if that's all good ill go for that depending on how many decent reviews it gets...
You're on safe ground.
Not sure when the WHF review team will get their hands on one, though the VT65 will be reviewed in the next issue.
Hardware: Panasonic TX-P50VT65B (calibrated); Cambridge Audio Azur 651BD; Yamaha RX-A810; Teac PD-H600; PS3; B&W 601 & 600LCR (series 3); Q Acoustics QAV (rear)
Furniture and Accessories: BLOK Classix 3000 Oak AV Cabinet; Atacama Nexus 6 (atabite metal filled); 3D3 A1112
Are we saying that the GT60 is better than the VT50 and also worth £300 more?
According to reviews, yes. And it's not £300 more. It's available for £1249, so £150 more.
My Home Cinema Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90
Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H
Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router
Looking at avforums thr VT50 is reference 'out of the box' for a few things and GT60 after calibration.....
JL out of the VT now and message left by them today implies they may not get any more......
hhmmmm.....would feel bad getting a refund and going elsewhere.....
It's important to note that what's considered "reference" shifts over time.
The VT50 matches the newer models in terms of greyscale and colour accuracy, but is beaten in other areas. The 50 series doesn't perform to a reference standard in terms of screen uniformity, IR, and buzzing.
If you're interested in the the VT50, I see no harm in going for it, as long as JL gives you options further down the line. You'd be getting a fair bit more from the GT60 in terms of overall performance, for just £150 more.
Both the GT60 and VT65 received reference status awards, albeit from different review sites.
I will be interested to see what Digital Versus make of the GT and VT60 because they have already said the ST60 is no better than the ST50. And early reports all said the others won't be much better. I suppose a demo is called for.
Main AV Setup: Panasonic 50VT65 TV (THX calibrated), Pioneer Bdp-lx71, Pioneer Vsx-lx70, B&W FPM Series, B&W PV1, Optimum AV300 AV Stand, QED Silver Anniversary XT Speaker Cable & Chord Silver Plus HDMI Cables. Gadgets: iPad 4 & iPhone 4S.
Interesting again how the GT60 is said to be much brighter than the VT65, I wonder why Panasonic do that? Surely everyone will buy the GT60 again?
The VT75 sports a new red phosphor & filter which is supposed to make a massive difference to the picture. With regards to brightness, this is what Mark Hodgkinson says:
The ANSI checkerboard is a good test but remember, by its very definition, it's at 50% APL which is about double the average of what you actually watch most of the time. 'Real world' contrast is fantastic.
I'm sure it's down to energy regs and the VT65's more aggressive filter (i.e. both limit brightness). On a positive note, the VT65's filter should help the TV hold onto those black levels in a brighter environment.
It's funny, if you always watch in a light controlled environment, you don't need the GT60's added brightness. On the other hand, if you watch in a bright room, the VT65 may seem a little subdued (while better holding onto black level, resulting in greater image depth, at least in principle). Neither is the perfect solution.
Given the option, I'd prefer the VT65 for a number of reasons, not all related to perceived contrast. Fully saturated rather than orange-looking reds, better motion, and better sound each appeal. I'm not convinced the extra gradation steps will improve the picture (they didn't last year).
Yep, the red phosphor sounds good and the YouTube videos looked really good. With the filter is that to make it look better during the day? Because black levels have gone to the GT60 as being better.
Though this indicates that ABL will kick in with certain content. If this affects a very small percentage of actual viewing, it's not a big issue.
I feel on the verge of a Clarkson-like rant about eco-friendly regulations, though I guess the future of the planet is more important than peak television brightness.
Is it better motion on the VT65?
Basically, yes, but you can't have it both ways.
The VT65's black levels will look more impressive in a brighter room, but this advantage will be somewhat countered by the lower peak brightness.
The GT60's added brightness also gives the TV some advantages in a brighter environment, though those black levels will wash out a little more.
It doesn't seem like there's a notable difference in black level between the VT65 and GT60 (especially as the readings were taken in different environments -- the VT in a fully dark room, the GT in a room with some ambient light -- which means direct comparison of the readings isn't possible).
In a pitch black room, the GT60 may edge it in terms of measureable black level, though I strongly suspect the two are identical, or so close to identical as to be imperceptible.
In a bright room, the VT65 should hold onto its black level a little better.
You pay your money, you make your choice...
The reviews indicate that the VT65 is better with motion than the GT60. I need to see them side by side with problematic content (football's a good bet for showing up motion issues) and make my own mind up.
I guess the future of the planet is more important than peak television brightness.
What heresy is this???
Lounge: Panasonic TX-P60ZT65B (calibrated), Pioneer SC-LX75, Denon DPB-2012, Sky-HD1TB, PS4, Xbox 360, Apple-TV, Atacama Equinox AV stand, Monitor Audio Silver RX8, RXC, RX-FX, RXW-12, Anti-Mode 8033c Sub EQ. Kitchen: Pioneer XC-HM81, Monitor Audio Bronze BX2. Bedroom: Samsung UE37D6510, Samsung BD-C5900, Sky-HD, Pioneer N-50, Rotel RC-03 (pre-amp), Rotel RB-9708X (power-amp), Mordaunt-Short MS914
© 2014 Haymarket Publishing