 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
84.12.173.190
Our 20-year-old main TV packed up a few days ago, the last Ashes (cricket) test match was looming (we live in England), and my wife and I decided it was time to move into the 21st century, so we bought a Toshiba 27 inch wide-screen LCD TV (named "Editor's Choice in one recent magazines). After struggling with it a couple of days, we're on the verge of returning it.We have three main problems with it (bear in mind we use it with a terrestrial analogue signal--no cable or satellite available where we live):
1. Colors are crude, very primary looking.
2. No matter which wide-screen mode is chosen, images on the sides of the picture look distorted--squashed vertically and distended horizontally. Sort of a fish-eye effect.
3. The wrong things seem extremely detailed--pores on faces look like craters. Other things seem impressionistic--backgrounds seem pixelated.
Are wide-screen LCD TVs yet another example of the triumph of marketing hype over reality? Or are we doing something wrong? Are we alone in thinking we've gone backwards with this technology?
Note: our terrestrial signal (from a roof aerial) is so-so. Some channels are pretty decent, some suffer from a slight ghosting.
Cheers,Ivan
"What's neo-realism?" "No money."
Follow Ups:
Provided you can do without a flat panel and shallow depth to the cabinet, plasmas, LCDs or any other fixed pixel technology will not come close to an old fashion CRT tv. I would personally opt for a CRT tv over any other alternative unless I needed a screen much larger than 34".
I suggest you take a look at plasmas from Panasonic. The best black levels in the non-CRT part of the display industry and very close to CRT. Now available up to 65".
I like the Panasonic and Fujitsu plasmas. They do have quite good black levels, but, not nearly as good as a CRT. CRTs manage to get good black levels AND good detail in dark areas of the screen, while a lot of plasmas cheat a little with the gamma curve to get a darker picture at some cost in detail. But, as I said, plasmas are quite good.My issue with plasmas lie elsewhere. To get the theater experience one needs a very big plasma or to sit relatively close to the screen. Neither works well with plasmas because the pixel structure becomes very annoying. That is true with a 34" CRT as well, but I find MP3 artifacts (mosquito noise, blockiness, etc) more annoying with fixed pixel devices than with CRTs.
I wish there were an ideal display device that combined all of the strengths of the best technologies and none of the weaknesses. I have the Qualia 006 rear projection set. It is, in my opinion, the best such set available, but it too, has many problems. Chief among the problems is "false contouring" which manifests itself as blotchy patches in dark solid areas of the picture in low light scenes, particularly problematic with low resolution source material. While this is an issue with all digital display devices, it seems to be particularly annoying with this set. It seems that the better a set looks with good material, the worse it performs with bad source material. I think CRTs perform with better with bad sources than do other technologies.
This is a direct result of not enough bits in signal processing. Early plasmas and, believe it or not, many of today's DLP displays use 8-bit processing (you may have heard of the DLP "clay face" issues). In order to diminish this effect, many digital display manufacturers upped the bit count to 10-bit processing. This helped quite a bit (if you'll excuse the pun), but it still isn't enough with some signals. There are a few 12-bit processing displays around and they nearly eliminate all of the dithering/noise/false contouring problems.Beginning in Q4 2005/Q1 2006, Panasonic will introduce 14-bit video processing technology for their new plasmas. Panasonic currently offers three 65" plasma models, but they are 1366x768. Scheduled for Q4 2005/Q1 2006 is a new 65" model with full HD 1920x1080 resolution and it will use this new 14-bit processing technology. The only problem is that, like nearly all displays today, it will not accept 1080p via HDMI and will be limited to 1080i/720p HDMI input bandwidth. However, by Q3/Q4 2006, Panasonic will offer at least one model (possibly two) capable of full HD 1920x1080 resolution and 1080p HDMI input.
My Qualia uses 12 bit processing, but, this is still a major problem when the source itself, particularly my cable feed, is limited in quality. I suspect that the fact that it is very noticeable on my set is the product of a very large image (I do sit a bit close) and a lot of "detail" of what is essentially noise (the set has a true 1920 x 1080 resolution capability).I don't know why, but Sony also chose not to offer any inputs capable of accepting 1920 x 1080p, which is the native resolution of the set. I am looking into external processors and scalers (Algolith Mosquito and Dragonfly), and it would have been nice to bypass the Qualias scaler completely by going 1080p 60.
You may want to get the display checked out, just to be safe. Rich Harkness wrote a rather long and detailed review of a Sony Qualia 70" model in the Plasma and Flat Panel LCD Displays section of AVS Forum. He did not give the impression that the Sony had any problems with SD signals or false contouring. At least not anything that stood out in his comparison of the display to the 65" Panasonic plasma. If your Sony does indeed use 12-bit processing, noise and false contouring should be nearly eliminated.Many manufacturers have been remiss about 1080p input and it's a mistake. Sony's excuse was that it had to do with copy protection. What? Who did they think they were kidding? The HDCP encryption process has nothing to do with the resolution of the signal. Absolutely nothing: what a joke. Other manufacturers' main excuse was that there is no 1080p content. Seems rather retarded, as 1080p content will be available with the next gen discs in about 6 months. They're selling sets that will be obsolete very shortly in the sense that they will not be able to take full advantage of what the next gen format will offer. Or maybe it's just that they want to offer "new and improved" displays for people to buy in about 6 months (just look at those silly DLP 960x1080 MMDs being sold -- still called "1080p" displays -- that will shortly be replaced by TI's new DLP 1920x1080 MMDs)? Or maybe they didn't want to up the $3 additional cost for the HDMI receiver chip that accepts 1080p? Whatever. I wouldn't buy a 1920x1080 display that didn't accept a 1080p signal via a digital (HDMI and/or DVI) input.
Cheers,Ivan
"What's neo-realism?" "No money."
You may want to consider having the set calibrated by an ISF tech for optimum picture and longest set life.
Explanation needed, please. Don't forget--we're in England. Do ISF techs (whatever they are) exist here?
Cheers,Ivan
"What's neo-realism?" "No money."
I am not sure if the Imaging Science Foundation has any trained technicians in the U.K. You can check their wensite to find out. The tech visits your home and, using test equipment and "hidden" menus adjusts the set for optimum brightness, contrast, color, tine, and sharpness as well as geometry.
Analog (CRT) is still king. Don't believe all those people that say the new digital displays are better, 'cause they ain't. Same for audio -- well-implemented vinyl is still superior to well-implemented digital playback.It's all a bunch of marketing hoo-hah designed to transfer money from your wallet to theirs. It's known as "planned obsolescence" and it was discovered by the US automobile makers decades ago. You remember -- in 1959 you just had to have tailfins or you weren't cool. Then two years later tailfins were so 'fifties and you had to get a new car (again).
Yup--I certainly agree with your assessment, both with reference to CRT TVs and to vinyl (I usually hang out at the Vinyl Asylum).We didn't get the Sony XBR you recommended, just a plain vanilla Philips, but even my 15-year-old son, who was captivated by the LCD TV, admits the picture is way better on the CRT.
You gonna be at the Heathrow Hi-Fi Show at the end of the month? If so, let me know what room, and I'll make a point of stopping by and saying hello.
Cheers,Ivan
"What's neo-realism?" "No money."
No, I won't be at the show. However our new International Sales Manager, Brent Hefley (formerly with Martin-Logan), will be there. He's a great guy and fun to chat with. He'll be in the Symmetry booth with Nigel Crump. Cheers!
Cheers,Ivan
"What's neo-realism?" "No money."
How could you EVER denigrate evolving technology and all that expensive marketing??? Shame on you. Keep the LCD TV and buy three more, while your're at it. The Industry needs your seed capital to progress!
Congrats..but return it & get a Plasma screen.. (Panasonic or Pioneer) I prefer Panasonic's 'signature' but Pionners are also excellent...LCD screens still have sometime to catch up, but Plasmas are excellent nowadays.Cheers
AP
Pretty much every magazine recommends LCD over plasma.But if you're right, which of the problems we're experiencing would be cured by plasma? I assume, for one, the "fish-eye" effect on wide screen would remain.
Cheers,Ivan
"What's neo-realism?" "No money."
DLP in those same mags. I'm looking at LcOS or D ila (sp) currently.
"If it ain't music, it might as well be a barkin' dog"
... a new technology waits - ready to leap onto the stage...OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) technology promises to address the short-comings of both LCD and PDP (Plasma Display Panels), via:
a. OLED is "self-luminous" - no backlighting needed (as for LCD)
b. Low voltage/current requirements - low heat dissipation (vs PDP)
c. Faster response time = better for movies (vs LCD & PDP)
d. OLED is the thinnest panel technology known - ideal for TV panels
e. OLED is also the lightest panel technology known
f. OLED has a viewing angle equal to or better than LCD & PDP
g. OLED technology will outlast both LCD & PDP technologies
h. OLED colour resolution better than both LCD & PDP displaysOLED technology has already found its way into digicams and these cameras are much easier to use in high ambient lighting situations than their LCD alternatives.
I seem to remember a note from the 2005 CES review that either Samsung or LG were almost ready to demonstrate prototype OLED TV monitors.
Overall, this technology would appear to be superior in virtually all respects to both LCD and PDP, AND is not that far off commercial availability.... As to affordability, we'll just have to wait and see....
Should anyone still go out and buy either LCD or PDP technology?
Why not? Their days might be numbered, but - apart from CRT displays - they're all we've got for now...
On balance, the best PDP's (Panasonic & Pioneer) outperform the best LCD's. At the middle range its about even and at the entry-level, LCD offers better price/performance...
Me? I'm quite happy with CRT for now - I'll wait for OLED...
I hear ya. It's hard to give up my 36" WEGA when much of what I see isn't that much better. Like you, I'm waiting for that "Wow" in all aspects that shows up and is affordable. Otherwise, DiLa is among the best I've seen.
"If it ain't music, it might as well be a barkin' dog"
Wait for LCoS...seriously. Lots of them on the market by first quarter 06. They are just coming out now (Sony and LG, LG being less expensive). JVC is not as good a PQ imo. They smoke everything you put them next to.
have a "native resolution" at which they operate best. The same is true with LCD computer monitors. If your LCD is like my Samsung DLP, you'll never fully appreciate it until you view HD sources where they look incredible. Slightly lower resolution DVD signals are somewhat close.Indeed normal broadcasts look grainy by comparison and for some, I would rather view my old 35" Proscan.
As for the fisheye effect, that is avoidable. Most wide screen TVs have settings that control the aspect ratio. It is forcing a 4x3 image to fill the 16x9 space that causes that effect. Just let the signal run untouched.
rw
And I thought I was the only one!I have been looking around the stores for the past 18 months or so with the thought of replacing my 13 year old Sony Super Trintron. Whatever I have seen I have been very underwhelmed be it CRT, LCD or plasma. Colours are inaccurate (balanced for colour temperatures not standard for British broadcasters? - Japanese market screens used in the UK are always too blue for this reason), pictures stretched to fit the widescreen format verging on the laughable, resolution variable and as for movement smear - just hope that nothing moves too fast in LCD or plasma land.
This was until I saw one of the brand new (out last month I think) Panasonic 32 inch LCD boxes. Terrific colour, resolution, contrast. However I went past the same store a couple of days later and all of the usual problems were present on an off-air programme. Turns out that when I first saw the box they must have been playing a special HD TV disc/tape. Something for UK shoppers to watch out for as HDTV programme material is being used frequently without explanation in store dems during the run up to HDTV launch in this country. So that the lovely picture that the saleman showed you isn't actually available at home!
Fingers crossed that my old Sony lasts a few more years.
You're probably seeing motion artifacts generated by poor deinterlacing and, possibly, poor scaling. The better Flat Panel LCDs are at 8ms (12ms - 16ms is the average) and the response time for plasma is right at 2ms (ie; can't be a problem). As for the Rear Projection LCDs, it's probably not response time, but deinterlacing artifacts there as well.
the good CRT tv's, the old-fashioned kind, still have the best pictures, hands down. You're paying for the space-saving feature and giving up picture quality to be able to hang it on the wall. Also, like a laptop, when the little individual "emitter guys" go dim, you'll have a permanent mar on the pic.
especially the bit about native resolution. A 1280 X 720p native LCD used with a good HDTV tuner and scaler can actually be very good. The scalers built into the sets themselves are variable.But LCD still has greater inter-pixel gaps than DLP and much greater than DILA (the old Hughes Light Valve, considerably improved.)
Contrast is also a bit reduced with LCDs as well, though they are much improved.
Plasmas and the new technologies under development are improving by leaps and bounds and may eventually surpass a perfectly calibrated CRT. But for my money, at least with a very good signal, they haven't yet. And LCD and DLP certainly haven't. They remain, however, an inexpensive entre to the experience. My flatpanel stays in the bedroom (an Aquos) and is excellent for more casual viewing.
However, the front projector is still the serious viewing choice for me. I must say, however, that it too is LCD. Ever since I sold my CRT front projector (much more film-like image than any digital but a royal PITA) I have stayed LCD because rainbows and orange-reds of DLP bother me and because they do not yet make a 92 X 52 inch plasma. I have never (in more than 5 years) had a dead pixel, poplar opinion to the contrary.
Both displays are 1280 X 720p and are coupled with an excellent scaler. They are fed by cable.
Your problem sounds like a combination of a marginal signal (or antenna), a mediocre tuner and a less than good scaler. OTA HDTV reception is more of a problem than most think. I know, I tried (though Manhattan is horrendous). I have none of your problems on either LCD but I know other Manhattanites who persist in the OTA HDTV effort. They are always complaining, no matter which display technology they have.
Good luck, and do not drive yourself 'round the twist.
I still have a Barco 9" CRT front projector and I wont give that up until digitals can have an equal or better black level, no screen door or rainbows and cost less than a car and replacement lamps that cost less than an engine rebuild. Every so often I go out and look at the newesr digitals and granted they may not always be set up properly but I have yet to see anything I'd be able to live with at home after being spoiled by the Barco. Its gone for years now with only one repair needed and occasional convergence touch ups and I have 2 sets of extra crts to keep it running for years to come. I will only give up the Barco when digitals are equal or better and about $3000 or less with longer life lower priced bulbs.
I would not consider a plasma until they get the lifespan better. The lifespan of the brightness they put out is alogrythmic. I know people that bought them and ran them cranked up high like in the stores and after just several months the brightness plumeted and they are non repairable, throw away units.Dave
but I already have one major tinker (vinyl) and one is enough.I have a friend with a Zenith 900 Pro which I love . . . I go over and watch, he keeps it tweaked. Rather like a neice or nephew (or a grandchild) you get all the fun of being around them for short bits; then you send them home.
This is the chip powering the new LG LCoS TVs just coming on the mkt.http://gom5.com/HDTVPresentation.pdf
the hard way when i bought a large screen LCD computer monitor. I bought a model that had the fastest response time on the market at the time, set it all up, etc... Compared to glass, LCD's suck. There is blurring on fast motion, pixelization of colours and images, etc... Get rid of it while you can. The talk of native resolution is a bunch of crap if 90% of what you are viewing looks inferior. Otherwise, you'll be criticizing the performance of the TV rather than paying attention to the show. Sean
>PS... Haven't you learned ANYTHING about how magazines and their recommendations work after spending time here at the Asylum ????
trust your eyes..:)Cheers
AP
s
They just launced the 71" and are believed to be coming out with affordable 56 and 61 inch models this fall. That picture absolutely creams LCD and Plasma and DLP. Its a whole new level.
They claim also beats plasma, LCD, and DLP. I think it is similar to LCOS.
This television is retailing for $74,999. I think only Saudi kings can afford this 71 inch television.
That is the plasma. The LCoS 71" MSRP is ~8K and I am certain you can get it for much less then MSRP. THe 56 and 60" will be even less.The LCoS is amazing technology.
LG has been promising these televisions forever. I called to check availability/pricing. That is how I got that ridiculous price. I check LG's website every couple of weeks but these televisions are no where to be found.
Crummy pic-quality but interesting nonetheless.http://gom5.com/CEDIA2.htm
fyi I have no connection to LG, but I have seen the TG and it is mindboggling. Next year LCoS will be mainstream.INDIANAPOLIS, Sept. 9, 2005 — The newest entry in the expanding giant-screen microdisplay high-definition television (HDTV) category is a stunning 71-inch liquid-crystal-on-silicon (LCoS) model from LG Electronics. Introduced at the Custom Electronic Design and Installation Association (CEDIA) EXPO 2005 (Booth #114) for delivery to custom installers and high-end retailers this fall, LG Model 71SA1D delivers progressive scan display resolution of 1920 x 1080.
"As plasma displays become more affordable, the microdisplay rear-projection HDTV business is gravitating to larger and larger screens," said Robert A. Perry, vice president, consumer electronics sales and channel marketing, LG Electronics USA., Inc. "LG's first LCoS HDTV, a 71-incher in a sleek package, combines the latest HDTV display and reception technology for an unparalleled entertainment experience."
The LG 71SA1D is a digital cable ready model that eliminates the need for a separate set-top box to receive high-definition and premium digital cable programming. This 71-inch widescreen integrated HDTV works with the cable-operator-supplied CableCARD to unscramble digital cable channels and receives free over-the-air HDTV via its built-in ATSC tuner based on LG's proven fifth-generation VSB chipset.
This HDTV includes LG's proprietary XD Engine technology that takes low-resolution analog signals to near high-definition levels, providing consumers with better overall picture quality and viewing experience. Advanced connectivity options include HDMI, IEEE-1394 DTV Link. Other advanced features include 9-in-2 memory card slots and the latest Gemstar TV Guide Onscreen interactive program guide.
Boasting a 3500:1 contrast ratio, the big LG is designed to deliver superior HDTV performance using the latest LCoS chip technology. And, despite its enormous wide screen, the unit is less than 22 inches deep, offering installation flexibility
Apologies to the poster, and I mean you no harm, but do yourself a favour. Never read this kind of bullsh*t. The guys who write it have probably never seen the unit except for a controlled demo. I once worked for a software company. The head of marketing got up in front of the technical sales staff and expounded about features that were available in a newly released version. The VP of Sales got up, totally fed up, and said he had his best technical guy take him through the whole product and half of what the marketing guy was talking about was not in there. I am a techie and I knew the Sales VP was right. But the marketing guy refused to back down. "It is in there and you need to go out there and sell it.", was his message. The first rule of sanity for any tech firm is "Never believe your own marketing." avsforum.com has a lot of useful info about LCDs and Plasmas. That is where you will find more truth. I almost bought a Dell LCD until I read the thread there and realized that the display of ordinary cable tv is lousy. So what if HDTV looks good? I need the whole package; not just the extra-cost HDTV signal that my cable guy is trying to MARKET to me at EXTRA COST.
I have seen the TV. Saw the prototype a year ago too. It blows away everything else except for the new SONY LCoS which it equals. The SONY costs 30% more. You'll see for yourself in a few months when the TVs are in Best Buy.
...ordinary cable tv reception in your quoted blurb. Why would I buy something that only looks good with extra cost HDTV signals? There is a lot of content coming down the pipe that is still not HDTV. Convince me that I should wait for all those small cable tv providers to start putting out HDTV. A lot of the stuff I like is off of the main stream. Most of what I find on the major channels is so heavily made up it is like a cheap hooker on a Saturday night.
.. It seems to me that this whole wide-screen putch is being driven by the movie industry who would like to see us all watching movies in the same format as we see when we pay outrageous prices to watch a first run movie with over-compensated stars, directors, camerman, make-up artists, drivers, and just about every other kind of flunky you can imagine, not to mention popcorn that costs more than Texas light sweet crude. I am watching the US Open tennis tournament as I type, on an ordinary tv and frankly I have a lot of trouble seeing what could be added by seeing this in HDTV. And, I might add, I am someone who has spent many thousands of dollars for a high end stereo system.
I couldn't disagree more. I also watched the US open, and today some college football on HDTV and have been doing so for almost 4 years. I can't imagine how you could not see a tremendous difference between HDTV and standard definition. In fact, I almost never watch regular TV unless I have to. This was largely the case for the first year or so that I had this unit (Mitsubishsi 65899 Diamond). Thankfully now, just about every station has its HDTV equivalent on our cable listings.
A high end stereo system addresses an environment where my ear is the only source of information. I have to spend a lot of money to hear the violas playing under the violins. With television, there are so many sources of information, that it really takes a lot to give me more than I am already getting.
The old-fashioned tube type is still supposed to have the best picture for broadcast TV. There are new models that use a new tube type that is less deep. It doesn't approach the depth of an LCD or Plasma, but it's better than they used to be.
Bring it back and buy a SONY 34XBR960.
Yes I know it heavy, it's not the "IN" thing, LCD-DLP-Plasma,etc
But who cares. It's picture is so much more enjoyable then any
of those fixed pixel displays.
I could not live with all their short comings.
Fussy motion, losing focus, plastic looking colors, rainbow's.The SONY is heavy so before you set it on it's stand put
14 2" ball casters under it so you can then easly move it around.
Like I did. Put them all around the edge of the stand for stability.
ONLY! push on the base, never the TV or upper part of stand.GTF
Well if standard def is all you are watching then perhaps a LCD isn't for you. I have a 52" JVC D-ILA and it looks prety crappy with standard def also but with HD and DVD's it has an incredible picture. I would get a HD decoder and start watching over the air HD before making a final judgement on your TV.
After cruising the video stores I concluded that there is a lot of variation between models. Careful eyeball shopping is called for. Some LCD units look really good, others not so.It is to be expected that the first couple of generations or so will have faults that are addressed and corrected over time. Give it 20 years and there will be niche market for fabulously expensive 4:3 CRTs bought by "videophiles" who route the audio to 10W SE tube amps.
As has been mentioned many of the digital TVs look worse than normal TVs when viewing broadcast and regular cable.In addition many make digital "noise" even when viwing DVDs and HD programming.
I held off a long time on buying a big TV because of these problems and recently bought a Sony 55" LCD rear projector because it was the first I'd seen that did away with the digital nastiness and gave a smooth, noise free picture with DVDs. It replaced a 36" Sony Wega flat-screen tube TV. The newer Sony LCD TVs are very good and somewhat better than my father's new Panasonic LCD rear projector which shows more noise than the Sony, even on DVDs and HD.
Much depends also on the way the TV is setup. Adjusting TVs properly is a big subject and one too complicated to get into here.
We bought a new Sony 60" LCD TV in July. It has a fantastic picture. The best images are HD, but analog is very acceptable. The Sony image is as good as our other two 30" HDTV's with CRT. The signal quality you feed to any HDTV is critical. There are tons of good sites to read up on this. I have a post further down with many listed. In fact the newest LCD TV's are going head to head with plasma. No burn in with LCD. It all comes down to how well you do your reasearch and what your budget is. Good luck! John
I have one at it is spectacular. Miles ahead of ANY other brand/technology. Up-converts to near HD quality any signal input.You will not be unhappy with this new Sony!!!
We have an older RCA 46" reap projector and it is very hard to beat. Everyone who has seen it is blown away by the naturalness of the picture. Pretty big picture too.
I haven't read all of the postings in this thread, so please excuse me if this is repeated information.I don't know if there is a comparable model in the UK, but the Sony XBR 34" 16:9 (widescreen) is about the best looking set in the consumer market at any price. It's around $2000 here.
If you spend $30,000 and up, you can get a 3-chip projector that looks almost as good but is a lot bigger. Everthing else pretty much sucks.
If you can't get the Sony XBR, try and get a widescreen CRT with progressive scan inputs. This will look pretty darn spectacular with a good DVD player. All of the new technologies suck in comparison and cost a lot more to boot.
These are a few unaltered photographs of our Pioneer plasma TV being fed a terrestrial digital signal. PQ is vastly superior to the direct-view set it replaced. (Note that the center of the picture has a reflection from our window).
You are right. The CRT is still the best quality and with the marketing hype the best bargain.
I built a HT room and installed an InFocus 7205 projecting onto
a 103" Stewart Firehawk screen. The audio is 5.1 with Magnepans front
and rear. Without exception, everyone who's seen it is blown away.
Excellent contrast, natural colors with tremendous saturation,
superb resolution. HDTV looks incredible, making even DVD's appear
second-rate. LCD, plasma and CRT are OK but not in the
same league. The only problem with front projection is it takes
a moderately large room.
... you wouldn't like it so well if you had ever seen a well setup CRT projector. That's what we have at the Ayre factory -- a 7" Mitsubishi CRT projector that was only made for the Japanese market. It's scary good, and *leagues* beyond any single chip DLP I've seen (and I've seen plenty).The 3-chip DLPs and DILAs are *much* more "solid" and "film like" than the single-chip DLPs, although the black levels still suck compared to CRTs. Plus you are talking $30,000 and up for a good 3-chipper.
(Anyway, I would assume that the original poster who purchased a 27" direct view LCD is not very interested in a projector.)
fwiw the LG LCoS RPTV is a 3-chipped unit. Spatialight makes the chipset.
Your LCD is faithfully revealing how crappy your source signal is. If you're feeding subpar analogue off air signal, there's something wrong with the TV if that signal looks good.At least try feeding your TV some 1080i upconverted DVD player signal before you make a judgment. Much better yet, try some real 1080i High Definition signal somehow.
If you're unable to provide high quality signal, then you really should return your LCD and stick with what works in your environment.
Also, your "fish bowl" comment tells me you're using some of the zoom type of function. Never use those b/c you are now making your crappy source signal much, much worse by stretching it out of proportion and blowing them up.
.
Quite regularly in the press here (Northern California) and presumeably everywhere there have been articles that a large price drop on HD TVs is going to happen this Fall. This is not the usual highly speculative rumor stuff, but the articles are very detailed and explicit about what is happening now and what is going to happen and why it is going to happen.You are not happy with your set. Get rid of it if you can. There are just too may possibilities out there to settle for something you aren't completely happy with. Looking at sets in a store can be a crap shoot. I've seen the same set in different stores looking very ordinary and spectacular, depending on? the particular unit? how it was set up? the signal it was fed? I've seen nearly all of the technologies- stores that sell these things are all over the place here- and all can look good or bad. The best pictures I have seen are from very expensive front screen projection units, which require darkened rooms, but for more reasonably priced sets plasma ones by Pioneer and Panasonic seem to consistently have the best pictures. I have seen a number of LCoS sets. Some were spectacular, and some were poor. LCDs tend to lose details in the dark ares, at least the ones I have seen, but the picture can be impressive at first glance.
But, this technology is in a state of flux. It's a little like computers. If you wait for the next upcoming great new thing, you will never but a set. So, the question is the following: Are there enough things you want to see in HD that now is the time to buy? If so, I would recommend waiting a month or two for the rumored big price drop, and then pick from what's available by doing a lot of careful looking, just as you would in buying speakers. Also, as with speakers, an in-home trial period would be nice to have. If the main reason you are getting an HD set is that it seems like a good thing to do, I would just wait a while. Two things are certain: the technology will advance, and the price will drop. That's where I am right now, mainly because there's so little HD programming I can get here in our "isolated" city of Santa Cruz.
My 2 cents worth.
jsm
To me, LCD has a very digital look to it. For example, imagine holding up a basketball outside in the sunlight. As the sunlight shadows around the sphere, it will have hundreds of different hues of that shadow. To me, LCD looks as though it has a dozen or so hues, which you are noticing too, given your " Colors are crude, very primary looking" statement.I also can relate to the pixalated backgrounds, too.
I'm sticking to my old Sony CRT (front) projector ... at least for now.
I have one of each that you have. They are both good, but the projector is washed out in the daytime, and the LCD has a light background at night.
....However, when watching a regular (digital cable) signal, I thought it was crap, too.We have Comcast Digital Cable. There are only 12 TRUE HD channels; all up around channel 175 and they are marked ABCHD, ESPNHD, HBOHD, etc. These are incredible on my 37" Sharp Aquos. Almost everything else (except DVDs from Sony 999es) sux ass.
I bought it for room ergonomics. And, it takes up less space between my STEREO SPEAKERS!!!!!
The problem is the input signal. The LCD monitors can have wonderful pictures with a much more accurate color and finer detail, but you have to deliver a good digital signal to the set to get those results. An analog signal from a perfectly good antenna can be less than half of the resolution of the panel, so you are viewing the TVs image at half of the available resolution. That means that twice as many pxels are being used as needed to display the image full size and it results in odd artifacts like blocks of color that look pastel rather than clear, gradients of color.
If you connect a satellite (you can get satellite reception anywhere you have a clear view of the sky, think about it) antenna and subscribe to that service, you can get some much better digital signals. Even a few high definition channels and in a few years, it will all look that sharp. In my area, I can get 7 or 8 free high definition stations by antenna. You may need an additional tuner to get that as some TV's don't include such a tuner, but you may have one built-in even. If you see those stations, you will be amazed at how much better it is even than the old tube TV with an analog signal. These are some tough times for transition between formats for both broadcasters and consumers. No one product gets it all done that doesn't cost a fortune. A $1000 scaler would help to bridge the gap and make all sources more enjoyable, but that's of little concellation to someone who has already paid that for a new TV. The problem with getting an analog set now is that you will have just the opposite problem in a few years when all transmission is digitized, with the same rotten results. Probably best to get satellite service now and wait it out. Tough call and tough break. It would have been ideal to have the analog set collapse right as the digital broadcasts became standard so there was no growing pain, but Murhy's Law does not allow that.
-Bill
Thanks for that. I think I now understand why I don't like this TV.As for satellite, yes, in theory, it's available everywhere. Unfortunately, neighbors' trees block our view of the available satellites here in England, so satellite reception is out. Also no cable in our neighborhood. Also no terrestrial digital where we live (Britain is supposed to have universal terrestrial digital in a few years).
We've decided to take this TV back tomorrow. We're going back to old-fashioned CRT.
Cheers,Ivan
"What's neo-realism?" "No money."
Out of interest, before taking the set back can you not at least take it to someone you know who has satelite TV and plug the SCART in, just to verify that it was the signal and not the TV?You may want to reinvestigate Plasma or LCD if you eventually get terrestrial digital, and HDTV takes off.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
I've tried a DVD, and the picture is fine, pretty much as I expected.However, I rarely watch DVDs. This TV was bought primarily to watch via terrestrial analogue signals. As I've explained elsewhere in this thread, we don't have access to cable, or satellite (trees in the way), or terrestrial digital (not in this area yet). There seems little point in paying extra for a poorer picture using the existing signal.
Given the signal we do have, and the purpose for which we want a TV, our best choice appears to be old-fashioned CRT.
Cheers,Ivan
"What's neo-realism?" "No money."
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
