Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazzy /forum/post/14189925
Hi Guys,
Thanks for all your opinions so far - Wow - what can I say? I have just had my eyes tested and they are fine so there must be something wrong with my brain?! I am a natural plasma guy as I watch mainly in the dark so things like black levels are important to me as is SD performance for which the general consensus is that Plasma is best.
To me, Pic B has tons more detail (like there's no contest) compared to Pic A - the detailing in the lips, the pores on the skin, hairs etc - the picture seems much clearer and well defined. Pic A looks kind of dull and bland with less detail and clarity?
Believe it or not, Pic A is a G9 Pioneer and Pic B is a latest series Philips 9000 series LCD. I have not even bothered looking at LCD's really in any depth apart from just passing by in shops but when I saw this pic, I was stunned at the difference between the two? I know Philips have one of the very best pics out there for LCD's (as opposed to their reliability or customer service!) but I am finding it very hard to believe that an LCD (even a latest Philips one) is better than most decent plasma's let alone the mighty G9 Kuro. But then my eyes...
Is there a trap that I am falling into and why so many people seem to be drawn to LCD's then? Apart from the colour (which I would tone down a bit to my personal taste) it's the fantastic amount of detail and sharpness Pic B has that really draws me to it - now, tell me, where am I going wrong or is there something really wrong with the way my brain is wired?!
Bazzy!
Picture (A) is from my PRO-110FD (8g). I think the extra detail you see in your pic could be from added contrast that makes it appear to have more detail. This is by no means saying picture A has more detail, as at first glance, B appears to have more.
When converting the RAW file from my Canon 20D in Photoshop CS2 I removed ALL contrast so if I were to add some more, I think it would appear to have a bit more detail. Also, using the RAW format there is no processing done within the camera. Everything you see in the picture is untouched until converted by Photoshop. Then there's the the issue of how well I focused the lens and exactly how sharp my copy of the lens really is. Also, if I didn't configure the settings of the shot properly (i.e. Aperture, shutter speed, exposure, etc.), that can cause "loss" of detail as well. There are a lot of things that go into taking photographs and to be honest, displaying them on our (mostly) non-calibrated LCD or CRT monitors is NO way to really see a true representation of what the panel looks like.
For me, I love seeing how much others are enjoying their panels and I like sharing the same with others. Unfortunately the best visual aids we can provide are pictures we try our best to make appear the same as we see them at home.
Below is the same pic, converted with the same settings except with the contrast at +50.
