Your Predictions: WHICH of the following emissive displays (OLED / Crystal LED / Quantum Dot /... - Page 3  

That will be such a killer application for real estate market too. A property on sale will be scanned and software will convert it into VR so that people browsing for houses online will be able to walk around inside without travelling to the actual location.

See, this is an example where people who love technology (most of us) think that something technology will enable is a killer app, when it basically isn't.

Nearly no one is buying a house they haven't been in, seen the street, etc. Preliminary property screening can be done with photos, listings, etc. The system could be made better, but the idea that a 3-D virtual tour will obviate the need for a visit is mistaken. Instead, the existing virtual tours will likely get better. Perhaps someday, they will be VR-enabled, but unless more than half the prospective clients have VR goggles, it's not worth it. Instead, you build something that works on most people's computer/tablet/smartphone/TV and you improve it.

The only application for VR I really see taking off, is video games, and maybe a small set of the market will want to watch films on them too, if they can actually create a large virtual screen. (Sony claimed this on their head-mounted display, but it looked smaller than my current TV)
Low-end edge-lit LCDs suck. High-end LCDs are good, and arguably better than Plasma. (though the viewing angles do suck on all of them) They are also a lot more expensive than Plasma though, and these days especially, people don't seem to want to pay for quality any more.

Arguably indeed. The average videophile would be better off grabbing a Panasonic and getting a better set than paying double for a high-end LCD.

You can't beat the high-end LED backlit televisions available today with a display that only has 10,000:1 contrast at calibrated levels. (assuming viewing angle is not a concern - but why would you buy a high-end set and not sit in front of it?)

There's no denying that Plasma is better value, but it is not better quality.
Plasma is much better than the majority of edge-lit sets out there though, if you can tolerate their faults. (which are numerous)

I know a number of people that switched to Plasma in the last few years, against my advice, and every single one of them has now told me that they wouldn't buy one again.

Today's posts are reminding me why I don't find spending time at AVS Forum very useful anymore....

By your "logic", the VR tour of the house won't be "far too rosy"....? Please.

And just to be clear.... tgm, it's this post at least as much as yours that has me feeling that way.

I mean, pretty much every professional reviewer thinks they are better quality. But thank goodness we have chronoptimist to set the record straight....

^As much as I hate to move toward ad hominem territory myself, I think it has something to do with Chrono being a Sony enthusiast. The only group that engages in worse levels of rabidity is the Apple fanatic.
Yea, well, I ditched LCD in 2007 and couldn't be happier, and the supremacy of PQ in Panasonic's Plasma this year has repeatedly been established.
Edited by vinnie97 - 12/23/12 at 3:00pm

Ha. Ha.

Thank you, that's exactly what I meant. VR and AR will definitely make the process of house hunting far more efficient, and, as someone who bought a property in the past, I definitely get what you mean by pictures sometimes being too rosey, and when you visit the place, it turns out you just wasted time. VR would cut down on that wasted time. Real estate business will love VR and AR.

Hmm, good point. I think this could be addressed by moveable optics to achieve different foci depending on VR/AR mode.

There's no ad hominem. Ad hominem is an attack against the person. I'm attacking your utterly bogus argument, not you.

The idea that a VR tour is not going to be overly glammed up, but today's photo tours are is bogus.
The idea that a VR tour is going to obviate a visit, but today's photo tours don't is bogus.
The idea that we need a Rube Goldberg solution like donning goggles and spending 20 minutes "walking" through each house instead of pre-screening the very few we might live in and then visiting them is bogus.

And since all of this will (a) cost a fortune and (b) presume VR goggles are in most homes for it to get past the massive chicken-and-egg problem, it's not a magic bullet solution to making VR popular. In fact, it's not even a good example of why VR might become popular in people's homes. Something like the game in the series "Caprica" seems like a much more plausible example of why it might actually become popular, since there is replay value. Once I pick a new home and move, I don't really need my idiotic VR house tour -- especially since that doubtless would've been overly staged anyway.

Actually, you will find that most reviewers haven't even seen most of the high-end LCDs available, because manufacturers are reluctant to ship them out, and they won't just send them anywhere. Most places that do have a review for them, have to purchase the sets themselves, which puts it out of the reach of most websites for example.

What you will actually find, is that most reviews of the high-end LCDs will put them at least on-par, if not better than the best plasmas of the day. And even if they are considered to be on-par as far as general image quality goes (measured greyscale, color etc.) you still have the sharper, brighter LCD image, better gradation (something no publication seems to mention) the lack of flicker, phosphor lag, ABL, image retention etc. all of which are meaningful differences in my opinion.

Viewing angle is not a concern for me with LCDs, because it is mostly not a problem in a brightly lit room, which would be the only situation that I would ever see the TV off-axis. I bought a high-end TV to sit straight-on to it, and watch film in a darkened room.
If you need to sit off-axis in a darkened room, Plasma is probably a better option for you, if none of the other issues bother you. (or don't bother you enough, that you would rather save some money)

As expected, the only real flaw is viewing angle, which no LCD is good at - even IPS panels. (which are too low contrast for a high-end set)

And again, it comes down to price in the end. If you have the money, the high-end LCDs are better than Plasma, but Plasma is much better value.
Something else worth mentioning, is that the Samsung (I assume) panel used in the HX950, and the HX920 still has a lower native contrast than the Sharp UV2A panel they used in the HX900. (the last "true" flagship set - everything else has been more focused on reducing costs)

They measure 1800:1 native, and I measure almost 3500:1 native on my HX900. This means that, if they have not increased the number of local dimming zones (I don't believe they have) the HX900 will produce a higher-contrast image, with less blooming. (blooming is almost non-existant when watching films on the HX900) It's also worth pointing out that the contrast ratio is higher than Panasonic's Plasmas in the low local dimming mode, when the standard local-dimming mode will actually turn the LEDs off, significantly raising contrast from that 12,000:1 number.
I said I felt I was becoming a bit of a Sony fan, by which, I meant that I like their products. While some people on this forum seem to actively be celebrating their potential demise because of their "overpriced products" I think it would be a blow to the industry if we were to lose them, as they are constantly innovating and developing new technologies - more-so than most of the other companies in the AV business.

That's not to say that I think their products are automatically good, but I do think that when they get it right, their products are definitely worth the premium. They are still one of the few manufacturers that actually has a high-end line, when others have simply given up and just cater to the mass-market. Look at Samsung for example; when was the last time they put out a high-end LCD? They haven't had a local-dimming model for years now.
Well I hardly think your opinion on the matter is relevant then. 2007 was before we even had local-dimming LED backlit displays. (XBR8 was released in late 2008 if I recall correctly)

There have been significant strides made in recent years. Back in 2007 motion on LCDs was a smeary mess, now they have all but eliminated motion blur with interpolation and/or backlight scanning.
Contrast back then was very low, and now the high-end sets are the top performers. Color used to look unnatural on them, and now they have full color management systems and look every bit as accurate or natural as the best Plasmas.

Gosh, I don't know where to start other than I didn't see Tgm1024 making precisely these claims you are trying to refute. Nobody is saying that photo tours are bogus and VR tours won't be, only that VR tours will be far more reliable and useful for potential buyers, that's all. Assuming same properties, potential buyers would be making more visits based on just photo tours than on VR tours, it's obvious, as VR tours would contain far more information than handful of photos. Also, nobody is saying people would be taking VR tours for EVERY single listing they ever lay their eyes on, only those 10-20 that had been pre-screened through, perhaps, photo tours.

Lastly, how do you know VR tours will cost a fortune and why do you think most homes would have to have VR sets for these real estate applications to succeed? After all, a real estate agent could provide VR tours to his or her clients at the office, no VR set purchase necessary. So, instead of 20 visits, a client visits the agent's office, looks at some VR tours and narrows it all down to 2 properties for a total of 3 visits.

And why are you attacking an idea of "idiotic" VR house tours AFTER client buys a house and moves in if.......nobody has even mentioned or advocated an idea like that? :-)
Edited by vtms - 12/24/12 at 6:31am

Chrono, the vaunted yearly shootout had the best LCD money can buy, the Sharp, and it still rated lower than the Panasonic.

I don't care what you think of my opinion, but why would I, like a victim of Stockholm syndrome, keep returning to a technology that leaves me disappointed in its shortcomings and which only provides incremental improvements for those shortcomings that bother me most? To hell with that. That would be the equivalent of a visual downgrade, which I'm not willing to do. You also mistakenly assume I have not seen any modern LCDs in action, but you would also be mistaken (a Samsung 32" bought for a family member, in fact, which is most certainly an improvement over my 46" 2007 model visually but still a downgrade of the you-know-what in the parameters that matter to me most).
Edited by vinnie97 - 12/24/12 at 10:12am

The Sharp Elite uses an RGBY panel which causes all kinds of color accuracy problems, and the local dimming algorithm doesn't turn the LED zones off. There are a number of other issues with that set. If I recall correctly, they didn't have the Sharp Elite set up correctly for the shootout either. (that was the case with one of the better LCDs anyway - it may not have been the Sharp Elite)

Sharp make great LCD panels, but they always fail to back them up with good image processing, and RGBY panels don't belong in a high-end set.

Anybody want to answer my question as to who they speculate will be the first LCD producer to come up with a 65-inch 4K display for less than $5,000 and WHEN that will happen?

I think the reason nobody wants to ponder these questions or write about them is they KNOW that it will be a long time if ever!

Which MEANS that the future for most people who buy a video display is that in 2015 all they will have to choose from is LCD that SUX!

I'm on a crusade to remind the AVS world of this fact against the AV industry plant push which will be coming in the next few years that tries to sell AVSers on crummy LCD.

i still don't know how you can have HIGH END in all sorts of products but not on VIDEO displays.

People will spend millions on tube amplifiers, turntables, and speakers but you're telling me that NO ONE would do the same when it comes to video?!

Who BELIEVES that?!!

I believe the motion picture industry MAKES SURE that great video doesn't happen.

The ONLY great vido is Blu-ray--Hollywood gets to make money on that--I think the downgrade to TOTAL world wide LCD domination is so video won't get TOO good for the masses and they wind up not going to the theaters.

Oh and I OBVIOUSLY think that Hollywood has great influence on video display producers.

Well, since this is just speculation, with nothing to lose...I'd say the Chinese company Hisense will come out with a 65" 4K at your price point by 2014.

But...............who knows?

Happy Holidays everyone!

Color (in)accuracy is not going to be most easily detectable without a reference. Otherwise it wasn't far off enough in the shootout to get the Sharp considerably docked. The set not correctly set up was the Sony, I think (though I thought it was omitted from the 2012 shootout altogether).

Well, you have mentioned it. I'm not sure I did.

Certainly, running toward paranoia.
That's false. Every decent real-estate web site has 360-degree views of rooms. Sorry, they do and have for more than a decade. And, no, stop parsing my argument inaccurately, You made the false claim that photos can be glammed up but VR tours would be accurate. Let's just admit that's ludicrous.
Again, this is how "technophiles" fix problems that don't exist. You can already weed out properties just fine with existing listings and their existing 360 degree photo panoramas. And, in fact, you can weed out most listings with a 2-d photo.
Again, you've set up a fake problem and "solved" it. You've managed to spend an extra 100 minutes "visiting" these properties in virtual reality, denying yourself some number of real-world visits where you find out that the corner is loaded with homeless people, or there's amazing restaurants nearby, or, wow, this place has a nice view... but you "saved" so much time and got to look at more properties. You've overloaded your choice matrix, which often fails to help people (See, "The Paradox of Choice" for more) and experienced more places in an entirely fake manner.

Oh, and you still have this chicken-and-egg problem: Every single listing needs a high-quality VR tour that is comprehensive and the vast majority of buyers need VR rigs at home. When is this happening by? 2050? 2080? Certainly not 2020.

This is a fake problem, with a fake solution and fake benefits. Oh, and it's for something that people do on average once a decade or so.

It will most surely lead to mass adoption of VR.

Vinnie, why let facts get in the way of a good rant? Chrono likes LCDs, clearly. Professional reviewers clearly prefer plasmas, especially those with access to both technologies (think high end magazines, Cnet, etc.)

In a few years, Chrono's position will be "vindicated" as plasma leaves the market for good.

Can you see me quaking with excitement at the prospect (of Plasma's market exit)?

not true at all.

When the Elite Pro reviews hit the net lots of reviewers rated it higher than most Plasma's (99%) and it was declared the equal of/or even better then the KRP 500A/M by several of them. It was the color problem which kept it from being named new King it seemed (I believe it was Rogo who said that color did not need to be reference ).

Plasma fan Katzmaier <- CNET LORD
''the overpriced Sharp Elite produces the second-best overall picture quality of any TV we've reviewed since 2008''.

The whole ''Plasma/LCd which is better'' thing is a dumb one IMO. A TV should be good enough and several Plasma/LCd models are.

No, no, it was you who said, "Once I pick a new home and move, I don't really need my idiotic VR house tour -- especially since that doubtless would've been overly staged anyway."
Just because you're losing this "VR as game-changer in real-estate business" argument badly, doesn't excuse you from playing fair.

Also, instead of arguing on the technological basis, admit that these reasons you list for why VR won't succeed are purely personal, based on your taste, and that's ok. Your use of the word "idiotic" to describe VR strongly suggests that. I guess we'll just have to drag you through the inexorable VR revolution while kicking and screaming. :-)
Edited by vtms - 12/24/12 at 5:06pm

Fair point 8mile. The Elite is excellent -- and, of course, an LCD.


Let's agree I mis-spoke since obviously I was referring to the selection process, not the after-the-fact bit.

And, no, I believe none of the reasons I list why it won't succeed have anything to do with my personal preference. I believe they all have to do with why it will fail. Again, I'm guessing you pulled "idiotic" out of context to try to prove a fake point.

I've won the real-estate argument as not one argument has been advanced to suggest it will be used any time in the next 20 years by normal people. I've shown the failure to solve the chicken-and-egg problem will render this concept moot, not the mention the perfect adequacy of existing solutions. But thanks for your non-argument.

As I’ve said, the reviewers that have actually seen the higher end LCDs like the Sharp Elite and Sony’s HX9 series usually rank them as on-par with the best Plasma has to offer, better, or slightly lower due to price. (Which should not be a factor when you are ranking image quality) While Sony’s HX9 series has fewer dimming zones, the colour accuracy is better due using RGB panels and a better CMS (less adjustable, but better by default) and their dimming algorithm is a lot better, including the ability to turn LED zones off. I think Sony’s MotionFlow options are unparalleled in the LCD world, as they mostly avoid the soap opera effect.

I don’t know any site which does testing on the finer points of image quality such as gradation, which is something the much-lauded Kuros were terrible at, even relative to other Plasmas. Similarly, sites are only just starting to look at how a CMS measures below 100% saturation. Few have any kind of measure for motion artefacts like overdriving on LCD or phosphor lag with plasma.

But you’re right that Plasmas are probably going to disappear soon, and that has nothing to do with quality. I will be sad to see them go, because competition is always good. I dread an all-LCD future as much as anyone else, because that’s probably going to be an all edge-LED future, unless they can figure out OLED in the next few years.

You can repeat the point about reviewers except that it doesn't change what happened at the Vale Electronics shootout for example or the fact that on a price-adjusted basis -- as you note -- it's really not close.

And, as you also note, it's not close from off axis.

I think your problem with plasmas is that you find these small (real, but small) issues like gradations somehow huge even though they tend to go unnoticed by most people. Things like contrast and color and off-axis viewing tend to be pretty obvious -- similarly brightness, a strength of LCD -- whereas things like PWM, not so much.

Look, all of this is moot soon. Right now, however, you can buy a very high quality plasma for $1500 or more less than the equivalent quality LCD. You have to trade away some brightness, but you get back some off-axis viewing. Everything else is a bunch of minutiae. In two years or so, that choice will be gone. In its place, you'll likely have to spend far more to get the OLED and you might still not be able to get it at 65". That would be a very sad situation.

The fact that a great $3000, 65" display exists today and is only available in plasma with no clear sign of a great LCD in that size/price emerging is a troublesome trend for videophiles. This is especially true given that some of us hoped such a thing would be $2000 by now, not heading for $4000-4500.

Sure, if you consider sharing your personal distaste for VR as an "argument" for why VR will fail, then, of course, you've won. With this strategy, you will, of course, win all the arguments you'll ever have, no matter the logic or facts. :-)

You've shown nothing yet to suggest why VR will fail. "Chicken-and-egg" problem was a problem back in early days of HD and, look, there's HD everywhere now. How did that happen? :-) And so will VR be everywhere too in few years because, if there's value in something, people want it and will get it eventually, despite early obstacles. That's how the world works. I guess you're the kind of person who must see VR succeed to admit you were totally wrong about it, probably as early as in 2014. I'll talk to you then.