an aside, I did consider the Sony, which had just been released at the time I bought the XM2, but the audio on the Sony had a high self-noise problem, which they later sorted out - unfortunately this counted it out at the time I needed to make the purchase, hence the XM2. I do remember from reviews at the time that the Sony had even better low-light performance than the Canon.)

Final question: does anyone have experience (good or bad) in transferring AVCHD material from a Canon Legria HF G10 to a Panasonic Blu-ray recorder (I'd do this via SD card, which works very cleanly as a transfer method with the X900). One retailer told me that there were potential compatibility issues between Canon HD camcorders and Panasonic Blu-ray recorders (referring to transfer of HD footage in AVCHD), but this might simply have been an attempt to push me towards the Panasonic X900.

ClassicalMan
 

Sonic4

Standard Member
Have been considering replacing my aged NV-DS38 for ages. Fancied the SD900 - now I am ready to go, I note the X900 has replaced it! However judging by this thread the SD900 is the better model. Not many left - although Amazon still have one at £789.99 - which suprisingly is more expensive than the newer X900. Is my choice of buying a superceded model wise ?
 

Sonic4

Standard Member
No replies to my Post - However after taking all factors into account. I have decided to go for the older SD900.
 

VOYAGERX

Novice Member
Hi, get the SD900 it is the better camera, i bought the SD900 from Amazon and i loved it, i upgraded to the X900 again from Amazon, i had it 2 days sent it back, got a refund, i did not like its finnish and i was convinced the picture Quality of the SD900 was superior, luckily i had not sold my SD900 so since i sent the X900 back i have never looked back.
 

Starx

Standard Member
@ClassicalMan
I recommend if you want more color saturation, adjust your display Because the color accuracy of your camera is excellent and suitable for any type of monitors or tvs.
but if you want recording whit more color saturation and vibrancy please follow this setting:
Switch to Manual Mode
Set [REC MODE] to [HA], [HG], [HX], [HE] or [1080/50p].
[menu] > [RECORD SETUP] > [DIGITAL CINEMA COLOUR] > [ON].
[menu] > [RECORD SETUP] > [PICTURE ADJUST] > [COLOUR]

Up to this moment among the reviewer websites there is a comparison between sony CX730 and panasonic X900:

Good light condition:

Panasonic X900 @1200 lux:
http://produktdbimages0.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_testbild_1200_lux_230.jpg

Panasonic V700 @1200 lux:
http://produktdbimages5.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_testbild_1200_lux_232.jpg

Sony CX740 @1200 lux:
http://produktdbimages0.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_testbild_1200_lux_228.jpg

Ultra low light condition:

Panasonic X900 @12 Lux Auto mode:
http://produktdbimages0.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_testbild_12_lux_230.jpg

Panasonic V700 @12 lux Auto mode:
http://produktdbimages5.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_testbild_12_lux_232.jpg

Sony CX740 @12lux Auto mode:
http://produktdbimages1.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_testbild_12_lux_228.jpg

Panasonic X900 @12 lux optimized:
http://produktdbimages5.slashcam.de..._testbilder_testbild_12_lux_optimiert_230.jpg

Panasonic V700 @12 lux optimized:
http://produktdbimages5.slashcam.de..._testbilder_testbild_12_lux_optimiert_232.jpg

Sony CX740 @12lux optimized:
http://produktdbimages1.slashcam.de..._testbilder_testbild_12_lux_optimiert_228.jpg

Source:
camcorder reviews/tests and comparison with test images and technical data
 
Last edited:

VOYAGERX

Novice Member
Does anyone find the colors in auto mode on the SD900 a bit `overcooked`? in particular `greens` which seem too green and overly bright a bit artificial looking and far too saturated looking, also reds which are far too red i.e same symptoms as the greens, most other colors seem not too bad in this mode if a little saturated, if i film my son in auto mode in most scenes inside or out it looks like he has lipstick on his lips, they look far too red, same with my partner, i have to turn down the color on my Philips 50" plasma tv a fair amount to improve this scenario with these 2 colors this improves the greens but the lips still look a little red at this point, i now never use auto mode because of this problem and setting the white balance in manual improves things slightly but the colors especially as i said before green and reds are still far too saturated, so i have had to turn down the color setting in the menu by 3 notches, this improves things but the green and red colors are still quite prominent, i have had the SD900 since may and think obviously the colors have been turned up far too high during its manufacture and perhaps i should send it back to Panasonic for perhaps an adjustment to its colors or whatever may be causing this problem, how does the color look on your SD900 folks? dont get me wrong, i am not criticising if thats how you spell it lololo the SD900, i love it, the picture quality itself apart from its color problem is `awesome` i love the look, feel and handling of the SD900 it is a fabulous camcorder and just wanted to know if anyone else has encounterd the colors problem and if they sent it to Panasonic for adjustment.
 

12harry

Distinguished Member
Manufacturers are getting rid of buttons because of the cost, (all those iinternal bits, etc.)..when you compare the cost of a touch-sreeen and they can have as many buttons as they like.

Personally I'm no fan of touch-screens, but the Ipod/pad has shown how quickly folk will use a new technique.
My own camera, now has a hard LCD protector fitted, and I suspect this would be too thick for reliable Touch-Op.
( Others...?).

manuoz - surely there are camera/video clubs nearby where members will have this model to see close-up? Also, their views on handling, quality, etc....?
 
Last edited:

VOYAGERX

Novice Member
Does anyone find the colors in auto mode on the SD900 a bit `overcooked`? in particular `greens` which seem too green and overly bright a bit artificial looking and far too saturated looking, also reds which are far too red i.e same symptoms as the greens, most other colors seem not too bad in this mode if a little saturated, if i film my son in auto mode in most scenes inside or out it looks like he has lipstick on his lips, they look far too red, same with my partner, i have to turn down the color on my Philips 50" plasma tv a fair amount to improve this scenario with these 2 colors this improves the greens but the lips still look a little red at this point, i now never use auto mode because of this problem and setting the white balance in manual improves things slightly but the colors especially as i said before green and reds are still far too saturated, so i have had to turn down the color setting in the menu by 3 notches, this improves things but the green and red colors are still quite prominent, i have had the SD900 since may and think obviously the colors have been turned up far too high during its manufacture and perhaps i should send it back to Panasonic for perhaps an adjustment to its colors or whatever may be causing this problem, how does the color look on your SD900 folks? dont get me wrong, i am not criticising if thats how you spell it lololo the SD900, i love it, the picture quality itself apart from its color problem is `awesome` i love the look, feel and handling of the SD900 it is a fabulous camcorder and just wanted to know if anyone else has encounterd the colors problem and if they sent it to Panasonic for adjustment.

ANYONE?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Maverick UK Premiere IMAX Review + Top Gun, Tom Cruise, Tony Scott and 4K + Movie/TV News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

LG UltraGear Gaming Monitors get VESA certification
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sony confirms UK pricing for A90K and A75K Bravia XR 4K OLED TVs
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
LG announces new CineBeam HU915QE 4K laser projector
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Movies Podcast | Maverick IMAX Review, 4K Disc News and More
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom