I am totally shocked, at the low quality images offered by all the LCD and PLASMA TV sets.........

I have seen all the high end models, and they still suffer from motion lag, smearness, pattern noise, and a general sea sickeness look about the image......

None of them come close to a CRT TV, and the fact that people have disposed of their Sony / Panasonic CRTs to get a low quality TV , is shocking......

lets face facts, the main reason people buy them, is because they are flat, and are 'cool' and the latest tech........

yes, they are the latest, but also far poorer tech than a CRT.

Here is how I would analogise them;

I think of my CRT TV, as a car, with perfectly round wheels............smooth and perfect ride......

the LCD / Plasmas, are like supersports cars, BUT with wheels that are not perfectly round......they are faster, bigger, have more features, but you are always driving a car with wheels that are not perfectly round.

Funny I thought, but true !!

I have a sony HS50 and was thinking about getting a Plasma to replace it........

Panasonic Viera are good value, at £ 900 ( UK GBP ) for a 42"

but they still suffer pattern noise, and phosphor lag, especially noticeable on dark scenes, where the phosphor takes longer to refresh.................

LCD tvs are ALL poor, even latest Sony Bravia, suffers motion lag / blur, and blacks which look heavy, unnatural, and lack of detail in grey scales...........I would never consider a LCD tv..................

In the end, I have decided to upgrade to a SOny HS60, same as what I have, but even better blacks...........that was the only think the HS50 still was weak ( compared to a CRT display )

I still use a CRT 25" 4:3 display for tv viewing, and NONE of the flat screens are even close to this quality...................

I really find it astonishing, that millions of people have accepted these far inferior flat tvs, purely on cosmetic reasons.............OK, some people want a really large image, so CRTs are out, but for 99% of UK homes, where room sizes are small compared to US, they would not need anything bigger than a 32" crt...........

the manufacturers must love all this, they can keep making better and better flat screens, maybe in 10 years from now, we will have Plasmas as good as a CRT display.

amazing isnt it..................how shallow people are.................

That's a lot of.......periods.

true !

Still better to have lots of periods, then lash out £ 2000 on a screen that gets outclassed by a £ 80 19" crt tv !!

also true !!

For standard def crt have there advantaged

I'd still prefer a large >42" widescreen picture than a small 4:3 crt

Why is this in the projector forum btw

Your subject doesn't seem to fit your detail. I do know what you are talking about in several cases. Digital in many ways has been a disappointment. I don't remember years and years ago macro-blocking on Cable that I can get today, why? Digital Compression.

yup !

its like HDMI, only reason it exists , is for copy protection purposes....

as for digitial tv, its shocking........

all about quantity rather than quality............pretty sad state for the plant, would u agree ?

Why won't someone think of the plants?

After reading your post, I still don't understand why PJs are better than Plasma/LCD TVs. Care to explain? I'm assuming you are talking about CRT projectors then? I don't have the cash for one of those...................................

Mike

After reading your post, I still don't understand why PJs are better than Plasma/LCD TVs. Care to explain? I'm assuming you are talking about CRT projectors then? I don't have the cash for one of those...................................

Mike


aaahhhh, yes, this is a common misconception...........

people think that a LCD PJ will the same quality as a LCD TV, after all, they are both LCD......

but a PJ has a tiny lcd panel, with NONE of the problems associated with large 15+inch TV LCD panels...........

because the lcd panels is so small, it can react instantly, u get no delay lag,

further more, there are 3 LCD panels, so colour purity is theortically perfect

then, there is the auto iris of the PJ lens itself, which effectively varies the 'intensity' of light, per any given frame.......

by comparison, LCD TVs are dumb devices, that perform very poorly, and cost about 10 times what they should, given the level of quality on offer

Plasmas are better than LCD TVs............but still suffer from phospher lag, as the R G B phosphers do not discharge at the same exact rates

in real world, this all adds up to smeary images, with lots of pattern noise, and lots of pixellisation ( on LCD tvs )

I was never refering to a CRT PJ, but a CRT TV..........

LCD PJs are excellent these days, and aside from mega money SXRD etc, these offer the best potential for large displays...........

After reading your post, I still don't understand why PJs are better than Plasma/LCD TVs. Care to explain? I'm assuming you are talking about CRT projectors then? I don't have the cash for one of those...................................

Mike


CRT projectors can often be had at very good prices.

I think part of the reason why digital tvs sometimes are lacking is because they are super bright AND use high gain rear projection screens at small sizes. I mean imagine using your digital projector at 42-60" digaonal on a screen with a gain of 4 or higher. Your blacks become super elevated and your white end is also WAY WAY higher than it really needs to be in anything less but a high ambient light environment. Basically, the digital tvs are mostly designed for high ambient light viewing and are not as good in the dark as home theater designed projectors which are designed and optimized for dark viewing.

However, digitals are still lacking when it comes to matching a CRT projector. The blacks on most digitals are still not even remotely close, but they are decent.

I own a PAnny AE900 and although i am very very happy with it and the 130"screen its throwing for me :) .. It is still a LCD like you're HS50.

Screen lag is still evident when i play a DVD on my oppo 791 and when playing games on it on my 360. The Iris is simply NEEDED on a LCD FP as oposed to a LCD tv or plasma. And even tho panasonic eliminates pixel structures (almost) in general FP's still have this problem and even more then a regular LCD because of the bigger screensize.


The HS50 almost was my first choice but i went for the panny because the HS50 was WAY to dimm for my liking and the Panny's iris is the fastest gun in the west.

The only thing i would like to see improved on this PJ is the 12ms response time wich most LCD FP's seem to have.

How can it be you're HS50 does not have these shortcommings , i am curious ?

No, I dont notice any motion blur on my HS50.................and I notice it very easily on all plasma or lcd tvs............very obvious immediately..........

I use a Panasonic dvd-s97 dvd player, upscaed to 1080i, and the image is excellent..............Ive never seen any plasma approach this kind of quality, only on black are the plasmas better, but they suffer pattern noise , due to the phospher reaction times.........

there are no quoted m/s response times for LCD PJs, probably a good reason for this, maybe no need, as the panels react instantly.........

no way are they 12 m/s reaction times.............Ive seen 8 m/s lcd tvs and they still look horrible..............

a lot depends on quality of image of your dvd player, and how it handles the frame transitions.............

for now, I think the HS60 is the best pj, for its price.......................u would need to spend over twice as much, to get abetter unit, like SXRD PJ.....

there are no quoted m/s response times for LCD PJs, probably a good reason for this, maybe no need, as the panels react instantly.........


Where are you getting this info? How does panel size have anything to do with response time? Smaller does not mean faster.

Mike

Interestingly, my own experience has been exactly the opposite: inch for inch, much prefer my Panny plasma over my Panny projector, but gotta love the big screen image provided by the projector. So, a serious tradeoff. I find myself going back and forth between the two depending on my preference for quality (image) or quantity (screen size). Perhaps I will upgrade the projector to the new JVC and new AX2 DVD player and the gap will narrow.

For a more articulate and detailed argument for the benefits of a plasma picture, do a search for posts by Rich Harkness (including comparisons to projector images). I couldn't agree with him more on this one. Yet for that cinema-like experience, the projector sure has the advantage. And, due to cost, weight, and bulk, I am not about to buy one of the mega plasma sets now offered by Panasonic.

Where are you getting this info? How does panel size have anything to do with response time? Smaller does not mean faster.

Mike


Well, Ive never seen any quoted response times for any lcd PJs........

smaller does indeed mean faster............less mass equals faster response time............or at least the ability to be faster..........

either way, Ive never noticed any blur on any lcd pjs, in fact, it was so unpresent, that it never even occured to me to look for it, and I notice any image faults quickly...............hence why I cant tolerate the plasma / lcd tvs.............they suffer from sever pattern noise

( severe, compared to a CRT TV - why would I pay £ 2,000 for something far inferior ? because they are flat ? dont think so.........)

true !

Still better to have lots of periods, then lash out £ 2000 on a screen that gets outclassed by a £ 80 19" crt tv !!

also true !!

Also better to have lots of periods, rather than lots of unwanted pregnancies. Those will make you lash out a hell of a lot more than two thousand quid. :)

is u a woman ?

Where are you getting this info? How does panel size have anything to do with response time? Smaller does not mean faster.

Mike


I was wondering the same thing.

smaller does indeed mean faster............less mass equals faster response time............or at least the ability to be faster..........

It seems to me that is a theory you created by yourself.On what have you based it?

If you dont beleive the 12ms statement mail panasonic tech. support they will tell you.

No, I dont notice any motion blur on my HS50.................and I notice it very easily on all plasma or lcd tvs............very obvious immediately..........

.....
I have to agree. Additionally, on all my projectors artifacting is far less noticeable.
Yesterday, I spent a couple of hours viewing flat panel displays. It was rather evident. A distraction I never notice when employing FP for the job.
Could it have just been the signal or the source?

I still say dlp has got everything I've every seen beat....except HD crt's...And I've only seen direct view versions of these myself in person. LCD FR is definatly getting better but unless you see rainbows...DLP is the better choice at this time. lens shift and other issues aside.

smaller does indeed mean faster............less mass equals faster response time............or at least the ability to be faster..........


I don't think you have any idea how LCDs actually work. Your "theory" suggests that a 17" LCD panel will have a better response time than a 22" and better still than a 42". That is not what you see in the real world.

Mike

when intel wanted to make their CPUs more faster and more efficient, they went from 90nm to 60nm dies....and so did AMD

smaller does indeed faster.........just the fact there is a fraction of the delay in getting the signal in / out, compared to a full size lcd tv, where the signal has to travel cms, rather than mms.............

all these facts contribute to the tiny lcd panels in FP, reacting very quicky and precisely........

anyway, besides all that, u just have to look at any lcd tv, and realise the motion blur, and artefacts are horrible, compare to LCD FPs, which have no NOTICEABLE blur, and bare minimum of artefacts.........

Ive seen £ 3,000 Sony LCD bravia tv, in stores, and the artefacts were horrible,,,,,,,,,,,sure, u might say, ahhh, thats the crappy feed, but then look at the £ 150 crt tv, and it looks fine..........

its not the feed, its that large panels LCDs are horrible,,,,,,,,,,at best you can calibrate them to look HALF DECENT and no more..........

when intel wanted to make their CPUs more faster and more efficient, they went from 90nm to 60nm dies....and so did AMD

smaller does indeed faster.........just the fact there is a fraction of the delay in getting the signal in / out, compared to a full size lcd tv, where the signal has to travel cms, rather than mms.............


Man, you are just digging yourself a bigger hole here. When Intel and AMD talk about 90nm, 60nm, 45nm they are not talking about the size of the CPU. Do you really think they are making a SMALLER CPU? No, in fact they are getting bigger. It refers to the fabrication process, where a 60nm wavelength of light is used to create the CPU on the slicon.

Also, electricity travels at the speed of light: 300,000 Km per second (though different media can affect this slightly). Do you honestly think there is a measurable difference between 1" and 100" when you are talking about that kind of speed, much less a visible one?

Zero motion blur on my 42" plasma.

Your wacky.

It refers to the fabrication process, where a 60nm wavelength of light is used to create the CPU on the slicon................................... Do you honestly think there is a measurable difference between 1" and 100" when you are talking about that kind of speed, much less a visible one?


precisely ! the narrower wavelength, produces thinner tracks..............thus same principal that 'smaller' is faster.........

as for the light puzzle (?) , well, yes, there is a delay, and it is in M/S.........the reason why there is motion blur on LCD TVs.........

ag studios, you started another thread which has you with a change of heart about this thread title? http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=781975

ag studios, you started another thread which has you with a change of heart about this thread title? http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=781975

Exactly. :D

He's wacky.

I'll I want is 1 dollar for every period and he could write whatever he wants, whenever he wants. lol

Edit: I just realized he's writing in brail as well, sorry.

Yes, I have had a change of ..heart !

as seeing the LG and Pioneer plasmas was a revelation to me......................however, I was not able to see any high paced footage on it, but the concert demo footage playing, looked excellent..........

but the point I was making was, and still is, that a tiny LCD chip, will always perform better, than a large one.........................basic law of physics...........................

Yes, I have had a change of ..heart !

as seeing the LG and Pioneer plasmas was a revelation to me......................however, I was not able to see any high paced footage on it, but the concert demo footage playing, looked excellent..........

but the point I was making was, and still is, that a tiny LCD chip, will always perform better, than a large one.........................basic law of physics...........................


Not trying to put you down but i think your understanding of physics is not the most reliable.

Because of one instance where smaller is faster you asume that is the general rule and that is simply wrong.

While it is true that in the past bigger screens had a higher ms rate it is alo true that the reason for this was no technical but economical.So that was just to keep the cost down of the device.

I big LCD panel compared to the excact same type,generation panel in a smaller form will have the excact same retention on it ,..............................yes physiscs what a bitch :) ;)

Yes, I have had a change of ..heart !

as seeing the LG and Pioneer plasmas was a revelation to me......................however, I was not able to see any high paced footage on it, but the concert demo footage playing, looked excellent..........

but the point I was making was, and still is, that a tiny LCD chip, will always perform better, than a large one.........................basic law of physics...........................


Do the pixels in an LCD panel have mass? Why would turning a pixel on, off and then back on again (response) be slower on a large panel than it is on a small one? Can the delay between electrons traveling 1 inch and electrons traveling 6 inches be measured in millseconds?

when intel wanted to make their CPUs more faster and more efficient, they went from 90nm to 60nm dies....and so did AMD

smaller does indeed faster.........just the fact there is a fraction of the delay in getting the signal in / out, compared to a full size lcd tv, where the signal has to travel cms, rather than mms.............

all these facts contribute to the tiny lcd panels in FP, reacting very quicky and precisely........

anyway, besides all that, u just have to look at any lcd tv, and realise the motion blur, and artefacts are horrible, compare to LCD FPs, which have no NOTICEABLE blur, and bare minimum of artefacts.........

Ive seen £ 3,000 Sony LCD bravia tv, in stores, and the artefacts were horrible,,,,,,,,,,,sure, u might say, ahhh, thats the crappy feed, but then look at the £ 150 crt tv, and it looks fine..........

its not the feed, its that large panels LCDs are horrible,,,,,,,,,,at best you can calibrate them to look HALF DECENT and no more..........

I think that's were the problem stems from.

Personally I think the OP bit off a lot more then he could chew. He makes a pretty profound Subject Statement and the next time he's at a video store he has a complete change of heart. Sounds like he just discovered display technology. IMO the only thing Projectors have a clear advantage over any other display technology is size alone. They can still perform well in many other aspects but that is their sole true advantage.

Being wrong is completely ok with me since one can learn from it. Being wrong because you think you know it all and not being able to listen deserves to be put down into place imo.

I have someone like that in my work enviroment and i can tell you the only thing he produces is delays.

If only he was not a family member of the company's founder *sigh

^ Word to all of that.

My opinions are relative....

at the end of the day, NONE of these technologies are as good as CRT. Period. You cant compete with the electron gun, when it comes to instant response.

Furthermore, EVERYTHING has a mass, no matter how small it is. I dont want to preach a physics lession, and I was generalising, when I said that the smaller the better, but the same prinicipals apply.

FYI , a 'die' can be referred to a blueprint, or means of, manufacturing any particular component.......I was not wrong, when I refered to 60nm being faster, than 90nm production CPUs...........

If my logic, was incorrect, than why did not Intel, simply make the CPU larger , and stick to 90nm ?

Sure if size doesnt matter, why not make it larger, and add more to it.

The shorter the path, the faster it can be refreshed. This is why the technology for cpu gets smaller all the time.

When youre refresh rate, is your bottle neck, you cant tell me, that a large LCD suffers from motion blur, but thats IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with the size of the LCD

Whilst a tiny LCD in a PJ, suffers no visible blur.

THESE facts are not co-incidences......

When youre refresh rate, is your bottle neck, you cant tell me, that a large LCD suffers from motion blur, but thats IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with the size of the LCD


Remember that is YOUR logic. As you read our replies whe try to inform you that that logic is wrong simple as that.

Listen ,think then post.

And yes i can tell you that a larger panel does not coincide with a higher ms rate .


you seemingly learnt one thing and are aplying it to everything, wich is not the smartest thing to do. far from it infact.


@horroscope : glad to hear im not the only one ;)

..............................................ZZzzzzzZZ..... ...................................zzzzZZZ..........zzzz*sno rt snort* huh, wha? wha? who is it? ZzzzzZ.....................ZZZzzzzZZZZZZZ...............

..............................................ZZzzzzzZZ..... ...................................zzzzZZZ..........zzzz*sno rt snort* huh, wha? wha? who is it? ZzzzzZ.....................ZZZzzzzZZZZZZZ...............

considering your post count as of now is 2 an the fact that you choose to use that post to reply to THIS topic the way you you did makes you highly,highly suspect....


........to say the least......


.....

(yes i am using periods extensivly to make fun of you)


really sad of you.

You are AG studios,i and everybody else knows! no one else in their right mind would ever use their second post and react like that to a thread like this the way you just did. too obvious.

goodbey

when intel wanted to make their CPUs more faster and more efficient, they went from 90nm to 60nm dies....and so did AMD

smaller does indeed faster.........just the fact there is a fraction of the delay in getting the signal in / out, compared to a full size lcd tv, where the signal has to travel cms, rather than mms.............

all these facts contribute to the tiny lcd panels in FP, reacting very quicky and precisely........

anyway, besides all that, u just have to look at any lcd tv, and realise the motion blur, and artefacts are horrible, compare to LCD FPs, which have no NOTICEABLE blur, and bare minimum of artefacts.........

Ive seen £ 3,000 Sony LCD bravia tv, in stores, and the artefacts were horrible,,,,,,,,,,,sure, u might say, ahhh, thats the crappy feed, but then look at the £ 150 crt tv, and it looks fine..........

its not the feed, its that large panels LCDs are horrible,,,,,,,,,,at best you can calibrate them to look HALF DECENT and no more..........

Ok it almost made sense until that post.
Reason for fabrication process to go to higher resolution lithography is 2 fold.
1.Smaller die-size mean more processor per wafer = cheaper processor.
2.Raise the clock = need to pump in more electricity = generate more heat. The smaller the gate size the less electricity it uses = you can turn up the clock without adding more electricity = cooler processor at same speed = faster processor possible.


Mikael

If my logic, was incorrect, than why did not Intel, simply make the CPU larger , and stick to 90nm ?



Intel moved to 60nm inorder to reduce production costs since it allows them to produce more cpus per mm of wafer. And no they can't simply just make the CPU larger since that would require entirely new motherboards to support the larger cpu.

(yes i am using periods extensivly to make fun of you)

You are AG studios,i and everybody else knows!

goodbey


Huh ? OF COURSE I am AG STUDIOS, err, isnt that whay my profile name is ???

YES....I do use lots of .....periods...... its just my time of the month !

Oh, and I never let anything said online offend or upset me

:p

We are all entitled to our opinions, some of us have PHDs in Quantum Physics, and some us do not.

This is not my fault, I would never put anyone down , just because they do not have masters in Physics.

The reason for this ? ( Because I dont either )


:D :D : :eek: :eek: :eek:

It appears that the number of periods in a post correlates directly with ignorance of display technology.

It appears that the number of periods in a post correlates directly with ignorance of display technology.

I couldnt agree any more !

I mean, LESS.

:D

PS: Can someone tell me, WHY motion blur is clearly visible on all LCD tvs, yet I have never seen it, in the 5 PJs Ive owned ?

THATS ALL I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW PLEASE ! :rolleyes:

We are all entitled to our opinions, some of us have PHDs in Quantum Physics, and some us do not.

All the more reason for you to try and listen to what others can tell you about it wouldn't you say.