HDguru tests 75 displays for resolution, motion, etc.. - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 183 Old 10-10-2007, 10:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Sam S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elemental1 View Post

This is really the problem.
What is really affecting real world viewing?
Does everything get converted to video over broadcast already?
Does your HD player do all the heavy lifting anyway?

I'm not sure I understand your (rhetorical?) question about everything getting converted to video over broadcast. Of course the short answer is "no", and we can expand on that,because there is plenty of 1080i/60 film based content available from NBC, CBS, HBO, etc.

As far as my DVD player doing the heavy lifting, the answer there is also no. I was able to do the same HQV tests last night but with my Toshiba HD A1 outputing 720p. The player did terrible! Failed the 1080i motion-adaptive test, as well as the 3:2 pulldown for film sources. But I suppose it is a moot point, as no film-based material would ever be encoded on the disc at 1080i/60. The one test that the player passed at 720p that my Sony 32SL130 failed @1080i input was "Film Mode High Detail" which shows up as moire in the stadium stands.

I guess I need to reconsider my assesment after thinking that through... As long as the HD DVD is 1080p/24, then outputing to 720p appears to preserve all the fine detail when viewing on a 768p set. For the 1st gen Toshiba models, my recommendation for viewing on a 720p set would be: use 720p output for 1080p film based content, and 1080i output for video based HD DVD content (assuming your display can do proper motion adaptive deinterlacing of 1080i sources).
Sam S is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 183 Old 10-10-2007, 11:01 AM
Senior Member
 
diceburna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason View Post

AIUI, sets with constant 540p bobbing (see Merson's three earlier articles ) use each 1/60-sec 540-line TV field from 1080i to create full frames. Newer test DVDs or a standard SMPTE test pattern detect this with flashing white and black screens as each TV field is displayed.

The two 540-line interlaced half-frames are supposed to be shown 1/60-sec apart on interlaced CRT displays, or digitally deinterlaced into full frames for fixed-pixel displays. With my 1080i CRT RPTV, my eyes merge the two 1/60-sec TV fields into 1/30-sec frames. With most fixed-pixel displays a buffer memory helps create 1/60-sec frames, preferably combining both fields/frame rather than creating frames from only 540-line half-frames.

The mid-90's ATSC-approval test was cited earlier above . Test results (see simplified table ) showed that a static 1080i test pattern had 800 lines of effective vertical resolution (resolvable lines), while a dynamic (5-rpm) pattern only 400 lines. Vertical resolution is the number of resolvable B&W horizontal lines from screen top to bottom. This drop in vertical resolution with motion varies directly with the rate of motion, so movement less than ~5 rpm from a rotating test pattern shouldn't cause as much loss of vertical resolution. Also, the vertical resolution loss from movement should only take place where movement occurs. 540p bobbing, however, could diminish vertical resolution over the whole screen.

In the "2.1 Resolution" introduction of the ATSC report (linked above), the video experts wrote:
Again, that's where motion is taking place within the image, and the resolution drop varies with the rate of motion.

Also, as outlined originally above (yesterday), it's possible to use a non-sampled computer or pattern-generator test images and measure the full 1920X1080 resolution of many displays. Test patterns or actual programming sampled at ~74 MHz are filtered to reconstruct images from the samples, resulting in both vertical and horizontal resolution loss. Came across an interesting diagram, Fig. A3,, from 2006 European HD studies, that compares the effective resolutions (resolvable details) of both 1080i and 720p after the Kell factor (~0.7 X line count) and anti-twitter filtering is factored in. Obviously such diagrams involving maximum resolutions expressed as lines correspond to equivalent details in scenes, and maximum resolvable details can be far less--if a film or video camera is heavily filtered, for example, or from many other limitations along the delivery chain. -- John

Thank you for the EBU technical review you posted on here.
diceburna is online now  
post #93 of 183 Old 10-10-2007, 11:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam S View Post

I'm not sure I understand your (rhetorical?) question about everything getting converted to video over broadcast. Of course the short answer is "no", and we can expand on that,because there is plenty of 1080i/60 film based content available from NBC, CBS, HBO, etc.

As far as my DVD player doing the heavy lifting, the answer there is also no. I was able to do the same HQV tests last night but with my Toshiba HD A1 outputing 720p. The player did terrible! Failed the 1080i motion-adaptive test, as well as the 3:2 pulldown for film sources. But I suppose it is a moot point, as no film-based material would ever be encoded on the disc at 1080i/60. The one test that the player passed at 720p that my Sony 32SL130 failed @1080i input was "Film Mode High Detail" which shows up as moire in the stadium stands.

I guess I need to reconsider my assesment after thinking that through... As long as the HD DVD is 1080p/24, then outputing to 720p appears to preserve all the fine detail when viewing on a 768p set. For the 1st gen Toshiba models, my recommendation for viewing on a 720p set would be: use 720p output for 1080p film based content, and 1080i output for video based HD DVD content (assuming your display can do proper motion adaptive deinterlacing of 1080i sources).

Interesting...how do you know about broadcast?
What are they doing to the original content and does every broadcaster do the same thing?
The reason I wonder is I just can't see a big difference in PQ between panels that have passed interlace/3:2 tests and panels that failed using broadcast signals.
As far as the HD DvD players....isn't it the same as when people were saying DvD players tested on this panel failed but this panel did not when they were actually just confusing and testing player performance?
If you send DvD 480i...then you are testing the panel, yes?

My HT

In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #94 of 183 Old 10-10-2007, 11:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Sam S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 16
How do I know about broadcast? I understand the transmission standards that the content providers use to deliver content that originated at 1080p/60 or 1080p/30, and how it is converted to 1080i/60 or 720p/60 for ATSC transmission. If you are hinting that other broadcasters do it differently than one another, or incorrectly, I ask that you be more specific or give examples of what you would like to discuss further.

I can see a difference in video based and film based content on panels that pass the deinterlace/3:2 tests. My Sony 32SL130 appears shaper than a friends 32" Olevia 232 model with the same content.

Yes, you are correct. If I'm sending DVD 480i, I'm definitely testing the panel's ability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elemental1 View Post

Interesting...how do you know about broadcast?
What are they doing to the original content and does every broadcaster do the same thing?
The reason I wonder is I just can't see a big difference in PQ between panels that have passed interlace/3:2 tests and panels that failed using broadcast signals.
As far as the HD DvD players....isn't it the same as when people were saying DvD players tested on this panel failed but this panel did not when they were actually just confusing and testing player performance?
If you send DvD 480i...then you are testing the panel, yes?

Sam S is online now  
post #95 of 183 Old 10-10-2007, 12:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam S View Post

How do I know about broadcast? I understand the transmission standards that the content providers use to deliver content that originated at 1080p/60 or 1080p/30, and how it is converted to 1080i/60 or 720p/60 for ATSC transmission. If you are hinting that other broadcasters do it differently than one another, or incorrectly, I ask that you be more specific or give examples of what you would like to discuss further.

I can see a difference in video based and film based content on panels that pass the deinterlace/3:2 tests. My Sony 32SL130 appears shaper than a friends 32" Olevia 232 model with the same content.

Yes, you are correct. If I'm sending DVD 480i, I'm definitely testing the panel's ability.

Not hinting. I am just asking.
So your Sony and that Olevia are hooked up via cablecard and coax?
Otherwise....you are just testing the STB.
You really need to compare the same source using the same hardware or it's just not valid.

Edit: Some STB's do have pass-thru.

My HT

In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #96 of 183 Old 10-10-2007, 12:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sam S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Both were hooked up to OTA digital antenna for HD sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elemental1 View Post

Not hinting. I am just asking.
So your Sony and that Olevia are hooked up via cablecard and coax?
Otherwise....you are just testing the STB.
You really need to compare the same source using the same hardware or it's just not valid.

Edit: Some STB's do have pass-thru.

Sam S is online now  
post #97 of 183 Old 10-10-2007, 01:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tower101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elemental1 View Post

Not hinting. I am just asking.
So your Sony and that Olevia are hooked up via cablecard and coax?
Otherwise....you are just testing the STB.
You really need to compare the same source using the same hardware or it's just not valid.

Edit: Some STB's do have pass-thru.

My STB has pass-thru and my video processor tells me what it is getting including if it is Film or Video. Almost all prime-time shows and almost all movies are Film, sporting events and the news are video. The cable co just passes what is sent to them.
tower101 is offline  
post #98 of 183 Old 10-10-2007, 03:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
RUSTY PELICAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam S View Post

As far as my DVD player doing the heavy lifting, the answer there is also no. I was able to do the same HQV tests last night but with my Toshiba HD A1 outputing 720p. The player did terrible! Failed the 1080i motion-adaptive test, as well as the 3:2 pulldown for film sources. But I suppose it is a moot point, as no film-based material would ever be encoded on the disc at 1080i/60. The one test that the player passed at 720p that my Sony 32SL130 failed @1080i input was "Film Mode High Detail" which shows up as moire in the stadium stands.

I guess I need to reconsider my assesment after thinking that through... As long as the HD DVD is 1080p/24, then outputing to 720p appears to preserve all the fine detail when viewing on a 768p set. For the 1st gen Toshiba models, my recommendation for viewing on a 720p set would be: use 720p output for 1080p film based content, and 1080i output for video based HD DVD content (assuming your display can do proper motion adaptive deinterlacing of 1080i sources).

Sam,

2 questions - Does your Toshiba A1 have the first firmware update? Are you viewing using the HDMI input?

I also own the Toshiba A1 HD-DVD player, and after the 1st firmware update, the 720p quality is excellent if viewing thru HDMI, but poor [somewhat noisy] if using component, although 1080i thru either input is pretty good [but a little soft on component compared to HDMI]. I'm referring to the movie content on HD-DVD discs.
RUSTY PELICAN is offline  
post #99 of 183 Old 10-10-2007, 04:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 197
According to these tests involving motion which LCD sets sucked the least?

How far are they behind plasmas?
Artwood is offline  
post #100 of 183 Old 10-10-2007, 05:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nmlobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Yorktown, VA
Posts: 2,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The article stated that all 120hz sets retained 600 lines of resolution. One set was the Sony KDL-46XBR4. All pdps lost resolution during motion as well. PDPs retained 830-880 lines of 1080. So I guess both technologies blur with motion.

Reading through this thread, I'm not quite sure what the results really mean. I seem to remember reading that the tests don't tell us much unless you report the H & V lines. I also believe the 3:2 and deinterlacing tests are important. I look forward to seeing those results.
Nmlobo is offline  
post #101 of 183 Old 10-10-2007, 06:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BIG ED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California Wine Country
Posts: 3,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
The subject of this thread, has changed for me.
Does the article change from the OP?

At first, I thought this was about 1080p displays displaying 1080p.
Is the review only about 1080i & 3:2 being displayed?
Thanks.

"I wonder if any of the releases had slipcovers though."
"Are these comfirmed to have slipcovers?"
"They look nice in those slips."
"This slipcover looks too good to pass up."
BIG ED is offline  
post #102 of 183 Old 10-10-2007, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sam S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUSTY PELICAN View Post

Sam,

2 questions - Does your Toshiba A1 have the first firmware update? Are you viewing using the HDMI input?

I also own the Toshiba A1 HD-DVD player, and after the 1st firmware update, the 720p quality is excellent if viewing thru HDMI, but poor [somewhat noisy] if using component, although 1080i thru either input is pretty good [but a little soft on component compared to HDMI]. I'm referring to the movie content on HD-DVD discs.

I'm running firmware version 2.3, and I used HDMI to test the Sony panel. I definitely think that 720p via HDMI is the preferred setting for a 720p-native display assuming the HD DVD content is 1080p/24.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

According to these tests involving motion which LCD sets sucked the least?

How far are they behind plasmas?

For the motion tests, the results are all over the board. The Sony LCDs fair the best overall, but others do well too. 65% of the sets tested passed the motion adaptive test, but only 13 of 74 sets pass both the motion and 3:2 film detection.
Sam S is online now  
post #103 of 183 Old 10-16-2007, 09:49 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
tomanystraydogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
So according to the test the best PDP retain 880 lines out of 1080. That's an 18.5% drop.

If the same applies for 720p PDP, they would retain 587 out of 720.

The best 1080p LCD retain 600 out of 1080.

So it looks like a 720p PDP has just a bit less motion resolution than a 1080p LCD, correct?

Further, if the best 120hz 1080p LCD are dropping 55% resolution during motion, then a 720p LCD would have 400 lines of motion resolution at best. Odds are it's even less since it's not 120hz.

Samsung Plasma TV FAQ - read it, learn it, live it.
tomanystraydogs is offline  
post #104 of 183 Old 10-16-2007, 09:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It would be a huge assumption to think that a 720p(768p) plasma like my 500u would lose the same 18% @ 720p resolutions.
It's losing little if any, according to my eyes.
Eat your heart out, 1080p LCD's as my plasma is pnwning you in motion.

My HT

In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #105 of 183 Old 10-17-2007, 12:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Sounds like LCD needs to rev up to about 240hz to get a significant increase in motion resolution.

The difference between some of the 60 Hz LCDs and the 120 Hz LCDs was 580 compared to 600. In my opinion the doubling of the refresh rate probably had nothing to do with the difference and it was most likely due to a slightly better response time with the LCD panels that were used to make those 120 Hz LCDs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tomanystraydogs View Post

So it looks like a 720p PDP has just a bit less motion resolution than a 1080p LCD, correct?

Well based on the FPD benchmark test that is true but that test was made by a group of Plasma companies. A fact that for some reason Gary Merson forgot to mention in his description of the FPD benchmark test. The test obviously does test motion resolution but I have the hunch that it was made more to show the largest possible difference between LCDs and Plasmas than to do an objective test on motion resolution. Also considering that the DLPs only got 650 to 700 on that test I am somewhat curious to see what HD CRTs would have gotten.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Elemental1 View Post

It would be a huge assumption to think that a 720p(768p) plasma like my 500u would lose the same 18% @ 720p resolutions.

Your right, it could be losing more than that . Seriously though I am a bit curious to know why no 720p displays were tested for motion resolution. I am also curious to why the Plasma companies that made the FPD benchmark test didn't make it available to the general public.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #106 of 183 Old 10-17-2007, 08:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
hoodlum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Last week Panasonic placed a full page add in our local paper comparing motion on LCD and Plasma at both 720p and 1080p. The graph showed the Plasma 720p TVs did not loose any resolution, while the 1080p plasms dropped below 900 lines. This I assume is because 720p is below the 880 line threadhold of plasma motion. For LCD, the 720p & 1080p TVs dropped to a similar 600 lines of motion.
hoodlum is offline  
post #107 of 183 Old 10-17-2007, 08:36 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 Richard Paul View Post

The difference between some of the 60 Hz LCDs and the 120 Hz LCDs was 580 compared to 600. In my opinion the doubling of the refresh rate probably had nothing to do with the difference and it was most likely due to a slightly better response time with the LCD panels that were used to make those 120 Hz LCDs.

To everyone,

This test does not take into account 'hold-type' motion blurring which is the majority contributer to percieved motion blur by the viewer. It only tests response time as the contribution as Richard states above. In this scenario plasma will win hands down and OLED will be even better.

To properly test motion blur perception you need to use a moving camera system to simulate the human retina tracking a moving object on the screen. In that scenario 120Hz LCD will show a huge improvement over 60Hz LCD. But plasma will still be slightly better.

Moving Picture Resolution

Cheers

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #108 of 183 Old 10-17-2007, 09:04 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
tomanystraydogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodlum View Post

Last week Panasonic placed a full page add in our local paper comparing motion on LCD and Plasma at both 720p and 1080p. The graph showed the Plasma 720p TVs did not loose any resolution, while the 1080p plasms dropped below 900 lines. This I assume is because 720p is below the 880 line threadhold of plasma motion. For LCD, the 720p & 1080p TVs dropped to a similar 600 lines of motion.

Thanks for posting. I had incorrectly assumed each type of display was dropping a certain percentage.

Nice to know 720p LCD are not dropping into the cellar.

The next question is, since our eyes are not instruments, how 'visible' is the difference between 880 and 600 lines of motion resolution? Will different people notice it more than others?

Samsung Plasma TV FAQ - read it, learn it, live it.
tomanystraydogs is offline  
post #109 of 183 Old 10-17-2007, 05:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

To everyone,

This test does not take into account 'hold-type' motion blurring which is the majority contributer to percieved motion blur by the viewer.

Where did you read that from? Also what exactly is the difference between "hold type" motion and response time?


Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

It only tests response time as the contribution as Richard states above. In this scenario plasma will win hands down and OLED will be even better.

I would mention that Gary Merson thought little of the motion resolution of the OLED display he watched at CEATEC.


Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

To properly test motion blur perception you need to use a moving camera system to simulate the human retina tracking a moving object on the screen. In that scenario 120Hz LCD will show a huge improvement over 60Hz LCD. But plasma will still be slightly better.

Moving Picture Resolution

Honestly speaking I don't even see where you are getting that from on that Plasma company website.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #110 of 183 Old 10-17-2007, 08:05 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 Richard Paul View Post

Where did you read that from? Also what exactly is the difference between "hold type" motion and response time?

When an object is in motion on a video screen our eyes follow (track) the movement continously. However, since video is made up of successive still frames our eyes are still moving while each frame is stationary. The longer the frame is visible the more blur is drawn onto our moving retina. Since LCD is a sample and "hold" technology it is the most susceptible to this phenomenon. And with current LCD tech having fairly good response times the hold-type blurring is the major contributor.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes

And 120Hz LCD technology was devopled to combat this phenomenon by reducing the "hold" time by 50%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

I would mention that Gary Merson thought little of the motion resolution of the OLED display he watched at CEATEC.

OLED has the best response times but since it uses active matrix addressing similar to LCDs the pixels are "held" on for the entire frame period just like LCDs. Therefore it will have poor motion resolution compared to plasma. A passive matrix OLED display will have excellent motion resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

Honestly speaking I don't even see where you are getting that from on that Plasma company website.

MTF and MPRT are becoming the standard measurement systems in the industry. Using a tracking camera is the most accurate method developed to date. Not just Plasma manufacturers are using it.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #111 of 183 Old 10-17-2007, 08:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodlum View Post

Last week Panasonic placed a full page add in our local paper comparing motion on LCD and Plasma at both 720p and 1080p. The graph showed the Plasma 720p TVs did not loose any resolution, while the 1080p plasms dropped below 900 lines. This I assume is because 720p is below the 880 line threadhold of plasma motion. For LCD, the 720p & 1080p TVs dropped to a similar 600 lines of motion.

Interesting...
I knew it!!!
Hehe....

My HT

In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #112 of 183 Old 10-18-2007, 12:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
borf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post


This test does not take into account 'hold-type' motion blurring.. It only tests response time as the contribution as Richard states above.

Wait, I still have faith in Gary...The test was a subjective eye test. Shouldn't it account for sample and hold blur?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdguru View Post

This Blu-ray disc contains a pattern called a monoscope pattern which is made up of a series of four black lines drawn so they gradually come together in a wedge like pattern. There are numbers adjacent to the lines indicating resolution.....the motion pattern with the area where the four lines could still be discerned as separate and not blurred together was noted. These numbers were then compared.

borf is offline  
post #113 of 183 Old 10-18-2007, 06:55 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 borf View Post

Wait, I still have faith in Gary...The test was a subjective eye test. Shouldn't it account for sample and hold blur?

To get an accurate test of sample and hold you need a pursuit camera and a video object moving at a high enough velocity to induce 'hold-type' blurring.

I assume that because Gary's data shows 120Hz to show little improvement that the test fails to capture the sample and hold effect.

Even if Gary test somehow met the proper conditions, it is so subjective because retinal persitence is not the same for every viewer and can vary widely.

The MPRT method is being adopted for a good reason. That being all manufacturers (LCD,OLED,PDP) think it is accurate.

Cheers

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #114 of 183 Old 10-18-2007, 08:09 AM
Member
 
ezzie00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So after this thread I went and bought the magazine and read the article. I've been considering a 52" Sharp LCD TV for a while now and was pretty close to the LC-52D82U model. It showed up on the test list and failed the deinterlace and only passed 3:2 using component inputs. That really surprised me, but what was more strange to me was that the LC-46D62U model succeeded in both tests and still kept 600 lines of resolution despite being a 60Hz model. The update to the 62U is out now, LC-52D64U and I'm debating the merit of that compared to the LC-52D82U. 64U deinterlaces and handles 3:2 pulldown very well, is less likely to have Sharps known banding issue, and is cheaper, but runs at 60Hz. 82U fails those tests but runs at 120Hz.

So given the choice between a 120Hz model that failed these tests and a 60Hz model that passes, which would you go with?

My spoon is too big!
ezzie00 is offline  
post #115 of 183 Old 10-18-2007, 05:19 PM
Senior Member
 
diceburna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezzie00 View Post

So after this thread I went and bought the magazine and read the article. I've been considering a 52" Sharp LCD TV for a while now and was pretty close to the LC-52D82U model. It showed up on the test list and failed the deinterlace and only passed 3:2 using component inputs. That really surprised me, but what was more strange to me was that the LC-46D62U model succeeded in both tests and still kept 600 lines of resolution despite being a 60Hz model. The update to the 62U is out now, LC-52D64U and I'm debating the merit of that compared to the LC-52D82U. 64U deinterlaces and handles 3:2 pulldown very well, is less likely to have Sharps known banding issue, and is cheaper, but runs at 60Hz. 82U fails those tests but runs at 120Hz.

So given the choice between a 120Hz model that failed these tests and a 60Hz model that passes, which would you go with?

IMO the tests performed in the article doesn't apply to majority of todays HD programming. The information in that article is good information to keep in mind for future or if you are deciding whether or not shelling out extra cash for 1080p HD set right now is worth it.
diceburna is online now  
post #116 of 183 Old 10-18-2007, 10:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 197
Ther real stoy about all of this is that LCD sucks when it comes to motion.

Plasma is better but isn't perfect.

I wonder how the upcoming in January Sony top of the line SXRD will perform in regards to motion?
Artwood is offline  
post #117 of 183 Old 10-19-2007, 04:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nmlobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Yorktown, VA
Posts: 2,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Home Theater magazine doesn't believe motion blur is a deal breaker - at least for most: "The latest LCDs, despite faster and faster response times, are not devoid of motion blur as plasma is, but often they're fast enough for most people not to be bothered by it. " http://www.hometheatermag.com/advice...lcd/index.html
Nmlobo is offline  
post #118 of 183 Old 10-19-2007, 06:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
John Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 10,607
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Probably useful to consider so-called resolution-pumping blur as well as LC switching-time blur. There must be times when the two combine. Resolution pumping takes place between static images (or image areas) when deinterlacing circuits for video-originated signals (from cameras) simply weave together odd-even TV lines, providing crisp images; then when even slight motion takes place blurring results because the deinterlacing algorithm isn't sophisticated enough to avoid noticeable contrasting blur.

Here are four excerpts from WSR articles about recent higher-end front projectors and how their video processors handle resolution pumping. -- John
John Mason is offline  
post #119 of 183 Old 10-19-2007, 07:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
greenland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmlobo View Post

Home Theater magazine doesn't believe motion blur is a deal breaker - at least for most: "The latest LCDs, despite faster and faster response times, are not devoid of motion blur as plasma is, but often they're fast enough for most people not to be bothered by it. " http://www.hometheatermag.com/advice...lcd/index.html

Then that magazine needs to have a good talk with all these people, and convince them that they should not be so bothered with the motion blurring problems on their brand new Samsung LCD sets.

Check out the owner's thread on the 71 Samsung LCD models. Read the last couple of pages. Owners are now joining in registering mass complaints with Samsung about the blurring problem. So far, Samsung is telling them that there will be no fix issued, and even advised one person to just return the set.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=893827
greenland is offline  
post #120 of 183 Old 10-19-2007, 10:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
brentsg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
To be fair greenland, the issue that people are registering complaints with Samsung on is related to the processing artifacts inherent in the current (immature) implementation of 120hz.

Basically the newest weapon in the fight against motion blur introduces some processing artifacts that get more severe as you crank it up. Additionally, the US models don't allow you to turn the feature off completely as the EU model apparently does.
brentsg is offline  
Reply 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