Oh God, how did LCD's takeover the market??? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 165 Old 01-22-2008, 05:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
ClayPigeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't know whats going on here as i only read the first page, so this might have already been brought up, but most people who aren't into audio/video as much as we are could care less about what contrast ratio there TV has and technical specs and just end up buying a LCD/Plasma cause they think they are the best just cause they are "new" and so flat and could be placed just about anywhere(normal consumers) CRT was pretty much forced out, and while there was a limit, cause i mean the screen for a HD CRT couldn't get any bigger without weighing over 300 pounds, there really was no choice i guess other then adopt a new technology. Yet any a/v enthusiasts are still looking for CRTs and will continue to do so, while the LCD/plasmas have gotten much better they are still YEARS away, and the ones that are getting better are the price of a used car, Not to mention all the other new technologies that will be showing up now! There is a reason movie directors still and will continue to keep using CRT monitors.

It's a shame really, this may sound silly but good comparison is with shaving. I wetshave with an oldschool DE razor from the the early 1900's that uses double edge razor blades. These shavers are ancient, yet they shave way better than any of the new 5 blade mach whatevers they sell now a days. and i pay like 2 bucks for a pack of ten blades. Companies like to force things out prematurely when they know more money is to be made by making a sucker out of the normal consumer, but the people who want to get the best bang for the buck know how and what to look for, cause as we all know, "newer" doesn't always necessarily mean 'better"
ClayPigeon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 165 Old 01-22-2008, 06:18 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
googleme7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Rain View Post

Well, we can argue about screen size but a lot of people now want a 40"+ flat-panel HDTV in their living room. Home theater has become a huge market with the advent of DVD. It is what drove a lot of people to bigger TV screens. The smaller CRT is becoming a relic as it's being shoved into the bedroom, den, or getting sold.



SD 4:3 content can be displayed perfectly fine on a 16:9 display even though it doesn't look as sharp. But HD content has really increased over the last few years and many people are slowly moving away from watching SD on their HDTVs.

The one thing that CRTs still have an issue with is geometry and convergence. The flat-screen CRTs actually look worse because it's not truly a flat screen. The tube itself is still curved and they never did get it to look truly flat since you can still see bowing and color fringing. Calibration can make it look better but never perfect. And that costs money unless you can do it yourself.



Again, it all depends on the consumer and what they have to work with. Some people don't have the room. Some people sit closer to the screen and couldn't tolerate a larger screen.

If you are talking about a dedicated room, noone is going to go with an LCD TV, they are going with a projector or a really really large RPTV. To say that a lot of people want a 40+ inch size is false, considering all the sales of the 32" LCD's. The sales alone of the 32" LCD prove that there are more people buying smaller tv's than larger ones. It also proves that there could be a market with the 27-34" CRT, because I seriously doubt everyone who buys a 32" LCD has them mounted on their wall.

As far as geometry, that is so overblown. Outside of certain models that are well documented, the average watcher would never notice incorrect geometry, anymore than they would notice the blurry upconversion of and upconvert DVD Player.

And LCD cannot display 4:3 content accurately, because no 4:3 content is output in HD resolution, which is by definition 16:9. I wasn't talking about displaying it in 4:3, I was talking about the upconversion.
googleme7 is offline  
post #93 of 165 Old 01-22-2008, 06:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark Rain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

If you are talking about a dedicated room, noone is going to go with an LCD TV, they are going with a projector or a really really large RPTV. To say that a lot of people want a 40+ inch size is false, considering all the sales of the 32" LCD's. The sales alone of the 32" LCD prove that there are more people buying smaller tv's than larger ones. It also proves that there could be a market with the 27-34" CRT, because I seriously doubt everyone who buys a 32" LCD has them mounted on their wall.

The fact that I just said "want" doesn't equate to what most people wind up buying. There WAS a market for 27-34" CRTs several years ago. Times have changed. Most people want flat-screens. If they didn't they'd still be buying CRTs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

And LCD cannot display 4:3 content accurately, because no 4:3 content is output in HD resolution, which is by definition 16:9. I wasn't talking about displaying it in 4:3, I was talking about the upconversion.

Some HD is 4:3 but it's rare. Upconversion is a compromise if you also want to watch HD content. That's just how it is until all programming is in HD. But again, upconversion isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
Dark Rain is offline  
post #94 of 165 Old 01-22-2008, 07:06 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
googleme7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Rain View Post

The fact that I just said "want" doesn't equate to what most people wind up buying. There WAS a market for 27-34" CRTs several years ago. Times have changed. Most people want flat-screens. If they didn't they'd still be buying CRTs.


Some HD is 4:3 but it's rare. Upconversion is a compromise if you also want to watch HD content. That's just how it is until all programming is in HD. But again, upconversion isn't as bad as you make it out to be.


Didn't we already go over this. I don't believe people just stopped buying CRT, I believe the stores pushed CRT out because they get a better deal with LCD. They can order more, store more, etc. They have also started pushing out the DLP which oddly is now considered a "bulky tv."

And I had mentioned on another thread, that the highest selling TV in America right now is still the 20" CRT.

Also, absolutely ZERO 4:3 content is HD. It's impossible.
googleme7 is offline  
post #95 of 165 Old 01-22-2008, 07:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark Rain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post


Also, absolutely ZERO 4:3 content is HD. It's impossible.

Not impossible if it's film-based. It just wouldn't conform to the standard HDTV screen resolutions.
Dark Rain is offline  
post #96 of 165 Old 01-22-2008, 08:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Mike999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

Also, absolutely ZERO 4:3 content is HD. It's impossible.

No it's not. All you need to do is matte off the sides of the 16:9 frame. Larry King Live and a number of other HD shows are formatted this way.

There's also a lot of upconverted SD content on HD channels. It's usually stretched to fill the whole screen, and of course it looks awful.
Mike999 is offline  
post #97 of 165 Old 01-22-2008, 09:48 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
googleme7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike999 View Post

No it's not. All you need to do is matte off the sides of the 16:9 frame. Larry King Live and a number of other HD shows are formatted this way.

There's also a lot of upconverted SD content on HD channels. It's usually stretched to fill the whole screen, and of course it looks awful.

How long have they been displaying that way?
googleme7 is offline  
post #98 of 165 Old 01-23-2008, 12:02 AM
Senior Member
 
Mike999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

How long have they been displaying that way?

Since sometime last year, I think. I don't really watch Larry King that often. There are some other shows - like the X-Files, for example - which are listed as HD but seem to be nothing more than upconverted SD.

There's so much SD material out there, and much of it will probably never be transferred to HD, which means you're going to be seeing upconverted garbage on HD channels for years to come.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how badly the move to HD has been handled. First, the studios couldn't decide on a single format for HD media. Then the TV manufacturers took away our CRTs, and replaced them with technologies that can't properly display SD material. Meanwhile, cable and satellite companies have dragged their feet upgrading their digital service. Many HDTV owners are caught between HD content they don't want to watch and SD content which looks worse than it did on their old tube TV. The whole thing is a disaster, and probably won't be fully sorted out for decades.
Mike999 is offline  
post #99 of 165 Old 01-23-2008, 09:16 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
googleme7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike999 View Post

Since sometime last year, I think. I don't really watch Larry King that often. There are some other shows - like the X-Files, for example - which are listed as HD but seem to be nothing more than upconverted SD.

There's so much SD material out there, and much of it will probably never be transferred to HD, which means you're going to be seeing upconverted garbage on HD channels for years to come.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how badly the move to HD has been handled. First, the studios couldn't decide on a single format for HD media. Then the TV manufacturers took away our CRTs, and replaced them with technologies that can't properly display SD material. Meanwhile, cable and satellite companies have dragged their feet upgrading their digital service. Many HDTV owners are caught between HD content they don't want to watch and SD content which looks worse than it did on their old tube TV. The whole thing is a disaster, and probably won't be fully sorted out for decades.


The X-Files didn't shoot in widescreen until about the 5th or 6th season and as such was not shot with HD quality cameras at that time. What you are seeing with that and probably with Larry King, is an EDTV broadcast or maybe even just a high quality SDTV broadcast, something they used to do a lot of with the news channels. They can pretty much pass any signal through ATSC, so even if the channel is listed as HD, doesn't make all programming HD. Larry King only started broadcasting in HD in late November of 2007. They just debuted the new CNN HD in I believe September.

The point is, there is no such thing as 4:3 HD, because the resolution isn't there. You must have at least 720 vertical lines to qualify as HD, and 4:3 maxes out at 480 lines. Check CNN HD tonight and see if ol' Larry King isn't in widescreen.
googleme7 is offline  
post #100 of 165 Old 01-23-2008, 09:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chirpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Posts: 3,607
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post


The point is, there is no such thing as 4:3 HD, because the resolution isn't there. You must have at least 720 vertical lines to qualify as HD, and 4:3 maxes out at 480 lines. Check CNN HD tonight and see if ol' Larry King isn't in widescreen.

Someone debunked this earlier but I'll say it again.

There IS HD resolution 4:3 material. (The Larry King example was incorrect though) It's all from film though.

Movies like Casablanca on HD-DVD and HD presentations on TV of the Wizard of OZ have the resolution to be converted to HD presentations and look great. (Particularly Casablanca and The Adventures of Robin-Hood)

If the aspect ratio of 4:3 is what's got you hung up, then I guess my Blu-Ray of Ratatouille isn't HD either because it's 1:2.35 and has black bars at the top and bottom.

If you're limiting 4:3 to the world of TV then it gets tricky. Shows like Seinfeld and Friends were shot on film and could potentially be rescanned and remastered for HD where other shows may have been shot on plain old SD video and will never look better.
chirpie is offline  
post #101 of 165 Old 01-23-2008, 11:29 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
googleme7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirpie View Post

Someone debunked this earlier but I'll say it again.

There IS HD resolution 4:3 material. (The Larry King example was incorrect though) It's all from film though.

Movies like Casablanca on HD-DVD and HD presentations on TV of the Wizard of OZ have the resolution to be converted to HD presentations and look great. (Particularly Casablanca and The Adventures of Robin-Hood)

If the aspect ratio of 4:3 is what's got you hung up, then I guess my Blu-Ray of Ratatouille isn't HD either because it's 1:2.35 and has black bars at the top and bottom.

If you're limiting 4:3 to the world of TV then it gets tricky. Shows like Seinfeld and Friends were shot on film and could potentially be rescanned and remastered for HD where other shows may have been shot on plain old SD video and will never look better.


Explain to me then how the Casablanca HD-DVD is able to produce 1080 vertical lines of resolution while still maintaining it's 1.33:1 aspect ratio. For one thing, no display is capable or displaying more than 1080 progressive lines vertically, so how are they able to squeeze all 1080 of those lines into the center of the screen?

It's really not very different than standard DVD's that have 4:3 or Fullscreen movies. They are still on DVD but it is impossible for them to have the same resolution of a Widescreen version of the same film. The max they could do would be 640 x 480, DVD resolution is capable of 720 x 480 under NTSC.

The difference with Casablanca is, it was shot in 1.33:1, so there was no need to crop it, no resolution was lost by doing that, so it looks great. My guess is they did a very high quality transfer, enhanced the image, made it progressive scan (something DVD can't do), and encoded the side bars so that the HDTV won't attempt to upconvert the 4:3 image. If you were to compare it side by side to the same DVD version, the HDTV would upconvert the image to the native resolution and look like crap.

When you display a 4:3 image on a Widescreen TV, it's still scanning the side bars and this is why you can get burn-in. If it just totally shut off the pixels in that area, you would have no burn-in danger. Those lines of resolution are wasted on a blank image. Again, if you can prove to me how they are squeezing those lines into the middle of the screen and completely bypassing the pixels on the outer edges of the screen, I will eat crow. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.


Ratatouille is 2.40:1 so like many widescreen films, you will still see black bars on a 16:9 TV, but it's still HD resolution because it has more than 720 vertical lines of resolution.
googleme7 is offline  
post #102 of 165 Old 01-23-2008, 11:38 AM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramazur View Post

They do and here is the best proof. Show fresh snow on a sunny day on any plasma and LNT52... and ask this question: which picture is truer? This test is all inclusive and without disclaimers or excuses (LCDs are brighter, etc.). For my money I don't care about the reasons. Just the bottom line side-by-side comparison.

Well, I know when I buy a t.v. it is based on snow, lmao.
First, was the Elite calibrated and what were its' settings?
Second that numbingly bright white will give you a headache at home in ten minutes.
E-A-G-L-E-S is offline  
post #103 of 165 Old 01-23-2008, 02:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
raouliii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ponchatoula, LA.
Posts: 1,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

Explain to me then how the Casablanca HD-DVD is able to produce 1080 vertical lines of resolution while still maintaining it's 1.33:1 aspect ratio. For one thing, no display is capable or displaying more than 1080 progressive lines vertically, so how are they able to squeeze all 1080 of those lines into the center of the screen?......

The 1080 is considered "vertical resolution" and it represents the number of horizontal lines on the screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

......When you display a 4:3 image on a Widescreen TV, it's still scanning the side bars and this is why you can get burn-in. If it just totally shut off the pixels in that area, you would have no burn-in danger. Those lines of resolution are wasted on a blank image. Again, if you can prove to me how they are squeezing those lines into the middle of the screen and completely bypassing the pixels on the outer edges of the screen, I will eat crow. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE....

Burn in is caused by the uneven wear associated with having material with black pillars displayed for extended periods of time. The parts of the screen that are not black pillars are actually getting more wear and being burnt in. They black pillar don't really represent lines of resolution. 1080 lines are not being squeezed into the center of the screen. The black pillars are the beginning and end of each of the 1080 lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

.....Ratatouille is 2.40:1 so like many widescreen films, you will still see black bars on a 16:9 TV, but it's still HD resolution because it has more than 720 vertical lines of resolution.

True, but the lines aren't vertical, they are horizontal lines, that are counted vertically. There are just fewer than 1080 lines, 800 by my calculation, that are representing the actual material. The rest, 280 lines, are black bars on top and bottom.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
raouliii is offline  
post #104 of 165 Old 01-23-2008, 03:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Mike999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

Explain to me then how the Casablanca HD-DVD is able to produce 1080 vertical lines of resolution while still maintaining it's 1.33:1 aspect ratio. For one thing, no display is capable or displaying more than 1080 progressive lines vertically, so how are they able to squeeze all 1080 of those lines into the center of the screen?

For most 35 mm film, the visible image of each frame has roughly a 1.37:1 ratio. A telecine machine records this 1.37 image to videotape or directly to the hard drive of a computer. Either way, the data (which is not 720p or 1080i/p at this point) is then converted into one of the 16:9 HD formats. For a film with a 1.37:1 "full frame" ratio, the sides of the 16:9 frame will simply be blacked out when the data is converted to 720p or 1080i/p. If a 1080p display has a resolution of 1920x1080 pixels, then a 1080p transfer of a 1.37 film will appear as a block of 1440x1080 pixels centered on the screen, and - since there is a 1:1 correspondence between the data on the disc and the pixels on the display - no upconversion will have taken place. (1.37 films are usually trimmed to a 1:33:1 ratio when transferred to a video format, thus 1440x1080 pixels.) A SD-DVD transfer of a 1.37 film will also appear as a block of 1440x1080 pixels, but the data will have been upconverted from 480i/p.
Mike999 is offline  
post #105 of 165 Old 01-23-2008, 04:42 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
googleme7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't know if you guys are arguing or agreeing with me. The pillarboxed sides are encoded on the disc and are using up lines of resolution that would normally contain more information in a widescreen presentation.

A 4:3 movie is a high definition transfer, but not HD.
googleme7 is offline  
post #106 of 165 Old 01-23-2008, 05:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Mike999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

A 4:3 movie is a high definition transfer, but not HD.

If you're defining HD as a 16:9 ratio frame consisting of 1920x1080 or 1280x720 pixels, then you're right, but a high definition transfer of a 4:3 film is still the largest 4:3 subset of those formats. 1440x1080 pixels is much higher resolution than 720x480 pixels, and should obviously be considered high definition. Whether it's technically part of the official HD specification or not is irrelevant since most people will probably see it as HD in comparison to a SD DVD.
Mike999 is offline  
post #107 of 165 Old 01-23-2008, 06:12 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
googleme7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike999 View Post

If you're defining HD as a 16:9 ratio frame consisting of 1920x1080 or 1280x720 pixels, then you're right, but a high definition transfer of a 4:3 film is still the largest 4:3 subset of those formats. 1440x1080 pixels is much higher resolution than 720x480 pixels, and should obviously be considered high definition. Whether it's technically part of the official HD specification or not is irrelevant since most people will probably see it as HD in comparison to a SD DVD.

Glad we got that out of the way, lets move on
googleme7 is offline  
post #108 of 165 Old 01-23-2008, 09:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
raouliii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ponchatoula, LA.
Posts: 1,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

I don't know if you guys are arguing or agreeing with me. ......

My post was disagreeing with you on a number of points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

......The pillarboxed sides are encoded on the disc and are using up lines of resolution that would normally contain more information in a widescreen presentation.....

I agree, as long as we can also agree that the "lines of resolution" you speak of are not subtracted from 1080.

Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

......A 4:3 movie is a high definition transfer, but not HD.

A 4:3 movie can certainly be "HD". Before the widespread ownership of televisions, movies were shot and presented at an "academy ratio" of 4:3. When these movies are converted/telecined to HD, it is done by adding pillars to create a 16:9 frame. The center (4:3) portion of the frame has NO LESS resolution than the same center portion of a 1.78:1 movie. This is no different than a 2.40:1, black barred, movie that has NO LESS resolution in its center portion than the same portion of a 1.78:1 movie.

For me, that makes all three cases, high definition presentations of the movies. Actually filling the 16:9 frame with something other than black pillars or bars is not part of the equation for me.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
raouliii is offline  
post #109 of 165 Old 01-24-2008, 12:27 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
googleme7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by raouliii View Post

My post was disagreeing with you on a number of points.
I agree, as long as we can also agree that the "lines of resolution" you speak of are not subtracted from 1080.

A 4:3 movie can certainly be "HD". Before the widespread ownership of televisions, movies were shot and presented at an "academy ratio" of 4:3. When these movies are converted/telecined to HD, it is done by adding pillars to create a 16:9 frame. The center (4:3) portion of the frame has NO LESS resolution than the same center portion of a 1.78:1 movie. This is no different than a 2.40:1, black barred, movie that has NO LESS resolution in its center portion than the same portion of a 1.78:1 movie.

For me, that makes all three cases, high definition presentations of the movies. Actually filling the 16:9 frame with something other than black pillars or bars is not part of the equation for me.


You know what dude, you are actually 100% correct on this. I am not sure what I was thinking. It can still have the same number of lines stacked as any other presentation. Please pass the ketchup
googleme7 is offline  
post #110 of 165 Old 01-24-2008, 12:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
chirpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Posts: 3,607
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

You know what dude, you are actually 100% correct on this. I am not sure what I was thinking. It can still have the same number of lines stacked as any other presentation. Please pass the ketchup

It took me a while to wrap my head around it too. I think I ate the same ketchup about 2 years ago. ;-)
chirpie is offline  
post #111 of 165 Old 01-26-2008, 07:48 AM
Senior Member
 
Mike999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Rain View Post

Upconversion is a compromise if you also want to watch HD content. That's just how it is until all programming is in HD. But again, upconversion isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

We may have to agree to disagree here, but I think SD content on an LCD always looks fairly soft and/or grainy compared to the output of a good flat screen CRT. I think it will probably always be that way too, since lossless upconversion doesn't exist.

Of course you can't get around rescaling even with HD content, since most LCD displays aren't 720p or 1080i/p. In fact, I can almost always see some degree of softness on HD programming, the only exceptions being brightly lit settings such as sports events and concerts.

What's strange to me is how discussion of image quality on LCDs always revolves around contrast level and motion blur when the real problem is the lack of sharpness. Isn't it sort of ironic don't you think that LCDs fail at the one thing the HD standard was designed for?
Mike999 is offline  
post #112 of 165 Old 01-26-2008, 11:04 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
googleme7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike999 View Post

We may have to agree to disagree here, but I think SD content on an LCD always looks fairly soft and/or grainy compared to the output of a good flat screen CRT. I think it will probably always be that way too, since lossless upconversion doesn't exist.

Of course you can't get around rescaling even with HD content, since most LCD displays aren't 720p or 1080i/p. In fact, I can almost always see some degree of softness on HD programming, the only exceptions being brightly lit settings such as sports events and concerts.

What's strange to me is how discussion of image quality on LCDs always revolves around contrast level and motion blur when the real problem is the lack of sharpness. Isn't it sort of ironic don't you think that LCDs fail at the one thing the HD standard was designed for?


Exactly. I had mentioned this early on, which is why I really don't like them. You can really see it in closeups of people, their outline is so soft, it makes the picture seem less 3-dimensional, because there is no difference between the foreground and the background.
googleme7 is offline  
post #113 of 165 Old 01-26-2008, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark Rain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If it looks softer then it's most likely the source. A lot of directors prefer to use filters to soften the image. Neither my Sony LCD RPTV or Samsung Plasma have ever shown consistent sharpness from source to source. Shows and movies shot in HD are sometimes very sharp and sometimes look a bit soft. I see a similiar effect with SD DVDs. Some look really sharp and some are soft looking. It's not drastic. But you occasionally notice the differences between shows/movies.

Has anybody visited the HDTV or DVD forums? People talk about it all the time in there.
Dark Rain is offline  
post #114 of 165 Old 01-26-2008, 05:30 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
googleme7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Rain View Post

If it looks softer then it's most likely the source. A lot of directors prefer to use filters to soften the image. Neither my Sony LCD RPTV or Samsung Plasma have ever shown consistent sharpness from source to source. Shows and movies shot in HD are sometimes very sharp and sometimes look a bit soft. I see a similiar effect with SD DVDs. Some look really sharp and some are soft looking. It's not drastic. But you occasionally notice the differences between shows/movies.

Has anybody visited the HDTV or DVD forums? People talk about it all the time in there.

The inconsistency comes from the TV's native resolution. You are right that it varies by source, but what you actually get with most 720p LCD and even Plasma, is they actually display at 768, so they are doing some type of conversion on literally every signal, HD or otherwise. And where there is conversion, there is anti-aliasing.

I think if everything were broadcast in 1080i or p and you had a 1080p set, you would have no problems. But, if you look at how long the HD revolution has taken, it could be another 3 or 4 years before everything is 1080.

In general though, when you compare the sharpness, LCD and DLP are so vastly different than CRT, I don't see how they could ever match the sharpness. Maybe someone will correct me on this, but the edge detail is also dependant on the contrast ratio, so given the track record of LCD not being able to do good black levels, the sharpness will always suffer.

And no, we aren't talking about a director using a filter. You see the same softness on HD content, national geographic, etc.
googleme7 is offline  
post #115 of 165 Old 01-26-2008, 07:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark Rain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleme7 View Post

The inconsistency comes from the TV's native resolution. You are right that it varies by source, but what you actually get with most 720p LCD and even Plasma, is they actually display at 768, so they are doing some type of conversion on literally every signal, HD or otherwise. And where there is conversion, there is anti-aliasing.

Well, you'd have the same issue with CRT and 720p signals. They upconvert 720p to 1080i. Not that there is much of a difference between 720p and 1080i, just like there's not much of a difference between 720p and 768p.
Dark Rain is offline  
post #116 of 165 Old 01-27-2008, 12:52 AM
Member
 
goku2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Rain View Post

Well, a lot of people are buying the cheaper 32" LCDs to replace their broken or aging boob tube. The price point is around what they probably paid for their CRT 10-20 years ago. They haven't been able to produce Plasmas at 32" or smaller, so LCDs are it. Nobody wants another CRT since LCDs don't take up as much room and can be hung on a wall.

Considering that roughly 98% of the buying public aren't videophiles, they simply don't notice things like black level, color accuracy, etc.

Actually I think they do but they either don't know it or don't care because they can't get over the fact that they have an LCD.

Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmicist.
goku2100 is offline  
post #117 of 165 Old 01-27-2008, 01:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark Rain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by goku2100 View Post

Actually I think they do but they either don't know it or don't care because they can't get over the fact that they have an LCD.

Well, for some it's WAF. For others it's the fact that they probably sit at the same distance that they did from their CRT and do not notice a difference in PQ. Ask anyone on the street what black level or color accuracy is and you'll get blank stares. Ask them if they want a flat-panel LCD HDTV and they would say yes if they don't already own one. Part of that is marketing and part of that is like what happened when DVDs became popular. People eventually ditched their VCRs in favor of DVD players. For the masses it wasn't so much about PQ but more about the added features and extra content. You can argue that a lot of people moved to DVD for PQ alone. But it was really about the extras, and movie collectors wanted the newly released versions, etc. With LCDs it all about PQ, decor and keeping up with the Joneses--but not necessarily in that order.

People complaining in here just need to be realistic because CRTs are not popular anymore with consumers. Despite the less than stellar SD PQ, LCDs do deliver a good HD image given a good video source. They aren't for everyone but the masses will buy them because they are now affordable, lightweight, and take up less room.
Dark Rain is offline  
post #118 of 165 Old 01-27-2008, 05:06 AM
Senior Member
 
Mike999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Rain View Post

Despite the less than stellar SD PQ, LCDs do deliver a good HD image given a good video source. They aren't for everyone but the masses will buy them because they are now affordable, lightweight, and take up less room.

I'm not saying people shouldn't buy HD LCDs, only that the manufacturers should continue to offer SD CRTs - or even SD LCDs - for people who prefer watching DVDs at their native resolution. Abruptly pulling SD displays out of the market was totally unfair, given the time and money people have invested in the DVD format. Maybe my memory is getting bad, but I don't recall record players being pulled this quickly when CDs took over back in the 80s.

Quote:


Neither my Sony LCD RPTV or Samsung Plasma have ever shown consistent sharpness from source to source. Shows and movies shot in HD are sometimes very sharp and sometimes look a bit soft. I see a similiar effect with SD DVDs.

With a good quality source, my flat screen CRT outputs a photo-realistic, almost 3D image. I actually even see this 3D quality on grainy B&W movies from the 30s and 40s. I don't see it that often on an LCD, and never with SD content. I don't know if CRTs produce this effect due to scan velocity modulation or the higher contrast ratio or both, but whatever the reason, it's not likely you're ever going to get it with SD content on an LCD.
Mike999 is offline  
post #119 of 165 Old 01-27-2008, 11:50 AM
Newbie
 
willy368's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just quickly read through this interesting topic but noticed one factor that has been overlooked. Reliability. This has to be considered when discussing any Plasma set. The downside - pwr consumption/component failure. How long are these sets holding-up? Not good. Seen LG's just out of warranty that needed repairs that > $700. A trio of boards have to be replaced for reliable/true repair.

Word gets around and why Sony getting out of Plasma bizz. For that matter, you're a fool if you don't buy extended warranty for any of this junk out there today. New technology with no track record, means customer = guinea pig. If it is a no-name, look for the nearest dumpster > warranty and always keep that box - you'll need it if you're lucky enough to return for replacement!!

The public will soon catch on but most people only look @ size/$ when picking out a display today. Their fault as much as the greedy mfg's.
willy368 is offline  
post #120 of 165 Old 01-27-2008, 11:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark Rain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike999 View Post

I'm not saying people shouldn't buy HD LCDs, only that the manufacturers should continue to offer SD CRTs - or even SD LCDs - for people who prefer watching DVDs at their native resolution. Abruptly pulling SD displays out of the market was totally unfair, given the time and money people have invested in the DVD format. Maybe my memory is getting bad, but I don't recall record players being pulled this quickly when CDs took over back in the 80s.

That's why they started making upconverting DVD players. While there may not be a huge increase in PQ over 480p players, DVDs do look better when using them on fixed-pixel displays. Of course this depends on the quality of the player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike999 View Post

With a good quality source, my flat screen CRT outputs a photo-realistic, almost 3D image. I actually even see this 3D quality on grainy B&W movies from the 30s and 40s. I don't see it that often on an LCD, and never with SD content. I don't know if CRTs produce this effect due to scan velocity modulation or the higher contrast ratio or both, but whatever the reason, it's not likely you're ever going to get it with SD content on an LCD.

Well, let's not blame that on a 2D display that has a fixed-pixel structure.
Dark Rain is offline  
Reply Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays

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