AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello, everyone. :)


I have a question for you....plasma users.


Why do you buy a plasma rather than CRT or LCD projectors ?


Projectors have

1. bigger screen,

2. better picture quality,

3. cheaper.


Am I missing something out here ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Why buy any disply device instead of a front projector?


Bottom line for me is that you need optimal viewing conditions and I don't have them. I bought a nice open (and I mean open) loft with lots of light. There aint no way I'm turning it into some ugly movie theater. Life is full of compromises and this is one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
925 Posts
i would have much rathered a projector. unfortunately my room has a wall of windows facing due south and the room further is open to the above floor which has a wall of windows facing south. there's basically no way to control the light without turning the house into a fort-knox automated-shade lookalike (not wife friendly; never mind that the views don't suck).


the plasma can deal with the light a lot better than a projector.


if you have a light-controllable situation, i'd definitely suggest you take a serious look at the projectors.


some people don't have the geometry or space to floor or ceiling mount a projector.


doody.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
Eric,


I've had a 700 lumen projector at the office that I bring home occassionally for the holidays and football games. Room light is definitely a disavantage, e.g. only one light and the picture is seriously degraded.


Second, if you turn all the lights off then you get this strange glare back from the screen. The location on the screen depends on where you are sitting. When the projector is at coffee table level, which is where I put it when I use a projector, the glare is typically confined to the bottom third of the screen. Maybe some of the back projection screens fix this; perhaps it is eliminated if you mount the projector on the ceiling; I do not know.


Third, the contrast ratio is not very good. Yes, it is ok for cartoons, and video games for the kids, and computer displays in power point for work, but for movies where wide dynamic range is a must, my projector is typically a must not.


Fourth, I have only three hundred hours on my projector and the colors are starting to fade. It is an Infocus, and has served me well for a few years, on many airplanes, in many briefings. Without it I would be paralzyed in my business. But the colors are fading, and I do not know why, it is starting to look washed out a little.


Fifth, mine generates a lot of heat and use a noisy fan which is quite disturbing. They may have fixed this by now.


And finally, perhaps the worst thing, is that it makes a showdow when you walk in front of it! And, everyone yells "sit down" when all you are trying to do is get a drink or go to the bathroom, something you do a lot during football games.


Anyway, this is why I am going to buy the panny.


Peter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
London,

1. Bigger screen is not always an advantage beyond a certain point. One, your room may not support it. The ideal setup in my living room is the 42" size. Secondly, any regular television you watch looks pretty horrendous even on a 42" screen. Anything larger and it's nearly unwatchable (to me). Finally, a huge screen reveals any flaws even on HD material. The 42" or 50" plasma is more "forgiving" because of its smaller size. As an added plus, DVD's look tremendous and not much different from HD material--but both look better than other types of screens/equipment capable of displaying higher resolutions natively.

2. I do not agree that projectors have better picture quality--again, given that this is a subjective issue. I looked at thirty or forty different sets of all types before I settled on the Panasonic plasma. Why? Because I thought it had the sharpest, most color-rich, vibrant picture. I know that sounds impossible because it only displays 480p, but I am certainly not the first one to say this.

3. You're right, projectors are usually cheaper. The fact that we are willing to pay a premium for the plasma technology should hint at how good we perceive the picture quality to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Any flat-matrix imaging device will look best when the source material matches the native resolution of the device. That's why the 42" Panasonic and Fujistu PDS-4229 look so good with 480p DVDs - it matches the available display pixels without scaling.


Also, most panels do a pretty good job down-convertig 1080i and 720p, so those also look quite good.


The tough one is upconverting 480i or 480p to 1280x768 (Pioneer), 1365x768 (NEC), or 1366x768 (Fujitsu and Panasonic). Scaling is a tricky process, and not too many companies can pull it off.


That's why demos of these panels are largely done with 720p or 1080i source material. This problem also affects the 52", 55", and 65" DLP RPTVs sold by Panasonic, Hitachi, and Mitsubishi. Most HT dealers who are willing to sell them try to demo as much HD content as possible - once the 480i or 480p programs are displayed, the RPTVs using 7" tubes look better (and they are way cheaper).


Pete

www.projectorexpert.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,941 Posts
Hi Pete,

So with NSTC video via S-video into a 1024 x 768 PDP, the quality of the scaler will depend on how well it deinterlaces and how well it can then scale to the native resolution of the panel? Which one is typically weaker performance with the internal scalers of PDP?

What about taking a Faroudja Native rate scaler at 1024 x768 and feeding its output to the 1024 x768 panel? Any problem with the scaling algorithms of the plasma panel "acting upon" the 1024 x 768p incoming video?

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by mburnstein
Hi Pete,

So with NSTC video via S-video into a 1024 x 768 PDP, the quality of the scaler will depend on how well it deinterlaces and how well it can then scale to the native resolution of the panel?
Yes. Decoding video and then de-interlacing it is not an easy task, although devices to do this are getting much cheaper for the level of performance. See the Silicon Image iScan line doubler.


Quote:
Which one is typically weaker performance with the internal scalers of PDP?
Usually deinterlacing. Many pixel artifacts (motion artifacts) can be introduced here. The subsequent scaling up of the 480p signal to match the panel's native resolution makes them worse.

Quote:
What about taking a Faroudja Native rate scaler at 1024 x768 and feeding its output to the 1024 x768 panel? Any problem with the scaling algorithms of the plasma panel "acting upon" the 1024 x 768p incoming video?

Thanks.
The panel will not do anything to the signal coming from the Faroudja NRS. That signal will appear to be RGBHV @ 1024x768 - the fact that it contains motion video rather than static graphics doesn't matter to the panel.


Remember that flat-matrix projectors and displays are inherently RGB progressive-scan devices. These are the signals they do best with. An outboard scalar that can perform a clean conversion from interlaced video to a RGB signal and minimize motion artifacts will make all of them look good.


Speaking of the Faroudja NRS, one of them just showed up this morning for some testing. I will get a chance to see just how well it does the job with a variety of widescreen displays - tube, LCD, and plasma.


Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Hi Pete,


If you can, can you verify what the real output of the NRS is? As a result of lots of work by (I think) EricBee and jlm (if I am wrong, I am sorry to the ppl that did so this) they found out that the output was 1280X768 even though Faroudja had said that it would match exactly to the 1368X768 rez of the panny 50". They actually made an assumption that the Panny would not resolve to that rez but to 1280 (or something like that - I am a bit hazy on the technicalilities and it is very hard for me to search due to this site being blocked by our corporate firewall) so the 1280X768 output of the NRS (even though it says higher on the box) was the real output. Sorry this is really vague. If someone could jump in here to help me out I'd appreciate it.


Bottom line is, in your position, it would be very helpful if you could nail down Faroudja on what the real resolution of the ouput is as there was a lot of confusion or even misiformation a couple of months ago.


Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
Pete, I'd like to second divvy's request. Has the Faroudja NRS been changed to reflect the Panasonic's 1378 x 768 ability?


There's one other potential annoyance to projectors, depending on the type selected. It's my understanding that on some of the CRTs, there are frequent requirements for adjustments/re-calibrations.


I selected plasma because of the same kind of light problem mentioned by other posters. A wall of windows, plus a skylight in the main watching room. Plus I live in Houston where we have long days most of the year. We may start watching at 7, but it doesn't get dark until after 9. Then, there's my 12.5 foot high cathedral ceiling. Well, you get the picture.


So, for a lot of us, plasma is the only way to go. I looked at CRT RPTVs and DLP RPTVs, but none could match the picture quality of a plasma.

Leslie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
here is a stab at an update on the NR issue:


for demo-ing the NR, faroudja used the pioneer 505HD, a 50" 1280x768 plas with excellent results. This NR res was labeled the "16x9" version and appears as such on the NR LCD screen on power-up. This is an actual res of 1280x720, which happens to match 720p HD material and is actually a 16x9 aspect ratio.


The obvious question is why didn't they use a 1280x768 res, and the answer is that the pioneer didn't work well when fed its native panel resolution, confounding expectations, but it worked great when fed 1280x720; hence the development of the Native rate "16x9" version.


Now the panny has a 1366x768 panel and i believe F makes a 1366x768 native rate (they don't make a 1280x768). Eric and I tried the 1366x768 with the 505 and it worked and we didn't have the poor pq thet F had experienced when trying 1280x768. (I had also tried the vigatec with the pio at 1280x7698 and did get the F mentioned poor pq). We don't have personal evidence of the 1368x768 with the panny, but with the pio the pq was ok but the image size and cropping was off (no suprise)


our conclusion was that the close-to res of 1280x720 worked great with the pio...no need to dig in more.


Apparently, the pio senses a certain horizontal freq. (which is res dependent) and decides to see the feed as video or PC and this function cannot be overridden.


we expected that without the perfect match of res, the pq would be inferior, but the consensus was that the de-interlacing part was the toughest to get right; once that was done (and that is what you pay for with the F) the scaling function was more elementary; even though it had to be done again in the plas, it had no visible deletrious effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
This is what Leslie and I are talking about:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...threadid=47840


Jeff at Faroudja was surprised and impressed that the Panny could handle a native 1368X768 input and said he'd go back to the powers that be to get a true 1368X768 NRS produced.

I follow the plasma forum almost religiously and never saw a post to say that Faroudja has brought out such a beast.

I'm sorry if it was posted elsewhere and if I am misrepresenting them but, if you look at the thread, there was a descrepancy between what Jeff was saying and what the website and the actual unit said.


If this has all been cleared up can someone post me a link please and accept my apologies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
Divvy -

I too have been waiting patiently for F to produce a truly matched scaler for the Panny plasma. No word that i am aware of.

george
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top