Samsung F4500 plasma bargain for 480p sources

[BuckoA51]

Here's the thread with the GC and Wii comparisons http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51789

Fudoh, not sure what you are getting at here-- increased resolution== increased clarity and sharpness. How in the world do you figure it doesnt?

You should ask Nintendo The Wii in particular is a pain to get looking good on most setups. On the DVDO/ABT scalers for instance it always looks blurry and washed out particularly on the home screen, yet some TVs scale it beautifully.

[Ed Oscuro]

Resolution, color balance, and contrast are all different aspects of an image, as is well known in optics. I'm afraid I can't add anything to the discussion of GC vs. Wii but what Fudoh says makes sense - with the caveat that this is probably implementation dependent, unless there is something inherently problematic with the 31KHz spec for TVs. I kinda doubt it though; there definitely are many "reference quality" 480p monitors and there was research into implementing it, so I find it hard to believe something which allows all 31KHz signals to have inadequately accurate transitions could have slipped through.

[Josh128]

Also, 480i is only sharper on still images. On visuals in motion 480p will look much better because the deinterlacing kills motion detail much worse than the effects of an LCD do.

edit: I was just trying to make some proper close-up pictures to show what I mean when I say 480i is better than 480p on Wii, but I couldn't hook the console up to my VP30 so the Lumagen had to do. Adimittedly, with hat setup and just a quick look there was barely any difference even for me. Both looked shit.

Please note ALL of these shots were from still images-- and not just the Wii. The Zelda: TP shots are from the Cube. The camera is a non factor-- I took repeated shots of each from a tripod to ensure no movement and the results were repeatable every time. I cant believe some of you are still denying this! I'll do some more later.

[ryu]

Also, 480i is only sharper on still images. On visuals in motion 480p will look much better because the deinterlacing kills motion detail much worse than the effects of an LCD do.

edit: I was just trying to make some proper close-up pictures to show what I mean when I say 480i is better than 480p on Wii, but I couldn't hook the console up to my VP30 so the Lumagen had to do. Adimittedly, with hat setup and just a quick look there was barely any difference even for me. Both looked shit.

Please note ALL of these shots were from still images-- and not just the Wii. The Zelda: TP shots are from the Cube. The camera is a non factor-- I took repeated shots of each from a tripod to ensure no movement and the results were repeatable every time. I cant believe some of you are still denying this! I'll do some more later.

I came a bit late to the discussion and am not sure what you're using with your Wii, but see what Bucko said:

On the DVDO/ABT scalers for instance it always looks blurry and washed out particularly on the home screen, yet some TVs scale it beautifully.

Sounds like you've got a setup that just so happens to work pretty well with the Wii's 480p output.

[Einzelherz]

480i has always looked cleaner than 480p on my 1080p panasonic plasma and I thought the general consensus was that the Wii has a filter on its 480p mode.

[Josh128]

480i has always looked cleaner than 480p on my 1080p panasonic plasma and I thought the general consensus was that the Wii has a filter on its 480p mode.

Using what kind of source/system?

As my photos clearly show, both Wii's and GC's 480p component output are both very clear and remarkably similar to each other, and worlds clearer than their respective 480i outputs. There is definitely no "filter" on Wii's 480p output. Some games have filters programmed in them, such as Rogue Leader, but things like that are game specific, not system specific. I see not many have yet dared to guess which of my 4 photos comparing Wii and GC 480p shots belong to which system, precisely because there is little to no difference. If there was a filtered output on the Wii , it would be immediately visible in those shots.

Once again, it seems my photos of 480p vs. 480i on Wii and GC are baffling people because everyone here seems to hold the belief that 480i output is sharper and more clear than 480p output. Theres no need to be baffled-- photos dont lie.

It seems some people are saying the set is "just good" at displaying 480p (and guess assuming that its "just bad" at displaying 480i). They are partially correct-- the set is GREAT at displaying 480p (that is what this thread is about, isnt it? ), but it is EQUALLY as great at displaying 480i, in fact, it has the best 480i de-interlacing Ive ever seen on an HDTV.

So, I guess people may still just be assuming all this is a fluke? Its not-- I have had the same results (Wii and GC 480p looking much sharper and better than 480i) on 5 other HDTVs-- my original 2001 Hitachi Ultravision Digital 36" 1080i/480p set (which is the set I owned when I purchased my GC cables back in late 2002), my Philips 32PT9100D 1080i/480p set, which I purchased after the flyback transformer on my Hitachi died, my 2013 Panasonic TC-P50X60 720p plasma (which I sold to purchase another Samsung PN51F4500), my 2014 Samsung PN51F5300 BFXZA 1080p plasma, and my second PN51F4500 (2014 BFXZA model). No external scalers or processors were used (and in a true test of console output, they shouldnt be).

Whats the chances that ALL 6 HDTVs Ive used Wii and GC on all show far superior 480p to 480i output? Keep in mind now, this is using the same COMPONENT cables for each mode, not using composite for the 480i (before anyone inevitably asks). Do I have some magic consoles or TV sets? Do the laws of physics somehow not apply in my humble home ? Or could it be that both the Wii and GC output sharper pictures in 480p than they do in 480i??

You know what, I'll keep an open mind here, as should everyone else-- maybe both the Wii and GC just have REALLY CRAPPY 480i output, so much so that their 480p is far superior. Maybe PS2, DC, Xbox, and Xbox 360 all have sharper 480i than 480p output (this goes against all conventional wisdom out there, but I'll bite). I mean, I havent really compared them, maybe they do. BUT, if so, I guess one could just flip that scenario around and just claim they have poor 480p output, which makes their 480i superior!

Do any of you really believe that Dreamcast VGA output is less sharp and detailed than its standard RGB 15Khz 480i output? I mean, maybe you do, Im just asking. If so, and I ask this in all sincerity, whats the point?? Why bother with 480p at all when you can have a superior picture with 480i??

Its time for everyone to put their money with their mouth is and start posting comparison pics that show what they are claiming. I find this discussion extremely interesting and harbor no ill will or hostility to anyone when I say this: I'm beginning to question how many of you have actually compared the Wii and GC 480p vs. 480i with your own eyes, and are instead just citing something you have read somewhere about some test (using equipment other than a Wii or GC, perhaps a DVD player or something) conducted on the internet. I mean, really, come on-- I was probably one of the first of the apparently few people that purchased a GC component cable when it first released, and have been using it for over 12 years now. I have 12 years of experience using it with multiple sets and all that experience has shown (quite conclusively) that GC 480p produces a much clearer and sharper picture than its 480i.

All my experience with it aside, a quick Google search about 480i vs. 480p yields about a 99% rate of favor of 480p over 480i for a better image/quality. I come here and everyone tells me Im wrong, that Wii, and in fact all devices, look sharper and have more clarity in 480i than 480p, EVEN CLINGING TO THIS AFTER I POSTED MULTIPLE PHOTOS SHOWING THE EXACT OPPOSITE!! I mean, cant anyone see how I would have reason to question this supposed "dogma"?

Next up, 480p vs 480i photos for Wii and GC on a 1080p plasma, and hopefully some comparisons on PS2, and possibly Xbox 360 (not sure if 480i is available over its HDMI though).

[BuckoA51]

I think you need to drink less coffee. People aren't telling you you're wrong, just that on some sets static images in 480i can look sharper than 480p on the Wii (and maybe Gamecube too, I haven't tested it). However, it's a moot point anyway as nobody here would choose to run those consoles in 480i since it most likely adds input lag and will look worse as soon as the picture starts to move.

Whats the chances that ALL 6 HDTVs Ive used Wii and GC on all show far superior 480p to 480i output?

That's still only a small fraction of what's out there. This page for instance shows some quite noticeable differences between Wii and Gamecube, far more pronounced than your own screenshots http://retrorgb.com/gamecubevswii.html

It really is down to your particular TV/processing chain.

[Josh128]

I think you need to drink less coffee. People aren't telling you you're wrong, just that on some sets static images in 480i can look sharper than 480p on the Wii (and maybe Gamecube too, I haven't tested it). However, it's a moot point anyway as nobody here would choose to run those consoles in 480i since it most likely adds input lag and will look worse as soon as the picture starts to move.

Whats the chances that ALL 6 HDTVs Ive used Wii and GC on all show far superior 480p to 480i output?

That's still only a small fraction of what's out there. This page for instance shows some quite noticeable differences between Wii and Gamecube, far more pronounced than your own screenshots http://retrorgb.com/gamecubevswii.html

It really is down to your particular TV/processing chain.

The particular photo you cited has a big disclaimer by the site owner saying its the only photo on the site he did not personally take, but was from friend, a "trusted source". It also doesnt specify whether the shots were taken in 480p or 480i, or a mix of the two. In fact, all it says is "Gamecube" vs. "Wii". It looks remarkably similar to my 480p (sharp) vs. 480i (blurry) photos. It very likely could have been done as 480p vs 480i. Not exactly a good example to refute the photos Ive posted here.

I understand most of you ( I guess no one) dont have a GC cable to perform similar tests-- but a simple 480p vs 480i test on the Wii on its own Im guessing most of you can do.

[22point8]

I think any differences would be on a game by game basis, like a previous poster said its probably a filter to make it look acceptable on an over-sharpened, blue tinted LCD. Shame a wii can't do 480p over SCART like a PS2 can, then component (from the console) wouldn't be an issue RGB to CSY-2100.

[BuckoA51]

I understand most of you ( I guess no one) dont have a GC cable to perform similar tests

Gamecube Vs Wii has been done to death in that other thread I linked you to, you can clearly see there's a difference when analysed with a scope, so that's more than likely going to come down to your TV what you actually see in the end.

Here's two Gamecube screenshots, which one do you think is interlace?

amarec20141218-225909 by videogameperfection, on Flickr

amarec20141218-230123 by videogameperfection, on Flickr

Click through to see them full size in Flickr.

Actually given a decent deinterlacer and a perfectly static image, 480i and 480p should be pretty much identical, in theory anyway.

[Josh128]

Heres another Wii vs. GC 480p image quality shot on the PN51F4500. I merged these shots together in MS Paint and noted which is which. Both images snapped from a 3MP camera on a tripod. The major difference in the shots is that the colors on the Wii are ever so slightly brighter/lighter than on the GC. Clarity /sharpness wise its extremely close.

[Josh128]

I understand most of you ( I guess no one) dont have a GC cable to perform similar tests

Gamecube Vs Wii has been done to death in that other thread I linked you to, you can clearly see there's a difference when analysed with a scope, so that's more than likely going to come down to your TV what you actually see in the end.

Here's two Gamecube screenshots, which one do you think is interlace?

amarec20141218-225909 by videogameperfection, on Flickr

amarec20141218-230123 by videogameperfection, on Flickr

Click through to see them full size in Flickr.

Actually given a decent deinterlacer and a perfectly static image, 480i and 480p should be pretty much identical, in theory anyway.

Those look more like image captures than photos of a monitor. In flickr they only appear to be less than 640x480 which gives that away, unless youve done some other sort of trickery/reduced the size of it. If theyre not captures, you need to post the full res pics as theres no way a 640x480 camera snapped a photo that clear!

All that said, I would say the top image is the interlaced one, because the tips of the trees appears a bit thicker and there appears to be an interlaced looking silhouette just below the bee. I dont remember if the game had dithered or interlaced shadows or what, its just a guess. They do look remarkably similar though-- but I would expect that-- much more from a hardware image capture vs. a real display.

[Josh128]

I read in that thread that the circa 2010 Wii's have a much improved output vs. early Wiis. Its very possible I have one with the better output, because its very close to the GC, as you can see from my pics.

[BuckoA51]

Those look more like image captures than photos of a monitor.

Yes, I have a capture card why would I take photos of a monitor?

you need to post the full res pics as theres no way a 640x480 camera snapped a photo that clear!

You should be able to get the full size on Flickr

All that said, I would say the top image is the interlaced one, because the tips of the trees appears a bit thicker and there appears to be an interlaced looking silhouette just below the bee.

Yes that's the giveaway. If you look at each image closely, you can see the interlaced one is a tiny, tiny fraction sharper, which proves the point that it basically comes down to what hardware you're using at the end of the day. Of course in motion progressive always wins.

[ryu]

deinterlaced, that is -each "missing" line in each 240p frame must filled in by interpolation (blurring) of its nearest neigbor lines

I'm pretty sure it's more common to buffer the first line and show both at once during deinterlacing.

edit: nvm, that way it hardly makes sense that you get shit motion detail during moving scenes. Although my VP30 has modes where the motion detail is not blurred.... those aren't any help for common use though.

[Josh128]

Yes, I have a capture card why would I take photos of a monitor?

Because you cant play games on a capture device! Thats the whole point, man-- show some pictures of an actual TV where 480i matches or betters 480p. In practice, all the TVs Ive used show much sharper 480p. Capture devices will ALWAYS look perfect-- they dont have to translate those images to a different resolution/screen and actually display it.

[ryu]

Yes, I have a capture card why would I take photos of a monitor?

Because you cant play games on a capture device! Thats the whole point, man-- show some pictures of an actual TV where 480i matches or betters 480p. In practice, all the TVs Ive used show much sharper 480p. Capture devices will ALWAYS look perfect-- they dont have to translate those images to a different resolution/screen and actually display it.

The idea was to show the difference from the output

[Xan]

Looks like this thread isn't about the Samsung plasma anymore

I got my H4500 in now, and out of the box it doesn't look anything like the model discussed in this topic. I've hooked my Super Famicom up through RGB and 240p doesn't look solid at all, it has some horrible interlacing/grating patterns which are stronger at the top and not present at all the bottom. Also I don't see any resolution displayed? 480i looks normal. Input lag is around 2 frames with manual lag test, as expected.

I didn't buy this for 240p games though so maybe I'll keep it if I can get the rest to look nice on it. But the PSP doesn't look too great either right now, there is some heavy processing going on which looks somewhat like that ugly 2xSaI filter in emulators. I also don't see any options to disable overscan in component mode.

[Fudoh]

Got mine as well just a few minutes ago! Needs to rest for few hours, but I'll give it a try soon.

And hey, at this price, it will make a nice christmas present for somebody, if it's not a keeper.

[Xan]

Curious about your findings.

[Xan]

Just messed around with it a bit more. PS3 in 720p looks alright, not pinsharp or anything, but respectable given the small resolution and big screen size. Wipeout HD seems to look a bit better in 720p as compared to 1080p subjectively, maybe that is just a bit too much for the scaler.

I also did a software update, not sure what that changed, but 240p is still the same and useless.

[wildchild22]

It may look different because of the scart to component video converter he is using. It maybe the converter that is helping.

I would like to know the model of converter he is using.

I am curious as well as walmart has the 43 inch on sale for 299.00 CND.

http://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/samsung-43- ... 0189581641

I would like to know if it can display 24z from a bluray. As I would need it to support this for my streamer for the bedroom.

[Ed Oscuro]

Do any of you really believe that Dreamcast VGA output is less sharp and detailed than its standard RGB 15Khz 480i output?

You go right ahead and play 2D fighters in 480p

[Xan]

I would like to know if it can display 24z from a bluray. As I would need it to support this for my streamer for the bedroom.

It detects 24p at least, no idea how this is exactly implemented here though.

Thanks to 22point8 for that guide, helped me quite a bit in calibrating my set. I've noticed one difference with the settings, the scale for Cell Light appears to be different on the H4500. 12 is the default and 20 is the maximum.

Does HDMI Black Level "Low" correspond to full range RGB? Also is game mode recommended to be on?

[22point8]

low is limited range, normal is full range. cinema smooth enables 96hz playback of 24p and if you look at the figures in the guide, black holds up better against high average picture level.

if you're using hdmi just use pc mode, warm 2.

[Fudoh]

OK, spent my first hour with the set. Analogue SD and ED only so far.

I think I can widely agree with Josh. The overal picture is very smooth. Colors and screen flicker are a bit CRT like. Sitting about 1.5m (5ft) from the 43" screen I didn't notice any screendoor effect. What makes the image appear coarser than your next best LCD isn't necessarily the lower resolution, but the typical cell noise all the plasma show. It's probably the combination of the noise along with the resampling (due to the XGA panel) that makes the image appear like a CRT (at least in comparison to a modern LCD).

I didn't dive into the deeper settings yet. I disabled all the picture assist options and set the display to cell light 4, contrast 70 and brightness 47. Color temp to warm 2 (or was it warm 1 ?). Sharpness is a bit tricky. 22point8 mentioned Sharpness 50 in his guide for component sources, but for SD and ED sources that's definitely too much. It already causes halos and you get a bright frame around your image. I also think Josh set his Sharpness rather high, that's why his 480p shots seem a bit dirty. Overall Sharpness 25 brings a nice result to 2D 240p and 3D 480p titles. If you want to compare it to a CRT, think of RGB vs. s-video. The higher the sharpness setting gets set, the more a 240p picture will look like s-video instead of RGB.

240p through component works great and is recognized as such. That's a great thing, especially with a Samsung display. We all remember that Samsung totally botched this on their earlier LCDs models with 240p not showing at all from component sources (one of reasons why Nintendo opted for 480i output instead on their later Wii VC titles). I guess Samsung wanted to do it right, with 240p not only showing up at all, but being properly recognized as a progressive source. 240p is directly upscaled to the panel's resolution. They could have a done a little better by doubling to 480p first and then applying the upscaling. The way it's implemented right now, 240p looks pretty good, but 480p looks better (when comparing with the same game of course). 240p exhibits slight halos or scaling effects, while 480p is nearly flawless.

480i through component looks ok. As Xan metioned, there's a lot of interpolation visible, so it's certainly not everybody's taste. Detail level is ok and the edge smoothing isn't as aggressive as with other processors or displays. Compared to the Sony you get a lot less detail in the distance, on the other hand the Samsung applies less smoothing to the overall pciture. I think 480i introduces a little more lag than the progressive modes. Playing Fantasy Zone IIDX in 240p, 480i and 480p, 480i felt considerbly more laggy than the other two options.

480p is nice. The Samsung's component inputs have a nicely tuned filter. I couldn't spot any noise from the critical PS2 output, which easy throws off processors like the XRGBs. As Josh mentioned, 480p looks CRT-like. Not really like a 480p on a great CRT (think BVM D or A class or a good PC monitor), but more like a Sony PGM or a NEC XM29 (from a certain distance).
The Samsung has a little problem with upsampling heavily saturated reds. It gets smeared horizontally. By increasing the sharpness level this can be countered, but then again you get the typical light halos and the picture easily gets oversharpened. On most games it's certainly hardly a problem, but on some HUDs or within menus it can be a bit annoying (see 22point8's OR2 snapshot on page 2 to get the idea).

I also tried a 480p image with scanlines (coming from a Sega Ages titles, but a XRGB would be the same). The scanlines show quite ok for a 768p panel, but overall it's the usual problem with the scanlines being upscaled unevenly. It's acceptable with lower scanline density, but gets worse with higher (or even 100%) scanline visibility.

Being a plasma set, black is good and motions details are high. I could spot a tiny bit of color trailing, but that's nothing compared to the ghosting the Sonys show with their Impulse Motionflow setting (which is required to get full resolution detail in the first place).

Even after a short hour I have to admit that I'm a little bit impressed. Not really by the display's quality or it's scaling, but by the ease of how 240p and 480p signals are handled. Yes, I prefer a Sony with a XRGB-3 or Framemeister, but if you don't want scanlines, this is how you want 240p handled on a 43" or 51" screen - easpecially at this price point. None of the current LCDs (at least those I've seen) handles 240p as good as the Samsung does. 480p is a bit more complicated. I haven't tried my Cube or Wii yet, but already can imagine what the results will look like. A display like a current Sony LCD will display good 480p (PS2 or DC) better than the Samsung (albeit more sterile as well and certainly less CRT'ish), but mediocre 480p sources (Cube, Wii) benefit considerably from the "rough" Samsung panel.

More to come....


@Xan: I haven't a RGBs source yet. If RGB handles 240p sources as 480i, switching to YUV is a must. I've seen the 480i handling and I can imagine what it does to true 240p sources.

@wildchild22: 299 CND is a bargain. I haven't seen any movie on the display yet, but from what I've seen so far, it's certainly a nice display for somebody that doesn't care about specs. At 6+ feet viewing distance, nobody will care for the lower panel resolution.

[Xyga]

Looks like it's more or less what we all gathered then. That's good !
Are the 43" still found in Europe ? I've found the 51" euro version but it's expensive where I live.

[Josh128]

@ Fudoh-- Ill post my settings in a couple minutes and respond as best as I can to your post.

[BuckoA51]

Because you cant play games on a capture device! Thats the whole point, man-- show some pictures of an actual TV where 480i matches or betters 480p. In practice, all the TVs Ive used show much sharper 480p. Capture devices will ALWAYS look perfect-- they dont have to translate those images to a different resolution/screen and actually display it.

That makes no sense at all, sorry. Actually that capture was directly from my XRGB Mini so upscaling was going on. If you want to compare upscaling then capturing is much more accurate than taking photos.

[Fudoh]

Are the 43" still found in Europe ? I've found the 51" euro version but it's expensive where I live.

The 43" is 299 EUR from a seller on ebay.de, the 51" is 395 EUR. National shipping included. I could imagine that the seller's willing to ship within Europe for a little extra.