why does LCD look better then plasma to me??? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
First ... 2  3  4 5 
LCD Flat Panel Displays > why does LCD look better then plasma to me???
EscapeVelocity's Avatar EscapeVelocity 05:38 PM 01-01-2011
Reflections were not a major concern on televisions until the screens became larger. ---rudama

I have to disagree with that. Its just that there wasnt much to be done about it.

Highly objectionable on any screen...even in 1955.

joshman211's Avatar joshman211 05:40 PM 01-01-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocuMaker View Post

Your post was going well up until this point. I have had 2010 Samsung LCD/LCD-LED's (a C630; two C8000) and viewing angles are still by a large margin easily the largest drawback to LCD tech. Even tossing your head to one side affects the brightness/coloration of the opposite side of the screen. It's tough to position your head in such a way as to get equal shades of green on the field when watching a football game, or a tennis match for that matter. Some of the LG's have some nice viewing angles, but are plagued with other problems that do not make them a viable option for me.

Plasma will never die and always be useful until they dramatically improve the viewing angles of LCD. I would gladly dump PDP for good if Samsung or Sony could make their LED's to have improved viewing angles, or if LG could produce an effective screen treatment and some top-notch motion.

I'm not a tech expert on TV's but is this because alot of companys use SPVA panels? I believe IPS offers a wider angle of viewing. I have a Dell 30 Ultrasharp that is IPS and it has an awesome view at any angle.
ruadmaa's Avatar ruadmaa 06:27 PM 01-01-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity View Post

Reflections were not a major concern on televisions until the screens became larger. ---rudama

I have to disagree with that. Its just that there wasnt much to be done about it.

Highly objectionable on any screen...even in 1955.

FYI, nobody even mentioned screen reflections in 1955, I know, I was there. While nobody wanted direct sunlight shining on their tv, lighting in most living rooms (from windows and lamps) was not even mentioned. In fact, in those days it was advised to keep a lamp on in your viewing area as watching tv in the dark was considered hard on your eyes. In the late 1950's a 21 inch tv was about as big a screen as you could get.

Again, we are talking about dinosaurs, which most people on this forum aren't interested in.
EscapeVelocity's Avatar EscapeVelocity 06:34 PM 01-01-2011
Wrong again. I didnt start viewing TV until the 70s. The problem with any size screen at that time was window reflections, which ruined PQ. The curved screens meant that all light sources just shy of 180 degrees were problematic and degraded viewing.

However it was either that or nothing, so people didnt complain about it.

If they had had a choice, they would have scrambled to get the TV without reflections.

No sense in grumbling about something you cant do anything about. Just be happy you had a TV to watch. At least that is the way people used to be.
ruadmaa's Avatar ruadmaa 06:48 PM 01-01-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity View Post

Wrong again. I didnt start viewing TV until the 70s. The problem with any size screen at that time was window reflections, which ruined PQ. The curved screens meant that all light sources just shy of 180 degrees were problematic and degraded viewing.

However it was either that or nothing, so people didnt complain about it.

If they had had a choice, they would have scrambled to get the TV without reflections.

No sense in grumbling about something you cant do anything about. Just be happy you had a TV to watch. At least that is the way people used to be.

Just out of idle curiosity, what is a Viziologist? I am unfamiliar with the term.
8mile13's Avatar 8mile13 08:01 PM 01-01-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa View Post

Just out of idle curiosity, what is a Viziologist? I am unfamiliar with the term.

He's a Vizio fanboy.
EscapeVelocity's Avatar EscapeVelocity 08:18 PM 01-01-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

He's a Vizio fanboy.

Not quite.

A Viziologist, Phd. researches the inards of Vizio flat panels, to find out what they are using as far a panels, video processing, etc....performance and all manner of characteristics of the sets.

It's kind of a throwback to 2007 when I was intensely researching Flat Panel technology and sets with the purpose of purchasing.
NuSoardGraphite's Avatar NuSoardGraphite 12:07 AM 01-02-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocuMaker View Post

Your post was going well up until this point. I have had 2010 Samsung LCD/LCD-LED's (a C630; two C8000) and viewing angles are still by a large margin easily the largest drawback to LCD tech. Even tossing your head to one side affects the brightness/coloration of the opposite side of the screen. It's tough to position your head in such a way as to get equal shades of green on the field when watching a football game, or a tennis match for that matter. Some of the LG's have some nice viewing angles, but are plagued with other problems that do not make them a viable option for me.

Plasma will never die and always be useful until they dramatically improve the viewing angles of LCD. I would gladly dump PDP for good if Samsung or Sony could make their LED's to have improved viewing angles, or if LG could produce an effective screen treatment and some top-notch motion.

I think we've gone back and forth on the viewing angle position before and as I have said in other threads, I just don't see a significant drop in contrast until you start to get to extreme viewing angles on the vast majority of modern displays I've seen. My roomate has a vizio (not sure what year or model) that does visibly drop contrast when you go just a few degrees off-axis, but even going into the extreme angles, while the colors are off quite a bit, it is still very watchable.
I do notice a fair drop in contrast with a lot of Edge-lit LED sets I have seen, but CCFL LCD's tend to be very solid in the viewing angle department.
EscapeVelocity's Avatar EscapeVelocity 12:53 AM 01-02-2011
That is my experience too, NSG.

Although my LG paneled GV42LF Vizio has excellent viewing angles.
specuvestor's Avatar specuvestor 03:42 AM 01-02-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by imws
After all the hype I took the plunge on one of the new Pioneer VT25 Plasma sets, 10 mins after the delivery guys left I was on the phone with the store requesting a return. I quickly found out that I'm not a fan of Plasma, for me the choice between the two is LCD. What I didn't like about the Plasma set, very visible pixel structure, noisy picture, and motion judder. I didn't like the yellowish green colorcast of skin tones either of the Panasonic set. At the store they had a 50" model which had noticeable judder on pans but for the most part was setup well enough that I purchased the 54" model of the same line. In any case I don't have to point out that the Panasonic VT25 is revered as if it was the second coming or something and almost all the mags have nothing but praise for the series. I'm still confused why the magazine and internet reviews love Plasma as much as they do. But like mentioned before buy what you looks good to you and enjoy.
Yes as long as you enjoy what you have now is fine. But a better discipline from this experience is actually to find out why those reviews think the VT25 is the best available display today instead of concluding they are dopes and plasma is a fail after 10min. Then you would probably understand better why if you still disagree with them.
fatuglyguy's Avatar fatuglyguy 04:12 AM 01-02-2011
I love how these threads devolve into plasma vs. lcd fanboy threads. lol
ruadmaa's Avatar ruadmaa 04:54 AM 01-02-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post
Yes as long as you enjoy what you have now is fine. But a better discipline from this experience is actually to find out why those reviews think the VT25 is the best available display today instead of concluding they are dopes and plasma is a fail after 10min. Then you would probably understand better why if you still disagree with them.
IMWS really doesn't have to understand why or anything else about plasma tv. All he really has to know is that he doesn't like it. It is his prerogative. Usually the first impression is a lasting impression.
ruadmaa's Avatar ruadmaa 11:26 AM 01-02-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmike View Post

You are crossing two different technologies together. I am not refering to anything rear projection. they are not in the equation of anythign I mentioned.

The 40 mitsubishi crt television was as good as a television gets. It was alsothe LARGEST CRT TV ever made. Projections do not count in anything that I have said.

CRT uses glass and the coatings on the glass if a crt were 50 or 60 inches would NOT diffuse light and reflections just as they dont on plasma.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that they ever made a 40" CRT direct view. I had a 35 inch Toshiba and it was extremely heavy and bulky. Very hard for even 2 men to move. I can't even imagine the weight of a 40 inch set.
Steve S's Avatar Steve S 12:43 PM 01-02-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa View Post

Sorry, I wasn't aware that they ever made a 40" CRT direct view. I had a 35 inch Toshiba and it was extremely heavy and bulky. Very hard for even 2 men to move. I can't even imagine the weight of a 40 inch set.

Mitsubishi and later Sony made 40" crt direct-view sets. My largest crt was a 35" Sony XBR circa 1998. It required 3 college football players to remove from my house when I sold it, and nearly bottomed out the rear suspension of the Ford Explorer they loaded it into.
specuvestor's Avatar specuvestor 04:49 PM 01-02-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa View Post

IMWS really doesn't have to understand why or anything else about plasma tv. All he really has to know is that he doesn't like it. It is his prerogative. Usually the first impression is a lasting impression.

IMHO if I believe the earth is round but "experts" think the earth is flat then it may be useful for me to find out why. Presumably these "experts" should be more knowledgeable than the man on the street or peers, and they may have different viewpoint on the subject matter, which I may never thought of or consider. This is of course assuming I don't regard myself as the authority on the subject matter.

Of course if you don't care about optimal PQ but just want to enjoy the TV as you deem fit, that is fine too. That's how markets segment into different needs and preferences, including preference for super thin TV which has nothing to do with PQ, and those who would spend $ to calibrate their TV.

First impression on a calibrated HDTV is almost always negative for the man on the street, until you know what you are looking for.
EscapeVelocity's Avatar EscapeVelocity 05:14 PM 01-02-2011
First impression on a calibrated TV is almost always negative for the man on the street, until you know what you are looking for. --- specuvestor

Indeed. And even then, most will prefer to modify a calibrated picture away from calibration.
serialmike's Avatar serialmike 05:50 PM 01-02-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa View Post

Sorry, I wasn't aware that they ever made a 40" CRT direct view. I had a 35 inch Toshiba and it was extremely heavy and bulky. Very hard for even 2 men to move. I can't even imagine the weight of a 40 inch set.

np yeah mitsu had a 40 for a while. It was badass. then sony also made a 40 which was good but its black level never matched thee mitsu as the 34sony hd crt never matched the mitsu for black either.

It was frakin heavy. Me and a buddy moved that set from the front of the house to the back which required us to take it of a ledge or down three stairs. We took it off the ledge and put it back on its stand. OMG we hurt for 3 days. I think the set was 250lbs+
ruadmaa's Avatar ruadmaa 07:53 PM 01-02-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity View Post

First impression on a calibrated TV is almost always negative for the man on the street, until you know what you are looking for. --- specuvestor

Indeed. And even then, most will prefer to modify a calibrated picture away from calibration.

Then from what you're saying, there really isn't much point to having a set calibrated if the end result is a picture that most people don't like.
specuvestor's Avatar specuvestor 08:44 PM 01-02-2011
One thing is for certain. Plasma marketing suck.

Samsung has great marketing showing consumers how colors should look like, instead of focusing on fidelity. Some people prefer that, just as it is more fun in virtual world avatar rather than stick to the real thing.

A simple test showing man on the street how D65 white look like and you would already get interesting answers. It's about conditioning and marketing.

What I am trying to say is that many of these LCD vs plasma argument stems from different reference points. I like plasma but like I said in many posts, I will however not buy any panasonic equity. It is obvious to me that plasma marketing has lost the masses.

So IMHO the value of AVS is trying to decipher PQ from mass marketing hype. The reference point ought to be industry standards or directors' intent. For lesser purposes I think there are plenty other forums

I hope this does answer the question from the OP. As his nick imply, he is too used to digital image, which LCD will excel.
PENDRAG0ON's Avatar PENDRAG0ON 12:40 AM 01-03-2011
The D65 white thing is kinda like a bleach commercial. The D65 white is the "dingy one" while the bleached one is the blue tinted white. Marketing has conditioned us to like cool whites.
Frank Benign's Avatar Frank Benign 02:19 AM 01-03-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

IMHO if I believe the earth is round but "experts" think the earth is flat then it may be useful for me to find out why. Presumably these "experts" should be more knowledgeable than the man on the street or peers, and they may have different viewpoint on the subject matter, which I may never thought of or consider. This is of course assuming I don't regard myself as the authority on the subject matter.

Of course if you don't care about optimal PQ but just want to enjoy the TV as you deem fit, that is fine too. That's how markets segment into different needs and preferences, including preference for super thin TV which has nothing to do with PQ, and those who would spend $ to calibrate their TV.

First impression on a calibrated HDTV is almost always negative for the man on the street, until you know what you are looking for.

Sorry for the digression. I'd be interested in calibrating my TV, but does the calibration depend on the source or is it one size fits all? I can see why DVD and Blu-Ray producers would want to put the extra effort into having the right colors, but what about broadcast television, crappy satellite and internet streams? Is it worth calibrating for the latter?
specuvestor's Avatar specuvestor 03:49 AM 01-03-2011
The color space for HD, SD and RGB are different.

I only calibrate mine for HD. Like you say, for crappy source, accuracy is probably the least of your problems.
8mile13's Avatar 8mile13 04:53 AM 01-03-2011
The guy who calibrated my TV connected the PS3 and calibrated HDMI1 for my HDsatellite receiver,after calibration he took a look at a few satellite channels and saw no reason to change the settings,after that he connected the PS3 to HDMI2 for PS3 - he used HDcolorspace for HD and SD - ,two inputs where calibrated.

I can chose between over 1000 satellite channels,there are enough channels with decent quality BUT i stopped watching movies and series on it.
ruadmaa's Avatar ruadmaa 05:17 AM 01-03-2011
Back in the 1950's Technicolor prints were considered the prettiest most beautiful films that were ever made. Many of them had high color saturation and looked far better than real life. If you look at a 1953 Technicolor print of "War Of The Worlds" you will see that it looks absolutely gorgeous. If you were to take a new Eastman print of the same movie, timed by the SMPTE (Society Of Motion Picture & Television Engineers) to be perfectly accurate the result is a movie that looks pretty ordinary and nothing exceptional. If you were to show the IB Technicolor print and the accurate Eastman print side by side, you would find that in just about every case people would choose the Technicolor print as the one they would prefer. There can be a decided difference between accuracy and what is actually preferred.
serialmike's Avatar serialmike 06:19 AM 01-03-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa View Post

Back in the 1950's Technicolor prints were considered the prettiest most beautiful films that were ever made. Many of them had high color saturation and looked far better than real life. If you look at a 1953 Technicolor print of "War Of The Worlds" you will see that it looks absolutely gorgeous. If you were to take a new Eastman print of the same movie, timed by the SMPTE (Society Of Motion Picture & Television Engineers) to be perfectly accurate the result is a movie that looks pretty ordinary and nothing exceptional. If you were to show the IB Technicolor print and the accurate Eastman print side by side, you would find that in just about every case people would choose the Technicolor print as the one they would prefer. There can be a decided difference between accuracy and what is actually preferred.

True. To add to that, I can understand that people watch tv to escape from "real". This is why sports with high contrast and colors and movies with exaggerated color or darkness or color filters work so well. Sometimes honestly real life is dull.
8mile13's Avatar 8mile13 07:49 AM 01-03-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa View Post

Back in the 1950's Technicolor prints were considered the prettiest most beautiful films that were ever made. Many of them had high color saturation and looked far better than real life. If you look at a 1953 Technicolor print of "War Of The Worlds" you will see that it looks absolutely gorgeous. If you were to take a new Eastman print of the same movie, timed by the SMPTE (Society Of Motion Picture & Television Engineers) to be perfectly accurate the result is a movie that looks pretty ordinary and nothing exceptional. If you were to show the IB Technicolor print and the accurate Eastman print side by side, you would find that in just about every case people would choose the Technicolor print as the one they would prefer. There can be a decided difference between accuracy and what is actually preferred.

My TV is pro-calibrated, i like how it looks,i like it a lot.

I watch Letterman on my sony laptop on a regular basis,PQ sucks,i use standard setting and guess what(?) i really like the look of it,people look so real(!).

I like both.
gbaby's Avatar gbaby 08:25 AM 01-03-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdGamerDude View Post

A couple years back I bought the Pioneer Elite 111fd that even 2 years later now is still considered the best HDTV ever made PQ / Black wise.

Now while I LOVE it for gaming, I always seem to prefer LCDs for movies and am trying to figure it out why.

So is it me or does LCDs/LEDS produce a different looking image? What is it that seems to draw me towards an LED?

Your post is the reason I opted for the Sony KDL-46xbr8. I wanted to like the Pioneer Elite 111fd, but I preferred the "unrealistic" sharpness of the Sony LED/LCD. I have no regrets as I had and opportunity to get the Pionneer 111fd since my Sony purchased, but I cannot get past that screen door effect I see on the plasma as well as I like the artificial sharpnesss of the LED/LCD.
ruadmaa's Avatar ruadmaa 08:47 AM 01-03-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

My TV is pro-calibrated, i like how it looks,i like it a lot.

I watch Letterman on my sony laptop on a regular basis,PQ sucks,i use standard setting and guess what(?) i really like the look of it,people look so real(!).

I like both.

No problem. Many tv's have several custom settings that you can set up and then choose between them. There usually isn't a one size fits all setting. I do get upset when people tell me that I should be watching an "accurate" picture when that is not what I prefer at all. If you were to compare this to audio settings, some people prefer their audio with a little more bass, others with a little more trebble, and then many prefer the flat settings and consider it sacrilege to mess with any type of tone setting. Accurate is a good place to start and then experiment to determine what you personally like.
EscapeVelocity's Avatar EscapeVelocity 08:58 AM 01-03-2011
I find D65 to be a cool white in and of itself. I would never put a 6500K wide color gamut florescent behind my TV...to maintain color accuracy in the ambient backlighting....yuk!
calvin35's Avatar calvin35 12:19 PM 01-03-2011
I own a Pioneer 101fd which has the best picture I've ever seen. Having said that, I think that if you put the best plasma ever made up against the best lcd ever made the picture quality would be pretty close.
First ... 2  3  4 5 

Up
Mobile  Desktop