or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LED or Plasma? - Page 3

post #61 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by aim120 View Post

on the whole plasma tvs of today cannot achieve 0.0cd/m2,lcd is a different technology,it needs a backlight to show us the image.

The technology exists but is not on the market as of yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aim120 View Post

whether it achieved 0.0 cd/m2 of black by the lcd pixels completly blocking or by playing with backlight

Again, this is impossible with current LCD technology (local dimming or not).
post #62 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

That is a misconception. In between the LED backlight and the LCD panel is a diffuser plate that spreads light out laterally in all directions. This makes it impossible for the black level to reach zero unless the entire LED array is off.

You can use led optimized diffusers. The black level will be so low that you couldn't tell the difference. True 0cd/m2 blacks are almost impossibility anyway in a real world situation regardless of technology. Plasmas suffer the most when put in a real room.
post #63 of 179
Quote:


True 0cd/m2 blacks are almost impossibility anyway in a real world situation regardless of technology.

Except that it already exists. Pioneer's ECC panel had true 0 blacks. Someone else will almost certainly match it now that Pioneer's out of the industry, but when that'll actually happen is anyone's guess.
post #64 of 179
pioneer smooth mode isn't interpolation from what i read. geez louise there's a big difference.
post #65 of 179
It is, but it's not as hardcore as say, AMP cranked up to the max. It's more of an AMP-on-low effect.
post #66 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpbandaid View Post

You can use led optimized diffusers. The black level will be so low that you couldn't tell the difference. True 0cd/m2 blacks are almost impossibility anyway in a real world situation regardless of technology. Plasmas suffer the most when put in a real room.

What is a "LED optimized diffuser"?
post #67 of 179
where did you hear that. i read 3:3, not interpolation.
post #68 of 179
Advanced will do 3:3. Smooth engages frame interpolation.

From a quick Google search:

Quote:


PureCinema parameters:

Off - deactivates PureCinema
Standard - only works with 480i and 1080i sources, de-interlaces

Smooth - produces smoother moving images by frame interpolation

Advance - activates 72 Hz refresh rate for 3:3 pull-down of 24 fps source material for smoother moving images
post #69 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by localnet View Post

I threw a fit? Your the ass that walked into the picture, calling me an IDIOT for buying the LED, my wife was giddy, you bitched! And saying I should have bought a 50+ inch tv to do the job that this 40" LED does. And a 50+ inch set hung on my small bedroom wall would have sent my wife through the roof!

I may not like it, but my wife does, and it works for the job intended. It is still hanging on the wall, flush mounted, by a string, the main reason I bought it. This is not my main tv, as I have a 46" Sony KDL46V3000 that handles that job just fine in my living room, and a new 2009 Samsung plasma 58B560 that I just hung in my family room for movies and football.

I may bitch about the literal headaches that this new Samsung LED gives me, but I am not about to take it back, 2 grand or not. Because no one currently makes a 40", 1 inch thick television, that I can hang on a wall by a thread THAT MY WIFE LOVES.

In regards to all of the technical aspects of 60, 120 or 600hz, I ain't got a f'n clue. I just know what looks good to my eyes. My Sammy 600hz, 1080p plasma shines, the best tv I own right now. My Sony 60hz 1080p LCD is awesome, love this set. My 40" Samsung LED fits the bill and makes my wife happy, and I have yet to walk into it on my way to the bathroom at 3am. My 22" Toshiba 720p in my bathroom rocks and the 27" Samsung 720p in my truck with DirecTV works like a charm. And then there is the Sony 52" XBR2, which I need to sell, or hang in my office or guest room... What to do?

Hmmmmmmmm..........

And then that damn 22" LG 720p in my kitchen, forgot that one.

I never called you an idiot. You said the ONLY reason you bought the lcd was because it's 1" thin. I offered a suggestion that if you waited a few weeks you could have got a 50" plasma with the same slim profile of the 40" lcd for the same price. If your wife "loves" the lcd I don't know why she wouldn't "love" the larger set with better picture quality that you wouldn't have had to spent an extra penny on. The 50" isn't even that big. It's not like we are talking a 65" in the bedroom.
post #70 of 179
Stindawg, it's not good form to argue with a man about how many inches are needed in his bedroom.

(sorry I couldn't resist...)
post #71 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll Viper ll View Post

Gary, I really was beginning to respect you and your seemingly level headed opinions, a rarity on these boards. After these responses though, it's hard not to question your motivation because what you're saying is incredibly misleading in general and not based primarily on fact. I would like to address all points, same as you did.

To claim that LED based LCDs have better black levels than plasmas is completely misrepresenting the technologies. I must question any opinion given after this because of its unqualified and obvious incorrectness. Having owned the best of both technologies, it is apparent to the discerning viewer that LEDs, and local dimming in particular, is a stop gap measure to improve upon LCD weaknesses that have already been addressed with plasma. Yes, local dimmed LED sets like the 950 from Samsung and the XBR8 from Sony CAN produce a .000 ftL reading, resulting in a completely black screen. Problem is, this ability means little in real world application. In mixed material, or in scenes lacking in light but not completely black, the local dimming is insufficient and LCD technology's weaknesses exposed.

In terms of overall contrast in these scenes, good plasmas (particularly Pioneer's, with their massive REAL contrast numbers) will continually trounce LCDs. That is a fact, verified by professional readings and statistics of many AV publications. Even with relatively advanced (and expensive) application of the tech, LED sets cannont match the dimensionality and depth of a good plasma. If Pioneers can reach .001 ftL, then there is really almost no room for improvement. Even technological showcases like the XBR8 obviously don't dim on a pixel level. Because of the limits of the tech, and a small number of dimming zones, likely dictated by financial concerns, LED LCDs cannot attain Kuro quality blacks and produce as three dimensional a picture. Full black screen advantage aside (we're only considering actual performance here), LCD manufacturers can't possibly hope to compete because Pioneer, and hopefully soon, Panasonic too will have essentially achieved what is comparable to what I would nearly expect local dimming to look like on the pixel by pixel level.

After spending extensive amounts of time comparing local dimmed sets to top plasmas with the most demanding material, I simply can't believe that you either are ignorant of these performance inconsistencies or are intentionally misleading people. There really is no contest.

LEDs, and more importantly, local dimming, is trying to compensate for shortcomings that are characteristic of the tech.

As for the other stuff, viewing angles, motion, color saturation, I believe that the majority of the more educated members here on AVS, and the professional AV community in general, would agree that plasmas dominate almost all these areas.

The only lcds that can compete in motion resolution are local dimmed sets that also have 120, and soon, 240hz refresh rates (240 may be out already, but hasn't been combined effectively with local dimming yet to my knowledge). With the combined benefits of motion enhancers and the flicker introduced by tech like LED motion plus, yes, tvs like the 950 and XBR8 can achieve near perfect motion resolution. But that is not representative of the general consensus and the reality of the situation. In general, plasmas measure high motion resolution more akin to a good CRT. Certainly, there are exceptions. At the top, the two technologies are essentially deadlocked. However, you have to consider that this is with TWO new introductions from major lcd manufacturers that have only recently closed the gap. These functions must be ON or the lcds drop to normal, blurry levels. So overall, it would be almost ridiculous to claim that LCD has surpassed plasma in this regard.

When you say that color saturation can produce a problem in color accuracy for plasmas, unless that plasma is an "uber expensive Pioneer", I just couldn't really take that seriously. When you're asserting that lcds have met or surpassed plasma in many regards, yet the only LCDs that have supposedly been able to do this are MORE expensive than equivilent "uber expensive Pioneers", any statement following can't hold much weight for me. Panasonics, which perform better anyway, are much less expensive than local dimmed sets from Samsung and Sony just for your information.

I would specifically like to consider the below statement

"You appear to have lots of obsolete opinions that do not take into account the technological changes in the last two years. LCDs have made advances in motion resolution, contrast ratios, and black levels, while Plasmas are undergoing re-designs in an attempt to keep the technology viable under the new Energy Star 3.0 and California Tier 1 power efficiency standards."

You might appear to have obsolete opinions, if we really consider what the reality actually is. Yes, lcds have made strides in these areas, but at what cost? It definetely seems a high one (literally). Samsung and Sony have both been able to produce LED local dimmed sets that account for many of traditional lcd flaws, and that is a commendable achievement. It has been expensive though, and these impressive sets still fall short of the performance offered by better, more mature plasmas.

If the best criticism one can muster against plasma is that it might struggle to meet efficiency standards [potentially] put in place by the greenest, possibly most progressive state in the country, well...

If you're on AVS, you're probably primarily concerned with PQ. Power efficiency, while important, isn't even remotely of the same importance as performance. If it is, we're not having the same conversation anymore and we should probably stop conversing.

"In many cases the newer more-power-efficient plasmas offer worse video quality than the older models, and no options to turn off the new power-saving features causing the problems."

Are these "many cases" the Panasonics in particular? If that is the case, I think it's pretty well documented that the NeoPDPs are superior in almost every regard to the previous generation. Black level is lowered, light output is increased, and overall PQ is a step forward. If they have implemented more aggresive automatic dimming features, it hasn't affected professional reviewers and respected AVSers, who are nearly universal with praise for the new Panny lineup.

ABL is a reality. If you want to criticize it, be my guest. I won't deny that plasmas have limitations. It's just that I, and most of the AV community, don't regard this as a significant weakness comparable to LCD viewing angles, flashlighting ,etc...

If this sounded like a personal attack, that wasn't intended. As a member of AVS, I feel some responsibility to present what I feel is the most accurate and true info. Gary, you seem like a pretty unbiased guy, at least compared to most of the fanboys on the interwebz, but I just thought a counter argument was needed here. You don't have to believe me, but I am not a plasma or Kuro disciple. I've owned, and been satisfied with, many lcds (mostly from Samsung) and only want the best PQ. I honestly have no agenda other than finding, and telling others about, the best display technology.

+1
Man, What a good post.
right on target!
post #72 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

.frame interpolation, which I consider the main enhancement to Home Theater in the last 10 years.
.

Are you being serious with this statement or was it meant to be a joke?

I certainly hope the ladder.

this has to be a joke.
post #73 of 179
^Just thought I'd post something else that I found amusing.

"on the whole plasma tvs of today cannot achieve 0.0cd/m2,lcd is a different technology,it needs a backlight to show us the image.whether it achieved 0.0 cd/m2 of black by the lcd pixels completly blocking or by playing with backlight,who cares it shows true blacks,and even if u take a look at conventional lcds with CCFL their blacks are as good as the latest plasmas,may not be as good as the pioneer kuro,but we know how much lcds have improved compared to even last year lcd ,it will surely surpass the plasma even with conventianal CCFL backlight or NON local dimming LEDs and againg local dimming led backlight will also be improved quite a lot."

Conventional lcds that use CCFL backlights do not produce blacks as good as the latest plasmas, if we're refering to models on the higher end. The best non LED based LCDs like the Samsung 650/750/850 and Sony XBR 6/7 cannot achieve black levels as deep as the most current Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas. Samsung appears to be an exception, in that their best lcds (even non LED) have directly comparable black level performance to the company's plasmas.

I can say will almost absolute certainty that conventional lcds will not surpass plasmas in black level performance (isolated cases excluded).

"lcd with conventional CCFL backlight can match the contrast of pioneer kuro,if not atleast they can match and sometimes exceed other plasma from panasonic and samsung.and if u want the link to the review i can gladly give it."

This really made me smile

What CCFL backlit lcd can match the contrast of ANY pioneer kuro? Properly set up or not, this isn't true at all. You might be able to provide some evidence to back up the second half of that statement, but there aren't any credible reviews that will cite a conventional lcd as having a higher ACCURATELY measured contrast ratio than a 8g or 9g kuro. Am I crazy to think that there is a lot of misinformation floating around?
post #74 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

The technology exists but is not on the market as of yet.

Again, this is impossible with current LCD technology (local dimming or not).

so are u saying all those reviews out there are wrong ,they have faulty instruments which shows 0.0 cd/m2 of blackness.
post #75 of 179
Unless they have 4 leds for EACH pixel(1 red, one blue, and 2 green), LED LCDs will never match a good plasma like a Pioneer Kuro Elite or even a V Series or Z Series Panasonic Plasma. The other HUGE problem that LEDs can't overcome is LCDs SNAIL SPEED response time. CRTs have NANOSECONDS Respose Times, Plasmas have MICROSECOND response times, and LCDs have lowly millisecond response times. It's like on the Simpsons, you had a 100m race between Usain Bolt, Kobe Bryant, and Grandpa Simpson, and Grandpa Simpson was the LCD.
post #76 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll Viper ll View Post

Conventional lcds that use CCFL backlights do not produce blacks as good as the latest plasmas, if we're refering to models on the higher end. The best non LED based LCDs like the Samsung 650/750/850 and Sony XBR 6/7 cannot achieve black levels as deep as the most current Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas. Samsung appears to be an exception, in that their best lcds (even non LED) have directly comparable black level performance to the company's plasmas.

well the calibertated black level of samsung 650 is 0.04cd/m2 the calibertated black level of panasonic G10 neo PDP plasmas are 0.03cd/m2.now that close,but again not all plasma out there can give those deep blacks, take a look at samsung and lg plasmas and some panasonic plasmas.so depending on the company and model it varies. the below links are of last year plasmas and lcds .sony lcd http://www.digitalversus.com/article...7-60.panasonic HD plasma html ,http://www.digitalversus.com/article-364-3661-16.html ,panasonic FHD plasma http://www.digitalversus.com/article-364-4236-60.html




Quote:


"lcd with conventional CCFL backlight can match the contrast of pioneer kuro,if not atleast they can match and sometimes exceed other plasma from panasonic and samsung.and if u want the link to the review i can gladly give it."

This really made me smile

What CCFL backlit lcd can match the contrast of ANY pioneer kuro? Properly set up or not, this isn't true at all. You might be able to provide some evidence to back up the second half of that statement, but there aren't any credible reviews that will cite a conventional lcd as having a higher ACCURATELY measured contrast ratio than a 8g or 9g kuro. Am I crazy to think that there is a lot of misinformation floating around?

i admit i forget to add "almost" match the pioneer kuro,and yes they do match the contrast of plasma from panasonic ,samsung.check out above links and to some more here samsung lcds http://www.digitalversus.com/article-364-3780-36.html ,samsung plasmas http://www.digitalversus.com/article-460-4385-36.html, and offcourse the pioneer plasma http://www.digitalversus.com/article-460-2967-102.html
post #77 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack White View Post

Unless they have 4 leds for EACH pixel(1 red, one blue, and 2 green), LED LCDs will never match a good plasma like a Pioneer Kuro Elite or even a V Series or Z Series Panasonic Plasma. The other HUGE problem that LEDs can't overcome is LCDs SNAIL SPEED response time. CRTs have NANOSECONDS Respose Times, Plasmas have MICROSECOND response times, and LCDs have lowly millisecond response times. It's like on the Simpsons, you had a 100m race between Usain Bolt, Kobe Bryant, and Grandpa Simpson, and Grandpa Simpson was the LCD.

what makes u say that they will NEVER match a plasma,lcds with LED have just started.and black levels of conventional backlight LCD already are as good as plasmas may not be as good as pioneer kuro,but they are getting there.
post #78 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbird8450 View Post

Except that it already exists. Pioneer's ECC panel had true 0 blacks. Someone else will almost certainly match it now that Pioneer's out of the industry, but when that'll actually happen is anyone's guess.

As soon as reflections hit PDP surface, 0 blacks are gone. Plus you have to deal with phosphor decay etc issues, so even in a perfect room you should have some glow in the pic after displaying pics for a while.

Quote:


What is a "LED optimized diffuser"?

A diffuser that is used to minimize crosstalk between zones. It was mentioned in LG presentation slides.
post #79 of 179
Quote:


As soon as reflections hit PDP surface, 0 blacks are gone.

Given how your eyes function, not necessarily. You would be able to discern zero blacks from complete darkness up to a moderate amount of ambient light.

Quote:


so are u saying all those reviews out there are wrong ,they have faulty instruments which shows 0.0 cd/m2 of blackness.

Only when the LED backlighting is entirely turned off. You could turn off a plasma and measure 0.0 also. Neither scenerio is going to help you if you're actually using your display to, you know, display images.
post #80 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbird8450 View Post

Given how your eyes function, not necessarily. You would be able to discern zero blacks from complete darkness up to a moderate amount of ambient light.

Technically this wouldn't be zero black.
post #81 of 179
Nope, but if your eyes perceive it that way, what's the difference? I don't sit and watch TV with a light meter.

The improvement needed is in the area from total darkness to dim lighting. There is a clear glow as discerned by my eyes under those conditions.
post #82 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbird8450 View Post

Nope, but if your eyes perceive it that way, what's the difference? I don't sit and watch TV with a light meter.

Yes, there's no real difference. The whole dark room measured black level thing is overrated.
post #83 of 179
Since I frequently watch movies under dim to dark conditions, it's not overrated to me.
post #84 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpbandaid View Post

As soon as reflections hit PDP surface, 0 blacks are gone. Plus you have to deal with phosphor decay etc issues, so even in a perfect room you should have some glow in the pic after displaying pics for a while..

What is the point of spending large amounts of money on a Flat-panel if your going to be putting it in situations where reflections will be present all of the time?
Even when I had my semi-gloss sony LCD, I stayed away from situations like that because it decreased PQ.
Phosphor decay?
You guys are obsessed with best buy showroom pop, why don't you go to best buy and pick a random 10 people and ask them to point out phosphor trails for you? My guess is that you would get a bunch of blank stares.
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpbandaid View Post

A diffuser that is used to minimize crosstalk between zones. It was mentioned in LG presentation slides.

My goodness, With all the motion enhansers & Interpolated frames, ridiculously high refresh rates, add-ons like LED backlighting, crosstalk diffusers, etc.etc.etc.,
Why not just buy a Plasma instead of buying a technology that is adding all of these things to mimic Plasma performance?
post #85 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll Viper ll View Post

To claim that LED based LCDs have better black levels than plasmas is completely misrepresenting the technologies. I must question any opinion given after this because of its unqualified and obvious incorrectness. Having owned the best of both technologies, it is apparent to the discerning viewer that LEDs, and local dimming in particular, is a stop gap measure to improve upon LCD weaknesses that have already been addressed with plasma. Yes, local dimmed LED sets like the 950 from Samsung and the XBR8 from Sony CAN produce a .000 ftL reading, resulting in a completely black screen. Problem is, this ability means little in real world application. In mixed material, or in scenes lacking in light but not completely black, the local dimming is insufficient and LCD technology's weaknesses exposed.

A good post but you are a plasma fanboy. Why? Because the above statement is simply not true.
A major traditional LCD's weakness is a milky black level in a dark room.
With my local dimming 950, I never see any washed out grey - ever. So the local dimming method does indeed work.
The Pioneer Kuros only have a good black level in a very dark room. Otherwise you see the screen itself, which is far from black.

If you want super high rez, true wide angle viewing and expanded color gaument then this (Eye-One calibrated) monitor is just the ticket:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...%28keywords%29

To be fair, no one has ever spoke of the Samsung 950 not being able to display cherry-red (even after calibration). The LG shows how lacking it is in this area.
post #86 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmak09 View Post

My goodness, With all the motion enhansers & Interpolated frames, ridiculously high refresh rates, add-ons like LED backlighting, crosstalk diffusers, etc.etc.etc.,
Why not just buy a Plasma instead of buying a technology that is adding all of these things to mimic Plasma performance?

I don't like the noisy and dim plasma image, that you get especially from Pioneer. I prefer my Blu-rays crystal clear, like director intended.
post #87 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpbandaid View Post

A diffuser that is used to minimize crosstalk between zones. It was mentioned in LG presentation slides.

And whats its purpose to eliminate floating blacks, or where you won't notice them?
post #88 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmak09 View Post

What is the point of spending large amounts of money on a Flat-panel if your going to be putting it in situations where reflections will be present all of the time?

Reflections will be preset unless you own a room with nonreflecting surfaces. TV itself is a light source that will kill ansi conrast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmak09 View Post

Phosphor decay?

Afterimages that will kill ansi and on/off contrast.
post #89 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by aim120 View Post

so are u saying all those reviews out there are wrong ,they have faulty instruments which shows 0.0 cd/m2 of blackness.

Again.... the ability to completely blank the panel to achieve that reading is useless since it cannot do this while displaying any content.
post #90 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun View Post

The Pioneer Kuros only have a good black level in a very dark room. Otherwise you see the screen itself, which is far from black.

And a false statement of your own... Kuro black levels actually yield the most benefit in low, not very dark lighting.

By definition does that make you a fanboy too? Why do people insist in using that label?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home