Originally Posted by fallenbuddha
Shouldn't the picture from the digital camera viewed on a terrible LCD monitor still show the differences between the output of the various sets? I'm not saying that any one should be critiquing the picture quality of a set based on a digital still viewed through another imperfect filter (like some have - see pictures threads), but wouldn't the picture show if one set looks better than another? Besides, what's wrong with a bit of voyeurism from those of us who can't be there?
Man, this is the third time that I've rewritten this post.
I think posting results on this forum would be fine if the photos are properly taken and that there are ample disclamers that viewers should have their monitors calibrated to better see the results. Uncalibrated monitors will likely not represent how the plasmas are performing.
Frankly, if I was photographing it, I'd have to shoot it tripod mounted (and not one of those $49 woosy tripods) using camera raw and use photoshop CS2 to be sure that nothing is added or subtracted from what the plasmas are doing. That sounds simple, but what you don't know is if one plasma has a scene that is predominately blues and another is predominately reds that using the same color temp and tint in camera raw, does't correct the additive color that the lens causes. In other words, even when you know what you're doing, its going to be a bear to get it absolutely right.
Samsung 64F8500, Panasonic 65VT50, Oppo 95, Tivo Roamio for OTA, Dish VIP722, Marantz AV8801 preamp, Rotel Amps, Atlantic Tech 8200 speakers, Seaton Submersive HP, Calman 5, Chromapure, Accupel DVG-5000, VideoForge HDMI II, i1Display3pro, i1pro2, eecolor colorbox.