AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › LCD Flat Panel Displays › Samsung 81 Series anticipation thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung 81 Series anticipation thread - Page 2  

post #31 of 4495
1/20/07 at 5:40pm
Good post.

That planar looks like a rebadged Brightside. What Id like to know is, that picture of the stars on the screen, what the backlight looks like on it, as it would seem to me that there would be no way to illuminate those stars without killing the black levels of the space between them.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #32 of 4495
1/20/07 at 6:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by necrolop View Post

What Id like to know is, that picture of the stars on the screen, what the backlight looks like on it, as it would seem to me that there would be no way to illuminate those stars without killing the black levels of the space between them.

The star is obviously much smaller than an individual LED so it would seem impossible to turn on that LED and still end up with a small point of light surrounded by black area. In this case the algorithm turns that LED behind the star on anyway but the trick is that, simultaneously, it commands liquid crystals corresponding to pixels around the star to block the light so that only few pixels allow light to pass through at the screen location where the star appears while all pixels around the star block the light. The result is you see a bright star surrounded by black space. Obviously, the crystals around the star won't block the light completely so there will always be a hint of "halo" around the star, but, in reality, that halo would be there anyway even if the pixels perfectly blocked the light around the star (that is if resolution of backlight was equal to pixel resolution) because our eyes perceive a halo around a bright spot surrounded by black area anyway. The result is that the picture appears completely natural. It's actually quite brilliant algorithm.

This should explain why resolution of backlight doesn't have to go up to pixel resolution to achieve the same realistic PQ. In OLEDs each pixel illuminates itself, but in locally dimmed sets the same effect could be achieved with the kind of algorithm described above.
post #33 of 4495
1/20/07 at 7:32pm
But that is a simulated Halo, not a true one as would be caused by HDR.

I love the concept of this, but I just have a huge number of worries on the actual execution of it. Ideally you would have a OLED backlight of 1920x1080. Let my eyes be the one to add halos, not the backlight. There is something the set could do to counter the halo affect, but at the cost of over all blacklevel. Making the LCD black around the star doesnt help, cause there will be leakage around the star, and further away the LCD will still be black, but no leakage as the LED is off. You cant make some pixels black, then somehow make the ones around the star blacker than black. BUT, you could call on all "black" pixels to actually be grey, then have the "blacks" over illuminated areas be actual black, balancing them. But ofcourse this defeats the whole idea haha.

The resolution is a big question too. Some seem to think that it could be as few as 300 LEDs in the array, where as the Brightside model uses 1400. I would like to see the same or more for the Samsung. I would imagine well have to wait a few months for more information to come out.

Do you know where to find some information on the LG/Phillips model?
post #34 of 4495
1/20/07 at 8:17pm
Thread Starter 
The idea is that the light leakage from a single fully illuminated pixel on a LED LCD would look indistinguishable from bloom caused by a fully illuminated OLED pixel. In other words, the natural bloom on locally dimmed LED LCD would "mask" (superimpose onto) the light leakage so that the image would look "correct." Obviously, we will have to see these sets in person to test the theory but right now I'm not as worried about this as much as you are. I'm much more concerned about availability and MSRPs at this point.

There's no doubt it would be more beneficial for manufacturers to increase the resolutions of LED BLUs because that would further decrease power consumption levels but what I'm wondering about is the minimum required BLU resolution beyond which no perceivable gain in PQ could be achieved. Are 300 LEDs enough? Seems a bit low.
post #35 of 4495
1/20/07 at 8:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

but the trick is that, simultaneously, it commands liquid crystals corresponding to pixels around the star to block the light

I'm not sure what you are saying here. If you have a white pixel next to a black pixel the lcd crystal for the white pixel is transparent while the crystal for the black pixel is opaque. This is the way LCD has always worked. I must be misunderstanding what you are trying to say?

I think the only trick is the fact that the eye would see the blooming anyway so there is no point in increasing the number of LEDs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

This should explain why resolution of backlight doesn't have to go up to pixel resolution to achieve the same realistic PQ

For absolute perfection it would have to go beyond the pixel resolution. 3x beyond, one LED for each red/green/blue sub-pixel. Luckily there is no requirement given our eyesight limitations (as you said).
post #36 of 4495
1/20/07 at 8:32pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by necrolop View Post

Do you know where to find some information on the LG/Phillips model?

I know they showed it at last year's SID so it's definitely real. It also uses the same local dimming technology. Robert Heron mentioned it in an episode of DL.TV (among other cool technologies like Laser TV and Brightside) last June which you can watch here (it's 18 minutes in)

If these displays show up in Q2 2007 that would be unbelievable, regardless of their MSRPs. Honestly, I was expecting these locally dimmed sets to appear late in 2008 at the earliest.
post #37 of 4495
1/20/07 at 8:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTVic View Post

I think the only trick is the fact that the eye would see the blooming anyway so there is no point in increasing the number of LEDs.

Yes, that's trick I was trying to point out. Obviously, liquid crystals in conventional LCDs and LED LCDs work the same.

Quote:


For absolute perfection it would have to go beyond the pixel resolution. 3x beyond, one LED for each red/green/blue sub-pixel. Luckily there is no requirement given our eyesight limitations (as you said).

Right.
post #38 of 4495
1/20/07 at 8:44pm
Yea I was suprised to see the Samsung at CES, though when I walked in I was hoping Id see it, actually thought Id see it at the Sony booth not the Samsung.

Theoretically the natural bloom may mask the artificial bloom, but I still am wary, hopefully youre right.
post #39 of 4495
1/21/07 at 5:45pm
I have decided to hold off on buying a Sony until summer at least - my current concerns are:

1. Cloudiness issue

From what I have read the problem is more prevalent in panels manufactured most recently and Sony hopes to fix it with a firmware patch which may only "solve" the problem by reducing the brightness. This is a guess but most people believe it is a physical problem (nothing software can properly fix).

Will the 81 series feature the same panel using dimmable LEDs to mask the problem. You may say that if you can't see the clouds then why complain. But the fact remains that some panels have significant clouds and some do not. This points to a problem with consistency in the manufacture and tells me I can't be guaranteed the highest quality picture. It may be just the luck of the draw as to the quality of panel that comes in the box.

2. Proper Adjustments

Most LCDs seem to require a great deal of "expert" adjustment to get the best possible picture. Will Sony be addressing this issue with the 81 series.

3. New LED technology

Will the new sets consume more power and generate more heat because of the large number of LEDs? LED technology is improving all the time so perhaps it would be a good idea to wait for the 2nd generation of this technology. Will they be using enough LEDs that the artificial blooming will be masked by the natural blooming due to our eyesight. They may choose to reduce costs rather than provide the optimum number of LEDs.
post #40 of 4495
1/21/07 at 6:12pm
oh wow. i guess theres little reason to wait for SED if this technology is soon to be available to consumers.

was planning an HDTV purchase this coming spring, but i guess i'll wait til fall for prices on this set to drop.
post #41 of 4495
1/21/07 at 10:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTVic View Post

I have decided to hold off on buying a Sony until summer at least - my current concerns are:

1. Cloudiness issue

From what I have read the problem is more prevalent in panels manufactured most recently and Sony hopes to fix it with a firmware patch which may only "solve" the problem by reducing the brightness. This is a guess but most people believe it is a physical problem (nothing software can properly fix).

Will the 81 series feature the same panel using dimmable LEDs to mask the problem. You may say that if you can't see the clouds then why complain. But the fact remains that some panels have significant clouds and some do not. This points to a problem with consistency in the manufacture and tells me I can't be guaranteed the highest quality picture. It may be just the luck of the draw as to the quality of panel that comes in the box.

2. Proper Adjustments

Most LCDs seem to require a great deal of "expert" adjustment to get the best possible picture. Will Sony be addressing this issue with the 81 series.

3. New LED technology

Will the new sets consume more power and generate more heat because of the large number of LEDs? LED technology is improving all the time so perhaps it would be a good idea to wait for the 2nd generation of this technology. Will they be using enough LEDs that the artificial blooming will be masked by the natural blooming due to our eyesight. They may choose to reduce costs rather than provide the optimum number of LEDs.

I would be astounded if Sony did anything to address problems with the 81 series.
post #42 of 4495
1/22/07 at 5:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTVic View Post

I have decided to hold off on buying a Sony until summer at least - my current concerns are:

1. Cloudiness issue

From what I have read the problem is more prevalent in panels manufactured most recently and Sony hopes to fix it with a firmware patch which may only "solve" the problem by reducing the brightness. This is a guess but most people believe it is a physical problem (nothing software can properly fix).

Will the 81 series feature the same panel using dimmable LEDs to mask the problem. You may say that if you can't see the clouds then why complain. But the fact remains that some panels have significant clouds and some do not. This points to a problem with consistency in the manufacture and tells me I can't be guaranteed the highest quality picture. It may be just the luck of the draw as to the quality of panel that comes in the box.

2. Proper Adjustments

Most LCDs seem to require a great deal of "expert" adjustment to get the best possible picture. Will Sony be addressing this issue with the 81 series.

3. New LED technology

Will the new sets consume more power and generate more heat because of the large number of LEDs? LED technology is improving all the time so perhaps it would be a good idea to wait for the 2nd generation of this technology. Will they be using enough LEDs that the artificial blooming will be masked by the natural blooming due to our eyesight. They may choose to reduce costs rather than provide the optimum number of LEDs.

LOL this post made my day. At first I thought he just mistyped samsung for sony, then I read about how he hears about the cloudy issue with sony and hopes they fix the 81 series LOL. FYI, Sony and Samsung are different companies
post #43 of 4495
1/22/07 at 11:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by necrolop View Post

Ideally you would have a OLED backlight of 1920x1080.

OLED BL of display rez does not make sense, why use the LCD then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by necrolop View Post

Let my eyes be the one to add halos, not the backlight. There is something the set could do to counter the halo affect, but at the cost of over all blacklevel. Making the LCD black around the star doesnt help, cause there will be leakage around the star, and further away the LCD will still be black, but no leakage as the LED is off. You cant make some pixels black, then somehow make the ones around the star blacker than black. BUT, you could call on all "black" pixels to actually be grey, then have the "blacks" over illuminated areas be actual black, balancing them. But ofcourse this defeats the whole idea haha.

There is inherent masking of CR by human eye so the halo effect might be very effectively masked. The problem here is how much the halo might be visible for very critical observers, those guys who can tell the difference between 1: 10 000 and 1:20 000 CR difference in dark room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by necrolop View Post

The resolution is a big question too. Some seem to think that it could be as few as 300 LEDs in the array, where as the Brightside model uses 1400. I would like to see the same or more for the Samsung. I would imagine well have to wait a few months for more information to come out.

Resolution is NOT the question as you think. Small number of LEDs is used only in small displays in side backlighting. In big displays, backlighting has to be over the display area and the number of LEDs is staggering. Samsung has one LED BL model on sale in Europe. it is 40" with 1366x768 rez and has 2160 LEDs. This LCD has been extensively reviewed in German here

http://www.areadvd.de/hardware/2006/...0M91B_01.shtml

They noticed certain problems with backlighting: uniformity, color reproduction at lower light levels, black level, and rare artefacts from LED dimming. These problems were overall small but the argument for using LED was not convincing enough when comparing to similar model without LED.

While the LED BL demonstrated at CES seems to be much improved, it will require detailed critical evaluation when new sets come for sale.
post #44 of 4495
1/22/07 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007craft View Post

LOL this post made my day. At first I thought he just mistyped samsung for sony, then I read about how he hears about the cloudy issue with sony and hopes they fix the 81 series LOL. FYI, Sony and Samsung are different companies

I think you misunderstood him -- perhaps he meant does the Samsung 81 series use the same "Panel" as the cloudy Sony's but just use the local dimming to hide the problem?
post #45 of 4495
1/22/07 at 1:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

OLED BL of display rez does not make sense, why use the LCD then?


It makes perfect sense. An OLED TV needs 3 subpixels per pixel, Thus must he 3 times the resolution of a simple 1920x1080 OLED backlight. Also, it could use White LEDs. The current problems with OLEDs is inconsistent and short lifespans. A single colored white OLED wouldnt have those issues. Having a Light filter over an OLED would make good sense. Though I agree we probably wont see a TV like that.
post #46 of 4495
1/22/07 at 7:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007craft View Post

LOL this post made my day. At first I thought he just mistyped samsung for sony, then I read about how he hears about the cloudy issue with sony and hopes they fix the 81 series LOL. FYI, Sony and Samsung are different companies

Samsung makes the 1080 panels for Sony. The cloud problem affects both brands. Think first, type later...
post #47 of 4495
1/22/07 at 7:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by necrolop View Post

It makes perfect sense. An OLED TV needs 3 subpixels per pixel, Thus must he 3 times the resolution of a simple 1920x1080 OLED backlight. Also, it could use White LEDs. The current problems with OLEDs is inconsistent and short lifespans. A single colored white OLED wouldnt have those issues. Having a Light filter over an OLED would make good sense. Though I agree we probably wont see a TV like that.

Some confusion here. I'm not sure with who so I'll just give my understanding of OLED technology as it relates to this thread. If you know this then please ignore.

Many people are anticipating an OLED TV as an alternative to LCD. Much thinner, no backlight, low power, perfect black. Still a ways away if it ever comes out. Using white OLEDs as a backlight for an LCD TV is a whole different subject.

For those who are unfamiliar: LCDs work by blocking/filtering a backlight. Sometimes the backlight is uneven and sometimes it shines through when it shouldn't.

As far as I know this 81 series will feature 1000s of LED backlights which can be dimmed or turned off individually where needed. I suppose it is possible that white OLED (organic LEDs) could be used for this purpose but I don't think the technology is there yet. These LEDs are just "standard" white LEDs.

I think the Sony 70" that was just announced uses three LEDs (red,green,blue) in place of one white LED. This is another variation on the LED backlight technology.

From my info Samsung and Sony sets are using the same panel (made by Samsung) but the backlighting technology and electronics will differ between the two.
post #48 of 4495
1/22/07 at 9:33pm
Indeed, but a white OLED is more stable of a device than tricolor one. The problem with these LED backlit displays is that it wont be 1000s of LEDs, it could be as low as 300, which would be worrisome.
post #49 of 4495
1/23/07 at 2:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by necrolop View Post

Indeed, but a white OLED is more stable of a device than tricolor one. The problem with these LED backlit displays is that it wont be 1000s of LEDs, it could be as low as 300, which would be worrisome.

There are some advantages that three LEDs (red,green and blue) would provide. The white LEDs produce a broad spectrum of light which includes a lot of useless frequencies that could degrade the image. The LCD panel only wants to pass through pure red, pure blue and pure green light. So by only providing those frequencies you remove unneccessary backlight.

Think of a LCD projector onto a white screen. You can never get true black unless the room is pitch black. The ambient light will always reflect off the white screen. This is off topic but apparently Sony is developing a black screen which only reflects pure red, pure green and pure blue light. So the RGB projector light will be reflected but the ambient light is mostly absorbed. Haven't heard any new developments on that front for a couple of years though.
post #50 of 4495
1/23/07 at 3:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by necrolop View Post

It makes perfect sense. An OLED TV needs 3 subpixels per pixel, Thus must he 3 times the resolution of a simple 1920x1080 OLED backlight. Also, it could use White LEDs. The current problems with OLEDs is inconsistent and short lifespans. A single colored white OLED wouldnt have those issues. Having a Light filter over an OLED would make good sense.

One problem of color rendering by current LCD
is that backlight is white and color is selected by
a filter. Filters are not ideal and colors selected are not pure White OLED would have the same problem.

Solution pursued to solve this problem is to use
tricolor LEDs and indeed color from such LCDs
are reportedly getting very close to plasma.
post #51 of 4495
1/26/07 at 11:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTVic View Post

Samsung makes the 1080 panels for Sony. The cloud problem affects both brands. Think first, type later...

Exactly. So how could sony possibly fix any problems on the samsung 81 series panels when they are made by samsung? Go re-read your original post.

And this thread needs a bump. Any news on a price? I would want to know a set release date and price for march when the 65f series comes out. Cause if these things are coming in september or later or they cost double of the 65 series, then ill just forget about it and pick-up a nice 65f tv.
post #52 of 4495
1/27/07 at 4:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007craft View Post

So how could sony possibly fix any problems on the samsung 81 series panels when they are made by samsung? Go re-read your original post.

By working with Samsung to resolve the issue, by changing assembly/shipping procedures, by upgrading to newer technology (presumably produced by Samsung in a newer plant), using an improved backlight system, etc.

Like I said, think first and then maybe there is no need to make fun of other posts...
post #53 of 4495
1/27/07 at 7:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

One problem of color rendering by current LCD
is that backlight is white and color is selected by
a filter. Filters are not ideal and colors selected are not pure White OLED would have the same problem.

Solution pursued to solve this problem is to use
tricolor LEDs and indeed color from such LCDs
are reportedly getting very close to plasma.

I challenge you on this statement - the Samsung LED LCD Color Gamut exceeds ANY PLASMA presently on the market in fact 146% Color Gamut on the 40" European LE40M91 Model.



Article from 2005 which has now been surpassed - they are using RGB LED to combine with White Light I believe.
http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/neasia/000503
post #54 of 4495
1/27/07 at 8:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by westa6969 View Post

I challenge you on this statement - the Samsung LED LCD Color Gamut exceeds ANY PLASMA presently on the market in fact 146% Color Gamut on the 40" European LE40M91 Model.

Your challenge is due to my imprecision, not the facts. I did not have WIDTH of the gamut in mind but PERCEIVED color quality.

Fact is that LED Color Gamut is very wide and exceeds plasma. Displays with Deep Color supporting HDMI 1.3 are it seems based on LED BL.
BTW, there are newest CCFL LCDs from Sharp using 5 wavelengths which may be able to match LEDs.

Speaking about LCD and PDP color comparison I had in mind perceived color quality. There is agreement that top-end plasmas have unrivalled colors. These colors are characterized by terms like warm, natural, plastic vs. LCD colors which are said to be colder, monitor-like, two dimensional. These are subjective characterizations so they do not correspond to measurable properties.

One can speculate that the reason why LCD was constantly judged lower in such color characterizations is due to precision color of components generation. In plasma each basic color is generated by its own source subpixel whose color emission characteristics is independently and precisely selected. In the present LCDs basic colors are extracted from white backlight by color filters. The white light is a mixture and color filters are not ideal, the resulting basic colors can not be as precisely controlled. LED BL might significant step forward in this respect: basic colors are generated separately and filtering of them can be more precise.
post #55 of 4495
2/1/07 at 8:15am
Thread Starter 
http://aving.net/usa/news/default.as...9&mn_name=news

post #56 of 4495
2/1/07 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTVic View Post

By working with Samsung to resolve the issue, by changing assembly/shipping procedures, by upgrading to newer technology (presumably produced by Samsung in a newer plant), using an improved backlight system, etc.

Like I said, think first and then maybe there is no need to make fun of other posts...

omg your still on about sony working to make samsung products better. I cant believe you seriously thought that (and came up with a defenese on why it could happen)

On the recent post, I read about those monitors online. Looks nice. I really love samsung tech
post #57 of 4495
2/1/07 at 7:52pm
We now know how many LEDs are in the array for the non dimming model, 2160. That a good number, hopefully the Local dimming model uses the same number.
post #58 of 4495
2/1/07 at 9:29pm
The power usage is nice too 120 watts or less for a 40" seems pretty good. By comparison a Sharp LC-37D40U consumes 186 watts.
post #59 of 4495
2/2/07 at 8:14am
Hopefully it's just the pictures, but the panel with local dimming seems too dark with crushed blacks.
post #60 of 4495
2/2/07 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen View Post

Hopefully it's just the pictures, but the panel with local dimming seems too dark with crushed blacks.


It because is a High Dynamic Range Display. A, the camera cannot properly capture the contrast ratio, B, a jpeg cannot properly store the contrast ratio. C, your Computer monitor cannot properly display this contrast ratio.

So what happens is all the whites that are brighter than normal whites, get crushed, all the shades of dark grey get crushed. This effect is not present when looking at the display in person.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: LCD Flat Panel Displays
This thread is locked  

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › LCD Flat Panel Displays › Samsung 81 Series anticipation thread