All you 1080p fans beware! Hail to the 768p Plasma King Baby! - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 09:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Darren_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago Area
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Somewhat related question-

How many lines of horizontal resolution does a typical CBS or NBC 1080i HD broadcast content have? Theoretically, 1920, but perhaps bandwidth limitations might cut the effective number down significantly? I don't have any idea how the compression schemes work, but I do know Blue Ray appears more detailed in most all cases, even on my 768p set. Anyone know?

When I bought my last set 4 years ago, I vaguely recall that the 1280x720p plasma sets were touted as having more horizontal resolution capability than typical HD broadcasts could provide. I ended up getting a 1080i CRT set that was limited to 800-900 lines of resoution that looked better than any of the plasmas at the time, so it sounded reasonable.

You know, I can count the vertical scan lines on my 32" analog CRT when I'm close to the set. From farther away, it blends and I don't notice it. This is not a new phenomenon.
Darren_C is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 09:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
xrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
20/20 is a poor metric IMO.

Again I quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

The test isn't 'low resolution'...the problem is that the steps are large from line to line.

Like I said, a contradiction? And since you have a degree in physics you should know what measurement resolution is.

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handb...on4/mpc451.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

And thats how the chart works? IOW, if you make at least some mistakes on the 20/20 line you still get a score of 20/20?

Right, so a group of people categorized as 20/20 in fact may not see 20/20 but fall above or below. But the test output does not tell you this so by definition is has "poor resolution".

Quote:


If, on the other hand a score of 20/20 means that you can read perfectly the 20/20 line then the center point of the the distribution would be between 20/20 and 20/15 as I said before.

No, even if you can read all the letters there is still a wide variation in visual acuity. Take my example, both my eyes can read the full 20/15 line but one is by far clearer than the other. Again the test can't resolve this difference assuming you are using the 20/x outputs.

Quote:


So at the very least, the chart test is capable of giving us a much more precise value than between 25 and 15 for someone with 20/20.

The chart test alone is a brutally low res test that is subjective and inherently poor method. But combined with step by step lense correction it is a somewhat accurate tool to determine prescription numbers (although still subjective).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #273 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 09:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
DPowers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I see. I can agree with that. I have to say if my seating arrangements were different I would have gone with the 5080. Most of us have owned a 768p in the past (I still own two). And it was great. It is a much more fine line choosing between displays (or technologies) than most people like to admit. So many times the terms "superior", "blown out of the water", "looks like crap compared to..." get thrown around these boards, when if fact, if everyone put thems selves in each others shoes once in a while they would see these choices are not as so cut and dry.

The 5080 was on my list, but I went another direction due in part to the resolution, but that's me and my eyes...my family...my usage...my enjoyment. Have a good one.

VanillaHD
Simple. Clean. information about high definition
DPowers is offline  
post #274 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 09:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
mike infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

I know what measurement resolution is xrox. We are only disagreeing about the relative precision of the chart.

I only questioned your use of the word 'resolution' at first because I was wondering if you were claiming that the level of detail in the chart (which some people call 'resolution' as well) was a comparable measure to the visibility of the pixel grid (the issue we are discussing here).

So the word 'resolution' has more than one context...especially on forums like these.

Quote:


But the test output does not tell you this so by definition is has "poor resolution".

But it can tell you that. The optometrist can tell based on how many letters you hit or miss whether you fall above or below that line.

Quote:


Take my example, both my eyes can read the full 20/15 line but one is by far clearer than the other.

Which means that your vision sits between 20/15 and 20/10 for both eyes...not between 20/20 and 20/10 as you claim. I agree that it can't get more precise than that.

Quote:


The chart test alone is a brutally low res test that is subjective and inherently poor method.

I agree that it is not precise enough to make a prescription, but whether or not you can read letters is not 'subjective'. I don't agree that it is 'a poor method' either since it does what it is designed to do: give a ballpark figure.

The bottom line: I will agree that the test is ballpark. At the same time I disagree that anyone who can't read the characters on the 20/15 line should be able to see the pixel grid from a farther distance than someone who can.
mike infinity is offline  
post #275 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 09:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
xrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
I never question the precision? If I did I would be wrong. I do question the accuracy and resolution of the test though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

But it can tell you that. The optometrist can tell based on how many letters you hit or miss whether you fall above or below that line.

The output of the test is 20/x, not 20/x + a couple missed letters. And as I said when step lense testing is added to the equation (via an optometrist) the accuracy goes up as the output changes from 20/x to prescription numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

I don't agree that it is 'a poor method' either since it does what it is designed to do: give a ballpark figure.

Different definitions of poor I guess. That is ok

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

At the same time I disagree that anyone who can't read the characters on the 20/15 line should be able to see the pixel grid from a farther distance than someone who can.

But what about environment. Once you depart from the standardized testing you introduce so many variables that affect the result.

BTW, check the wiki link I posted (Other testing methods, measurement considerations)

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #276 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 12:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
mike infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

I never question the precision? If I did I would be wrong.

Precision is a function of the measuring instrument. Low precision measurements have relatively large deviations. You are saying the test is not precise because the 'resolution is low'.

Unless we have other more accurate tests, it would be difficult to discuss the accuracy of the test.

Quote:


The output of the test is 20/x, not 20/x + a couple missed letters.

All I am saying is that the output could be refined to a more precise result based on the same test regardless of whether or not you are assigned a 20/x number as the 'output of the test'.

Anyway...we are quibbling about an arbitrary aspect of the test...a question of what precision can theoretically be gleaned from the data (my position) vs. a statement of what the eye doctor writes down on the paper as the 'output' (your position).

I will have to ask my optometrist whether or not going one for 10 on the 20/20 line would still get you a score of '20/20. I would be surprised if it did.

Quote:


But what about environment. Once you depart from the standardized testing you introduce so many variables that affect the result.

Put a bunch of people who can read at least every character from a 20/20 line in a room with controlled (say theatre like lighting) but can't read the 20/15 line...then put a resolution chart on the screen with high frequency lines and measure extinction resolution VS distance for the eye.

I would accept the data there as a working measure of where SDE would vanish for the average person.

Quote:


BTW, check the wiki link I posted (Other testing methods, measurement considerations)

I already did. I don't believe there is anything here that I am saying that is contradictory.

Anyway, I don't think we disagree much at all.
mike infinity is offline  
post #277 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 05:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

Precision is a function of the measuring instrument. Low precision measurements have relatively large deviations. You are saying the test is not precise because the 'resolution is low'.

Precision is the repeatability and reproducability of the measurement result. In the eye chart test the precision is very good.

The accuracy refers to how close the measured result is to the actual true result. The eye chart test has very poor accuracy and resolution thanks to large divisions between outcomes versus actual visual acuity. And as I've said many times my basis for this is that I personally have significantly different visual acuity between my two eyes yet they are both measured at 20/15.

Quote:


Unless we have other more accurate tests, it would be difficult to discuss the accuracy of the test.

Hence the use of step lenses to assess prescriptions. Imagine if we relied on the 20/x number to get prescriptions filled.

This stood out from the wiki page: "Variables such as pupil size, background adaptation luminance, duration of presentation, type of optotype used, interaction effects from adjacent visual contours (or “crowding") can all affect visual acuity measurement."

Like I was saying, stray away from the standards and the output of the test will change.

"The smallest detectable visual angle produced by a single fine dark line against a uniformally illuminated background is also much less than foveal cone size or regular visual acuity. In this case, under optimal conditions, the limit is about 0.5 arc seconds, or only about 2% of the diameter of a foveal cone. This produces a contrast of about 1% with the illumination of surrounding cones. The mechanism of detection is the ability to detect such small differences in contrast or illumination, and does not depend on the angular width of the bar, which cannot be discerned. Thus as the line gets finer, it appears to get fainter but not thinner. "

I got the feeling from this article that reading a letter on a chart and looking at a grid or pattern are not the same.
Mike, I personally don't see SDE even on my old ED plasma, and definitely don't see it on 768p or 1080p displays unless I get really close and I have 20/15 vision. I am just questioning your opinion that 20/x number determines your ability to see SDE. First the test itself is not accurate and second looking for SDE is a completely different environment.

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #278 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 07:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
mike infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Precision is the repeatability and reproducability of the measurement result.

Thats only half of it. The other half of precision is the number of significant digits that the measurement apparatus is capable of resolving. That would generally be a function of the level of gradation in the measurement tool. A ruler with cm gradations, for example, would be less precise than one with mm gradation because of larger deviations in the estimated value between the wider gradation marks. 10 people making the same measurement with the cm ruler would show a larger deviations...hence less precision...than 10 people making the same measurement using mm gradations when they round to the nearest mm (which they should).

Suppose we ask them to round to the nearest centimeter instead. Now we will have more agreement (or repeatability) in our data set...but does this make the measurement more precise? No, because while we have gained in repeatability we have lost significant digits. Precision is a function of both.

The eye test has good repeatability, but it is only because there is an arbitrary restriction that says you can't estimate an acuity value between the gradations on the scale. So while estimation is possible with the test, the doctors are artificially restricted from doing so by the rules. Its like saying a beaker with L graduations is just as precise as a beaker with mL graduations as long as we follow a rule that says you must round all measurements to the nearest graduation mark and therefore get higher reproducibility at the expense of decimal places. This is, of course, entirely false. 1 L, 1L, 1L is not a set of measurements more precise than 1.012L, 1.011L, 1.013L simply because it was easier to reproduce using a blunter instrument. To say otherwise is to say that the bluntest instrument would also be the most precise one merely because it always gives us the same value. You are saying the eye test is precise because it is blunt...a contradiction.

Quote:


This stood out from the wiki page: "Variables such as pupil size, background adaptation luminance, duration of presentation, type of optotype used, interaction effects from adjacent visual contours (or “crowding") can all affect visual acuity measurement."

All of which are easily controlled (except for perhaps pupil size which will vary from person to person in given ambient light...but that would only matter if the person could see near the diffraction limit anyway...most of us don't have optics anywhere near that good).

Quote:


I got the feeling from this article that reading a letter on a chart and looking at a grid or pattern are not the same.

Maybe not exactly the same. Nevertheless I would guess...and I think you would tend to agree... that acuity for chart reading and acuity for SDE are strongly correlated. I would also guess that they are both largely a function of optics and far less a function of cone considerations. It is likely that cone interaction...from strictly a resolution standpoint... has little person to person variance while optics vary greatly from person to person (including errors, etc).

Quote:


I am just questioning your opinion that 20/x number determines your ability to see SDE. First the test itself is not accurate and second looking for SDE is a completely different environment.

I am saying that there should be a correlation between 20/x and the distance where SDE vanishes under similar lighting conditions.
mike infinity is offline  
post #279 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 07:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
jet757f's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Posts: 753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD_MASTER1 View Post

Let me ask you. Do you enjoy SDE? Does the sight of inaccurate greens make you feel great? Do you enjoy doing preventive maintenance on a TV to prevent burn-in? Do you get happy when you see the dreaded "kuro black blobs"? does a noticably DIM screen make you feel warm and fluffy inside? Have you had a top of the line LCD and the 5080 in your home? Does it make you feel nice when you are trying to watch a TV show and all you see is a reflection of yourself in the panel? Does it make you feel good that your TV will lose its punch over time?

THe post doesn't seem to misinformed to me and alot of others who are complaining about the 5080 and how the hype is all bologna.

Why are you talking about LCD screens on a plasma thread.
Put down the crack pipe and pay attention.
jet757f is offline  
post #280 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 08:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
mike infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD_MASTER1 View Post

And there is an LCDs that has better blacks than Kuro (81f Samsung).

In one case only: a dark field. Otherwise kuro does better. Thats why reviews peg the kuro with the highest contrast ratio to date....because while the lcd has a higher peak brightness, the kuro has a lower luminance for blacks.

Quote:


As well as a much brighter vibrant picture.

Brighter...yes. So much that I had to turn down when I switched to watching anything with alot of white in it.

The kuro is hardly dim. It looks that way on white fields next to LCDs because LCDs are RELATIVELY bright. No one who has seen my kuro in my bright room has ever said it was dim. It is just right for brightness levels IMO.

In my side by side tests with LCDs (XBR4, Sammy, Sharp), the colour reproduction in dark scenes (and generally) was much better on the kuro thanks to a more linear grey scale and better black. The blotches (that only some have noticed), inaccurate greens, etc are minor annoyances. I only see blobs on my kuro on blank inputs in pitch dark...that is a rare viewing situation for me....even then I have to put my face about 1 foot from the screen because they are nearly invisible.

The BLUR on the LCDs was the deal killer. Once you start noticing that, you see it everywhere. Don't take my word for it...check the LCD forum yourself.
mike infinity is offline  
post #281 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 08:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
DPowers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD_MASTER1 View Post

Because that is what the thread was already talking about. You should learn to read the thread before making uneducated statements like that. I also own a plasma so I have as much of a right to speak here as you. So you put your crack pipe down.
The statement needs to be made that the Kuro's are not the only or best display out there. I have noticed how some owners of the 5080 are completely close-minded and think Kuro is more than just an exotic japanese word. Panasonic plasmas are currently winning in all of the consumer reports .
And there is an LCDs that has better blacks than Kuro (81f Samsung). The samsung delivers an ink black like no other set. As well as a much brighter vibrant picture.
Wake up people. Kuro is hype and its starting to show. Look at all the complaint threads on the 5080. DIM DIM DIM.
enjoy squinting at your screens!

You know, being this confrentaional this early in your history will get you nothing around here. Even if we don't send you directly to our ignore list you are just as easily ignored none the less. Your definitely not starting out on the right foot.

We all know the "ins and outs" of plasmas and LCDs. Like you said most of us have both in our houses or have owned one or another at some time. We could go over the list of reasons that LCD is considered inferior to Plasmas...again. We all have our very valid reasons for puchasing the hardware we do.

I am not going to rant and rave about what equipment I own, but I will say that it is well known that Kuros have over double the CR of any other flat panel on the market. That is impressive in any book. I might not own one, but since I don't work for any of these companies and my next display my very well be a Pioneer, I will give credit where credit is do. The people on these forums aren't the only ones raving about the Kuros.

VanillaHD
Simple. Clean. information about high definition
DPowers is offline  
post #282 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 09:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
E-A-G-L-E-S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,721
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Have you posted one non-anti 5080 post yet since joining?
That is not pointing out what you may think are blemishes with the 5080 while enjoying it or a different plasma of your own. With the majority of your posts about the tv before and after purchase.
Grow up.
E-A-G-L-E-S is offline  
post #283 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 11:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

The other half of precision is the number of significant digits that the measurement apparatus is capable of resolving.

Other half? No, generally this is actually called instrument resolution (along with the inclusion of instrument noise). And just because an instrument has low resolution does not mean it has low precision (snell eye chart is a great example).

Edit: If by "other half" you mean # 2 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision then yes regarding "numbers". If you want to use the term "Instrument precision" then the specs +-(X) while still not correct are more related to precision (repeatability)

Regarding the ruler example I concede that the numerical precision is better on the mm ruler according to the "other" definition. I'll have to ask my six sigma coach about the use of the term precision.

What would the results of an MSA on the 20/x measurement yeild? IMO High precision, low resolution (assuming your outputs are only 20/x). Now using the numerical term "precise" I would say that the 20/x measurement is not very precise?

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #284 of 319 Old 01-25-2008, 11:47 PM
Senior Member
 
MegaByte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Maui Hawaii
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD_MASTER1 View Post

If there is one thing being an Engineer has taught me is "Never trust the test result of someone trying to prove a point!".

Your an Engineer and you use a tree scenario to justify your case. Jeez.... What tests and measurements on a 5080 that you've done personally or researched that you can use to justify your claims? After all, you are an Engineer trying to prove a point. If that is the case. Then you should really have some facts to PROVE "YOUR" POINT. Links plz. And your claim that their are alot of compaints over on the KURO threads that the 5080 is DIM DIM is a new one on me. Again, please provide some links to backup your claims? I have read about plasma's in general being dimmer than LCD's. But to single out the 5080's like you have is just plain false. But I will admit you are right about a few newer LCD's out there with better black's than the KURO's. That is, if you like to look at a totaly black screen with nothing on it. But once you start to watch a program, a 5080 will beat out those LCD blacks any day of the week.
MegaByte is offline  
post #285 of 319 Old 01-26-2008, 03:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chadmak09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by coltsfreak18 View Post

that is why they are backlogged with the kuros at certain places??

Actually the Backlogs are due to Pioneers inability to meet ship dates. I called Crutchfield to see if they would special order me a pdp6010fd and I was told that they have dropped pioneer from thier A/V because they are so bad at fullfilling thier shipment commitments which leaves buyers angry. I really hate that becasue of the no payments for 12 months deal going on at crutchfield right now
chadmak09 is offline  
post #286 of 319 Old 01-26-2008, 04:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coltsfreak18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegaByte View Post

Your an Engineer and you use a tree scenario to justify your case. Jeez.... What tests and measurements on a 5080 that you've done personally or researched that you can use to justify your claims? After all, you are an Engineer trying to prove a point. If that is the case. Then you should really have some facts to PROVE "YOUR" POINT. Links plz. And your claim that their are alot of compaints over on the KURO threads that the 5080 is DIM DIM is a new one on me. Again, please provide some links to backup your claims? I have read about plasma's in general being dimmer than LCD's. But to single out the 5080's like you have is just plain false. But I will admit you are right about a few newer LCD's out there with better black's than the KURO's. That is, if you like to look at a totaly black screen with nothing on it. But once you start to watch a program, a 5080 will beat out those LCD blacks any day of the week.

Quote from Laozi, "Wise men do not prove points, men who are not wise prove points." Dead on accuracy by Laozi. This guy HD_Master really needs to lay off. (markrubin i know challenge the post, not the poster). To be saying such inaccurate information on such a highly respected forum is a shame. These people have to know what to do the correct way with their money, and random people saying the exact opposite from everybody else does not help at all. For good measure, I don't own a kuro. I actually own two lcds (and a pz700u)

What is dead can never die. Long live my 151!
coltsfreak18 is offline  
post #287 of 319 Old 01-26-2008, 07:30 AM
Senior Member
 
MegaByte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Maui Hawaii
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I wonder if sampo is back......
MegaByte is offline  
post #288 of 319 Old 01-26-2008, 07:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Darren_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago Area
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD_MASTER1 View Post

WOW. I must have really hit a nerve with some people with my opinions about the 5080. But let me ask this. If someone called you a tree would you be angry about it? You know you are not a tree and you are a human being so If I called you a tree it would not bother you I am sure.
So why do so many 5080 owners get upset when I mention the shortfalls?
Answer: because they know it's true and they don't want to admit 720p is inferior and they purchased a low end TV.
If they knew it was false it would not bother them at all and would be about as upsetting as me calling them a tree or a chair. This is why my opinions (which are also facts) are hurting them so much.
Because when the truth hits home it sometimes hurts and the only thing they know to do is call me "misinformed" or "wrong" and retaliate with immature responses. But none of this bothers me because I know they are incorrect.
I keep hearing all of these great tests and measurements that 5080 owners are getting on thier TV's . If there is one thing being an Engineer has taught me is "Never trust the test result of someone trying to prove a point!".
So people, take most of these so-called results with a grain of salt and do your own tests and trust your eyes. Your eyes will tell you that the 5080 is not worthy of being called a Kuro like the 5010,6010,pro150fd and pro110fd.

Maybe we should see the reception I get, if I go over to the Samsung LCD threads and start saying how great a Kuro is and how it doesn't have TBE or constant stuttering issues? Maybe the XBR4 threads would love to hear how the auto black levels are really bothersome to a Kuro owner who wants consistently dark black levels.

Yeah, all these sets have their own pet issues, otherwise there wouldn't be as many choices. So what? From posts like yours, I could just as easily infer that a lot of people out there are hurt by the truth when they find out they could have had a 5080 for a lot less than what they paid and gotten better overall picture quality in doing so. That would be no more immature than your repsonses have been.
Darren_C is offline  
post #289 of 319 Old 01-26-2008, 08:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
mike infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

No, generally this is actually called instrument resolution (along with the inclusion of instrument noise). And just because an instrument has low resolution does not mean it has low precision (snell eye chart is a great example).

Yes it does. An eye chart with more character lines in between 20/20 and 20/15 would be more precise not because of better repeatability, but because of more graduations between the previous graduations.

Like I said, 1.012, 1.013, and 1.011 are more precise for measurement of a quantity than 1, 1, and 1. According to you, the second data set is more precise. I've got a plethora of physics books with explanations on measurement precision vs accuracy that agree. It also happens to be the first lesson I teach to my grade 11 physics class every semester before we do a lab (although that doesn't mean I'm right).

You can call it 'resolution' if you want...it works. Nevertheless, the number of sig. figs in a measurement is a factor in 'precision' as well as reproducibility.

Quote:


Regarding the ruler example I concede that the numerical precision is better on the mm ruler according to the "other" definition.

Then you also concede that precision is not mere reproducibility if the other definition has any validity.

If I asked you to hand me the more precise ruler...most would accept that as a valid identifier of the ruler with the smaller graduation marks.

Anyway its now down to semantics...you say 'resolution'...I say 'precision' ...but we are talking about the same statistical aspect of the data set.

Quote:


IMO High precision, low resolution

The problem here is that I can't fathom anyone referring to an instrument with the largest gradations...or low resolution...as 'high precision' merely because you artificially eliminate data variances via rounding.

Who would argue that the odometer in your car is more precise than a tape measure?

Quote:


Now using the numerical term "precise" I would say that the 20/x measurement is not very precise?

Think of it this way: A chart with 20/20, 20/19, 20/18, 20/17, 20/16, 20/15 lines has more precision because we have added another significant digit. If you round the value to the old scale of either 20/20 or 20/15 then you will find that the reproducibility of the un-rounded data set is not diminished by the improved graduations.

So if a patient scores 20/18, 20/17, and 20/18 on the improved chart, we can round to 20/20, 20/20, and 20/20 and see that we have not lost any previous repeatability. The new data set is just as precise as the old one with the same sig. figs. It is more precise than the old one when we add the extra sig fig.

Its like the typical throwing darts on a target example. If we put large segments on the board then a shooter can claim he hit target X 5 times...very precise. If we further subdivide target X then and the shooter now hits the subdivisions of X then would it make any sense to say that the shooter has less precision than before? He still hit target X every time...he just can't hit the same division of X every time. The additional segments give us more information on where he actually hits on target X...and therefore make our target measurement more precise (higher resolution works too).
mike infinity is offline  
post #290 of 319 Old 01-26-2008, 08:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
mike infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD_MASTER1 View Post

If there is one thing being an Engineer has taught me is "Never trust the test result of someone trying to prove a point!".

So engineering has taught you that science is invalid?

Sorry...I ought not feed a troll.
mike infinity is offline  
post #291 of 319 Old 01-26-2008, 08:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
xrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

You can call it 'resolution' if you want...it works. Nevertheless, the number of sig. figs in a measurement is a factor in 'precision' as well as reproducibility.

I'll find out how this ambiguity is handled in an MSA and send you a PM. To me it just seems the two definitions can be in conflict depending on the SOP.

As for the 20/x , if I read the low resolution chart a 100 times I will probably score a 20/15 100 times. That is pretty good precision on such a low precision test. Of course it helps that I memorized the numbers the first time

If I then revise the output to 20/x + number of letters per line then the repeatability will start to vary.

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #292 of 319 Old 01-26-2008, 08:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Darren_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago Area
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

So engineering has taught you that science is invalid?

Sorry...I ought not feed a troll.

Better phrased-

"Never trust the test result of someone who doesn't understand scientific method, especially if they are an engineer."

Funny thing is, this thread was about the HTM comparison. One where they did their own tests and also trusted their own eyes for subjective impressions.

I referenced a lot of reviews on sets before I made a purchase. In particular, the Panasonic 1080p set received glowing reviews. I almost made the mistake of not taking them with a grain of salt and almost purchased that model, despite my eyes telling me that others were signifciantly better for my preferences. So, at least in that regard, HD_MASTER has some great advice. Sometimes, you do need to trust your eyes and not the numbers. All else being equal, 1080p is better than 720p. The real point is, all else rarely ever equal, especially if price is a factor.
Darren_C is offline  
post #293 of 319 Old 01-26-2008, 09:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
DPowers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegaByte View Post

I wonder if sampo is back......

good call

VanillaHD
Simple. Clean. information about high definition
DPowers is offline  
post #294 of 319 Old 01-26-2008, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Garman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The Moon
Posts: 4,662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_C View Post

Maybe we should see the reception I get, if I go over to the Samsung LCD threads and start saying how great a Kuro is and how it doesn't have TBE or constant stuttering issues? Maybe the XBR4 threads would love to hear how the auto black levels are really bothersome to a Kuro owner who wants consistently dark black levels.

Yeah, all these sets have their own pet issues, otherwise there wouldn't be as many choices. So what? From posts like yours, I could just as easily infer that a lot of people out there are hurt by the truth when they find out they could have had a 5080 for a lot less than what they paid and gotten better overall picture quality in doing so. That would be no more immature than your repsonses have been.


Very well put!!!! Because no matter what popular TV forum you go into there is some one talking bad about the set and the issues it has. For me the XBR4 inconsistent black levels was the deal breaker because most of our viewing will be done in a darker bedroom setting so this plasma was the right choice.
Garman is online now  
post #295 of 319 Old 01-26-2008, 10:14 AM
Member
 
WolfDV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD_MASTER1 View Post

WOW.

you're sure a piece of work, all you have done lately is troll in the plasma forums, and put down the purchase choices of others..

we are all well aware of the pro's / con's of various Lcd and Plasma sets.. and we have reasons for our purchases.

what sets do you have if you don't mind me asking? have you even had any real experience with a 768p kuro other than looking at them at big box retailers?

HD_MASTER .. more like HD_IGNORANT .. you really are not contributing anything to this community .. very unprofessional

The 768p Kuros are great sets in their own way

Currently enjoying my 46XBR4, 5080HD, and 5010FD ... and can't wait for the next gen 9mm Pioneer sets, hoping for 70'' or larger
WolfDV is offline  
post #296 of 319 Old 01-26-2008, 03:24 PM
Senior Member
 
jamese777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
CNET proclaims the Pioneer Kuro 5080 as "the top HDTV overall."
http://reviews.cnet.com/4370-6485_7-...html?tag=prmo1

Jamese777
Perpetual Newbie
jamese777 is offline  
post #297 of 319 Old 01-27-2008, 12:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
mike infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

I'll find out how this ambiguity is handled in an MSA and send you a PM. To me it just seems the two definitions can be in conflict depending on the SOP.

Thanks.

Quote:
That is pretty good precision on such a low precision test.

Yes. My point is that this repeatability is artificial...like the repeatability you would get from throwing darts at the broad side of a barn.

Quote:
If I then revise the output to 20/x + number of letters per line then the repeatability will start to vary.

Nevertheless, the average of these data would represent a more precise score for the test than just 20/x because we have now laid down a finer grid over the dart board.

Of course, we are in complete agreement about all of this...just the semantics of 'precision'.

Let me know though...if I have it wrong I would appreciate your insight.
mike infinity is offline  
post #298 of 319 Old 01-27-2008, 12:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
mike infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_C View Post

Sometimes, you do need to trust your eyes and not the numbers.

Agreed. Of course, the personal eyeball test is the only one that matters in the end. Still, buying a TV is certainly complex these days...with all the settings, enhancements, resolution, contrast, black levels, colour reproduction, etc. Most people probably don't care about the details as long as their favourite show looks nice.

On the other hand, the videophiles and reviewers are still doing a great service by articulating those technical details that ultimately determine how pleasing an image will be to an eye.

When reading reviews and opinions, you get an idea of what lots of eyes have experienced before you make a relatively large investment like this. Thats what this thread is all about...why a 768p kuro...according to many....is still a winner in a sea of 1080p competition.
mike infinity is offline  
post #299 of 319 Old 01-28-2008, 03:31 AM
Member
 
rousemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
OK, so I know I will annoy people who read this thread as people hate repeating information..etc....but I just need a few brief comments about the Pioneer 5080 and hope I don't get rude responses. Any of you feel bummed that you do not have 1080p display? What are the most important PROs and CONS of this TV? Any worries about burn-in? Lastly, any issues with gaming or lag with this TV? THANKS for your time.
rousemc is offline  
post #300 of 319 Old 01-28-2008, 03:32 AM
Member
 
rousemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I was thinking for returning my 4671F Samsung and picking up a 5080 Pioneer. Comments? THANKS GUYS AND GALS!
rousemc is offline  
Reply Plasma Flat Panel Displays

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off