Samsung 81 series lcd vs. 8g kuro - Page 27 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #781 of 797 Old 12-13-2007, 07:44 AM
 
wojtek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Posts: 2,179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

You are wasting your time xrox.

Word.

And to wit, I've been watching my 2-year old Panny plasma with the black bars on the sides 80% of the time (hate that stretched SD material), and there is no sign of any permanent, or even temporary, unevenness in color when I put on a 100% white screen. So we can argue about the mechanisms of a totally moot phenomenon until we are blue in the face, I suppose.

My big problem with plasma has been the green phosphor lag (uneven phosphor decay), which I unfortunately see quite often.
wojtek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #782 of 797 Old 12-13-2007, 02:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
spincut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojtek View Post

Word.

And to wit, I've been watching my 2-year old Panny plasma with the black bars on the sides 80% of the time (hate that stretched SD material), and there is no sign of any permanent, or even temporary, unevenness in color when I put on a 100% white screen. So we can argue about the mechanisms of a totally moot phenomenon until we are blue in the face, I suppose.

My big problem with plasma has been the green phosphor lag (uneven phosphor decay), which I unfortunately see quite often.

Yeah but, there really SHOULD be some, that kind of defys the laws of plasmas.....sure some have better resistance than others, but if you have side bars inactive that much there should be uneven aging, so i dont know how their couldnt be, especially a tv from a couple generations ago.....

and where were all these people contradicting kyle before when i was struggling to explain what i heard at the store (and understood at the time) relating to Pioneer IR resistance? He was acting like such an expert that i figured everyone else was on his page....granted as many times as he asked if i understood anything about burn in, or said my explanation didnt even come close, he never actually corrected me as to what was the correct reasoning.....
spincut is offline  
post #783 of 797 Old 12-13-2007, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kylebisme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

maybe it's you who needs to elaborate as all that I have read from you is dismissal.

What you quoted directly above this statement wasn't a dismissal, it was a question. Do you not have a response to that question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Maybe start posting some actual reference and data rather than your reasoning.

It is impossible to for me to determine what references and data might answer your questions as long as you continue to merely insinuate that you have some rather than actually asking one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

It can increase or decrease light output depending on the location of Mg deposition. And again increased wall charge is a completely seperate issue. Quit saying they are the same when they are clearly not.

The quotes you have presented suggest that wall chagring increses the light output while deterioration of the phosphor layer decreses it, and both those are phenomena are the result of Mg deposition to different locations.
kylebisme is offline  
post #784 of 797 Old 12-13-2007, 02:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kylebisme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by spincut View Post

Yeah but, there really SHOULD be some, that kind of defys the laws of plasmas.....sure some have better resistance than others, but if you have side bars inactive that much there should be uneven aging, so i dont know how their couldnt be, especially a tv from a couple generations ago.....

If he is watching enough other content that isn't pillarboxed like HD channels and such, then the uneven fading of running 4:3 content with black pillarboxing will never result in notable difference in phosphor wear. Just like many of us watch a lot of 2.35:1 letterboxed movies on our plasmas, but we watch enough other stuff to avoid ever having that center area fade visibly more than the area which was displaying the letterboxing.

Personally, while I never stretch 4:3 content, I generally use grey bars for the sake of even phosphor wear. That is unless I'm playing a 3D game in 4:3, in which case I generally switch to black bars as when I don't I often find the grey bars distracting.
kylebisme is offline  
post #785 of 797 Old 12-13-2007, 02:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
spincut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 11
but he said 80% of the time, that seems like alot to me, and the last mitsubishi i owned that was equally as old has those SD bars with just as much, maybe even less SD content having been played.
spincut is offline  
post #786 of 797 Old 12-13-2007, 02:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kylebisme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I took his comment to mean that 80% of the SD he watches is viewed with black bars, rather that SD with black bars is what he watches 80% of time. If it is the latter, I'm curious to know if the display was purchased new and how many hours are currently on it.
kylebisme is offline  
post #787 of 797 Old 12-13-2007, 03:10 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 kylebisme View Post

What you quoted directly above this statement wasn't a dismissal, it was a question. Do you not have a response to that question?

what are you talking about? Please state exactly why you think that chart is not usefull.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kylebisme View Post

It is impossible to for me to determine what references and data might answer your questions as long as you continue to merely insinuate that you have some rather than actually asking one.

In other words, you don't have anything to contribute in the way of actual data, just your thoughts. I have posted actual data and quotes from research papers and patents. This is what I base my opninions on. You on the other hand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kylebisme View Post

The quotes you have presented suggest that wall chagring increses the light output while deterioration of the phosphor layer decreses it, and both those are phenomena are the result of Mg deposition to different locations.

Again wrong...... And I won't try and convince you otherwise because you obviously won't even take the manufacturers word for it.

Ken, you were so right........

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #788 of 797 Old 12-13-2007, 04:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kylebisme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

what are you talking about? Please state exactly why you think that chart is not usefull.

I am talking about exactly what I stated previously; "...while both the PDP tests are from Pioneer there is nothing to suggest the testing procedures which generated those results were even intended to be comparable." None of us are in any position to say if the chart is useful here or not without knowing details of the testing procedures used to generate those results. So again, my question is, do you know the details of those testing procedures? If you do, I would like to see them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

In other words, you don't have anything to contribute in the way of actual data, just your thoughts. I have posted actual data and quotes from research papers and patents. This is what I base my opninions on. You on the other hand?

In other words; do you actually have some questions you would like to ask about the subject at hand? If so, I may well have some data to present in my responses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Again wrong...... And I won't try and convince you otherwise because you obviously won't even take the manufacturers word for it.

Yet I don't have any contest with the manufacturers words which you have presented, they all look to be on the mark to me. You keep suggesting they contradict me, but I have no reason to accept your claim as long as you fail to provide any explanation of your own to support it.
kylebisme is offline  
post #789 of 797 Old 12-13-2007, 04:30 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 kylebisme View Post

I am talking about exactly what I stated previously; "...while both the PDP tests are from Pioneer there is nothing to suggest the testing procedures which generated those results were even intended to be comparable." None of us are in any position to say if the chart is useful here or not without knowing details of the testing procedures used to generate those results. So again, my question is, do you know the details of those testing procedures? If you do, I would like to see them.

The link I provided has the testing procedure. If you want to read the actual article it is in SID 2004 information display. I have a copy at work but I am home now. What exactly do you want to know maybe I can remember. Why would they plot the data together if it was not intended to be comparable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kylebisme View Post

In other words; do you actually have some questions you would like to ask about the subject at hand? If so, I may well have some data to present in my responses.

Yet I don't have any contest with the manufacturers words which you have presented, they all look to be on the mark to me. You keep suggesting they contradict me, but I have no reason to accept your claim as long as you fail to provide any explanation of your own to support it.

Wall charge has nothing to do with sputtering Mg metal. One is neutral one is charged. Wall charge referrs to the reset-address-sustain cycle leaving residual charge. MgO is a layer of metal oxide that is neutral. How is that the same? Show me some data on moder phosphor aging. Maybe Pioneer is just pulling our chain.

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #790 of 797 Old 12-14-2007, 09:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kylebisme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

The link I provided has the testing procedure. If you want to read the actual article it is in SID 2004 information display. I have a copy at work but I am home now. What exactly do you want to know maybe I can remember.

I'm mainly interested in the details of the testing procedure, but I don't see anything of the sort mentioned in the link you provided. Could you please present whatever information you have on that, here in this thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Why would they plot the data together if it was not intended to be comparable?

I'm not rightly in a position to say why, but according to what I did see in the link you provided, they did exactly that at least with the LCD figures as they came from a completely separate source. Considering the poor methodology employed there, I can't help but question if the test results they graphed for the PDPs was even intend to be comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Wall charge has nothing to do with sputtering Mg metal. One is neutral one is charged. Wall charge referrs to the reset-address-sustain cycle leaving residual charge. MgO is a layer of metal oxide that is neutral. How is that the same?

When left to it's own, MgO is neutral, but sputtering is the result of being in a charged state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Show me some data on moder phosphor aging. Maybe Pioneer is just pulling our chain.

I don't see Pioneer pulling anyones chain here, and the is some more recent data from them linked just a few post down from the post you linked to eirlier.
kylebisme is offline  
post #791 of 797 Old 12-14-2007, 09:57 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 kylebisme View Post

I'm mainly interested in the details of the testing procedure, but I don't see anything of the sort mentioned in the link you provided. Could you please present whatever information you have on that, here in this thread?

Sure, the two PDPs tested were both Pioneer panels and the LCD was a Sharp LCD. The LCD data was taken at full backlight luminence without acceleration (as this is how LCD operates). The PDP data was also taken at maximum power (peak ABL) and accelerated. This is why the time periods are different for the LCD and the Plasma. The Plasma data is accelerated because of the power on demand operation. LCD data is not accellerated because the backlight is alway on. The main difference between 2nd and 3rd generation PDP is that the 3rd generation contains more Xe gas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kylebisme View Post

I'm not rightly in a position to say why, but according to what I did see in the link you provided, they did exactly that at least with the LCD figures as they came from a completely separate source. Considering the poor methodology employed there, I can't help but question if the test results they graphed for the PDPs was even intend to be comparable.

Comparing two PDPs from the same manufacturer, under the same testing conditions sure seems comparable to me (The LCD is not relevant to this discussion). And if you want to know the reason the LCD is included it was to show that LCD lifetimes are inflated because they are based on the standard or low backlight settings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kylebisme View Post

When left to it's own, MgO is neutral, but sputtering is the result of being in a charged state.

No, vapour deposition of metal and wall charge are worlds apart. The wall charge comes from ionizing gas into plasma causing charged gas particles to stick to the dielectric material. Each cycle reverses polarity on the wall charge and then erases the wall charge to start the next cycle. This is fundamentally how a ACPDP works. Vapor deposition of Mg metal is an unwanted phenomenon unrelated to wall charge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kylebisme View Post

I don't see Pioneer pulling anyones chain here, and the is some more recent data from them linked just a few post down from the post you linked to eirlier.

That data suggests exactly what Samsung is saying. Mg vapor deposition causes the whitel level to decrease and the black level to increase. This is exactly what they found. So what do we disagree on then?

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #792 of 797 Old 12-14-2007, 10:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kylebisme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Sure, the two PDPs tested were both Pioneer panels and the LCD was a Sharp LCD. The LCD data was taken at full backlight luminence without acceleration (as this is how LCD operates). The PDP data was also taken at maximum power (peak ABL) and accelerated. This is why the time periods are different for the LCD and the Plasma. The Plasma data is accelerated because of the power on demand operation. LCD data is not accellerated because the backlight is alway on. The main difference between 2nd and 3rd generation PDP is that the 3rd generation contains more Xe gas.

Comparing two PDPs from the same manufacturer, under the same testing conditions sure seems comparable to me (The LCD is not relevant to this discussion). And if you want to know the reason the LCD is included it was to show that LCD lifetimes are inflated because they are based on the standard or low backlight settings.

I do understand the reason the LCD results are much worse than manufacture claims. My issue is that coming from a separate source the testing equipment and conations were quite likely different from the other displays, reducing the accuracy of the comparison. And of course such differences could also exist between testing of the PDPs, regardless of the fact that the results for both were provided by the same manufacturer.

However, I hadn't considered the factor of peak-ABL circuitry until you mentioned it. Taking the possibly between differences in that between models into account, it is possible 3rd gen PDP on that chart is simply den creasing the initial peak voltage on an unused display and then increasing in respect to usage, in effect compensating for phosphor wear. Granted, that just a guess, but it would explain the initial boost to brightness seen in that display's results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

No, vapour deposition of metal and wall charge are worlds apart. The wall charge comes from ionizing gas into plasma causing charged gas particles to stick to the dielectric material.

Yet the inner coating of the cell wall is a layer of magnesium oxide, which is a dialectic material, and which undergoes physical vapor disposition when charged though ionic bombardment. That is by no means worlds apart, though I can understand how the wide range of terms used in describing the subject might could make it appear as such.
kylebisme is offline  
post #793 of 797 Old 12-15-2007, 10:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,709
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 787 Post(s)
Liked: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Ken, you were so right........

Sometimes can just smell out the guys who want to do nothing but argue and pick a fight.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #794 of 797 Old 12-15-2007, 10:45 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 kylebisme View Post

My issue is that coming from a separate source the testing equipment and conations were quite likely different from the other displays, reducing the accuracy of the comparison. And of course such differences could also exist between testing of the PDPs, regardless of the fact that the results for both were provided by the same manufacturer.

So Pioneer used two seperate testing methods on the individual PDPs? You seem to be reaching to justify your own position. You seem to be making a lot of poor assumptions with no actual evidence. Fact is that it is an excellent comparison showing the improvement in lifetime from one generation to the next. It also shows why break-in was necessary in earlier generation models. At least that is what I take away from it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kylebisme View Post

Yet the inner coating of the cell wall is a layer of magnesium oxide, which is a dialectic material, and which undergoes physical vapor disposition when charged though ionic bombardment. That is by no means worlds apart, though I can understand how the wide range of terms used in describing the subject might could make it appear as such.

Your original confusion was that wall-charge and Mg vapor diffusion are the same when they are not. To me this means that you are under the impression that vapor deposition of metal and charging a dielectric are the same thing (yikes!). If you don't think those two are worlds apart then that tells me that Larry Weber himself could not convince you otherwise .

And for the record MgO serves two purposes. One, it protects the dielectric material covering the electrodes. Two, it acts as an electron source to prime the cell and reduce the voltage required to discharge the gas in the cell. The result is longer life and higher efficiency. Pioneer actually uses a vapor deposited MgO layer and a monocrystal layer of MgO as well (crystal emissive layer).

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #795 of 797 Old 12-15-2007, 10:57 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 Ken Ross View Post

Sometimes can just smell out the guys who want to do nothing but argue and pick a fight.

When he kept asking condescending questions to spincut I started to smell it. Debating is fine but what really bugs me is arguing a position without any evidence to back it up and then dismissing evidence when it is posted. I try and only post what I've read in the literature (and post the literature as well).

Cheers

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #796 of 797 Old 12-15-2007, 11:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kylebisme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

So Pioneer used two seperate testing methods on the individual PDPs?

I am simply suggesting that possiblity as it exists unless we find evidence to contract it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

To me this means that you are under the impression that vapor deposition of metal and charging a dielectric are the same thing (yikes!).

Not quite, rather, I know for a fact that magnesium oxide is a dielectric, and that ionic bombardment of MgO results in sputtering.
kylebisme is offline  
post #797 of 797 Old 12-15-2007, 11:23 AM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 332
time
markrubin is online now  
Closed Thread Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

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