LED or Plasma? [Text View]

Gary McCoy

04-20-09, 02:45 PM

Well the same old differences between LCDs and Plasmas still exist:

Brightness - LCDs are best for moderatly bright to bright rooms. Plasmas are best for Dark to moderately bright rooms. There is considerable overlap in the center which happens to be MOST ROOMS where either can be used comfortably. Still - advantage LCD.

Panel Life - Both types are rated for about 60,000 hours. But in the case of plasma, what that means is that at the end of that period the set has fallen to half brightness - plasmas dim over time as did CRTs, and for the same reasons - the phosphors wear out. In the case of a conventional LCD, at the end of 60,000 hours it is just as bright as new, but you have a 50% chance that one of the multiple CCFL lights will burn out (they are replaceable but expect to pay $200-$400 labor). LED LCDs have much longer rated lives than either CCFL LCD or plasma but repair costs are not known. Still, if you care about video quality, you would pay for recalibration on the plasma as it fades away, and the LCD just needs calibration once - advantage LCD.

Dynamic brightness - Truth to tell, almost all manufacturers have undersized the power supplies on 2009 plasmas to reduce power consumption in anticipation of the 2010 California "Tier 1" power saving requirements. This means that in bright scenes the current limiting on the power supply crushes the whites. This did not happen on the 2008 plasmas, and it does not happen on the few Pioneer plasma units left unsold. Advantage LED LCD which uses far less juice than either plasma or CCFL LCD.

Motion Blur - This mattered a lot as late as two years ago. But the latest 120Hz and 240Hz LCD panels have so little blur that there is little difference to notice.

Off-Axis viewing - The LED LCDs look worse to me than the CCFLs. In my viewing environment all the room seating is less than 15 degrees off center - I could use plasma, LCD, or LED LCD and never notice a problem. Still - advantage plasma.

Frame Interpolation - I use it on high motion sports like Hockey, and I also like it for movies on Blu-Ray and DVD - but Digital TV broadcasts don't always benefit, sometimes I bother to cut it off which takes a few button presses. It is purely a matter of preference but the feature is rare on plasmas and not so rare on LCDs. The best implementations of FI are from Samsung and Sony, LCD only.

The best examples of both technologies are very good televisions with outstanding video quality. Between the two there is room for personal preference. The AVS members fight to absurd lengths about performance problems that WERE significant two years ago but don't amount to much today.

tbird8450

04-20-09, 02:52 PM

Panel Life - Both types are rated for about 60,000 hours. But in the case of plasma, what that means is that at the end of that period the set has fallen to half brightness - plasmas dim over time as did CRTs, and for the same reasons - the phosphors wear out. In the case of a conventional LCD, at the end of 60,000 hours it is just as bright as new, but you have a 50% chance that one of the multiple CCFL lights will burn out (they are replaceable but expect to pay $200-$400 labor). LED LCDs have much longer rated lives than either CCFL LCD or plasma but repair costs are not known. Still, if you care about video quality, you would pay for recalibration on the plasma as it fades away, and the LCD just needs calibration once - advantage LCD.

Somehow I can't picture myself scheduling a recalibration of my plasma in 60 years. Maybe I should have bought that LCD after all!

Gary McCoy

04-20-09, 03:08 PM

Somehow I can't picture myself scheduling a recalibration of my plasma in 60 years. Maybe I should have bought that LCD after all!

You'd be surprised - the stats say that between the kids in the day and the adults at night, 10-12 hours per day of ontime is not unusual. At that rate it would take 16 years to fade to half brightness. Still, the phosphors fade fastest when new - if you care to keep the set calibrated, you might pay for three calibrations on the plasma vs. one on the LCD.

But I agree, if you are the less critical viewer who never pays for ISF calibration, or cannot do it yourself, there is little difference - you would keep cranking the brightness on the Plasma. But realize that as the Brightness control is advanced, the plasma loses one of the oft-quoted advantages which is black level. It could even be considerably worse than the LCD at the end of it's life - but chances are that a videophile would have long since replaced it before that happened.

Where these factors matter most is in 24X7 commercial applications such as airport displays and sports bars. The LCD has taken over many such markets.

greenjp

04-20-09, 03:13 PM

Panel Life - Both types are rated for about 60,000 hours...
Panasonic is rating their sets at 100,000 hours now, so we're up to ~27 years at 10 hrs/day to half brightness ;)

jeff

tbird8450

04-20-09, 03:22 PM

You'd be surprised - the stats say that between the kids in the day and the adults at night, 10-12 hours per day of ontime is not unusual. At that rate it would take 16 years to fade to half brightness. Still, the phosphors fade fastest when new - if you care to keep the set calibrated, you might pay for three calibrations on the plasma vs. one on the LCD.

But I agree, if you are the less critical viewer who never pays for ISF calibration, or cannot do it yourself, there is little difference - you would keep cranking the brightness on the Plasma. But realize that as the Brightness control is advanced, the plasma loses one of the oft-quoted advantages which is black level. It could even be considerably worse than the LCD at the end of it's life - but chances are that a videophile would have long since replaced it before that happened.

Where these factors matter most is in 24X7 commercial applications such as airport displays and sports bars. The LCD has taken over many such markets.

As the plasma dims, you would be cranking up the contrast control to compensate. Your blacks will still be fine.

And I probabably average 2-3 hours of TV per day. There are days where I never turn it on.

PENDRAG0ON

04-20-09, 03:49 PM

Well the same old differences between LCDs and Plasmas still exist:

Brightness - LCDs are best for moderately bright to bright rooms. Plasmas are best for Dark to moderately bright rooms. There is considerable overlap in the center which happens to be MOST ROOMS where either can be used comfortably. Still - advantage LCD.

Hardly, in a dim room the LCD tends to fall apart with clouds and viewing angle issues becoming much easier to see. With Plasma, in a very bright room you loose a bit of the blacks but the picture still maintains it's pop. Advantage Plasma

Panel Life - Both types are rated for about 60,000 hours. But in the case of plasma, what that means is that at the end of that period the set has fallen to half brightness - plasmas dim over time as did CRTs, and for the same reasons - the phosphors wear out. In the case of a conventional LCD, at the end of 60,000 hours it is just as bright as new, but you have a 50% chance that one of the multiple CCFL lights will burn out (they are replaceable but expect to pay $200-$400 labor). LED LCDs have much longer rated lives than either CCFL LCD or plasma but repair costs are not known. Still, if you care about video quality, you would pay for recalibration on the plasma as it fades away, and the LCD just needs calibration once - advantage LCD.

Again not true, Panasonic plasma sets are rated at 100,000 hours till half-life, and yes CCFL lamps do dim over time since they too have a phosphor to produce their light. And LED bulbs are rated at 50,000 hours until half-life, which is lower than both CCFL and Plasma, and since LED also uses a phosphor to produce light, they dim as well and Local dim sets are also subject to the same uneven wear problems that Plasma suffers from, probably more so due to the lower half life of the bulbs. - Advantage Plasma

Dynamic brightness - Truth to tell, almost all manufacturers have undersized the power supplies on 2009 plasmas to reduce power consumption in anticipation of the 2010 California "Tier 1" power saving requirements. This means that in bright scenes the current limiting on the power supply crushes the whites. This did not happen on the 2008 plasmas, and it does not happen on the few Pioneer plasma units left unsold. Advantage LED LCD which uses far less juice than either plasma or CCFL LCD.

Actually, this does happen on the Pioneers, quite badly infact. (at least it did on mine) Considering that I had to turn the backlight way down on the LCD to make it look decent, the whites on the LCD are now dimmer than my old 42px75 running in cinema mode (which didn't have this "white dimming" problem, as a matter off fact, you are the first person I heard mention this so far in all the Panny threads.) and LED LCD has so many issues right now that they aren't even worth a single look for at least 3 more years. Advantage Plasma

Motion Blur - This mattered a lot as late as two years ago. But the latest 120Hz and 240Hz LCD panels have so little blur that there is little difference to notice.

My 52a630 has terrible blur, they haven't even come close to fixing this issue, sure ghosting has been reduced to the point that it is almost gone, but motion blur is still in full effect. It is sad that my Panasonic 42px75 has far better motion performance than the 52a630.

Off-Axis viewing - The LED LCDs look worse to me than the CCFLs. In my viewing environment all the room seating is less than 15 degrees off center - I could use plasma, LCD, or LED LCD and never notice a problem. Still - advantage plasma.

This one you got right, however, it is worse than you let on. If I sit dead center in a bright room I have a near Kuro picture, if I move one seat over the picture starts to wash out (even worse when in the dark) so plasma holds a HUGE advantage here.

Frame Interpolation - I use it on high motion sports like Hockey, and I also like it for movies on Blu-Ray and DVD - but Digital TV broadcasts don't always benefit, sometimes I bother to cut it off which takes a few button presses. It is purely a matter of preference but the feature is rare on plasmas and not so rare on LCDs. The best implementations of FI are from Samsung and Sony, LCD only.

I thought it was neat at first, until I started to feel very sick one night, I quickly realized that the AMP feature was making me sick, I turned it off and haven't felt sick since. I rarely get motion sick, but this sure managed to do it. (and it was a slow paced animated movie so it was the accelerated look of AMP that caused it)

The best examples of both technologies are very good televisions with outstanding video quality. Between the two there is room for personal preference. The AVS members fight to absurd lengths about performance problems that WERE significant two years ago but don't amount to much today.

I'll admit that the 52a630 does produce a nice image when the lights are on and I am sitting dead center, but there is so much room for improvement that I can't consider a LCD for any kind of viewing, even when I am the only one watching it.

As someone who went from a 42px75 panny to a 5020 Kuro to a 52a630 LCD and soon to a Panasonic 50g10, I think that I can point out just how wrong a lot of those points really are. My replies are in red

duvetyne

04-20-09, 04:18 PM

and since LED also uses a phosphor to produce light,

Why are they using white LEDs instead of RGB?

PENDRAG0ON

04-20-09, 04:22 PM

Why are they using white LEDs instead of RGB?

Sony uses RGB in their XBR local dim sets, but everyone else uses white LED because they are much cheaper to produce. (and next year Sony will probably also be using white LED as well because of this cost issue) I also wouldn't be surprised if RGB LED also had some dimming problems as well, but not enough data is available on this as of right now for me to form an opinion on them just yet.

aim120

04-20-09, 05:13 PM

Motion Blur - This mattered a lot as late as two years ago. But the latest 120Hz and 240Hz LCD panels have so little blur that there is little difference to notice.

My 52a630 has terrible blur, they haven't even come close to fixing this issue, sure ghosting has been reduced to the point that it is almost gone, but motion blur is still in full effect. It is sad that my Panasonic 42px75 has far better motion performance than the 52a630.

well 120hz tvs like sony xbr8 and other sony 240hz tvs achieve full 1080lines of motion resolution.

tbird8450

04-20-09, 05:19 PM

Only with frame interpolation engaged.

localnet

04-20-09, 05:21 PM

You are confusing sub-field drive with lcd refresh. The plasma is actually 60hz not 600hz. Plasma makers are just starting to use that spec because it sounds better than lcds 120hz even though the two numbers are unrelated.

Oh, and I know you threw a fit on the owners thread, but I told you that you should have waited for the 1" thin Samsung plasma. Samsungs LED sets are not ready for primetime this year and they are ridiculously overpriced for what you get.

I threw a fit? Your the ass that walked into the picture, calling me an IDIOT for buying the LED, my wife was giddy, you bitched! And saying I should have bought a 50+ inch tv to do the job that this 40" LED does. And a 50+ inch set hung on my small bedroom wall would have sent my wife through the roof!

I may not like it, but my wife does, and it works for the job intended. It is still hanging on the wall, flush mounted, by a string, the main reason I bought it. This is not my main tv, as I have a 46" Sony KDL46V3000 that handles that job just fine in my living room, and a new 2009 Samsung plasma 58B560 that I just hung in my family room for movies and football.

I may bitch about the literal headaches that this new Samsung LED gives me, but I am not about to take it back, 2 grand or not. Because no one currently makes a 40", 1 inch thick television, that I can hang on a wall by a thread THAT MY WIFE LOVES.

In regards to all of the technical aspects of 60, 120 or 600hz, I ain't got a f'n clue. I just know what looks good to my eyes. My Sammy 600hz, 1080p plasma shines, the best tv I own right now. My Sony 60hz 1080p LCD is awesome, love this set. My 40" Samsung LED fits the bill and makes my wife happy, and I have yet to walk into it on my way to the bathroom at 3am. My 22" Toshiba 720p in my bathroom rocks and the 27" Samsung 720p in my truck with DirecTV works like a charm. And then there is the Sony 52" XBR2, which I need to sell, or hang in my office or guest room... What to do?

Hmmmmmmmm..........

And then that damn 22" LG 720p in my kitchen, forgot that one.

PENDRAG0ON

04-20-09, 05:21 PM

well 120hz tvs like sony xbr8 and other sony 240hz tvs achieve full 1080lines of motion resolution.

Too funny, my 1920:1080 52a630 even with AMP on high comes nowhere near the motion resolution of my 1024:768 Panasonic Plasma that is 2 years old. 120hz helps a bit, but nowhere near enough and 240hz isn't much better, maybe 480hz will finally fix it. :rolleyes:

The only reason that LED local dim sets attain 1080 lines of picture resolution is because they combine the slight step up in motion that enhancers allow with a pulsing backlight which causes the screen to flicker JUST LIKE A PLASMA, most LCD fans turn this function off which brings the sets down to normal 120hz LCD levels. LCD TV makers are so quick to add so many plasma issues just to get a slight boost in performance that it isn't even funny anymore.

duvetyne

04-20-09, 05:29 PM

but everyone else uses white LED because they are much cheaper to produce.

Red Green and Blue Leds are very easy to manufacture. White LEDs ARE Blue LEDs with a yellow phosphor...a two stage process. They generally don't contain much red light either, which is why RGB sources would be better.

PENDRAG0ON

04-20-09, 05:40 PM

Red Green and Blue Leds are very easy to manufacture. White LEDs ARE Blue LEDs with a yellow phosphor...a two stage process. They generally don't contain much red light either, which is why RGB sources would be better.

You will have to ask xrox about why they do that, he explained it once about 6 months ago, but I don't remember it well enough to give you a solid answer. Cost had something to do with it, but he had several other reasons behind the decision as well.

mlaun

04-20-09, 05:40 PM

white LED's that use phosphor have a 1/2 life of 50K hrs for brightness. Unfdortunatly it seems that the degradation of the emmited light color temperature is much quicker. At least according to this guys experience:

http://www.nickhill.co.uk/white_LED_life_expectancy.html

Could be that the TV's use better LED's, but they haven't been around long enough to tell.

Another 'ignored' aspect of LCD life Expectency is the degradation of the color filters over time. LCD Computer monitors need calibration evry 2-3 months.

mlaun

04-20-09, 05:43 PM

Gary McCoy

04-20-09, 05:43 PM

I say again, to the average user there is little reason to prefer one technology over the other. Get what looks best to your eyes. You are hearing from the technology fanboys now.

localnet

04-20-09, 05:46 PM

i say again, to the average user there is little reason to prefer one technology over the other. Get what looks best to your eyes. You are hearing from the technology fanboys now.

amen!

PENDRAG0ON

04-20-09, 05:59 PM

I say again, to the average user there is little reason to prefer one technology over the other. Get what looks best to your eyes. You are hearing from the technology fanboys now.

That coming from a well known LCD fanboy who bases all plasma's off of an old 2005 Plasma. I've owned high quality sets from both sides now, and Plasma quite simply smokes LCD in most areas.

Gary McCoy

04-20-09, 06:34 PM

That coming from a well known LCD fanboy who bases all plasma's off of an old 2005 Plasma. I've owned high quality sets from both sides now, and Plasma quite simply smokes LCD in most areas.

You seem to lack understanding of my position which is plain to read in this thread among many others, so I'll spell it out:

1) I am specificly a fan of FRAME INTERPOLATION because it relieves a problem that has bugged me for over 50 years on all film-based material in all venues including my home theater and commercial film theaters, which is I perceive the film as a jerky series of still images as if a strobe light was in use. I also have a problem with the uneven motion caused by the telecine process. A 120Hz refresh and video processor with frame interpolation fixes both. So sorry but relief is not available for the problems that bug ME from the plasma technology that YOU prefer.

2) The best type of technology for a flat panel must be chosen after considering both the natural and nightime lighting and the seating positions. In my family room in sunny California, this means an LCD. In another room in my house such as the light-controlled Home Theater, I might select another choice like a plasma or CRT, if I didn't already have a front projector and a 96" screen, that switches between 60Hz and 72Hz to alleviate the uneven motion problem on DVDs. I'm not going smaller.

3) Anybody promoting one technology over the other in all cases under all conditions is a fanboy whose opinions can be safely disgarded. A valid reccomendation must consider lighting and audience positions.

FYI the Panny plasma I tried and the 120Hz Samsung LCD I eventually bought were both brand new designs in the third quarter of 2007. A year later I purchased a second Samsung LCD for a bedroom set, a 720p, 60Hz model that was appropriate for the video sources and viewing distance in that room.

It matters not at all to me that your opinion differs from mine, after practicing the Home Theater hobby since 1984, where I started with a VHS recorder and a 4:3, 480i resolution CRT front projector. I know what I like, and care not how many or how few share my preferences.

Now you have a nice day and please try to always give good advice after carefully reasoning about it, in the true spirit of the AVS Forum.

Jeffs386

04-20-09, 07:10 PM

well 120hz tvs like sony xbr8 and other sony 240hz tvs achieve full 1080lines of motion resolution.

not even close

Black levels advantage PLASMA
off axis viewing advantage PLASMA
color saturation advantage PLASMA
motion resolution advantage PLASMA

by the way the new NeoPDP panels from Panasonic can get just as bright as a LCD so that no longer an advantage to LCD

but as a bonus with LCD you do get
flashlighting and uneven screen lighting issues
motion blur or soap opera effect take your pick....actually if you watch sports you get both
excellent viewing angles as long as everyone sits on your lap

oldcband

04-20-09, 08:17 PM

I've owned high quality sets from both sides now, and Plasma quite simply smokes LCD in most areas.
I wouldn't go by your experiences, I've read to many posts where you condradict yourself.

aim120

04-21-09, 09:57 AM

Too funny, my 1920:1080 52a630 even with AMP on high comes nowhere near the motion resolution of my 1024:768 Panasonic Plasma that is 2 years old. 120hz helps a bit, but nowhere near enough and 240hz isn't much better, maybe 480hz will finally fix it. :rolleyes:

The only reason that LED local dim sets attain 1080 lines of picture resolution is because they combine the slight step up in motion that enhancers allow with a pulsing backlight which causes the screen to flicker JUST LIKE A PLASMA, most LCD fans turn this function off which brings the sets down to normal 120hz LCD levels. LCD TV makers are so quick to add so many plasma issues just to get a slight boost in performance that it isn't even funny anymore.

well i said specificaly sony models like XBR8 and other NON LED models with 240hz tech are able to dish out full 1080lines of motion resolution and not all plasma can show 1080lines of motion resolution ,even 1080p plasmas such as the premium panasonic TH-42PZ80U can only show 800lines of motion resolution out of 1080.so ur old 768p plasma wont even come close to 768lines,more like 576lines compared to ur samsung which is about 580lines.

Gary McCoy

04-21-09, 10:04 AM

Black levels advantage PLASMA

...except that black level numbers are better for local dimming LCD than for plasmas. Then of course there is the fact that LCDs have better white levels than plasmas which crush the white end of the scale.

off axis viewing advantage PLASMA

Yep, that's right - it's just not a problem for most viewers who center the screen in front of their seating anyway.

color saturation advantage PLASMA

Except that when you reach color saturation on a plasma it causes another problem with color accuracy, unless the plasma is the uber-expensive Pioneer which was individually calibrated before you got it.

motion resolution advantage PLASMA

This one is simply not true anymore unless it is one of the few plasmas with a 72Hz or 96Hz refresh mode for film. Second-generation frame interpolated LCDs surpassed plasma in 2007 IMHO, and based upon my preferences.

by the way the new NeoPDP panels from Panasonic can get just as bright as a LCD so that no longer an advantage to LCD

That was actually a step backwards for Panasonic because they implemented a dynamic contrast circuit which has been rightly criticized on LCD. Kinda funny that they chose one of the most criticized LCD features and added it to plasma, in both cases it was only to enhance the specifications for Web sales.

but as a bonus with LCD you do get
flashlighting and uneven screen lighting issues
motion blur or soap opera effect take your pick....actually if you watch sports you get both
excellent viewing angles as long as everyone sits on your lap
Except that with the newfound popularity of 120Hz and 240Hz sets, the jury is finally in, and more people like frame interpolation than do not. The biggest group remaining is actually the non-critical viewer who goes for the 60Hz set because the 120/240Hz and frame interpolation makes no difference he's willing to pay for. The minority opinion now is that SOE is a problem not a benefit.

You appear to have lots of obsolete opinions that do not take into account the technological changes in the last two years. LCDs have made advances in motion resolution, contrast ratios, and black levels, while Plasmas are undergoing re-designs in an attempt to keep the technology viable under the new Energy Star 3.0 and California Tier 1 power efficiency standards. In many cases the newer more-power-efficient plasmas offer worse video quality than the older models, and no options to turn off the new power-saving features causing the problems. Spend some time in a local B&M store and get youir opinions re-calibrated with modern sets is my suggestion.

Because the major magazines and webzines are all now in agreement that there is at best a very minor overall quality difference between the two flat panel technologies and lots of room for personal preferences that are perfectly valid. It is fine to have preferences but in the interests of the factual accuracy we struggle to acheive at AVS, you should admit that that is what they are - personal preferences - instead of repeating obsolete criticisms based on older HDTV designs.

aim120

04-21-09, 10:20 AM

not even close

Black levels advantage PLASMA
off axis viewing advantage PLASMA
color saturation advantage PLASMA
motion resolution advantage PLASMA

by the way the new NeoPDP panels from Panasonic can get just as bright as a LCD so that no longer an advantage to LCD

but as a bonus with LCD you do get
flashlighting and uneven screen lighting issues
motion blur or soap opera effect take your pick....actually if you watch sports you get both
excellent viewing angles as long as everyone sits on your lap

well black levels of EOL pioneer plasmas was good,but not todays plasma from panasonic or samsung etc,they cannot match lcds with local dimming LED backlight .for instance the new panasonic G10 neo PDP plasma have blacks levels of 0.03cd/m2 compared to convential CCFL backlight lcds such as samsung B650 which have black levels of 0.04cd/m2,now lcds with active LED baclight such as samsung 950 etc and XBR8 can show a black level of 0.0cd/m2.
off axis viewing well i agree that plasma have the advantage but where did i deny that,but only at extremely off axis viewing does lcds show some 10%contrast shift which is about 45 degree from centre for SPVA panel(40degree for local dim LED),AMVA based lcds and 65degrees for IPS based,anyway at those extreme angles u wont feel like watching the tv whether its a lcd,plasma or crt because that is extremely off angle.
color saturation and motion resolution are again debatable.

maxdog03

04-21-09, 10:29 AM

you should admit that that is what they are - personal preferences - instead of repeating obsolete criticisms based on older HDTV designs.

For some reason I find this line particularly funny while reading through your post of personal opinions, especially coming from a guy who claimed "California bans plasma TV's". I also enjoyed your reference to the uber expensive Kuro while totaly ignoring the I assume bargain priced Samsung 950 and Sony XBR8. But then again we all know that plasma people are constantly called "fanboys" in this forum by the LCD people. Nothing hypocritical about that at all. :rolleyes:

maxdog03

04-21-09, 10:45 AM

well black levels of EOL pioneer plasmas was good,but not todays plasma from panasonic or samsung etc,they cannot match lcds with local dimming LED backlight .for instance the new panasonic G10 neo PDP plasma have blacks levels of 0.03cd/m2 compared to convential CCFL backlight lcds such as samsung B650 which have black levels of 0.04cd/m2,now lcds with active LED baclight such as samsung 950 etc and XBR8 can show a black level of 0.0cd/m2.
off axis viewing well i agree that plasma have the advantage but where did i deny that,but only at extremely off axis viewing does lcds show some 10%contrast shift which is about 45 degree from centre for SPVA panel(40degree for local dim LED),AMVA based lcds and 65degrees for IPS based,anyway at those extreme angles u wont feel like watching the tv whether its a lcd,plasma or crt because that is extremely off angle.
color saturation and motion resolution are again debatable.

So you're comparing a set that's available for around $1500-$1800 to a set that costs over $5000.00?:eek:

aim120

04-21-09, 10:51 AM

So you're comparing a set that's available for around $1500-$1800 to a set that costs over $5000.00?:eek:

well if u look at the thread title it say LED tvs and there is hardly any difference in new plasmas and CCFL backlight lcds in terms of black levels.

PENDRAG0ON

04-21-09, 11:02 AM

I wouldn't go by your experiences, I've read to many posts where you condradict yourself.

This place is really starting to remind me of Gamefaqs.... Fanboys agree with you and praise you when you say what they want to hear (like I was doing when I first got the 52a630 and liked the picture it gave under ideal conditions), but when confronted with facts or opinions that differ from what they want to hear and it quickly degrades to a flame war. (like when I started to notice all the serious flaws that this LCD had just hours after I got it) If I had kept my mouth shut about these flaws, half the people arguing with me would still be supporting me. What I find really funny, I was never attacked once for going to an LCD by a plasma fan, but as soon as I mention that I am going back to plasma, the LCD fans turn on me. :rolleyes:

Something to realize, if we the consumers don't criticize these TV makers for sending out poorly made and defective products, they have no incentive to fix them and just keep sending them out with the same flaws year after year. (Kuro DSE and buzz, LCD flashlights and banding, Plasma Green Ghosting, Poor LCD motion Res....) I could go on with lists of problems on both sides of the tech, but we really need to let manufacturers know that we as the consumer won't stand for all these defects that they consider to be "within spec" If people had just kept sending back every LCD with even a hint of clouding, odds are we wouldn't still be having this problem, Pioneer knew about the buzz and DSE, but didn't fix it fast enough, look what happened to them, unfortunately, motion problems are purely subjective on both sides, so fixes won't be coming as quickly as they should. (higher HZ + frame interpolation is just a patchwork fix that masks the real problem, their 100% duty cycle, they need to add flicker if they want to trick the eye into seeing true high motion resolution. (hint: add a black frame instead of a fake frame, motion will improve much faster if they start with this and keep improving upon it, which is actually what these LED backlit sets with local dim do, add flicker by pulsing the backlight.) AMP has trouble with fine details, which is the whole point of good motion resolution, to keep those fine details visible. All AMP does is give the "Appearance" of good motion, when in fact it is barely better than a normal LCD with no enhancers. Panasonic has made an effort to fix the green ghosting with these new NEO sets, which is actually surprising considering how few of us actually can see them in the first place.

LCD is the future, I won't deny that. However, as it stands as a tech right now, there is no way they are ready to be the successor to CRT, right now that is Plasma. Looking forward, LCD has more room to improve, mainly because plasma has already fixed most of the issues with their tech where as LCD still has issues with almost everything that people have been complaining about since they first came out. Viewing angles have been greatly improved since my last LCD back in 2005, but the contrast still shifts when you move just one seat over on Sammy panels. (S-IPS is needed in hometheater sizes, they have this viewing angle problem all but licked, so more $$$ needs to go into the development of them) Flashlights and clouds are still problems, LED local dim is again, just a band-aid for the real problem, poor uniformity of the screen. (I'm not even going to touch how flawed these ultra slim edge lit LED sets are right now) Banding also falls into this area, but also brings up a companies poor Quality control, any set with obvious banding should never make it out of the factory. (might as well ship a plasma with burn-in right out of the box, same concept) And as for motion, I want to see real improvments, not false improvments designed to trick you into thinking that it is better. (not to mention how the 120hz adds input lag to the display, making many games near unplayable, and worse yet, Samsung made the lag WORSE with their new b series LCD sets.)

I'm a fanboy of performance, not display techs, which is the very reason I gave the 52a630 a fair shot. The 52a630 showed me just how far companies have come in regards to improving LCD, but also showed me how far they still have to go. I can see my next TV being an LCD if they keep improving them, but for now, I'm probably going back to plasma.

oldcband

04-21-09, 01:39 PM

What I find really funny, I was never attacked once for going to an LCD by a plasma fan, but as soon as I mention that I am going back to plasma, the LCD fans turn on me. :rolleyes:

Again you think that members here care what you buy.

What I was telling you, your comments are inconsistent.

Your words:
1) My new LCD has "mild banding".
Then in another post: "insane banding"

And theres more with plasma and LCD.

PENDRAG0ON

04-21-09, 01:52 PM

Again you think that members here care what you buy.

What I was telling you, your comments are inconsistent.

Your words:
1) My new LCD has "mild banding".
Then in another post: "insane banding"

And theres more with plasma and LCD.

Let's take that into context shall we?

That first line was when I just got the set and had only noticed a few mild bands, I thought that the rest were simply reflections as they lined up with what was behind the set, well I put up a dark grey screen and checked it for banding and then noticed that it wasn't a reflection, but absolutly insane banding that has actually been getting worse. (checked it last night and the dark bands are getting worse as are my pillars)

Care to bring up any other quotes that are out of context?

And you also missed the point of what you quoted, I never got any flak from any plasma fans for trying an LCD, but by returning the LCD for another plasma, suddenly all the known LCD trolls aren't very nice anymore. (not that I care, it's back to the way it was before I bought the LCD)

Gary McCoy

04-21-09, 02:13 PM

DBLASS

04-21-09, 02:23 PM

As a sidebar note to all of this "mine is better than yours", this battle between plasma and LCD has been raging since the 1980's. LCDs have always been the runt to the litter. Plasma (red monochrome) which have been around A LONG TIME, have always had the advantage in size, brightness and switching speeds. Many of you may not remember but the first Compaq laptop was a plasma display. A soon as LCD caught up, plasma moved on. Plasma did color first and best, but LCD, especially with TFT in 1991, really caught up. So long as plasma could keep going up in size, it could stay ahead of the ever increasing performance benchmarks of LCD.

Regretfully in the last few years LCDs have caught up. Yes, I suppose plasmas could do a 100 inch+ display better and cheaper than LCD, but is the market wanting or needing this. In the world of home use of displays, LCDs meet the needs of the marketplace. It is good enough or "fit for use" as we call it. Both technologies can do the size, switching speeds are getting to the point that most of us can't see the difference and all the other features are "ok" to most people.

Honestly, we have all been looking at CRT TV for years and can anyone really say that they are the technological benchmark of performance? Plasma as a technology is going to be challenged now more than any other time in its rich long history. Why? ...not because of performance. To me, the reason is simple; money. Just read all the forums and you get a sense that all anyone wants to have is "what is the best set for the least amount of money". Plasma has an issue on this. But don't think LCD is off the hook. No one in the flat panel TV arena is making money and with diminishing profits, where is the money coming from for the new levels of technologies.

maxdog03

04-21-09, 02:26 PM

I don't have any problem at all with people preferring one technology over another. I'm a fan of smooth motion without the jerkiness or unevenness. The fact that the video display looks smoother than the film original - plus the fact that algorythmic video processing can eliminate a large portion of the camera blur in the film source, does not trouble me. I have been happy with my choice of a television and unhappy with the unfair treatment that a lot of plasma owners here dished out towards frame interpolation, which I consider the main enhancement to Home Theater in the last 10 years.

I still believe a lot of people dissed AMP and other inplementations of frame interpolation for no better reason than this new feature was practically unavailable on plasma except for the expensive Pioneer sets - and even on those, Pioneer had a poor first-generation implementation. In fact it is still the case that if you want good FI, you must either buy an LCD or one of the growing set of front projectors that offer the feature, from Panasonic, Epson, Sanyo, etc. Those who prefer plasma over LCD just don't get to play with FI - a serious problem and one that needs to be addressed.

60Hz displays locked to the powerline frequency have been around since the 1930's and the early days of NTSC. We can do so much better now. And if in the end the 24fps of film must be abandonned, I will be the first to say, it's about time.

Read your words highlighted again carefully. You tout something you prefer and then chastise a group that doesn't prefer it. How is that not caring what one chooses as it appears you're still trying to convince others that your choice is the only right choice. I would have thought after umpteen posts of people telling you they don't care for your AMP that you get the idea that it's not for everyone. Even a poll started by another plasma hater in this forum showed that about half the people with amp available prefer it off and a few only use it for certain media. If you truly don't care then quit trying to convince everyone that what you like is the only acceptable way. :rolleyes:

Oh, and for the record, I truly don't care what tech anyone buys and have numerous posts saying as much when someone asks for a recommendation as I even own both technologies. :-)

whitetrash66

04-21-09, 02:26 PM

Neither type of set is perfect. Just deal with the flaws on the display you can live with. A lot of people seem to have problems with motion blur/interpolation/flashlights/viewing angles of lcds. Some have problems with low brightness, IR, dithering, and reflective plasma screens.

Personally, i love Amp/motionflow, and i couldn't stand the dithering/grainy pic of my pz80. But that's me. No technology is perfect (yet). If motionblur bugged me, i wouldn't have gotten an lcd.

Both types of TVs have their pros and cons, and either set in the high end models are sweet.

oldcband

04-21-09, 02:30 PM

Care to bring up any other quotes that are out of context?

But by returning the LCD for another plasma, suddenly all the known LCD trolls aren't very nice anymore.
Known LCD trolls?

Now your down to name calling?

Why do you think anyone cares what others are buying here?

PENDRAG0ON

04-21-09, 02:40 PM

Known LCD trolls?

Now you down to name calling?

Why do you think anyone cares what others are buying here?

Again, thanks for gutting my post to make it seem worse than it is.

And you also missed the point of what you quoted, I never got any flak from any plasma fans for trying an LCD, but by returning the LCD for another plasma, suddenly all the known LCD trolls aren't very nice anymore. (not that I care, it's back to the way it was before I bought the LCD)

I didn't name names or point fingers at anyone with that post. I'll leave it at that.

tbird8450

04-21-09, 02:59 PM

Those who prefer plasma over LCD just don't get to play with FI - a serious problem and one that needs to be addressed.

There are many LCD owners here with frame interpolation that don't like it and don't use it. I actually find that it works pretty well on the Kuro in Smooth mode, but there are inconsistent artifacts generated by the processs (LCD has its own artifacts). I simply do not like how it looks for film content.

ll Viper ll

04-21-09, 03:01 PM

...except that black level numbers are better for local dimming LCD than for plasmas. Then of course there is the fact that LCDs have better white levels than plasmas which crush the white end of the scale.

Yep, that's right - it's just not a problem for most viewers who center the screen in front of their seating anyway.

Except that when you reach color saturation on a plasma it causes another problem with color accuracy, unless the plasma is the uber-expensive Pioneer which was individually calibrated before you got it.

This one is simply not true anymore unless it is one of the few plasmas with a 72Hz or 96Hz refresh mode for film. Second-generation frame interpolated LCDs surpassed plasma in 2007 IMHO, and based upon my preferences.

That was actually a step backwards for Panasonic because they implemented a dynamic contrast circuit which has been rightly criticized on LCD. Kinda funny that they chose one of the most criticized LCD features and added it to plasma, in both cases it was only to enhance the specifications for Web sales.

Except that with the newfound popularity of 120Hz and 240Hz sets, the jury is finally in, and more people like frame interpolation than do not. The biggest group remaining is actually the non-critical viewer who goes for the 60Hz set because the 120/240Hz and frame interpolation makes no difference he's willing to pay for. The minority opinion now is that SOE is a problem not a benefit.

You appear to have lots of obsolete opinions that do not take into account the technological changes in the last two years. LCDs have made advances in motion resolution, contrast ratios, and black levels, while Plasmas are undergoing re-designs in an attempt to keep the technology viable under the new Energy Star 3.0 and California Tier 1 power efficiency standards. In many cases the newer more-power-efficient plasmas offer worse video quality than the older models, and no options to turn off the new power-saving features causing the problems. Spend some time in a local B&M store and get youir opinions re-calibrated with modern sets is my suggestion.

Because the major magazines and webzines are all now in agreement that there is at best a very minor overall quality difference between the two flat panel technologies and lots of room for personal preferences that are perfectly valid. It is fine to have preferences but in the interests of the factual accuracy we struggle to acheive at AVS, you should admit that that is what they are - personal preferences - instead of repeating obsolete criticisms based on older HDTV designs.

Gary, I really was beginning to respect you and your seemingly level headed opinions, a rarity on these boards. After these responses though, it's hard not to question your motivation because what you're saying is incredibly misleading in general and not based primarily on fact. I would like to address all points, same as you did.

To claim that LED based LCDs have better black levels than plasmas is completely misrepresenting the technologies. I must question any opinion given after this because of its unqualified and obvious incorrectness. Having owned the best of both technologies, it is apparent to the discerning viewer that LEDs, and local dimming in particular, is a stop gap measure to improve upon LCD weaknesses that have already been addressed with plasma. Yes, local dimmed LED sets like the 950 from Samsung and the XBR8 from Sony CAN produce a .000 ftL reading, resulting in a completely black screen. Problem is, this ability means little in real world application. In mixed material, or in scenes lacking in light but not completely black, the local dimming is insufficient and LCD technology's weaknesses exposed.

In terms of overall contrast in these scenes, good plasmas (particularly Pioneer's, with their massive REAL contrast numbers) will continually trounce LCDs. That is a fact, verified by professional readings and statistics of many AV publications. Even with relatively advanced (and expensive) application of the tech, LED sets cannont match the dimensionality and depth of a good plasma. If Pioneers can reach .001 ftL, then there is really almost no room for improvement. Even technological showcases like the XBR8 obviously don't dim on a pixel level. Because of the limits of the tech, and a small number of dimming zones, likely dictated by financial concerns, LED LCDs cannot attain Kuro quality blacks and produce as three dimensional a picture. Full black screen advantage aside (we're only considering actual performance here), LCD manufacturers can't possibly hope to compete because Pioneer, and hopefully soon, Panasonic too will have essentially achieved what is comparable to what I would nearly expect local dimming to look like on the pixel by pixel level.

After spending extensive amounts of time comparing local dimmed sets to top plasmas with the most demanding material, I simply can't believe that you either are ignorant of these performance inconsistencies or are intentionally misleading people. There really is no contest.

LEDs, and more importantly, local dimming, is trying to compensate for shortcomings that are characteristic of the tech.

As for the other stuff, viewing angles, motion, color saturation, I believe that the majority of the more educated members here on AVS, and the professional AV community in general, would agree that plasmas dominate almost all these areas.

The only lcds that can compete in motion resolution are local dimmed sets that also have 120, and soon, 240hz refresh rates (240 may be out already, but hasn't been combined effectively with local dimming yet to my knowledge). With the combined benefits of motion enhancers and the flicker introduced by tech like LED motion plus, yes, tvs like the 950 and XBR8 can achieve near perfect motion resolution. But that is not representative of the general consensus and the reality of the situation. In general, plasmas measure high motion resolution more akin to a good CRT. Certainly, there are exceptions. At the top, the two technologies are essentially deadlocked. However, you have to consider that this is with TWO new introductions from major lcd manufacturers that have only recently closed the gap. These functions must be ON or the lcds drop to normal, blurry levels. So overall, it would be almost ridiculous to claim that LCD has surpassed plasma in this regard.

When you say that color saturation can produce a problem in color accuracy for plasmas, unless that plasma is an "uber expensive Pioneer", I just couldn't really take that seriously. When you're asserting that lcds have met or surpassed plasma in many regards, yet the only LCDs that have supposedly been able to do this are MORE expensive than equivilent "uber expensive Pioneers", any statement following can't hold much weight for me. Panasonics, which perform better anyway, are much less expensive than local dimmed sets from Samsung and Sony just for your information.

I would specifically like to consider the below statement

"You appear to have lots of obsolete opinions that do not take into account the technological changes in the last two years. LCDs have made advances in motion resolution, contrast ratios, and black levels, while Plasmas are undergoing re-designs in an attempt to keep the technology viable under the new Energy Star 3.0 and California Tier 1 power efficiency standards."

You might appear to have obsolete opinions, if we really consider what the reality actually is. Yes, lcds have made strides in these areas, but at what cost? It definetely seems a high one (literally). Samsung and Sony have both been able to produce LED local dimmed sets that account for many of traditional lcd flaws, and that is a commendable achievement. It has been expensive though, and these impressive sets still fall short of the performance offered by better, more mature plasmas.

If the best criticism one can muster against plasma is that it might struggle to meet efficiency standards [potentially] put in place by the greenest, possibly most progressive state in the country, well...

If you're on AVS, you're probably primarily concerned with PQ. Power efficiency, while important, isn't even remotely of the same importance as performance. If it is, we're not having the same conversation anymore and we should probably stop conversing.

"In many cases the newer more-power-efficient plasmas offer worse video quality than the older models, and no options to turn off the new power-saving features causing the problems."

Are these "many cases" the Panasonics in particular? If that is the case, I think it's pretty well documented that the NeoPDPs are superior in almost every regard to the previous generation. Black level is lowered, light output is increased, and overall PQ is a step forward. If they have implemented more aggresive automatic dimming features, it hasn't affected professional reviewers and respected AVSers, who are nearly universal with praise for the new Panny lineup.

ABL is a reality. If you want to criticize it, be my guest. I won't deny that plasmas have limitations. It's just that I, and most of the AV community, don't regard this as a significant weakness comparable to LCD viewing angles, flashlighting ,etc...

If this sounded like a personal attack, that wasn't intended. As a member of AVS, I feel some responsibility to present what I feel is the most accurate and true info. Gary, you seem like a pretty unbiased guy, at least compared to most of the fanboys on the interwebz, but I just thought a counter argument was needed here. You don't have to believe me, but I am not a plasma or Kuro disciple. I've owned, and been satisfied with, many lcds (mostly from Samsung) and only want the best PQ. I honestly have no agenda other than finding, and telling others about, the best display technology.

xrox

04-21-09, 03:38 PM

now lcds with active LED baclight such as samsung 950 etc and XBR8 can show a black level of 0.0cd/m2. No they cannot. It is currently impossible for an LCD to create a black level of 0 unless the entire backlight is turned off. Only OLED and ECC PDP are technically capable of this. Not even SED can do it :(

aim120

04-21-09, 04:22 PM

No they cannot. It is currently impossible for an LCD to create a black level of 0 unless the entire backlight is turned off. Only OLED and ECC PDP are technically capable of this. Not even SED can do it :(

well they can achieve 0.0 blackness,thats why we have local dimming LED ,they don't have to turn off the entire backlight to do this.

xrox

04-21-09, 04:28 PM

well they can achieve 0.0 blackness,thats why we have local dimming LED ,they don't have to turn off the entire backlight to do this.That is a misconception. In between the LED backlight and the LCD panel is a diffuser plate that spreads light out laterally in all directions. This makes it impossible for the black level to reach zero unless the entire LED array is off.

sharpbandaid

04-21-09, 04:48 PM

Plasma has noisy picture. Go with LED if you watch Blu-rays.

st0nedpenguin

04-21-09, 05:05 PM

sharpbandaid

04-21-09, 05:19 PM

I'm no expert so I could be wrong here, but aren't half of the evil, PQ destroying energy saving features implemented in the new Panasonics just limits applied to the standard picture profile, meaning you can disable most of them in about 5s?

You can't disable the built in brightness limiter. Hopefully next year's models will be bright enough.

aim120

04-21-09, 05:22 PM

To claim that LED based LCDs have better black levels than plasmas is completely misrepresenting the technologies. I must question any opinion given after this because of its unqualified and obvious incorrectness. Having owned the best of both technologies, it is apparent to the discerning viewer that LEDs, and local dimming in particular, is a stop gap measure to improve upon LCD weaknesses that have already been addressed with plasma. Yes, local dimmed LED sets like the 950 from Samsung and the XBR8 from Sony CAN produce a .000 ftL reading, resulting in a completely black screen. Problem is, this ability means little in real world application. In mixed material, or in scenes lacking in light but not completely black, the local dimming is insufficient and LCD technology's weaknesses exposed.
on the whole plasma tvs of today cannot achieve 0.0cd/m2,lcd is a different technology,it needs a backlight to show us the image.whether it achieved 0.0 cd/m2 of black by the lcd pixels completly blocking or by playing with backlight,who cares it shows true blacks,and even if u take a look at conventional lcds with CCFL their blacks are as good as the latest plasmas,may not be as good as the pioneer kuro,but we know how much lcds have improved compared to even last year lcd ,it will surely surpass the plasma even with conventianal CCFL backlight or NON local dimming LEDs and againg local dimming led backlight will also be improved quite a lot.

In terms of overall contrast in these scenes, good plasmas (particularly Pioneer's, with their massive REAL contrast numbers) will continually trounce LCDs. That is a fact, verified by professional readings and statistics of many AV publications. Even with relatively advanced (and expensive) application of the tech, LED sets cannont match the dimensionality and depth of a good plasma. If Pioneers can reach .001 ftL, then there is really almost no room for improvement. Even technological showcases like the XBR8 obviously don't dim on a pixel level. Because of the limits of the tech, and a small number of dimming zones, likely dictated by financial concerns, LED LCDs cannot attain Kuro quality blacks and produce as three dimensional a picture. Full black screen advantage aside (we're only considering actual performance here), LCD manufacturers can't possibly hope to compete because Pioneer, and hopefully soon, Panasonic too will have essentially achieved what is comparable to what I would nearly expect local dimming to look like on the pixel by pixel level.
lcd with conventional CCFL backlight can match the contrast of pioneer kuro,if not atleast they can match and sometimes exceed other plasma from panasonic and samsung.and if u want the link to the review i can gladly give it.

After spending extensive amounts of time comparing local dimmed sets to top plasmas with the most demanding material, I simply can't believe that you either are ignorant of these performance inconsistencies or are intentionally misleading people. There really is no contest.
well they same can be said about plasma shortfalls,u may consider the shorfalls of lcds a significant factor for u to prefer a plasma,but there are plenty, infact majority of the people who prefer lcds.

LEDs, and more importantly, local dimming, is trying to compensate for shortcomings that are characteristic of the tech.
is there a rule that manufactures should follow,they can alwaus use different methods to achive the same result,and BTW LEDs are the future,in 10years every light that would be in a car or any other lighting will mostly be a LED.

As for the other stuff, viewing angles, motion, color saturation, I believe that the majority of the more educated members here on AVS, and the professional AV community in general, would agree that plasmas dominate almost all these areas.
well viewing angle of plasmas are indeed superior,but with current flat panel sizes i dont thing it will make any difference for the majority,since only after a certain angle will we see some contrast shift in lcds which is around 45degree from centre for a spva/amva based conventional backlight,and 40 degree for a local dimming LED backlight,and about 60 to 65 degree for a IPS based lcd,at those angles people won't even feel like watching be it crt ,plasma or a lcd.
And about motion resolution well majority can't see the difference in todays lcds like 120hz ,( many plasmas )with about 600lines of motion resolution and lcds with 240hz or some high end plasma that show full resolution.only man made devices can spot the difference,which is also said in many professional reviews.

The only lcds that can compete in motion resolution are local dimmed sets that also have 120, and soon, 240hz refresh rates (240 may be out already, but hasn't been combined effectively with local dimming yet to my knowledge). With the combined benefits of motion enhancers and the flicker introduced by tech like LED motion plus, yes, tvs like the 950 and XBR8 can achieve near perfect motion resolution. But that is not representative of the general consensus and the reality of the situation. In general, plasmas measure high motion resolution more akin to a good CRT. Certainly, there are exceptions. At the top, the two technologies are essentially deadlocked. .
well again not all plasma have an edge over lcds and vice versa,but then u must remember there are a vast majority who prefer the way lcds show the image and various other factors who dont mind paying for those ubber expensive tvs.well

However, you have to consider that this is with TWO new introductions from major lcd manufacturers that have only recently closed the gap. These functions must be ON or the lcds drop to normal, blurry levels. So overall, it would be almost ridiculous to claim that LCD has surpassed plasma in this regard
well again not all plasma out there have achieved full motion resolution and isnt that good that lcds manufacture gave the user the option to switch it on and off.

You might appear to have obsolete opinions, if we really consider what the reality actually is. Yes, lcds have made strides in these areas, but at what cost? It definetely seems a high one (literally). Samsung and Sony have both been able to produce LED local dimmed sets that account for many of traditional lcd flaws, and that is a commendable achievement. It has been expensive though, and these impressive sets still fall short of the performance offered by better, more mature plasmas.
well even lcds with conventional CCFL backlight have improved a lot in enerfy efficiency like the sony WE5 series which has a HECCFL or highly efficient CCFL.

ABL is a reality. If you want to criticize it, be my guest. I won't deny that plasmas have limitations. It's just that I, and most of the AV community, don't regard this as a significant weakness comparable to LCD viewing angles, flashlighting ,etc...
well thats agan there are also equal or majority of the AV community that don't regard viewing angles,etc as a significant weakness compared to the weakness of plasma,all these are subjective.

If this sounded like a personal attack, that wasn't intended. As a member of AVS, I feel some responsibility to present what I feel is the most accurate and true info.
same way this again is not a personal attack,but i feel it has a constructive discussion.:)
both tech have their strengths and weakness,so u have to choose whats best for U.

aim120

04-21-09, 05:27 PM

That is a misconception. In between the LED backlight and the LCD panel is a diffuser plate that spreads light out laterally in all directions. This makes it impossible for the black level to reach zero unless the entire LED array is off.

well yes but i havent seen any reviews of my knowledge that critize it,or they may have used a newer form of LEDs with built in diffusers.

brentsg

04-21-09, 05:47 PM

well yes but i havent seen any reviews of my knowledge that critize it,or they may have used a newer form of LEDs with built in diffusers.

The discussion is about technology, not the reviews that you read. If you wish to continue to cite professional reviews please do so with examples and not vague references.

As it is now, you are telling us what someone else said... without telling who the someone was, or what they actually said... just that whoever they are supports your opinion.

Troy Jollimore

04-21-09, 05:59 PM

This...is funny. Wasn't the whole point the OP asked was to get guidance in a very simplistic form? Like me, I think he just wants to watch TV with a good picture! When I want to argue or examine specs, I'll stick with computers. I don't want that in a TV, and neither do a lot of people. Just give us something with a REALLY good picture, that works.

Mine you, this is coming from someone with a Toshiba 34" wide direct-view CRT, bought in '02 because, "There's no way flat-panel tech will drop to the price level that CRTs took 25 years to reach in less than 5 years..." ;)

brentsg

04-21-09, 06:19 PM

This...is funny. Wasn't the whole point the OP asked was to get guidance in a very simplistic form? Like me, I think he just wants to watch TV with a good picture! When I want to argue or examine specs, I'll stick with computers.

Of course this is the AV Science forum... So specs and detail are to be expected here when people discuss displays. I'm the reverse, I could now care less about PC specs and related arguments. Of course I won't be having my PC discussions at www.xtremesystems.org .

xrox

04-21-09, 07:29 PM

on the whole plasma tvs of today cannot achieve 0.0cd/m2,lcd is a different technology,it needs a backlight to show us the image. The technology exists but is not on the market as of yet.

whether it achieved 0.0 cd/m2 of black by the lcd pixels completly blocking or by playing with backlightAgain, this is impossible with current LCD technology (local dimming or not).

sharpbandaid

04-21-09, 07:53 PM

That is a misconception. In between the LED backlight and the LCD panel is a diffuser plate that spreads light out laterally in all directions. This makes it impossible for the black level to reach zero unless the entire LED array is off.

You can use led optimized diffusers. The black level will be so low that you couldn't tell the difference. True 0cd/m2 blacks are almost impossibility anyway in a real world situation regardless of technology. Plasmas suffer the most when put in a real room.

tbird8450

04-21-09, 07:58 PM

True 0cd/m2 blacks are almost impossibility anyway in a real world situation regardless of technology.

Except that it already exists. Pioneer's ECC panel had true 0 blacks. Someone else will almost certainly match it now that Pioneer's out of the industry, but when that'll actually happen is anyone's guess.

borf

04-21-09, 08:15 PM

pioneer smooth mode isn't interpolation from what i read. geez louise there's a big difference.

tbird8450

04-21-09, 08:52 PM

It is, but it's not as hardcore as say, AMP cranked up to the max. It's more of an AMP-on-low effect.

xrox

04-21-09, 08:53 PM

You can use led optimized diffusers. The black level will be so low that you couldn't tell the difference. True 0cd/m2 blacks are almost impossibility anyway in a real world situation regardless of technology. Plasmas suffer the most when put in a real room.What is a "LED optimized diffuser"?

borf

04-21-09, 09:38 PM

where did you hear that. i read 3:3, not interpolation.

tbird8450

04-21-09, 09:52 PM

Advanced will do 3:3. Smooth engages frame interpolation.

From a quick Google search:

PureCinema parameters:

Off - deactivates PureCinema
Standard - only works with 480i and 1080i sources, de-interlaces

Smooth - produces smoother moving images by frame interpolation

Advance - activates 72 Hz refresh rate for 3:3 pull-down of 24 fps source material for smoother moving images

StinDaWg

04-21-09, 10:15 PM

I threw a fit? Your the ass that walked into the picture, calling me an IDIOT for buying the LED, my wife was giddy, you bitched! And saying I should have bought a 50+ inch tv to do the job that this 40" LED does. And a 50+ inch set hung on my small bedroom wall would have sent my wife through the roof!

I may not like it, but my wife does, and it works for the job intended. It is still hanging on the wall, flush mounted, by a string, the main reason I bought it. This is not my main tv, as I have a 46" Sony KDL46V3000 that handles that job just fine in my living room, and a new 2009 Samsung plasma 58B560 that I just hung in my family room for movies and football.

I may bitch about the literal headaches that this new Samsung LED gives me, but I am not about to take it back, 2 grand or not. Because no one currently makes a 40", 1 inch thick television, that I can hang on a wall by a thread THAT MY WIFE LOVES.

In regards to all of the technical aspects of 60, 120 or 600hz, I ain't got a f'n clue. I just know what looks good to my eyes. My Sammy 600hz, 1080p plasma shines, the best tv I own right now. My Sony 60hz 1080p LCD is awesome, love this set. My 40" Samsung LED fits the bill and makes my wife happy, and I have yet to walk into it on my way to the bathroom at 3am. My 22" Toshiba 720p in my bathroom rocks and the 27" Samsung 720p in my truck with DirecTV works like a charm. And then there is the Sony 52" XBR2, which I need to sell, or hang in my office or guest room... What to do?

Hmmmmmmmm..........

And then that damn 22" LG 720p in my kitchen, forgot that one.

I never called you an idiot. You said the ONLY reason you bought the lcd was because it's 1" thin. I offered a suggestion that if you waited a few weeks you could have got a 50" plasma with the same slim profile of the 40" lcd for the same price. If your wife "loves" the lcd I don't know why she wouldn't "love" the larger set with better picture quality that you wouldn't have had to spent an extra penny on. The 50" isn't even that big. It's not like we are talking a 65" in the bedroom.

paule123

04-21-09, 11:26 PM

Stindawg, it's not good form to argue with a man about how many inches are needed in his bedroom. :D

(sorry I couldn't resist...)

chadmak09

04-21-09, 11:46 PM

Gary, I really was beginning to respect you and your seemingly level headed opinions, a rarity on these boards. After these responses though, it's hard not to question your motivation because what you're saying is incredibly misleading in general and not based primarily on fact. I would like to address all points, same as you did.

To claim that LED based LCDs have better black levels than plasmas is completely misrepresenting the technologies. I must question any opinion given after this because of its unqualified and obvious incorrectness. Having owned the best of both technologies, it is apparent to the discerning viewer that LEDs, and local dimming in particular, is a stop gap measure to improve upon LCD weaknesses that have already been addressed with plasma. Yes, local dimmed LED sets like the 950 from Samsung and the XBR8 from Sony CAN produce a .000 ftL reading, resulting in a completely black screen. Problem is, this ability means little in real world application. In mixed material, or in scenes lacking in light but not completely black, the local dimming is insufficient and LCD technology's weaknesses exposed.

In terms of overall contrast in these scenes, good plasmas (particularly Pioneer's, with their massive REAL contrast numbers) will continually trounce LCDs. That is a fact, verified by professional readings and statistics of many AV publications. Even with relatively advanced (and expensive) application of the tech, LED sets cannont match the dimensionality and depth of a good plasma. If Pioneers can reach .001 ftL, then there is really almost no room for improvement. Even technological showcases like the XBR8 obviously don't dim on a pixel level. Because of the limits of the tech, and a small number of dimming zones, likely dictated by financial concerns, LED LCDs cannot attain Kuro quality blacks and produce as three dimensional a picture. Full black screen advantage aside (we're only considering actual performance here), LCD manufacturers can't possibly hope to compete because Pioneer, and hopefully soon, Panasonic too will have essentially achieved what is comparable to what I would nearly expect local dimming to look like on the pixel by pixel level.

After spending extensive amounts of time comparing local dimmed sets to top plasmas with the most demanding material, I simply can't believe that you either are ignorant of these performance inconsistencies or are intentionally misleading people. There really is no contest.

LEDs, and more importantly, local dimming, is trying to compensate for shortcomings that are characteristic of the tech.

As for the other stuff, viewing angles, motion, color saturation, I believe that the majority of the more educated members here on AVS, and the professional AV community in general, would agree that plasmas dominate almost all these areas.

The only lcds that can compete in motion resolution are local dimmed sets that also have 120, and soon, 240hz refresh rates (240 may be out already, but hasn't been combined effectively with local dimming yet to my knowledge). With the combined benefits of motion enhancers and the flicker introduced by tech like LED motion plus, yes, tvs like the 950 and XBR8 can achieve near perfect motion resolution. But that is not representative of the general consensus and the reality of the situation. In general, plasmas measure high motion resolution more akin to a good CRT. Certainly, there are exceptions. At the top, the two technologies are essentially deadlocked. However, you have to consider that this is with TWO new introductions from major lcd manufacturers that have only recently closed the gap. These functions must be ON or the lcds drop to normal, blurry levels. So overall, it would be almost ridiculous to claim that LCD has surpassed plasma in this regard.

When you say that color saturation can produce a problem in color accuracy for plasmas, unless that plasma is an "uber expensive Pioneer", I just couldn't really take that seriously. When you're asserting that lcds have met or surpassed plasma in many regards, yet the only LCDs that have supposedly been able to do this are MORE expensive than equivilent "uber expensive Pioneers", any statement following can't hold much weight for me. Panasonics, which perform better anyway, are much less expensive than local dimmed sets from Samsung and Sony just for your information.

I would specifically like to consider the below statement

"You appear to have lots of obsolete opinions that do not take into account the technological changes in the last two years. LCDs have made advances in motion resolution, contrast ratios, and black levels, while Plasmas are undergoing re-designs in an attempt to keep the technology viable under the new Energy Star 3.0 and California Tier 1 power efficiency standards."

You might appear to have obsolete opinions, if we really consider what the reality actually is. Yes, lcds have made strides in these areas, but at what cost? It definetely seems a high one (literally). Samsung and Sony have both been able to produce LED local dimmed sets that account for many of traditional lcd flaws, and that is a commendable achievement. It has been expensive though, and these impressive sets still fall short of the performance offered by better, more mature plasmas.

If the best criticism one can muster against plasma is that it might struggle to meet efficiency standards [potentially] put in place by the greenest, possibly most progressive state in the country, well...

If you're on AVS, you're probably primarily concerned with PQ. Power efficiency, while important, isn't even remotely of the same importance as performance. If it is, we're not having the same conversation anymore and we should probably stop conversing.

"In many cases the newer more-power-efficient plasmas offer worse video quality than the older models, and no options to turn off the new power-saving features causing the problems."

Are these "many cases" the Panasonics in particular? If that is the case, I think it's pretty well documented that the NeoPDPs are superior in almost every regard to the previous generation. Black level is lowered, light output is increased, and overall PQ is a step forward. If they have implemented more aggresive automatic dimming features, it hasn't affected professional reviewers and respected AVSers, who are nearly universal with praise for the new Panny lineup.

ABL is a reality. If you want to criticize it, be my guest. I won't deny that plasmas have limitations. It's just that I, and most of the AV community, don't regard this as a significant weakness comparable to LCD viewing angles, flashlighting ,etc...

If this sounded like a personal attack, that wasn't intended. As a member of AVS, I feel some responsibility to present what I feel is the most accurate and true info. Gary, you seem like a pretty unbiased guy, at least compared to most of the fanboys on the interwebz, but I just thought a counter argument was needed here. You don't have to believe me, but I am not a plasma or Kuro disciple. I've owned, and been satisfied with, many lcds (mostly from Samsung) and only want the best PQ. I honestly have no agenda other than finding, and telling others about, the best display technology.

+1
Man, What a good post.
right on target!

chadmak09

04-21-09, 11:57 PM

.frame interpolation, which I consider the main enhancement to Home Theater in the last 10 years.
.

Are you being serious with this statement or was it meant to be a joke?

I certainly hope the ladder.

this has to be a joke.

ll Viper ll

04-22-09, 02:22 AM

^Just thought I'd post something else that I found amusing.

"on the whole plasma tvs of today cannot achieve 0.0cd/m2,lcd is a different technology,it needs a backlight to show us the image.whether it achieved 0.0 cd/m2 of black by the lcd pixels completly blocking or by playing with backlight,who cares it shows true blacks,and even if u take a look at conventional lcds with CCFL their blacks are as good as the latest plasmas,may not be as good as the pioneer kuro,but we know how much lcds have improved compared to even last year lcd ,it will surely surpass the plasma even with conventianal CCFL backlight or NON local dimming LEDs and againg local dimming led backlight will also be improved quite a lot."

Conventional lcds that use CCFL backlights do not produce blacks as good as the latest plasmas, if we're refering to models on the higher end. The best non LED based LCDs like the Samsung 650/750/850 and Sony XBR 6/7 cannot achieve black levels as deep as the most current Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas. Samsung appears to be an exception, in that their best lcds (even non LED) have directly comparable black level performance to the company's plasmas.

I can say will almost absolute certainty that conventional lcds will not surpass plasmas in black level performance (isolated cases excluded).

"lcd with conventional CCFL backlight can match the contrast of pioneer kuro,if not atleast they can match and sometimes exceed other plasma from panasonic and samsung.and if u want the link to the review i can gladly give it."

This really made me smile:)

What CCFL backlit lcd can match the contrast of ANY pioneer kuro? Properly set up or not, this isn't true at all. You might be able to provide some evidence to back up the second half of that statement, but there aren't any credible reviews that will cite a conventional lcd as having a higher ACCURATELY measured contrast ratio than a 8g or 9g kuro. Am I crazy to think that there is a lot of misinformation floating around?

aim120

04-22-09, 02:41 AM

The technology exists but is not on the market as of yet.

Again, this is impossible with current LCD technology (local dimming or not).

so are u saying all those reviews out there are wrong :eek:,they have faulty instruments which shows 0.0 cd/m2 of blackness.

Jack White

04-22-09, 03:00 AM

aim120

04-22-09, 03:21 AM

Conventional lcds that use CCFL backlights do not produce blacks as good as the latest plasmas, if we're refering to models on the higher end. The best non LED based LCDs like the Samsung 650/750/850 and Sony XBR 6/7 cannot achieve black levels as deep as the most current Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas. Samsung appears to be an exception, in that their best lcds (even non LED) have directly comparable black level performance to the company's plasmas.
well the calibertated black level of samsung 650 is 0.04cd/m2 the calibertated black level of panasonic G10 neo PDP plasmas are 0.03cd/m2.now that close,but again not all plasma out there can give those deep blacks, take a look at samsung and lg plasmas and some panasonic plasmas.so depending on the company and model it varies. the below links are of last year plasmas and lcds .sony lcd http://www.digitalversus.com/article-364-3427-60.panasonic HD plasma html ,http://www.digitalversus.com/article-364-3661-16.html ,panasonic FHD plasma http://www.digitalversus.com/article-364-4236-60.html

"lcd with conventional CCFL backlight can match the contrast of pioneer kuro,if not atleast they can match and sometimes exceed other plasma from panasonic and samsung.and if u want the link to the review i can gladly give it."

This really made me smile:)

What CCFL backlit lcd can match the contrast of ANY pioneer kuro? Properly set up or not, this isn't true at all. You might be able to provide some evidence to back up the second half of that statement, but there aren't any credible reviews that will cite a conventional lcd as having a higher ACCURATELY measured contrast ratio than a 8g or 9g kuro. Am I crazy to think that there is a lot of misinformation floating around?

i admit i forget to add "almost" match the pioneer kuro,and yes they do match the contrast of plasma from panasonic ,samsung.check out above links and to some more here samsung lcds http://www.digitalversus.com/article-364-3780-36.html ,samsung plasmas http://www.digitalversus.com/article-460-4385-36.html, and offcourse the pioneer plasma http://www.digitalversus.com/article-460-2967-102.html

aim120

04-22-09, 03:27 AM

Unless they have 4 leds for EACH pixel(1 red, one blue, and 2 green), LED LCDs will never match a good plasma like a Pioneer Kuro Elite or even a V Series or Z Series Panasonic Plasma. The other HUGE problem that LEDs can't overcome is LCDs SNAIL SPEED response time. CRTs have NANOSECONDS Respose Times, Plasmas have MICROSECOND response times, and LCDs have lowly millisecond response times. It's like on the Simpsons, you had a 100m race between Usain Bolt, Kobe Bryant, and Grandpa Simpson, and Grandpa Simpson was the LCD.

what makes u say that they will NEVER match a plasma,lcds with LED have just started.and black levels of conventional backlight LCD already are as good as plasmas may not be as good as pioneer kuro,but they are getting there.

sharpbandaid

04-22-09, 04:02 AM

Except that it already exists. Pioneer's ECC panel had true 0 blacks. Someone else will almost certainly match it now that Pioneer's out of the industry, but when that'll actually happen is anyone's guess.

As soon as reflections hit PDP surface, 0 blacks are gone. Plus you have to deal with phosphor decay etc issues, so even in a perfect room you should have some glow in the pic after displaying pics for a while.

What is a "LED optimized diffuser"?

A diffuser that is used to minimize crosstalk between zones. It was mentioned in LG presentation slides.

tbird8450

04-22-09, 06:27 AM

As soon as reflections hit PDP surface, 0 blacks are gone.

Given how your eyes function, not necessarily. You would be able to discern zero blacks from complete darkness up to a moderate amount of ambient light.

so are u saying all those reviews out there are wrong ,they have faulty instruments which shows 0.0 cd/m2 of blackness.

Only when the LED backlighting is entirely turned off. You could turn off a plasma and measure 0.0 also. Neither scenerio is going to help you if you're actually using your display to, you know, display images.

sharpbandaid

04-22-09, 06:41 AM

Given how your eyes function, not necessarily. You would be able to discern zero blacks from complete darkness up to a moderate amount of ambient light.

Technically this wouldn't be zero black.

tbird8450

04-22-09, 06:52 AM

Nope, but if your eyes perceive it that way, what's the difference? I don't sit and watch TV with a light meter.

The improvement needed is in the area from total darkness to dim lighting. There is a clear glow as discerned by my eyes under those conditions.

sharpbandaid

04-22-09, 07:05 AM

Nope, but if your eyes perceive it that way, what's the difference? I don't sit and watch TV with a light meter.

Yes, there's no real difference. The whole dark room measured black level thing is overrated.

tbird8450

04-22-09, 07:09 AM

Since I frequently watch movies under dim to dark conditions, it's not overrated to me.

chadmak09

04-22-09, 07:13 AM

As soon as reflections hit PDP surface, 0 blacks are gone. Plus you have to deal with phosphor decay etc issues, so even in a perfect room you should have some glow in the pic after displaying pics for a while..

What is the point of spending large amounts of money on a Flat-panel if your going to be putting it in situations where reflections will be present all of the time?
Even when I had my semi-gloss sony LCD, I stayed away from situations like that because it decreased PQ.
Phosphor decay?
You guys are obsessed with best buy showroom pop, why don't you go to best buy and pick a random 10 people and ask them to point out phosphor trails for you? My guess is that you would get a bunch of blank stares.
.

A diffuser that is used to minimize crosstalk between zones. It was mentioned in LG presentation slides.
My goodness, With all the motion enhansers & Interpolated frames, ridiculously high refresh rates, add-ons like LED backlighting, crosstalk diffusers, etc.etc.etc.,
Why not just buy a Plasma instead of buying a technology that is adding all of these things to mimic Plasma performance?

HiFiFun

04-22-09, 07:45 AM

sharpbandaid

04-22-09, 07:51 AM

My goodness, With all the motion enhansers & Interpolated frames, ridiculously high refresh rates, add-ons like LED backlighting, crosstalk diffusers, etc.etc.etc.,
Why not just buy a Plasma instead of buying a technology that is adding all of these things to mimic Plasma performance?

I don't like the noisy and dim plasma image, that you get especially from Pioneer. I prefer my Blu-rays crystal clear, like director intended.

oldcband

04-22-09, 09:41 AM

A diffuser that is used to minimize crosstalk between zones. It was mentioned in LG presentation slides.
And whats its purpose to eliminate floating blacks, or where you won't notice them?

sharpbandaid

04-22-09, 09:46 AM

What is the point of spending large amounts of money on a Flat-panel if your going to be putting it in situations where reflections will be present all of the time?

Reflections will be preset unless you own a room with nonreflecting surfaces. TV itself is a light source that will kill ansi conrast.

Phosphor decay?

Afterimages that will kill ansi and on/off contrast.

brentsg

04-22-09, 09:50 AM

so are u saying all those reviews out there are wrong :eek:,they have faulty instruments which shows 0.0 cd/m2 of blackness.

Again.... the ability to completely blank the panel to achieve that reading is useless since it cannot do this while displaying any content.

brentsg

04-22-09, 09:57 AM

The Pioneer Kuros only have a good black level in a very dark room. Otherwise you see the screen itself, which is far from black.

And a false statement of your own... Kuro black levels actually yield the most benefit in low, not very dark lighting.

By definition does that make you a fanboy too? Why do people insist in using that label?

greenland

04-22-09, 10:38 AM

Again.... the ability to completely blank the panel to achieve that reading is useless since it cannot do this while displaying any content.

I am always amazed at how many people try to pass off blank panel measurement as being a meaningful comparison.

If that gimmick is what floats their boats, then they can have it on a far less expensive Panasonic NeoPDP "infinite black level panel" plasma. Off course neither the NeoPDP or the BLU LCD units can provide any such black level performances when displaying content.

If would be nice if people stopped with all those partisan distortions. What the hell is their purpose for doing that?

LCD and Plasma are just flat boxes of electronic bits and pieces. They are not favorite sports teams.

Some of the LCD versus Plasma threads would provide a great script for a remake of Sharks versus Jets, in Westside Story.

This time they could be called the Plasmaniacs and the LCDemons.

brentsg

04-22-09, 10:41 AM

I am always amazed at how many people try to pass off blank panel measurement as being a meaningful comparison.

If that gimmick is what floats their boats, then they can have it on a far less expensive Panasonic NeoPDP "infinite black level panel" plasma. Off course neither the NeoPDP or the BLU LCD units can provide any such black level performances when displaying content.

The worst part is that review bit on it and published the 0.0 number. Of course they did turn around and test "movie mode" where I would guess the backlight didn't dynamically dim... and they got a much higher number.

Edit: if they bothered to publish that then I'd consider their reviews dubious at best...

maxdog03

04-22-09, 10:58 AM

Looks like we have another Hatfield and McCoy saga going on in yet another thread as these plasma/ lcd battles have gone beyond ridiculous. :D

aim120

04-22-09, 11:05 AM

The worst part is that review bit on it and published the 0.0 number. Of course they did turn around and test "movie mode" where I would guess the backlight didn't dynamically dim... and they got a much higher number.

Edit: if they bothered to publish that then I'd consider their reviews dubious at best...

well thats test it using a test card if a plasma like neo PDP can show blacks levels of 0.03 lcds like samsung conventional backlight B650 show a black level of 0.04 in the same test after caliberation.

xrox

04-22-09, 11:08 AM

so are u saying all those reviews out there are wrong :eek:,they have faulty instruments which shows 0.0 cd/m2 of blackness.No, they measured the black level of a screen that was off. It is interesting, but not surprising, that reviewers and many smart AVS members still do not understand the dynamic nature of the black level on local dimming sets. The black level is both spatially and temporally floating/shifting.

what makes u say that they will NEVER match a plasma,lcds with LED have just started.and black levels of conventional backlight LCD already are as good as plasmas may not be as good as pioneer kuro,but they are getting there.AFAIK there is no LCD technology (research or market) that can block 100% of the backlight. OLED and PDP are both technically capable of turning selected pixels 100% off during display of content.

As soon as reflections hit PDP surface, 0 blacks are gone.True, but what is the range of ambient light level that this effect becomes an issue to our perception? See the second half of this POST (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16312540#post16312540) for my personal perception. I want the floating in space feel on low APL scenes with bright content. Amazing experience IMO.

A diffuser that is used to minimize crosstalk between zones. It was mentioned in LG presentation slides.I’ve read similar papers on this topic (not LG) and it seems flawed IMO. The edge of the halo will become much too sharp and much more noticeable. Global diffuser is here to stay I’m afraid. This technology may surprise me though.

Plus you have to deal with phosphor decay etc issues, so even in a perfect room you should have some glow in the pic after displaying pics for a while.Phosphorescence intensity greatly depends on emission time and intensity and is quickly transient. When displaying video or film the intensity is nearly invisible in a totally dark room on an off screen. To get strong phosphorescence you need to display a static image at high intensity for several minutes.

Afterimages that will kill ansi and on/off contrast.Irresponsibly poor assumption. Phosphorescence is and will be inconsequential to any contrast measurement (especially ANSI) and inconsequential to our perception of black unless we display a static image for great lengths of time and quickly switch to a black screen.

brentsg

04-22-09, 11:20 AM

well thats test it using a test card if a plasma like neo PDP can show blacks levels of 0.03 lcds like samsung conventional backlight B650 show a black level of 0.04 in the same test after caliberation.

I don't understand this sentence.

sharpbandaid

04-22-09, 11:49 AM

To get strong phosphorescence you need to display a static image at high intensity for several minutes.

High intensity outdoor scene followed by a night scene. The artifact should be visible. I think OLED won't suffer from this.

xrox

04-22-09, 12:02 PM

High intensity outdoor scene followed by a night scene. The artifact should be visible. I think OLED won't suffer from this.On a zero black plasma it may well cause a visual artifact under very specific circumstances but I hope you understand that phosphorescence luminance is a fraction of current Kuro black levels. In the specific case you mention the effect will still be unnoticeable IMO as the bright scene is still not static enough.

To be noticeable there needs to be a sharp visual boundary created with static images only and long emission times. I actually tested this last night inadvertently. Paused my plasma to put the kids to bed and it took much longer than expected (~20min). When I got back I just turned the plasma off and the phosphorescence was very strong and distinct. Even so it was still a fraction of the operating black level.

tbird8450

04-22-09, 01:56 PM

The Pioneer Kuros only have a good black level in a very dark room.

Completely wrong.

I don't like the noisy and dim plasma image, that you get especially from Pioneer.

A perfectly calibrated 55ftL is dim?

And there is no noisy image at my viewing distance of ~7' at all. It's perfectly crystal-clear unless there is noise in the source.

sharpbandaid

04-22-09, 02:05 PM

And there is no noisy image at my viewing distance of ~7' at all. It's perfectly crystal-clear unless there is noise in the source.

The dithering noise is first thing that I notice with Kuros from my viewing distance. Panasonic is much better in this regard.

A perfectly calibrated 55ftL is dim?

I thought Kuros can do ~20ftL full screen white? 20ftL is dim.

ll Viper ll

04-22-09, 02:18 PM

A good post but you are a plasma fanboy. Why? Because the above statement is simply not true.
A major traditional LCD's weakness is a milky black level in a dark room.
With my local dimming 950, I never see any washed out grey - ever. So the local dimming method does indeed work.
The Pioneer Kuros only have a good black level in a very dark room. Otherwise you see the screen itself, which is far from black.

If you want super high rez, true wide angle viewing and expanded color gaument then this (Eye-One calibrated) monitor is just the ticket:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=24-005-115&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=100&SelectedRating=-1&PurchaseMark=&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&Page=1&Keywords=%28keywords%29

To be fair, no one has ever spoke of the Samsung 950 not being able to display cherry-red (even after calibration). The LG shows how lacking it is in this area. :)

Let me first state that I am not a plasma fanboy. I was a staunch supporter of Samsung basically since I got into flat panel tvs. I've owned tons of their lcds, my favorite, and most recent, being the 81F. Now, I have seen the 950 and compared it to my older model. Yes, they have made improvements but the difference between local dimmed lcd and Pioneer Kuro is still too apparent in a dark room to not warrant mentioning.

I think you might want to retract the statement that you've never seen a washed out grey on your 950. Perhaps that depends on your definition of "washed out", but for the purposes of this discussion, I will assume that washed out means anything that is not as black as the deepest black level that your 950 can produce. If you've researched the tech at all, you probably know that there is no local dimmed set on the market that can completely eliminate the effects of blooming/floating blacks. There are limitations of the technology, specifically, that when there is a dark scene being rendered with little light, when the luminance is above complete or nearly complete black, then even quality sets like the 950 are exposed.

In this case, the tv is only able to produce blacks that are no longer of Kuro quality and certainly don't match the .000ftL reading that is delivered on a blank screen.

I will say it again and hope that it sinks in for some people. There is NO replacement for REAL contrast and excellent black levels in REAL program material. The kuro produces an image that has more depth and three dimensionality (not a word I guess but who cares) in these shots because it's not using what I think is sorta like "cheating". LED local dimming can look spectacular, but there are always instances in which I was reminded that it was inconsistent, and in my mind, a little fake.

Also, it is incorrect to say that kuros only have good black level in a dark room. Unless the light in the room is blinding (Best Buy showroom levels), kuros maintain their excellent black levels. In fact, with a small amount of proper ambient lighting, the blacks can lose their "glow' that is characteristic of even the best displays and appear completely black.

tbird8450

04-22-09, 02:27 PM

The dithering noise is first thing that I notice with Kuros from my viewing distance. Panasonic is much better in this regard.

And how were these Kuros set up? Was the sharpness too high? Was Powersave engaged? There are settings that can and will create additional noise/artifacts. When properly adjusted, there should be no discernable noise from a "reasonable" viewing distance unless it's in the source.

I thought Kuros can do ~20ftL full screen white? 20ftL is dim.

I don't know of any plasmas that can output more than 20ftL on a full screen white due to the ABL. But how often do you watch a full white field when the TV's on? The Elites can achieve ~55ftL from a 100 IRE window without clipping, which is about as high as any properly calibrated plasma has measured that I've ever seen.

sharpbandaid

04-22-09, 02:31 PM

I don't know of any plasmas that can output more than 20ftL on a full screen white due to the ABL. But how often do you watch a full white field when the TV's on? The Elites can achieve ~55ftL from a 100 IRE window without clipping, which is about as high as any properly calibrated plasma has measured that I've ever seen.

Calibrated Panasonic TH-65VX100E does 74ftL window and 34ftL full screen. That's more like it.

tbird8450

04-22-09, 02:36 PM

Source?

sharpbandaid

04-22-09, 02:41 PM

Source?

That's the most annoing word on internet forums. Here's link:

VX100 (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avmagazine.it%2Farticoli%2Favprofessional %2F243%2Fpanasonic-th-65vx100e_4.html&sl=auto&tl=en&history_state0=) and Kuro (http://74.125.43.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.avmagazine.it/articoli/televisori/194/pioneer-kuro-pdp-lx5090_4.html&prev=_t&usg=ALkJrhjKAh-chIz-IKUpRpD_TLdPiSNB-g)for comparison.

tbird8450

04-22-09, 02:47 PM

That's the only plasma I've ever seen that can achieve that high on a full field white. "Robust power supply," indeed. Too bad its black level readings are not terribly impressive.

Gary McCoy

04-22-09, 03:33 PM

-snip-
To claim that LED based LCDs have better black levels than plasmas is completely misrepresenting the technologies. I must question any opinion given after this because of its unqualified and obvious incorrectness. Having owned the best of both technologies, it is apparent to the discerning viewer that LEDs, and local dimming in particular, is a stop gap measure to improve upon LCD weaknesses that have already been addressed with plasma. Yes, local dimmed LED sets like the 950 from Samsung and the XBR8 from Sony CAN produce a .000 ftL reading, resulting in a completely black screen. Problem is, this ability means little in real world application. In mixed material, or in scenes lacking in light but not completely black, the local dimming is insufficient and LCD technology's weaknesses exposed.

You used the term "real world application", and then quoted black level figures that can ONLY be acheived in a totally blacked out room where even the test instrumentation is swathed in a special light-absorbing fabric called Duvetyne. This is an important point, so follow allong: In the last two years, both LCDs and plasmas have acheived spectacularly low black level readings. YES plasma is still lower but in the real world the dominant source of light coming off both types of screens is reflected. Whether the reflected light forms a distracting image or simply raises the apparent black level of the screen is a function of how much light from what sources, plus the screen finish (the rougher the surface, the more diffusion and the less reflection).

Sad to say for plasma fans, even in the total darkness of a Home Theater environment, the light from the panel itself, reflected first off room furnishings and then off the screen, is at least two orders of magnitude (more than 100X) greater than the typical on-screen black level. That's why Duvetyne gets used when measuring those testlab-only specs, which are meaningfull only in the spec war driving Web sales. That's why in the real world, the "advantage" that a plasma has with black levels - which as late as two years ago was a meaningfull discussion, doesn't mean much anymore. It never was kosher to compare a $5000 Pioneer Elite to sets costing half as much, and I know I have seen lots of plasmas which visibly had inferior black levels to LCDs in the same store. It's possible some were defective, its probable most were uncalibrated - but it's certain there are cheap plasma panels that niether of us would ever want.

-snip- (the local dimming discussion)

After spending extensive amounts of time comparing local dimmed sets to top plasmas with the most demanding material, I simply can't believe that you either are ignorant of these performance inconsistencies or are intentionally misleading people. There really is no contest.

LEDs, and more importantly, local dimming, is trying to compensate for shortcomings that are characteristic of the tech.

No of course I have not spent an "extensive" amount of time comparing these units side-by-side. I don't think anybody else around here has either. We have three B&M stores remaining afyter the demise of the Good Guys and Circuit City, those are Best Buy (containing Magnolia), Frys Electronics, and Andersens. The first two sell both Panasonic and Samsung but I have NEVER seen a side-by-side comparison in either. What time I have observing these set types is pretty much with different sources and in different ambient lighting. For my tastes, the LCDs offer superior images because the plasmas have the strobing look of film that has bothered me ever since I saw my first film in a theater in 1960. The problem that 120Hz offers the first blessed respite from.

As for the other stuff, viewing angles, motion, color saturation, I believe that the majority of the more educated members here on AVS, and the professional AV community in general, would agree that plasmas dominate almost all these areas.

I would say that you are dead wrong here. That certainly WAS true in the past - but what I see that is typical NOW is that plasma maintains a huge following here at AVS, but when you go to the magazines and webzines and confine your reading to 2009 articles, you will find that most test report sources are using terminology such as "negligible quality differences" and so forth.

Maybe there is some aspect of plasma that appeals to you. However I see within it the same weaknesses and the same image constraints I see with 35mm film. For me there can never again be a quality display that refreshes at 60Hz, and I reached that conclusion in 2003 when I got my present digital front projector and developed the macro files to switch it between 72Hz and 60Hz to match the source material. That was after I finally found decent reverse telecine software, of course.

-snip- (the local dimming discussion)
When you say that color saturation can produce a problem in color accuracy for plasmas, unless that plasma is an "uber expensive Pioneer", I just couldn't really take that seriously. When you're asserting that lcds have met or surpassed plasma in many regards, yet the only LCDs that have supposedly been able to do this are MORE expensive than equivilent "uber expensive Pioneers", any statement following can't hold much weight for me. Panasonics, which perform better anyway, are much less expensive than local dimmed sets from Samsung and Sony just for your information.

What I meant by that was there was a single model of a single brand (Pioneer Elite) which was tweeked at the factory better than almost any other plasma or LCD on th market, with little remaining video improvement from a full ISF calibration - just the normal white level setting that matches the display to the ambient lighting. Now I understand that Panasonic has a THX-certified display earning even better kudoes than the lesser Pioneers. I have even briefly seen it - but it did NOT offer a usable display of a 24Hz source at 48Hz, it flickered pretty bad.

-snip- (the rest of your message)

I need to communicate to you that having owned and lived with a 120Hz Samsung for 16 months now, and having literally introduced several dozen people to HD viewing on it, that 120Hz and Frame Interpolation are major market features now. It remains true that here is AVS there is a group ready to run screaming from the room saying words to the effect "OMG, it doesn't look like film!". I understand that, even if my opinion is the difference from the look of film is the whole reason I bought this set, because it provided blessed relief from acute quality problems inherent in the way we displayed film source on CRT, plasma, and LCD screens.

I really wish that there were plasmas that offered higher refresh rates like 120Hz. I might be able to give them a bit more cred as serious video displays if that was the case, instead of being unable to overcome the perception of the inherent flaws when I watch them.

Now for the market forces at work. Pioneer is out of the plasma business, and there are a scant few sets left in distribution. The largest volume retailer of plasmas (Vizio) is also getting out of the plasma business. I am sure that this plasma technology will maintain it's popularity, but it's not gaining market share or volume sales anytime soon.

tbird8450

04-22-09, 03:41 PM

That's why Duvetyne gets used when measuring those testlab-only specs, which are meaningfull only in the spec war driving Web sales.

Those who have used light meters in their own meager livingrooms have measured .001 black levels from Pioneer displays. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that their walls are not lined with Duvetyne.

What I meant by that was there was a single model of a single brand (Pioneer Elite) which was tweeked at the factory better than almost any other plasma or LCD on th market, with little remaining video improvement from a full ISF calibration - just the normal white level setting that matches the display to the ambient lighting.

This is simply incorrect. There are many aspects of the display that require adjustment to bring it inline with Rec. 709.

aim120

04-22-09, 04:31 PM

No, they measured the black level of a screen that was off. It is interesting, but not surprising, that reviewers and many smart AVS members still do not understand the dynamic nature of the black level on local dimming sets. The black level is both spatially and temporally floating/shifting.
well like i said before they use a test card such that the image has both blacks and white and i am taking about the ANSI contrast,both plasma and lcds were tested the same way.

AFAIK there is no LCD technology (research or market) that can block 100% of the backlight. OLED and PDP are both technically capable of turning selected pixels 100% off during display of content.
well is there a rule that says a display pixel should turn 100% OFF or ON,first of all lcd tech is different from plasma and other tech,it needs a backlight to show us those images,now because of that it can adapt and use the backlight more creatively which i am sure plasma fans dont like because that few edges that plasma had is dimminished.well the fact is LED backlight lcds will be the norm.

I don't understand this sentence.
well what i meant was given the same test conditions with a image that has both blacks and whites in same image,lcds such as samsung B650 which has a normal CCFL backlight shows a black level of 0.04 cd/m2 and NEO PDP plasmas from panasonic like G10 shows a black level of 0.03 cd/m2

st0nedpenguin

04-22-09, 04:39 PM

I don't like the noisy and dim plasma image, that you get especially from Pioneer. I prefer my Blu-rays crystal clear, like director intended.

I can't help but wonder how much of the "noise" that people complain about is actually just film grain? Something that the aforementioned director most likely intended to be there all along, even going so far as to add it to digitally shot sequences/VFX scenes.

sharpbandaid

04-22-09, 04:53 PM

Gary McCoy

04-22-09, 05:23 PM

I can't help but wonder how much of the "noise" that people complain about is actually just film grain? Something that the aforementioned director most likely intended to be there all along, even going so far as to add it to digitally shot sequences/VFX scenes.

That's certainly part of it. Another problem is multiple resolution scalings. A Blu-Ray will have at least one scaling when the Digital Cinema 2K resolution is scaled to approximately 1920X810 (for 2.35:1 ARs) or 1920X1080 for the 16:9 ARs. But if Digital SFX were used, there might be two more resolution scalings. Then if the display is 720p, the Blu-Ray output itself gets scaled in the HDTV.

These resolution scalings each generate a certain amount of scaling artifacts. It amuses me how many times I see a Blu-Ray criticised for "excessive edge enhancement" when in fact I do not know of a single case where EE was actually used on HD media (although it was common on conventional DVDs at one time). The scaling artifacts do greatly resemble EE especially on high-contrast areas where halos can be seen, but if you know what to look for, you can see the difference.

chadmak09

04-22-09, 05:51 PM

I don't like the noisy and dim plasma image, that you get especially from Pioneer. I prefer my Blu-rays crystal clear, like director intended.

noisy and dim?
You obviously don't speak from experience.
Keep listen to the geek squad guys if you like, whatever makes you happy.

HiFiFun

04-22-09, 07:49 PM

Now, I have seen the 950 and compared it to my older model. Yes, they have made improvements but the difference between local dimmed lcd and Pioneer Kuro is still too apparent in a dark room to not warrant mentioning.

I think you might want to retract the statement that you've never seen a washed out grey on your 950. Perhaps that depends on your definition of "washed out", but for the purposes of this discussion.
The 950 must be calibrated so that the LED's turn completely off when fed a 0-2 IRE level signal. Cnet and Home Theater were clueless when they tested defective displays (or were lazy truth-be-known).

Here is from the British mag Home Cinema Choice:
After calibration
Colour temperature: 6,498K (user)
RGB: 100/100/100 Luminance: 79.19fL
Contrast ratio: 220,742:1

Note too the European Models are missing some important performance features we enjoy in the USA.

ll Viper ll

04-22-09, 08:21 PM

The 950 must be calibrated so that the LED's turn completely off when fed a 0-2 IRE level signal. Cnet and Home Theater were clueless when they tested defective displays (or were lazy truth-be-known).

Here is from the British mag Home Cinema Choice:
After calibration
Colour temperature: 6,498K (user)
RGB: 100/100/100 Luminance: 79.19fL
Contrast ratio: 220,742:1

Note too the European Models are missing some important performance features we enjoy in the USA.

You must have misunderstood what I was saying. I am not doubting that the 950 could, and should, produce a completely black screen with a signal of that level. In fact, my old 81F would fade completely to black when this was the case. Nor am I saying that Cnet or Home Theater are bullet proof, faultless organizations. What I am talking about are grayish blacks that only appear in certain scenes. When comparing my old 81F to the Kuro, I found that it did not maintain those deep of blacks at all times. In particular scenes, it would revert to the grayish haze look typical of lcds. Mind you, not nearly as bad as most, but still not consistently of the same quality of the Kuro.

Also, if you would, please provide further evidence from US publications. I know that the numbers may be solid, but if they don't have the exact same models, it's a little less useful.

Any contrast numbers that they would have obtained measuring the black level at absolute zero, or even .001ftL, are meaningless. This is because all local dimmed LED models cannot achieve that depth of black in NORMAL material. It is not representative of the viewing experience, at least in the most demanding scenes. These numbers would be inflated in an lcd's favor anyway. If you're measuring with .001ftL as the black and nearly a whopping 80ftL as the white output, of course that's going to yield a ridiculous number.

That statistic really is meaningless though. In terms of actual, measured contrast that is applicable to ANY material being shown, the Kuro is superior. No gray blacks to be found, ever (unless it's in the source of course).

xrox

04-22-09, 09:05 PM

well like i said before they use a test card such that the image has both blacks and white and i am taking about the ANSI contrast,both plasma and lcds were tested the same way.Well, I’ve been trying to tell you that it is impossible. And I get this information directly from Samsung technical papers discussing local dimming LCD. Now if you want to believe this review you are basing your argument on and ignore the science then go right ahead. I will stick with the actual scientific facts ;)

well is there a rule that says a display pixel should turn 100% OFF or ONIt is the ideal mode of operation of a display. Whether or not you need it is a subjective question. Personally I thought that zero black was unnecessary until I purchased my plasma and realized I really do want zero black and will be purchasing an OLED or ECC plasma when they are available. Low APL material in a dark or dim room really needs it IMO.

,first of all lcd tech is different from plasma and other tech it needs a backlight to show us those imagesThe backlight – LC light valve system that LCD uses is the source of inherent light leakage I was speaking of. It is also the source of many other LCD issues that seem fundamentally inherent (Viewing angle, mura….etc).

now because of that it can adapt and use the backlight more creatively which i am sure plasma fans dont like because that few edges that plasma had is dimminished.well the fact is LED backlight lcds will be the norm.I hope and doubt that is not the case. I would suspect that plasma fans don’t like it because it combines temporally floating blacks with cross-talk, black crush, and spatially moving halos in addition to black level rise with increasing viewing angle. If they can implement some sort of compensation for these issues then I’m sure PDP consumers will look differently upon the tech. Tough to get around the light-valve issues though.

StinDaWg

04-22-09, 09:31 PM

I don't like the noisy and dim plasma image, that you get especially from Pioneer. I prefer my Blu-rays crystal clear, like director intended.

LOL what a load of bull.

Tons of directors use intentional grain in their films. Do you know anything about movies?

jpoints

04-22-09, 10:32 PM

I actually wouldn't be surprised if CA banned plasmas going forward if they don't meet their energy consumption requirements. The CA government rules my life and spends my money foolishly. But hey they're trying to keep the world in good shape for future generations who will suffer from mass food shortages and fresh water shortages and for the U.S., horrific economic conditions if it still exists.

aim120

04-23-09, 03:18 AM

Well, I’ve been trying to tell you that it is impossible. And I get this information directly from Samsung technical papers discussing local dimming LCD. Now if you want to believe this review you are basing your argument on and ignore the science then go right ahead. I will stick with the actual scientific facts ;)
well u must understand that even without local dimming ,lcds are as good as todays plasma except may be the kuro in terms of black level and i have not seen any reviews out there that supports ur claim.secondly i still don't understand what u are trying to prove exactly i am not convinced.

It is the ideal mode of operation of a display. Whether or not you need it is a subjective question. Personally I thought that zero black was unnecessary until I purchased my plasma and realized I really do want zero black and will be purchasing an OLED or ECC plasma when they are available. Low APL material in a dark or dim room really needs it IMO.
The backlight – LC light valve system that LCD uses is the source of inherent light leakage I was speaking of. It is also the source of many other LCD issues that seem fundamentally inherent (Viewing angle, mura….etc).
well once again u must understand lcds work differently,they need a backlight, sure lcds are not good at extreme off axis viewing compared to plasma and sure deep blacks are good for dim rooms,but nobody says there is only one method to get the job done.

I hope and doubt that is not the case. I would suspect that plasma fans don’t like it because it combines temporally floating blacks with cross-talk, black crush, and spatially moving halos in addition to black level rise with increasing viewing angle. If they can implement some sort of compensation for these issues then I’m sure PDP consumers will look differently upon the tech. Tough to get around the light-valve issues though.
well thats ur view, but the majority out there share a different view and i am one of them led are the future of backlight for lcds,better efficiency,thickness reduced,even backlight this is just the start and the fact that u say " I hope and doubt that is not the case" proves u are a plasma fan boy who just can't accept a competing tech taking the lead in all fronts.

sharpbandaid

04-23-09, 05:56 AM

LOL what a load of bull.

Tons of directors use intentional grain in their films. Do you know anything about movies?

Have you seen Ratatouille on Blu-ray? This movie would be one of the prime examples to demonstrate how noisy Kuro really is.

tbird8450

04-23-09, 06:56 AM

Have you seen Ratatouille on Blu-ray? This movie would be one of the prime examples to demonstrate how noisy Kuro really is.

Nope, but I play a fair amount of video games and hook my laptop up to the TV occassionally. Zero noise from ~7ft.

chadmak09

04-23-09, 07:16 AM

Have you seen Ratatouille on Blu-ray? This movie would be one of the prime examples to demonstrate how noisy Kuro really is.

Yep, Your right Sampo,
The noise in these photos are so bad I can barely make out the picture at all.

Ratatouille (BD)
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6844/dsc00535ydl.jpg
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8205/dsc00539fbv.jpg
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7210/dsc00540mgy.jpg

Courtesy of Evi666l.

sharpbandaid

04-23-09, 07:41 AM

The noise in these photos are so bad I can barely make out the picture at all.

You are correct.

Kuro:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2mq44cn.png

As director intended:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2052zid.png

Fanaticalism

04-23-09, 09:39 AM

Lol, the only difference between the two is the exposure. There is no difference in the actual "grain".

I love it when people use photos and know very little of why they look different from direct captures.

What is even funnier, is that besides Chads picture having more contrast, and being brighter due to the overexposure of the camera, is that the pic above is what people are attracted to when they walk into a local CE store, and what supporters in a particular camp use an example of why one technology outsells the other.

Now you are using this against it? You are constantly talking about how much sharper, and brighter LCDs are, and now you represent a "dim", "dull" picture to stake your claim.

So which is it? The "dim", "dull" picture of a plasma, or a "bright", "oversaturated" picture of an LCD? You can't keep going back and forth between preferences to suit your arguments. Pick one...

chadmak09

04-23-09, 09:44 AM

brentsg

04-23-09, 10:33 AM

well thats ur view, but the majority out there share a different view and i am one of them led are the future of backlight for lcds,better efficiency,thickness reduced,even backlight this is just the start and the fact that u say " I hope and doubt that is not the case" proves u are a plasma fan boy who just can't accept a competing tech taking the lead in all fronts.

Xrox is a scholar of technology whitepapers, often created by the manufacturers themselves. To call him a fanboy is quite funny, as his credibility is actually quite high here. Watching you try to debate him as you continually change your argument and refer to reviews that are so brilliant as to measure the black level of an LCD with the backlight off ... priceless.

The amazing part is that you don't have a clue how far you are in over your head in the debate.

xrox

04-23-09, 11:18 AM

Thanks for the kind words brentsg. As I often mention here, I tend to only argue points that have clear scientific backing in the literature. All other info is IMO and is pointless to argue. In this case it is clearly the former so I persist.

i still don't understand what u are trying to prove exactly i am not convinced.
- You claimed that local dimming LCD sets can achieve total black intrascene.
- You base this claim on a review you read.

- I claim local dimming sets or LCD in general cannot achieve zero black intrascene.
- I base this claim on a Samsung scientific paper describing how local dimming works and I also base this claim on simple scientific knowledge on how LCDs work.

Now you can stand by that review and argue until you're blue in the face but you are arguing with scientific fact explained to you by a manufacturer of the very set you are arguing about.

well once again u must understand lcds work differently,they need a backlight, sure lcds are not good at extreme off axis viewing compared to plasma and sure deep blacks are good for dim rooms,but nobody says there is only one method to get the job done.I describe to you that the backlight-LC light valve technology that LCD displays use is the source of many LCD issues including not being able to achieve zero black and your response has been “well, lcds need a backlight to work” and “you need to understand how LCDs work”??? Take a step back and think about that exchange and your response :)

well thats ur view, but the majority out there share a different view and i am one of them led are the future of backlight for lcds,better efficiency,thickness reduced,even backlight this is just the start and the fact that u say " I hope and doubt that is not the case" proves u are a plasma fan boy who just can't accept a competing tech taking the lead in all fronts.Where have I said that LED is not the future of backlighting for LCDs? I have actually stated the opposite here. And I mention the drawbacks of local dimming and your response is to call me a fanboy? Actually looking at your post history suggests this is a common theme for you. When anyone disagrees with you or posts some technical info you don’t agree with but have no argument against, out comes the fanboy response. Is that your last resort in a debate? :)

oldcband

04-23-09, 12:06 PM

Xrox is a scholar of technology whitepapers, often created by the manufacturers themselves. To call him a fanboy is quite funny, as his credibility is actually quite high here. Watching you try to debate him as you continually change your argument and refer to reviews that are so brilliant as to measure the black level of an LCD with the backlight off ... priceless.

The amazing part is that you don't have a clue how far you are in over your head in the debate.
Lets get real here. We all love xrox and what he brings here.

But he does have a preference and thats plasma. Your's too.

He's sings to your choir.

But xrox is human and will defend his preference.

Out of all members I respect xrox, but I don't follow him blindly. I listen to him.

xb1032

04-23-09, 12:21 PM

You took the words right out of my mouth.
You would think the LCD guys would be more drawn to the top picture.

That's exactly what I was thinking. And if he really prefers that pic I can't imagine him ever complaining about plasma's white levels not being white/bright enough. Those pics showed absolutely nothing other than what could be different picture settings/mode.

aim120

04-23-09, 12:34 PM

@brentsg
well what do u want me do,i am not exactly convinced what he is trying to prove.

I claim local dimming sets or LCD in general cannot achieve zero black intrascene.

well i understand that lcds as of now cannot block the light 100%,which is why we have local dimming leds.i don't understand what is wrong i admit that off axis viewing angle suffers a bit compared to normal backlight lcds,may be u can share that samsung white papers or what ever that u have.

Now you can stand by that review and argue until you're blue in the face but you are arguing with scientific fact explained to you by a manufacturer of the very set you are arguing about.
well then why do u think those reviews are done in the first place.
my point is simple given the same test pattern and the same instruments,both lcd and plasma achieve deep blacks,sure the ccfl based lcds won't quite match the kuros,but local dimming based LCD does give pure blacks,whether it is done by pixels blocking the light 100% to get pure black or the pixels blocking the light around 80% or less ,but with the help of local dimming LED the same pure black is achieved. as long as it fools the eyes and the instruments who cares,i also accept that this new tech is not yet perfect but it does achieve that pure black.

aim120

04-23-09, 12:37 PM

The amazing part is that you don't have a clue how far you are in over your head in the debate.

and what exactly do u mean by this? are u saying that i shouldn't have a debate.

DBLASS

04-23-09, 01:21 PM

Off angle viewing of an LCD is off because of birefringence, which simply put is that lightwave fall out of phase with "the rest of the light waves" at off angle. On TN cells, this causes faded looking image at one extreme and a inverted video image on the other. On symmetrical panels, the display merely fades a bit at off angles. Black should be the blockage of light but at off angles, some light "gets through" and likewise white allows all the colors through but again at off angles, some light frequencies fall out of phase and get blocked. IPS and PVA technologies help correct this phenomena as compared to older TN technologies. Backlighting of an technology will not help this situation unless you can actually turn off the backlight in some of the areas (Dolby active backlights).

Also, concerning light leakage, linear polarizers do not block 100%. Unknown to many, the polarizers of a display are not set the maximum 90 degree opposition but are instead set to about 82 degree since this allows for faster response speed numbers. It is one of those little secrets in the display manufacturing game (plasmas too) to corrupt one performance spec in order to fix or improve another.

tbird8450

04-23-09, 02:00 PM

but local dimming based LCD does give pure blacks

Again, only on a completely blank screen where the backlight is entirely shut off. How does this matter at all when actual material is being displayed?

xrox

04-23-09, 02:01 PM

well i understand that lcds as of now cannot block the light 100%,which is why we have local dimming leds.i don't understand what is wrong i admit that off axis viewing angle suffers a bit compared to normal backlight lcds,may be u can share that samsung white papers or what ever that u have.Nothing wrong, you are just stuck on the misconception that local dimming allows for zero emission of light through the LC layer in an LCD screen.

Here is a great example of what I'm talking about. Below on the left is a graphic showing an input picture to a locally dimmed LCD display. The white squares are 50% brightness and the black squares are 0%.

On the right is a graphic describing light emission of a locally dimmed backlight and diffuser combination (the LC layer is removed to show the light emission from the diffuser) that is fed the input picture on the left. As you can see the small black squares that are supposed to be 0% according to you are emitting 45% or nearly the same as the bright squares surrounding it even though the LEDs behind it are off. The larger black squares do better at 25% as the surrounding white squares are farther away.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd126/xrox/LDbacklight.jpg

So obviously the diffuser is spreading light all across the backlight and the proximity to the active LED zone determines the magnitude of the light emitted.

Now if you want I can also post Samsung contrast data essentially showing the same effect with the LC layer included.

StinDaWg

04-23-09, 02:25 PM

you are correct.

Kuro:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2mq44cn.png

as director intended:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2052zid.png

lol!

brentsg

04-23-09, 03:21 PM

and what exactly do u mean by this? are u saying that i shouldn't have a debate.

No I'm saying when you start dropping the fanboy tag on xrox you should reconsider your position.

brentsg

04-23-09, 03:24 PM

Lets get real here. We all love xrox and what he brings here.

But he does have a preference and thats plasma. Your's too.

He's sings to your choir.

But xrox is human and will defend his preference.

Out of all members I respect xrox, but I don't follow him blindly. I listen to him.

I understand, but when you have a debate... backed up by a poor review that took black level measurements from a panel with the backlight shut off... and then xrox and his research material on the other... toss in the fanboy tag... c'mon... At that point it has little to do with preferring plasma.

aim120

04-23-09, 04:28 PM

Nothing wrong, you are just stuck on the misconception that local dimming allows for zero emission of light through the LC layer in an LCD screen.

Here is a great example of what I'm talking about. Below on the left is a graphic showing an input picture to a locally dimmed LCD display. The white squares are 50% brightness and the black squares are 0%.

On the right is a graphic describing light emission of a locally dimmed backlight and diffuser combination (the LC layer is removed to show the light emission from the diffuser) that is fed the input picture on the left. As you can see the small black squares that are supposed to be 0% according to you are emitting 45% or nearly the same as the bright squares surrounding it even though the LEDs behind it are off. The larger black squares do better at 25% as the surrounding white squares are farther away.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd126/xrox/LDbacklight.jpg

So obviously the diffuser is spreading light all across the backlight and the proximity to the active LED zone determines the magnitude of the light emitted.

Now if you want I can also post Samsung contrast data essentially showing the same effect with the LC layer included.

okay now i understand what u are saying:),if i understood correctly since there is one single diffuser even though the LED behind the black area is off,some part of the neighbouring LED light spills over the black area due to the single diffuser.but since the measuring instruments did pick up a reading of 0.0 cd/m2 means that some parts of lcds are achieving total blackness and if the the entire black area was indeed 0.0 cd/m2 like said in this artice where it saysAlso, despite the dynamic nature of [Smart LED] backlight, we saw practically no fluctuation in black level retention in test patterns and real-life material.
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsung-le55a956-20081106134.htm then my guess is that they have a diffuser that cuts of the light between the gap of the pixels,anyway thats my guess ,i mean for one reason is that sonys local dimming LED backlight lcd start only at 46inches and upwards and a 55inch FHD tv will have only about 1600 pixels /sq.inch ,which is similar to a SD tv like a 20inch in terms of pixels/sq.inch,so if the review sites/magzines etc did find a measurement of 0.0cd/m2 for the entire black area ,then the above guess is all i could think off or they may be some other method that i don't know about.