AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
An image file was missing in my last upload. Please try again.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,030 Posts
Very good!


Nit: Why small, large, then middle size in the first part? Instead of smaill, middle, large?


Also, from some of the CRT RPTVs I've seen, I've never thought them to have

less color saturation than other displays. Ever see an Elite RPTV? :)

And moving images? How do CRT RPTVs suffer? (I'm asking because I never

thought it was an issue).


You may also want to do some ranking of SD, ED, vs HDTV for each technology

and how viewing habits need to be considered when deciding on a purchase.


larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Very good!

- thanks larry


Nit: Why small, large, then middle size in the first part? Instead of smaill, middle, large?

- good question, I shall review


Also, from some of the CRT RPTVs I've seen, I've never thought them to have

less color saturation than other displays. Ever see an Elite RPTV?

- Will revise


And moving images? How do CRT RPTVs suffer? (I'm asking because I never

thought it was an issue).

- They don't. It should've said "excellent". Will revise.


You may also want to do some ranking of SD, ED, vs HDTV for each technology

and how viewing habits need to be considered when deciding on a purchase.

- Good idea, I was going to include a section on usage anyway. Will fit nicely.


Thanks for the great corrections and comments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
Very nice, you did a great job.


A few points I saw.


-Overall picture quality for CRT RPTV should be excellent and moving objects should be excellent.


-As far as plasma goes moving objects should be rated good or very good, as there is some motion artifacts with all plasmas


-Also I have never seen a plasma that did not have video noise. This is primary due to scaling the picture to the panels resolution.


-I also think burn-in shouldn't be rated as a big concern maybe rated as possible concern.


Overall I really like the page and would recommend it to anyone looking for a new display.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
I also would not call burn-in a BIG concern. Just something you need to be aware of. Also you limit plasmas to 6500 ft. NEC's are spec'd to about 9000 ft. At least my 42VP4 is. And I think Zenith has high altitude models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Thanks Jamie571 and ed2day for your comments. I shall incorporate them in a new version that I shall post early tomorrow.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Mr. Arungupta: I know that resolution numbers are hard to come by, but there's another number I have always wanted to see in a guide and that is How bright a display is after being calibrated. Alot of guides list both foot lamberts and ANSI lumens and alot of displays aren't even listed so it is virtually impossible to tell how BRIGHT each model is. Is there anyway to find that number and what measure would be more informative: ANSI lumens or foot Lamberts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
I would say overall it's a very nice page. The graphics and layout is very clear, and overall the page is very informative.


I *do* think, however, your DLP bias shows through a little in the page. I think you've made an attempt to be unbias, but i think that you still notice a bit of bias. Generally most people feel that the better 50" Plasma's have quite a bit better overall picture quality than the 50" DLP Sets. You can't really chaulk it all up to subjectivity. Granted the price difference is large, but after reading your page i would conclude that the picture quality is the same with DLP and high end plasma's. I also think that Burn-In being listed as "Big Concern" in bright orange is a little much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Jet Champion
Mr. Arungupta: I know that resolution numbers are hard to come by, but there's another number I have always wanted to see in a guide and that is How bright a display is after being calibrated. Alot of guides list both foot lamberts and ANSI lumens and alot of displays aren't even listed so it is virtually impossible to tell how BRIGHT each model is. Is there anyway to find that number and what measure would be more informative: ANSI lumens or foot Lamberts?
Jet Champion, I tried to find quantitative info on brightness, but only front projectors list it, other TV's generally don't list it. If you have any source of finding it out let me know. I am going to do some more research.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by sojglenn
I would say overall it's a very nice page. The graphics and layout is very clear, and overall the page is very informative.


I *do* think, however, your DLP bias shows through a little in the page. I think you've made an attempt to be unbias, but i think that you still notice a bit of bias. Generally most people feel that the better 50" Plasma's have quite a bit better overall picture quality than the 50" DLP Sets. You can't really chaulk it all up to subjectivity. Granted the price difference is large, but after reading your page i would conclude that the picture quality is the same with DLP and high end plasma's. I also think that Burn-In being listed as "Big Concern" in bright orange is a little much.
Actually, with the current 2003 technology, I list DLP as Very good and Plasma as Excellent. With the new 2004 DLP technology, they pull even.


Bright orange is meant for those items that would cause someone to disquallfy a display from consideration - DLP rainbows or LCD response time are also marked in this color. The reason it is mentioned for plasmas is that many people may not be able to follow the discipilne required to prevent burn-in, or may want to use the display extensively as a computer or gaming monitor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
899 Posts
Arun,


1. Perhaps it would be best to divide plasma into ED and HD plasmas given their very different characteristics in your chart. For instance, resolution for ED would be fair and HD would be very good. Under computer use, "low-res" would not apply to HD plasmas, especially since 50" HD plasmas have 1366x768 and 1280x768 native resolutions, which isn't 1980x1080, but should definitely not be called "low res".


2. Under plasma resolution, rather than stating "720p+" you might as well change it to "768p" as there are currently no 720p *native* plasmas available. Many of them accept 720p signals, but none are native rate 720p like the DLP sets. I guess the same would apply to the 1366x768 LCD RPTVs. Might as well list them as 768p too since there are no 1280x720 LCD RPTVs. Also, the excellent resolution rating of LCD panels is questionable since there are currently no *large* home theater sized LCD panels with 1080p resolution. There are some 23" and 24" models with 1920x1200 resolution, but the majority of the ones available for home theater use are only 1280x768. Thus, I'm not sure if I would rate LCD panel's resolution as "excellent" at this time.


3. For plasma weight, I would argue that it is still relatively light. 42" plasmas are around 60 lbs and 50" plasmas are around 100 lbs. OTOH, a 40" flat panel LCD monitor such as the Samsung LTN406W is still a good 50 lbs. So, plasmas are arguably as light as the DLP and LCD RPTVs, and almost as light as LCD flat panels. In fact, since no one currently sells a flat panel LCD larger than 40", we don't really know how heavy they will be when they're released. Maybe it would be best to list actual weight ranges instead of quantifying it with terms such as "light, not light, and heavy".


4. Viewing angle should be excellent for direct view CRT and plasma and fair for all the other technologies. Anyone who thinks the viewing angle of LCD RPTV and LCD flat panels are "good" are simply fooling themselves despite what the specs say. There is simply no perecptible drop off in brightness, colors, contrast, etc. when watching a plasma or direct view CRT at any angle. On all the other technologies, there are noticeable differences. That is why they should all be considered "fair" next to plasma and direct view CRTs.


5. Noise level for plasma should mention fan noise for *some* plasmas. Perhaps you should move the altitude comment up to the noise category as well since some plasmas are prone to buzz at high elevations.


6. contrast for a plasma should be "good to excellent 1000:1 to 4000:1" as the majority of plasmas out now do NOT have the 3000:1 and 4000:1 glass produced by Panasonic. Majority of them are in the 1000:1 range. Contrast for LCD RPTV and flat panel LCD should only be fair. They simply are a notch below DLP and a couple of notches below CRTs and the better plasmas.


7. Don't understand why buying advice for plasma should be summed up as "use with great care". I think this comment is misleading. Perhaps the comment should be something like, "$ dropped significantly, but can still be expensive for the larger sizes"


8. Black level for plasma should be "fair to excellent" as some of the cheaper plasmas have pretty poor black levels. Black levels for LCD RPTVs should just be fair. umr may disagree, but I would say only a very small percentage of people would go through the trouble of tuning their LCD RPTVs to the degree umr does.


Glen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
This is EXCELLENT feedback, Glen. I shall assimiliate it into the next draft of the guide - I hope tomorrow AM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
When you mention noise are you suggestion video noise or just sound level?


I mention this because of video noise in fixed pixel displays is common and not as noticeable with crt displays.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I have posted Draft 2 of the guide. Thank you everyone for your comments, and I look forward to more of the same.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,607 Posts
I don't like this concept.... There is just a handful of good displays out there and you are burying them with the crap. Sorry!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,530 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I shall post links to other HDTV bying guides here as well. First one is hot off the press from Business week.


Buying the right HDTV – a two part series in Business week – by Stephen H. Wildstrom in his regular “Technology & You†column. Part 1 – Jan 25, 2004 is an introduction to HDTV. Part 2 – Feb 2, 2004 focuses on which type of screen.

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...40120_2558.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4/b3867036.htm


Excerpts from Part 2:


Most critical decision – size and type of screen – baffling range - start with Size, budget, room – for 8 inches diagonal, max 2 feet distance


Small sizes – CRTs are the best - drawbacks size and weight


Flat panels – coming on strong


Plasma – most closely rival the image quality of a first rate CRT – two big problems – limited durability – burn-in


LCD panel – doesn’t have these issues – picture quality rapid approaching


Rear projection – most improved


Older CRT – mediocre quality


New LCD and DLP – dramatically better


Prices will keep dropping - new Intel LCoS could help
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,030 Posts
It's interesting reading "this" thread in the respective forums.

Easy to tell what people own - even if you combined them in a "neutral"

place.


larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
I am still puzzled why CRT RPTV picture quality is rated good or very good. Home Theater Magizine just had a review with a mix of LCD, DLP, and CRT RPTV's. A CRT won followed by an LCD. Over all picture quality on a CRT RPTV should be rated very good and then excellent with calibration. Also almost all sets need a calibration to get an excellent picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Seeing the excerpt from B-week on 2-feet/8 (3:1) inches for viewing distance, I feel more comfortable relating that your opening 2:1 rule of thumb for 16:9 sets would probably go over as a shocker to most. I don’t know the target audience for the review, but suggesting 50-70 inch sets for folks sitting a normal 8-12 feet away is something in need of more elaboration, IMO. Statistically, it has to be a full standard deviation, or two, from the average 4:3 diagnal used in most homes. IOW, it sounds crazy.


Somehow relating that to maintain the vertical height, when going from 4:3 to 16:9 televisions, people need to seek 25% more diagonal sounds better to me. This also hits the nail head more squarely without seeming to tell millions of potential readers their televisions are too small.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top