 
|
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 |
38.100.19.236
In Reply to: RE: New LED flatscreens disappointing posted by ramw on March 10, 2010 at 06:27:55
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.
Follow Ups:
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).
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 ]
