Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy 
I agree with the above. The clarity of LCD is most apparent with very well photographed HD material like thw BBC Planet Earth series.
As for film grain - I notice it a lot in 1960's-1980's color movies. The films of that era just seem to have larger grains. Common exceptions are films made with the three-strip Technicolor process in the 1930's-1960's. These are sharp and saturated with little visible film grain from what was essentially B&W negatives. I assume any film grain in the 1980's or later is there because the filmmaker wanted it to be there, because fine grained color film was available.
Of interesting note is that film grain can also be seen in several animated films that originated in digital animation workstations - software was developed to simulate the appearance of film grain when the Director wants film grain.
I agree with the above. The clarity of LCD is most apparent with very well photographed HD material like thw BBC Planet Earth series.
As for film grain - I notice it a lot in 1960's-1980's color movies. The films of that era just seem to have larger grains. Common exceptions are films made with the three-strip Technicolor process in the 1930's-1960's. These are sharp and saturated with little visible film grain from what was essentially B&W negatives. I assume any film grain in the 1980's or later is there because the filmmaker wanted it to be there, because fine grained color film was available.
Of interesting note is that film grain can also be seen in several animated films that originated in digital animation workstations - software was developed to simulate the appearance of film grain when the Director wants film grain.
I've been perusing these boards and have heard the zillions of arguments for and against LCD or Plasma. First let me say that I am firmly in the Plasma camp.
I think the reason for LCDs' perceived inferiority by many is that it is too sharp, unnaturally sharp. This is probably due to, or a function of, the limited viewing angle. The fact that LCD displays are viewed in this flashlight beam way can't be natural.
Perfect example, when you look at someone in real life, at whatever angle, the person remains in sharp focus, at whatever angle. I think it is clear which technology better approaches that real life scenario.
Another example of a too sharp technology is the laser turntable. The idea was to produce an analog turntable with all the capabilities of the diamond needle riding over the the plastic, grooved disc, but with none of the drawbacks such as wear. The turntable succeeded on that front. Like an Audio CD, the laser never touches the vinyl it is "playing," so there is absolutely no wear.
It turned out, however, that the laser turntable massively exagerated the scratches and pops associated with vinyl. Apparently when a laser "sees" a scratch, it is way more prominent than when a needle rides over it. I feel that this example is analogous to how LCDs may make grain more apparent when displaying film.
I guess them main question then is, is this more highly apparent grain on LCDs more accurate, or too much?
CD
You can prefer a technology over another but we should be careful in phrasing arguments when it comes to discussions like this.
And, wow, such emotion over such a relatively unimportant thing. I'm for world peace, getting rid of corruption in politics, and finding a way for all in society to have a decent standard of living and well being for themselves and their families. I know, probably not going to happen.
