Samsung PN51F8500 Review: A 51-Inch Plasma HDTV With SmartHub

Results: Grayscale Tracking and Gamma Response

It’s important that the color of white be consistently neutral at all light levels from darkest to brightest. Grayscale performance impacts color accuracy with regard to the secondary colors: cyan, magenta, and yellow. While you can manipulate them with tint control, dialing in grayscale often eliminates the need for further adjustment. Fortunately, a majority of monitors and HDTVs (especially newer models) display excellent grayscale tracking, even at stock settings.

First up is the result from the F8500’s Standard mode. This is the TV’s default setting.

We don’t need instruments to tell us how blue the image appears; we can see it plainly. By 100 percent, the error balloons to 12.69 Delta E. You can mitigate this by choosing a warmer color temperature preset or by simply choosing Movie mode, which we’ll show you next.

Samsung serves up a superb fire-and-forget image preset in the Movie mode. You don’t really need to calibrate to enjoy a very accurate picture. The brighter levels start to go a little blue, but the errors are only visible to our instruments. This represents an excellent performance.

After a single adjustment to the Blue Gain control, we record a superb final result. It’s as good as any high-end pro monitor we’ve measured lately. The F8500 is capable of near-perfect grayscale performance.

Here is the comparison group:

The lone computer monitor in our group achieves better grayscale performance out of the box. All of our HDTVs come set to a mode that offers plenty of brightness, but little in the way of accuracy. The image quality reflected in our chart is well-suited to a showroom, where dozens of screens compete for attention. But it's not a picture you’d want in your living room.

If you only engage the F8500’s Movie mode, the grayscale average error becomes 1.09 Delta E. Calibration reduces that to .55, which places it in an elite group of professional monitors selling for far more per screen inch. We’re glad to see Samsung’s commitment to accuracy, even in an entertainment-oriented product.

Gamma Response

Gamma is the measurement of luminance levels at every step in the brightness range from 0 to 100 percent. It's important because poor gamma can either crush detail at various points or wash it out, making the entire picture appear flat and dull. Correct gamma produces a more three-dimensional image, with a greater sense of depth and realism. Meanwhile, incorrect gamma can negatively affect image quality, even in monitors with high contrast ratios.

We’re doing our gamma tests a little differently for HDTVs than computer monitors because, as of 2011, the standards are no longer the same. Computers use a power function with an average value of 2.2 for PCs and 2.0 for Macs. The new guideline for broadcast video is known as BT.1886, and it has an average value of 2.4 with a slightly different shape to the curve. Check out the sample graph below:

The goal is to improve shadow detail while maintaining similar output progression in the brighter levels. If you compare two images side by side, the difference is subtle. Your impression of depth shouldn't change. But darker material shows just a little more detail and clarity.

Our measurements for the F8500 reflect BT.1886, not the 2.2 power function.

You might be tempted to blame Dynamic Contrast for our result, but it's not the culprit. Rather, this is the Standard mode’s default gamma measurement. You can move the trace up and down the scale. That won't change its shape, though. The resulting image increases brightness at the expense of clarity and detail in highlights. The error at 90 percent is 29.5 cd/m2 too bright, representing a gamma value of .83.

Switching to Movie mode produces a near-perfect BT.1886 gamma trace. It was obviously Samsung’s intent to match the newer standard rather than the 2.2 power function seen on computer monitors and most other HDTVs. Hopefully competing television manufacturers follow suit.

The above graph shows the effect of Dynamic Contrast on its Low setting. Detail is crushed in both the darkest and lightest portions of the image. And since the F8500 already has tremendous dynamic range, it does nothing to improve quality. This test should convince you to leave Dynamic Contrast turned off.

Here is our comparison group again:

The other screens are measured against the 2.2 power function standard. But because we're expressing the amount of deviation, it’s a valid comparison. Samsung's F8500 achieves excellent gamma accuracy with its tight tracking of only .09. The numbers range from a low of 2.38 to a high of 2.48.

We calculate gamma deviation by expressing the difference from the standard as a percentage.

A 1.25-percent deviation is well below the point of visibility. As we saw in our grayscale results, the F8500 is as good as most of the highly-engineered professional panels we’ve tested.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
27 comments
    Your comment
  • Nuckles_56
    People still buy plasma screened TV's? I thought they went out like the floppy disk...
    -11
  • Merry_Blind
    Damn Samsung TVs have so much lag... They have amazing picture quality, but aren't fast enough for proper gaming... sigh... bring on the OLED!!!
    -1
  • n3cw4rr10r
    Am I the only one who thinks this is overpriced? especially with 4k TVs getting close to this range (Vizio P series will be out soon for $1000).
    1
  • n3cw4rr10r
    Am I the only one who thinks this is overpriced? especially with 4k TVs getting close to this range (Vizio P series will be out soon for $1000).
    -3
  • colson79
    It is such a shame everyone bailed on Plasma TV's, I still have one and the picture quality blows away LCD in the home theater. Hopefully my Plasma will last until OLED is reasonable. It would suck having to go to LCD.
    4
  • jkhoward
    I love the quality of Plasma TV's.. I truly hope they keep developing this technology.
    4
  • DisplayJunkie
    @Nuckles_56 your level of ignorance is astronomical yet not uncommon; you are making a fool of yourself.

    @n3cw4rr10r It's not overpriced at all, but rather an outstanding value (though not as good a value as the sorely-missed Panasonic P50ST60). The image quality is tremendously better than any 4K TV, even with perfect 4K source content, even if they sold the 4K TVs for $1500 or less. The difference in contrast(dynamic range) is the most important, and it is huge. Side-by-side with the plasma, no one would pick any 4K LCD.
    4
  • nthreem
    It's worth noting that Samsung announced it will discontinue production of plasmas at the end of the year. Better pick one up soon!

    I got a Panasonic VT60 at the beginning of the year, just as stock was running dry. I'm still amazed by the picture quality.
    1
  • Nintendo Maniac 64
    Quote:
    Hopefully my Plasma will last until OLED is reasonable.

    Actually OLED is arguably already there or getting there. Some people were able to pick up LG's 55" OLED TV for $2000 (not a typo) via in-store at Microcenter.

    For a more universal price-point, it's newest revision is now going for $3500.
    1
  • photonboy
    Quote:
    Damn Samsung TVs have so much lag... They have amazing picture quality, but aren't fast enough for proper gaming... sigh... bring on the OLED!!!


    Most HDTV's have a "GAMING MODE" option which disables video processing inside the HDTV for a particular HDMI input such as your game console might use.

    Having said that, burn-in issues have never been completely solved so I wouldn't game on a Plasma anyway (seems an important thing to mention doesn't it?).
    1
  • AnUnusedUsername
    Tom's, if you ever test another plasma panel, and for all tests on OLED panels, could you please include a test on image retention/burn in?

    It's a very important factor for plasma and OLED screens, particularly for anyone who wants to use them for gaming. Permanent burn-in is almost nonexistent with modern plasmas, but a bright spot from a network logo or HUD element that takes dozens of hours to clear up is a major deterrant to buying a plasma or OLED screen. And some plasmas handle this much, much better than others do.
    0
  • gear999
    So many TV technologies.
    I'm still on a 2005 Sony flat screen I got for $15 last year. I don't know how to express this properly, but it's one of those TVs with a... big back? It's not one of those thin TVs.
    0
  • 10tacle
    I still have my 8-year old Samsung 42" 720p plasma and still love it. While it's been demoted to bedroom duty for most of those years now along with the PS3 I bought with it, it still has not been surpassed in image quality compared to my other three LCD/LED HDTVs. I spent many hundreds of hours gaming on it with the PS3 (and continue gaming on it with) and never once had even the slightest hint of burn in. I never left game or PSN main menu screen up on it for hours on end either though.

    My only regret is being talked into paying $195 for an extended warranty at Circuit City which was never used...but this was still new tech back, then. My only complaint is that it sucks a lot of power and produces a lot of heat (short winters where I am)...hence the reason for only being used at night and for a limited duration in the bedroom anymore. I know the newer ones run cooler and are more efficient but I would never pay $1800+ for a 50"+ 1080p HDTV ever again unless it's OLED.

    With that said, it's great to see sites like Tom's still taking the time to review plasmas!
    0
  • MagusALL
    I thought the same thing, that the price should be a lot cheaper, considering how much you can get a 4K LCD for. However I own a 50" Panasonic with 720p resolution and its definitely the best looking screen in the house (compared to a Samsung 26" 1200p monitor, Visio 1080p 40" and 46".) After hearing that plasmas would no longer be made I have considered getting a 1080p >60" screen for the living room if it was impossible to get a 4K HDTV in plasma which I suppose will never be made. I think if a plasma was made 4K than I would undoubtedly purchase one, even if it cost 50% more than a comparable LCD model. That's how much better plasma looks to me.
    0
  • mforce2
    I must say this TV does look incredibly expensive to me. Here in Romania I've been able to pick up a 50 inch LG plasma , FullHD ( no 3D though ) with some smartTV features for $700.
    It's got a nice, good quality image and it says it's assembled in Poland. To be quite honest I did find it provided the best bang for buck and since I wanted plasma anyway ( I think it's better than LCD for TVs ) I'm super happy.
    Didn't even know LG made plasma TVs but I wouldn't be surprised if the actual screen is made by Panasonic or something.
    Yes, I'd really like OLED but OLED would be great as a smaller PC monitor first and then for a large TV. For a TV I think plasma is fine but even though I got a good IPS LCD I'd just love an OLED 23-24 inch monitor.
    0
  • mforce2
    I must say this TV does look incredibly expensive to me. Here in Romania I've been able to pick up a 50 inch LG plasma , FullHD ( no 3D though ) with some smartTV features for $700.
    It's got a nice, good quality image and it says it's assembled in Poland. To be quite honest I did find it provided the best bang for buck and since I wanted plasma anyway ( I think it's better than LCD for TVs ) I'm super happy.
    Didn't even know LG made plasma TVs but I wouldn't be surprised if the actual screen is made by Panasonic or something.
    Yes, I'd really like OLED but OLED would be great as a smaller PC monitor first and then for a large TV. For a TV I think plasma is fine but even though I got a good IPS LCD I'd just love an OLED 23-24 inch monitor.
    1
  • bigj1985
    I LOVE PLASMA!! However, I will sya this to the poster who claimed 4k content on a 4k tv ( A descent 4k TV) euqipped with an LCD panel cannot look better than a plasma; You're wrong buddy and my new LG would totally disagree with that assumption. While understanding this claim is objective of course.


    I bopught my 50" Plasma last year. I just bought my LG 65" 4k TV this year because while 4k may not be prime right now i got a steal on it. My 4k is equipped with one of hte best IPS displays (after calibration) that I've encountered so far. The picture quality on this set easilty surpassed the other 4k TV's I was looking at in the electronics store probably because the display gets so dang bright.

    Side by side with my Sammy 1080p content in my basement is a hit or miss. Blu-rays look great on both so its hard to say which one is "better". The upscaler on the 4k does a hell of a job processing the image because even up close I can't detect pixels. However on the Plasma with 1080p content I can see obvious pixelation while standing right in front of the television. Dark space scenes look better on my plasma thought w/o a doubt but only when the room is dark. Any amount of light seems to bring the IPS 4k display back in range with the Plasma.

    Now on to 4k. Native 4k content on this TV is breathtaking; and takes the viewing experience beyond what my Plasma could ever offer. The clarity, sharpness, and amount of detail is simply stunning and I'm not wowed easily.

    So will a good 1080p Plasma offer better contrast levels In a dark room than a good 4k LCD? Yes, Yes it will. Does that benefit translate into a better picture than a good 4k display showing native 4k content? Not in my viewing experience. Not even close. It's debateable @ 1080p as it is with my 2 TV's.
    -1
  • robertisha
    I never had a burn in issue. Maybe because I still have the king of plasma pioneer kuro. Just imagine pioneer kuro 4k wow
    1
  • Oxford Guy
    Macs use the 2.2 gamma now, as of 2009's Snow Leopard.

    Also, as far as I recall, 2.2 gamma and the sRGB gamma are not exactly the same.

    Image retention would have been useful to see as part of the testing. I have a 2008 Panasonic Plasma and although it has no problems at all with television and movies it has drastic IR with games. I don't know if it has something to do with me using a DVI to HDMI converter, but it is completely unusable with PC gaming because of IR and that is with the set even set to minimum brightness.
    0
  • Oxford Guy
    Macs use the 2.2 gamma now, as of 2009's Snow Leopard.

    Also, as far as I recall, 2.2 gamma and the sRGB gamma are not exactly the same.

    Image retention would have been useful to see as part of the testing. I have a 2008 Panasonic Plasma and although it has no problems at all with television and movies it has drastic IR with games. I don't know if it has something to do with me using a DVI to HDMI converter, but it is completely unusable with PC gaming because of IR and that is with the set even set to minimum brightness.
    0