 
|
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 |
79.176.30.3
I thought HD broadcast would solve the motion problem with those LCD's - nope, Enter LED's and - nope, It's not my receiver/converter, I've tried others. Is this the incomplete technology forced upon consumers story all over again (CDP) ?
Follow Ups:
Not sure why you would think that HD broadcast would solve motion problems with LCD displays. Flicker has to do with frame rates, Judder has to do with 3:2 pulldown artifacts and Blur has to do with pixel response and access times and image retention or memory (more so with phosphors). LCD motion problems are solved or highly improved by using higher frame rates and frame interpolation. LEDs (especially local dimming) improve contrast ratios, black levels and color but not motion. The best motion improvement would be to get a plasma display instead of an LCD.
Flicker will not apply to Broadcast though.
Check out Panasonic's broadcast division and get yourself a
nt
Thank you, Carnac, for letting us -- and him -- know he was interested in an 85" display. Quite a magnificent non sequitur to pull out of that envelope considering the topic of this thread, LED LCD displays, currently max out at 60".
...as it was featured so prominently on that page you linked to. Seemed to me you were nudging him in that direction..... ;-)
Russell
Panasonic shows that one underneath the rest of their broadcast displays, but if you click on any of the other models, the web address doesn't change (only the main picture). They could have started off with any of their broadcast displays, but the 85" is the newest size and they want interested parties (broadcast industry, hospitality industry, custom installers, etc) to be aware of it.
Nikon used a Panasonic 85" at a photography event several months ago. What a way to accent their presentation.
Last time my family went to Disney World, I took over 1100 pictures. Watching a slideshow on my calibrated LCD monitor, it was nice to see what we experienced that week. After I burned the pictures to DVDs a few days later, I viewed those same pictures again on my calibrated plasma through the PS3. Only this time, I felt like I was literally back in Disney World.
I'm just happy that Panasonic is carrying on with its plasmas in the face of LCD/LED domination. Wish I could afford that 85"!
Russell
A 50" 1080p 12UK will run around the same as an equivalent LED.
--eNjoY YouRseLf!.....
55".
In that environment - a big caveat - I saw nothing in the picture quality or blacks that would justify its significant expense over the non LCD screens on all sides of it.
I don't know about blur since they were just piping stuff in, and the older LCDs around it were likely 120hz, anyway, meaning I'm not sure how much improvement in terms of blur you should even expect from the new generation LED sets.
Besides, most of the TV programming that's not over the air is compressed - just like mp3s are. The software quality makes me question the outlay for hardware.
what is the source of your disappointment, given the paucity of specifics. In what way is your LCD/LED set disappointing? Disappointing in comparison to what (another technology, expectations. . .)? What model and size set are you describing?
All technological types of any product are "incomplete" in that they are never perfect. LCD sets are certainly far from perfect (still suffer from motion artifacts, color accuracy is not as good as a plasma, etc.).
What is referred to as LED sets are really LCD sets with LEDs being used as a light source behind the LCD panel which selectively blocks this light source to produce a picture. These vary greatly in quality, depending on how the LED light source is implemented. Sets with locally dimming LEDs can deliver much better pictures than those without this feature. Instead of a constant brightness behind the LCD panel, the LEDs are lit or remain dark to match the varying brightness of differnt parts of the picture. This means much better black levels in dark areas of the screen and a more vibrant picture (otherwise the biggest weakness of LCD flatscreens).
If you have one of the better LCD/LED sets with this feature and you are disappointed, then yes, the current technology is not up to YOUR standards of completeness. But, if your set lacks this feature, it is NOT representative of this technology's current capability.
Also, many supposedly high definition broadcasts, cable feeds, direct satellite broadcasts are not really that great too. On a big set, these deficiencies are even more evident.
LCD's: Philips 9 series, Samsung 6 and 7 series, Sony W series, connected via HDMI high qulity cable. Omni, Jerold HD receivers, I still prefer my old Panasonic P200 and Toshiba SZ8 120 Hz CRT's-sharper more natural and more flowing picture.
CRT pictures are great, but, they too would not be that good if blown up to the size of your usual flatscreens. The largest CRT I saw was a 40" model, and it actually didn't look that good because of the size of the picture. Beyond 30-32" CRTs become incredibly heavy because the glass has to be really thick to sustain such a large surface area under enormous air pressure.
The best picture I saw was from a professional monitor with a really small screen (I think 20"), that cost something like $40,000 back when that was real money. I do miss the kind of color accuracy, deep blacks and freedom from motion artifacts of CRT. I know the makers of flatscreens have come up with all kinds of processing to cure motion problems, but when the camera pans across a scene, the picture still looks like crap.
What really seems to matter to the buying public is the thickness of a set. Apparently, something like two inches is intolerable these days and everything has to be about an inch thick or it cannot sell.
I agree on the superiority of a CRT's picture (though my Kuro comes pretty darned close), but my 36" XBR had (and still has) some very obvious geometry problems (straight lines that are curved, including the upper and lower frames of letterboxed images). Is this sort of thing fixable by a technician? I'm actually not worried about it at all, since this TV is now being used by my dad and he prefers to watch everything full-screen (zooming in on letterboxed broadcasts--I know, the horror!), so the problems aren't noticeable at all (unless there are straight lines in the picture, in which case he wouldn't notice anyway ;-) ).
Russell
A lot of the problems with curves and lack of focus at the edges of the screen had to do with the public's desire for a flat screen and shallow depth to the set. Ideally, the electron gun at the back of the CRT should be sweeping out a perfectly consistent arc from edge to edge. Flatten out the screen and it is clear that at the center of the screen the electron beam is at 90 degrees to the screen and is illuminating a perfectly round and small spot. At the edge, however it is now hitting at an oblique angle so the spot is no longer round and small (detail is lost). This problem is MUCH worse if the screen is not only flattened out, but the gun has to sit closer to the screen (to keep the depth of the CRT shallow).
A friend had a 36" XBR that looked really good. One would think that as time went on, technology would improve the picture, but, models made a few years later actually looked substantially worse because of the drive to make flatter and shallower sets. Also, to make them look brighter, the power of the electron guns were increased. Not only did this mean that the phosphors would burn out quicker, the preforated metal screen that sits just in front of the screen (shadow mask) to focus the beam on individual phosphor spots had to be altered to take on the higher power. These screens became more prone to warping from the additional heat (the colors would look like they were bleeding out over a wide area instead of being sharply defined).
I too think that the Pioneer Kuro plasmas deliver a terrific picture. As long as one does not require the tremendous brightness of an LCD set (who really does?), good plasmas have less motion artifacts, much more realistic and subtle color, and good black levels. At least Panasonic looks to be carrying on and improving the breed; their newly improved panels look very good).
...52" 7 series LCD with 120Hz and 1080P.
I'm still continually impressed with the quality of my HD picture.
Getting the newest version of the Comcast DVR made the picture even better.
The reviewers all say the best plasma is superior to LCD.
Not sure about LED, except that it's more energy efficient.
- NT
+1
My understanding is the first 3D sets came out today. $2400 for a 50 inch set. Plasma 1080P. Comes with one pair of glasses. Extra pairs of glasses are $150 each.
Looks like more of the same from the electronics industry.
plasma is better. crt is still the best.
In my experience, plasma surpassed CRT quality a few years ago. I was a CRT holdout as well, but when we got our 50" Panasonic plasma, and properly calibrated it, the CRT was gone forever. Color fidelity, lack of convergence problems and lack of scan lines has all made plasmas superior. CRTs are still better than LCD, though.
I love my Panny 700U Plasma! That's a 2/3 generation behind what's currently available, and I still don't have any complaints with it's picture quality - in fact it impresses me every time. LCD's on the other hand, I only liked as computer screen, crisp and bright - that's all.
After seeing first 120Hz Bravo sets making movies look like daytime soaps, I can't fathom why would somebody hate themselves so much to a)suffer through watching movies in that manner and b)Pay extra $$ for 120Hz.
I still use an ancient CRT for a number of reasons, none of which are relevant here. I could not reliably tell a difference between a 1080p LCD with 60 and 120Hz refresh. I was happy that I couldn't tell a difference because that would save me money. However, in my fidgety way of not letting go of the shopping part of video, I recently went to a boutique shop and saw LCDs with 60, 120 and 240 hz refresh rates. The 240 was clearly better and in fact was easier to see as better in a video with a slow pan of a solid surface. I'm now disappointed because I can clearly see a difference. Having determined for myself that 240Hz is a technology worth paying for, at least for me, I also saw a Vizio LCD with 240Hz and back lit LED (not side lit), and that's the best I've seen from LCD. Is it better than Plasma? I don't know but Plasma is a no go for me in a bright room with lots of reflections. Just my $0.025 cents worth.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
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 ]
