AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › Common problems in LEDs/LCDs/Plasma...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Common problems in LEDs/LCDs/Plasma... - Page 2  

post #31 of 72
5/9/12 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post


Also, plasma has poor whites and dithering.

And affordable LCDs have poor blacks and many have motion problems

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 72
5/9/12 at 6:34pm
Thread Starter 
Wow, I leave for a day and all hell breaks loose .

Thanks for the comments regarding viewing angles and the choice of screen finishes. I'll take those into account.
post #33 of 72
5/9/12 at 11:20pm
^Par for the course (hell breaking loose in such threads).
post #34 of 72
5/11/12 at 3:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditcho View Post


No need to go to the kitchen. You only need to lean to the side without moving from your chair to see deterioration of picture on every LCD (on some of them severe). But, as most people, you have learned to live with it and your brain pretends it doesn't care.

Stunning misinformation, utterly stunning. One of the most inaccurate posts I've read in my many years on AVS. Yes viewing angle is not as good as plasma, but your description adds a new dimension to the word 'embellishment'.
post #35 of 72
5/11/12 at 6:09pm
Thread Starter 
To all who've posted, thanks for your input. I really don't want to make this thread a contest of sorts (and I'm not directing that towards anyone).

I want this thread to be a way to define issues that different types of tv's may have...and educate people on how to look for those issues, so they can see for themselves if that tv is the right for them.

That being said, for some, viewing angle is an issue and should be addressed when looking at tv's.
post #36 of 72
5/12/12 at 12:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Also, plasma has poor whites

Speaking of stunning misinformation, I see you're still repeating this piece of tripe. Neither plasma nor LCD produces a more "true" white. Both are equally capable of producing D65 white. LCD is capable of producing slightly brighter D65 whites than is plasma, but to say that this makes LCD's whites real is fallacious on some major levels. "Real" daytime snow whites (which LCD is oft quoted as being able to "accurately" reproduce) are in the vicinity of multiple tens of thousands of lux. No plasma or LCD can come close to that, and within that context the difference between the whites of the two display techs is insignificant. Ironically, at mid-day during a typical overcast day, you're looking at 10,000-25,000 lux when you're looking at those "dirty" grey clouds, yet that white is far brighter and whiter than the white produced by the brightest LCD (admittedly, it may or may not be qualitatively similar).

Our perception of white (in terms of brightness) is an incredibly relative thing, an no display tech is "better" at reproducing whites than another. Of course each tech has environments in which they achieve their peak performance, but that's another story all together (and another that is highly propagandized as well). Unfortunately, I doubt this is the last of the "dirty plasma white" nonsense, as it will most likely continue to be parroted by those seeking to advance an agenda rather than objectively discuss display tech qualities.
post #37 of 72
5/12/12 at 4:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post


Speaking of stunning misinformation, I see you're still repeating this piece of tripe. Neither plasma nor LCD produces a more "true" white. Both are equally capable of producing D65 white. LCD is capable of producing slightly brighter D65 whites than is plasma, but to say that this makes LCD's whites real is fallacious on some major levels. "Real" daytime snow whites (which LCD is oft quoted as being able to "accurately" reproduce) are in the vicinity of multiple tens of thousands of lux. No plasma or LCD can come close to that, and within that context the difference between the whites of the two display techs is insignificant. Ironically, at mid-day during a typical overcast day, you're looking at 10,000-25,000 lux when you're looking at those "dirty" grey clouds, yet that white is far brighter and whiter than the white produced by the brightest LCD (admittedly, it may or may not be qualitatively similar).

Our perception of white (in terms of brightness) is an incredibly relative thing, an no display tech is "better" at reproducing whites than another. Of course each tech has environments in which they achieve their peak performance, but that's another story all together (and another that is highly propagandized as well). Unfortunately, I doubt this is the last of the "dirty plasma white" nonsense, as it will most likely continue to be parroted by those seeking to advance an agenda rather than objectively discuss display tech qualities.

The truth of the matter is that the ABL of plasmas significantly limit the brightness of full screen (or nearly full screen) whites. That's when plasmas tend to look dull when such scenes are called upon compared to a good quality LED/LCD. For smaller areas of white there isn't much difference.

This difference is very easy to see in those scenes or sports such as hockey or skiing. Yes, both techs are obviously far from 'reality' in terms of nature vs display, but the LED/LCD do a better job in this area nonetheless.

To put things in perspective, I've had 2 Pioneer Kuros and several Fujitsu plasmas (all regarded as the best of their breed at their respective times). They produced top notch pictures at their times, the Kuro still does. However I now have a Sharp Elite LED/LCD that at the same time produces both better blacks and much brighter full screen whites than my Kuro. This greater dynamic range produces, IMO, a more lifelike picture than my Kuro. Both are great, but I prefer the new Elite.
post #38 of 72
5/12/12 at 2:12pm
I personally don't watch my Kuro with an LCD right next to it for comparison's sake, so the key term here is "compared to" - when on their own, the difference just isn't there in my experience. As just one example, I have played The Art of Flight at various times of the day on my Kuro, and never once have I thought that the snow looked dirty or unrealistic - in fact, my perception was quite the opposite, and my guests were all blown away too. I've watched that same material on my projector downstairs, and it looks just as awesome even though the lumens are about 1/3 of what the Kuro is putting out.

Granted, my living room doesn't have any direct light coming into it, so I don't need a torch to overpower a row of windows (as an example). Perhaps if I had such a setup I'd feel differently - but then we get back to each tech shining in different types of environments rather than either having an innate flaw.
post #39 of 72
5/12/12 at 6:09pm
With the Sharp Elite I absolutely have no need to do an A/B since the differences stand out dramatically. It's not subtle, trust me. There are many former Kuro owners that will agree with this.

The Kuro was and is a great display, but for full-screen bright scenes, the Elite blows it away. It really does. There is no display around that has a dynamic range like the Elite.
post #40 of 72
5/12/12 at 11:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

With the Sharp Elite I absolutely have no need to do an A/B since the differences stand out dramatically. It's not subtle, trust me. There are many former Kuro owners that will agree with this.

The Kuro was and is a great display, but for full-screen bright scenes, the Elite blows it away. It really does. There is no display around that has a dynamic range like the Elite.

Understand on the brightness aspect. My point is that, given one's viewing environment, the extra brightness may or may not be good or required. I've never once watched any material and found myself wanting for whites to be any brighter than they are. To say flat out that plasmas produce "dirty" whites, and that this is an innate flaw in the tech simply is not true. As I said, it's all relative.
post #41 of 72
5/13/12 at 5:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post


Understand on the brightness aspect. My point is that, given one's viewing environment, the extra brightness may or may not be good or required. I've never once watched any material and found myself wanting for whites to be any brighter than they are. To say flat out that plasmas produce "dirty" whites, and that this is an innate flaw in the tech simply is not true. As I said, it's all relative.

Where I was always aware (but not overly bothered) was when a small area of my Kuro screen was white and then the scene transitioned to a much larger area of white. During those times it was obvious to me that the scene called for a brighter white than the ABL would allow as the relatively bright small area became considerably dimmer. I now never see that limitation.
post #42 of 72
5/13/12 at 6:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Where I was always aware (but not overly bothered) was when a small area of my Kuro screen was white and then the scene transitioned to a much larger area of white. During those times it was obvious to me that the scene called for a brighter white than the ABL would allow as the relatively bright small area became considerably dimmer. I now never see that limitation.

I can see how that effect could make ABL readily visible. In all honesty I've never once noticed my Kuro's ABL in action, but then again the transition that you described is a relatively rare one so I'm not surprised that I haven't seen it. Given our visual system's proclivity to prefer brighter images, I can understand why people would gravitate towards a brighter image in a side-by-side comparison however. That same effect caused me to almost go with a cheaper, coarser AT material in my FP setup - the slight increase in brightness was that dazzling despite the fact that the finer material was significantly superior in every other way

As an aside, I keep meaning to spend some time with a Sharp ELITE in person at a nearby Magnolia, because it's obviously impressed a lot of very selective reviewers here and elsewhere, and it sounds like a phenomenal display. I probably would have seriously considered switching over from my Kuro until I started reading about OLED becoming a reality later this year. But I'd still like to play with an ELITE just for curiosity's sake.
post #43 of 72
5/13/12 at 4:27pm
OLED size will be limited to 55" at the onset and I'm not sure how big or how expensive larger ones will eventually be. For me, my next display will be 70" or larger and I can't imagine how much that would cost for OLED.

I would also intend to sit on the sidelines with the first & second gen OLEDs given all of their issues in development. I'll let others be the guinea pigs for awhile. In the meantime the Elite is doing a phenomenal job.
post #44 of 72
5/13/12 at 10:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

OLED size will be limited to 55" at the onset and I'm not sure how big or how expensive larger ones will eventually be. For me, my next display will be 70" or larger and I can't imagine how much that would cost for OLED.

I would also intend to sit on the sidelines with the first & second gen OLEDs given all of their issues in development. I'll let others be the guinea pigs for awhile. In the meantime the Elite is doing a phenomenal job.

I agree 100%. I have no intent to shell out big money for 1st gen tech, nor do I intend to drop from a 60" screen to a 55" screen. I'm confident that in several years something larger will be available, and at less of a price premium. I'll probably jump on to OLED once I can get something that's 70" or larger for $5K or less.
post #45 of 72
5/14/12 at 12:31am
And here I'm feeling absolutely peachy that 55" would be an upgrade for me (presently at 50"). Still, I will likely barely notice the meager upgrade in such a hypothetical scenario (it is certainly shaping up to be true when observing 55" displays in-store).
post #46 of 72
5/14/12 at 12:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

And here I'm feeling absolutely peachy that 55" would be an upgrade for me (presently at 50"). Still, I will likely barely notice the meager upgrade in such a hypothetical scenario (it is certainly shaping up to be true when observing 55" displays in-store).

You may be surprised how noticable the difference is. When I upgraded from my 50" 8G Kuro to my 60" 9G, the difference in size was quite significant. What was even more significant was when I saw the 50" in the same room again and it suddenly looked so small.

However (in this hypothetical situation), the PQ gains that you'd realize in upgrading from any current 50" panel to a 55" OLED will probably be the most notable difference, with the increase in size being second.
post #47 of 72
5/14/12 at 5:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

You may be surprised how noticable the difference is. When I upgraded from my 50" 8G Kuro to my 60" 9G, the difference in size was quite significant. What was even more significant was when I saw the 50" in the same room again and it suddenly looked so small.

However (in this hypothetical situation), the PQ gains that you'd realize in upgrading from any current 50" panel to a 55" OLED will probably be the most notable difference, with the increase in size being second.

I can't help but wonder if your last statement is true. A well calibrated Plasma or LCD tv can put out a VERY respectable picture. Is the OLED really that much better??? Is there all that much room for PQ improvement? From where I'm sitting, I really don't think so. Just my thoughts on the matter. No intention of starting an argument here. I have never seen a large screen OLED.
post #48 of 72
5/14/12 at 7:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pds3 View Post

I can't help but wonder if your last statement is true. A well calibrated Plasma or LCD tv can put out a VERY respectable picture. Is the OLED really that much better??? Is there all that much room for PQ improvement? From where I'm sitting, I really don't think so. Just my thoughts on the matter. No intention of starting an argument here. I have never seen a large screen OLED.

I think the best thing about OLED is that it has the potential to combine the strengths of both techs with few of their weaknesses and true, absolute blacks. The first time I saw a Kuro, it spoiled every other display for me. Having seen my old Samsung Fascinate's OLED screen in action, I expect that a similar picture from a large display would be equally revolutionary.

I'm hoping the first generation of OLED displays offers the kind of image I'm expecting based on my previous experience with the tech; I guess we'll see one way or another soon.
post #49 of 72
5/14/12 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Stunning misinformation, utterly stunning. One of the most inaccurate posts I've read in my many years on AVS. Yes viewing angle is not as good as plasma, but your description adds a new dimension to the word 'embellishment'.

Ken, you don't see a difference between iPad 2 and iPad 3 font rendering.
You don't see a change in LCD color saturation at minor angle change.

Either your subjective judgement for actually observed phenomena is skewed to an absurd extent, or your eye exam is long overdue. Or both.
post #50 of 72
5/14/12 at 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditcho View Post

Ken, you don't see a difference between iPad 2 and iPad 3 font rendering.
You don't see a change in LCD color saturation at minor angle change.

Either your subjective judgement for actually observed phenomena is skewed to an absurd extent, or your eye exam is long overdue. Or both.

I thought this discussion was about TELEVISIONS, not ipads. The OP distinctly asked about differences in televisions.
post #51 of 72
5/14/12 at 1:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pds3 View Post

I thought this discussion was about TELEVISIONS, not ipads. The OP distinctly asked about differences in televisions.

My apologies. I take back the iPad part.
As for the viewing angle, the reason for my overreaction is the fact that there exists a billion dollar industry for display calibration. They use precision instruments to adjust the picture parameters as close to standards as possible. All this precision work goes down in flames the moment you change your viewing angle by 10 degrees, which in most combinations between viewing distance and screen size is equivalent to leaning on the couch.The resulting change in every single adjusted parameter exceeds the difference between the before and after values on the charts the calibrators leave with their customers. This is a forum for video perfectionists, professional video calibration is highly regarded here, and yet some people seem to be in complete denial of this absurd situation. All I'm doing is trying to figure out why.
post #52 of 72
5/14/12 at 1:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditcho View Post

My apologies. I take back the iPad part.
As for the viewing angle, the reason for my overreaction is the fact that there exists a billion dollar industry for display calibration. They use precision instruments to adjust the picture parameters as close to standards as possible. All this precision work goes down in flames the moment you change your viewing angle by 10 degrees, which in most combinations between viewing distance and screen size is equivalent to leaning on the couch.The resulting change in every single adjusted parameter exceeds the difference between the before and after values on the charts the calibrators leave with their customers. This is a forum for video perfectionists, professional video calibration is highly regarded here, and yet some people seem to be in complete denial of this absurd situation. All I'm doing is trying to figure out why.

I have a 70" LCD tv that sits 13 feet away from my sofa. My sofa is approximately 9 feet wide. You can sit in the center or on either side of the sofa without any noticeable loss in picture quality. To say leaning either way on a couch would change pq in any way is totally ludicrous.
post #53 of 72
5/14/12 at 1:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pds3 View Post

I have a 70" LCD tv that sits 13 feet away from my sofa. My sofa is approximately 9 feet wide. You can sit in the center or on either side of the sofa without any noticeable loss in picture quality. To say leaning either way on a couch would change pq in any way is totally ludicrous.

There are several people here that will disagree with you. I am one. We can agree to disagree.
post #54 of 72
5/14/12 at 1:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmwilker View Post

There are several people here that will disagree with you. I am one. We can agree to disagree.

So you are saying that if I tilt my head that I will see a loss in picture quality??? Absurd.
post #55 of 72
5/14/12 at 1:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pds3 View Post

So you are saying that if I tilt my head that I will see a loss in picture quality??? Absurd.

On my 80" if you sit to the outside edge of the display the drop in saturation and luminance it very noticeable.
post #56 of 72
5/14/12 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmwilker View Post

On my 80" if you sit to the outside edge of the display the drop in saturation and luminance it very noticeable.

I'm not sure why you didn't return the set. I certainly would have if I had noticed such a problem. Taking a cursory look at the 80 inch Sharp owner threads I certainly don't see any complaints about viewing angles.
post #57 of 72
5/14/12 at 3:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pds3 View Post

I'm not sure why you didn't return the set. I certainly would have if I had noticed such a problem. Taking a cursory look at the 80 inch Sharp owner threads I certainly don't see any complaints about viewing angles.

I am. I'm exchanging it for a plasma
post #58 of 72
5/14/12 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmwilker View Post

I am. I'm exchanging it for a plasma

I can't help but wonder if you even have the set. Problems such as you describe would be smeared all over the owner's threads.
post #59 of 72
5/14/12 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditcho View Post

Ken, you don't see a difference between iPad 2 and iPad 3 font rendering.
You don't see a change in LCD color saturation at minor angle change.

Either your subjective judgement for actually observed phenomena is skewed to an absurd extent, or your eye exam is long overdue. Or both.

Once again, inaccuracies. There is little to no change in color saturation at minor angle changes. You don't believe that? I could care less. Because I am stating fact and LIVE with the display, don't accuse me of needing an eye exam.

I have always said the biggest weakness of the Elite is the viewing angle...but not 'minor' angle changes as you suggest. So your objectivity is very obviously lacking. I recognize a weakness, but I don't embellish like you.
post #60 of 72
5/14/12 at 4:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pds3 View Post

I have a 70" LCD tv that sits 13 feet away from my sofa. My sofa is approximately 9 feet wide. You can sit in the center or on either side of the sofa without any noticeable loss in picture quality. To say leaning either way on a couch would change pq in any way is totally ludicrous.

Hey maybe you and I get a group discount for an eye exam!

There are some here that just love to embellish and then attack those that state facts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › Common problems in LEDs/LCDs/Plasma...