JL Sargent Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Of course comparing picture quality across years of production not too informative. Now mid 2015 vs mid 2015 has some value. I own both Sony and Sharp tvs 60" or bigger right now. The Sony is newer and has a better picture, go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I'm sure there are more sophisticated tools (methods) to accurately capture a native screen shot, but here is an image of my 70" Sharp Aqous Q+ (Model #: LC-70UQ17U / 3840p x 2160p Ultra Resolution). Old school primitive approach taking a image grab via my camera. Properly calibrated, it is an excellent display, highly recommended if you can find one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappydue Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Posting a picture of a display is just about worthless. Everyone views it on different monitors as well as every camera has white balance and who knows what setting that is on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Not worthless, if the image looks good—and it does via viewing on my web browser (& it closely represents what the display looks like in person). Viewing of the image here on the forum (with various computer monitors), will not make the image better, if anything the from display, to camera, to eveyones multiple computer monitors it would represent a 3rd generation image. A "3rd generation" would represent a loss of native quality as it steps away from the source. So if it looks good as posted, imagine how good the original native image looks. I suppose I could have just typed a few words recommending the Sharp Aquos because it offers excellent PQ... but by your logic, that would also be worthless, because everyone have a subjective perspective on "what qualifies as excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 At least there are no orange and green faces. One of my friends a long time ago had his TV set to almost pure orange on the faces. I said why don't you tune that in properly. He said it was perfect. I said no it ain't all the faces are orange. I said let me see your glasses. When viewing the TV with his glasses everything looked normal. I said you better get color corrected glasses next time. Then he said there is nothing wrong with my glasses. Then I said OK. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 At least there are no orange and green faces. One of my friends a long time ago had his TV set to almost pure orange on the faces. I said why don't you tune that in properly. He said it was perfect. I said no it ain't all the faces are orange. I said let me see your glasses. When viewing the TV with his glasses everything looked normal. I said you better get color corrected glasses next time. Then he said there is nothing wrong with my glasses. Then I said OK. JJK Sounds like he calibrated to his preference-glasses. Not really the TV's fault. (lol) Too bad for everyone viewing his display besides him. My Sharp will occasionally have a green face on display: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappydue Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 A "3rd generation" would represent a loss of native quality as it steps away from the source. So if it looks good as posted, imagine how good the original native image looks. heres why i say it it worthless. i can post a picture of my panny 8000 and the same pic from my pioneer and cameras will pretty much make both the black levels equal. i can assure you my projector is not near as black as my KURO display. its just not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 A "3rd generation" would represent a loss of native quality as it steps away from the source. So if it looks good as posted, imagine how good the original native image looks. heres why i say it it worthless. i can post a picture of my panny 8000 and the same pic from my pioneer and cameras will pretty much make both the black levels equal. i can assure you my projector is not near as black as my KURO display. its just not. Not sure what thread you're reading, I never mentioned black levels. The picture I posted isn't an image that even showcases black levels. The picture I posted demonstrates detail & clarity that the Sharp "UQ" is capable of. Black levels are easy & the hard part is having detail within the shadows, without crushing the blacks. But I digress, the caveat I actually referred to earlier... wasn't that I was improving the image, the posted image is actually degrading it. It's a 3rd generation pic, 3 steps away from the native image, Not too mention its a highly compressed low-res jpg, thereby it loses even more info & content. My picture & comments provided insight into what the display is capable of. If you want to call that worthless, fine. But using your rational.... one could apply your "worthless standard" to every & any pro/con post on the forum. That would truly be worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappydue Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) A "3rd generation" would represent a loss of native quality as it steps away from the source. So if it looks good as posted, imagine how good the original native image looks. heres why i say it it worthless. i can post a picture of my panny 8000 and the same pic from my pioneer and cameras will pretty much make both the black levels equal. i can assure you my projector is not near as black as my KURO display. its just not. Not sure what thread you're reading, I never mentioned black levels. The picture I posted isn't an image that even showcases black levels. The picture I posted demonstrates detail & clarity that the Sharp "UQ" is capable of. Black levels are easy & the hard part is having detail within the shadows, without crushing the blacks. But I digress, the caveat I actually referred to earlier... wasn't that I was improving the image, the posted image is actually degrading it. It's a 3rd generation pic, 3 steps away from the native image, Not too mention its a highly compressed low-res jpg, thereby it loses even more info & content. My picture & comments provided insight into what the display is capable of. If you want to call that worthless, fine. But using your rational.... one could apply your "worthless standard" to every & any pro/con post on the forum. That would truly be worthless.yeah I know how to read thanks. I know what your saying and your not picking up what I'm saying. It's all good. Post pics of your TV. Doesn't bother me. It was clearly an observation made by myself and many others before you ever being around on this forum. Don't get offended so easily. you have an awesome TV. Edited August 12, 2015 by Scrappydue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Not offended at all. lol Just providing a recommendation on a great display for those interested or in the market. One can find some great deals right now on the upper end Q+ Sharp's. I might even grab another before they disappear. Because (IMO) 4K is something that will be very short lived. CRT is long gone, Rear Projection is long gone. Plasma is gone. LCD & OLED will be outdated soon. 4K will be obsolete before they even establish a foothold in the consumer market. With display technology, every "advancement" in the past decade+ has been focused on "adding more pixels" & that approach is about to change. There is already a new standard in development that makes that approach as old fashion & out of date as the CRT. Ironic considering that today's "gamma" measurements are still based on ancient CRT tech. The new standard will make today's display's seem like 480i (especially shadows-black details & realistic fast moving images). Good stuff is on the horizon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHASLS2 Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 I will stick with my Panny 60vt60. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minermark Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Sharp is going by the wayside, if i owned one id get rid asap. Repair will be through the roof on anything sharp. Parts will be on the Bay as they are now, but they will cost far more. I'll stick with Samsung/Sony (house Tvs) and my throwaway "Spector" from wallyworld for the Cave. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Sharp is going by the wayside, if i owned one id get rid asap No reason to unless it fails. If Panasonic went under but my monitor still works why should I ditch it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 i once had a Sharp Aquos and loved it. Have an LG and it’s doing fine. Brother’s Samsung seems to have a better picture though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minermark Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 My logic is if it works now, and you know the company is soon to be history, sell and make some money toward a new improved model, your choice of brand. Keep running it till it dies, and your out ALL of your investment and on top of that, laying out big bucks for a new one, two time loser on investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappydue Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) Uh not sure if I follow that logic. Tvs are not an investment. You buy em and hope they last five years or more. That's it. Edit: reread your post. I get what your saying. Yeah I'm not gonna run out and buy anything that I can't get warrantied. Not happening they can keep their inventory. Edited August 14, 2015 by Scrappydue 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 4K dying already? And the TV stations haven't even caught up with that yet. If I was a TV station owner I would be pulling my hair out trying to keep up with all this stuff. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHASLS2 Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 4k is a waste. Plus with no more plasma we are stuck with crappy LED with it's banding and motion blur. OLED has many kinks to work out, but if done right will destroy LED. I get a new display every 2 years or so. Looks like i am stuck with my 60vt60 until i can buy a kink free 60" OLED for under 5K. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minermark Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 OLED is the wave of the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) 4K dying already? JJK Geez, and I was worried about parts for the old Sharp and old Zenith. It looks like I've got some catching up to do. . Edited August 14, 2015 by Fjd 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.