Plasma VS LCD?

[kaydee457 13]

and LCDs are really bright, and don't seem to display dark inky blacks very well. Both are still way more expensive than the DLPs and LCoS.

I've read time and a again that although mfg's tout the screen resolution as the defining factor in pix quality, the real defing factor is :

1) contrast ratio

2) color saturation

3) vertical resoltution- 720/1080

Contrast ratio is really the parameter that determines the "inky blacks"....There are many LCD sets out there that a reasonably priced but have some pretty bad contast ratio's...300:1 is an example.

A quality LCD will yield at least 1500:1 contrast ratio or more.

The cables are on non-issue although I will concede that some of them have some mechanical issues with mating; they easily disconnect and fall off.

As long as they're HDMI 1.3 compatible then there shouldn't be any problem. All the signals between source and sink devices use TDMS and are relatively impervious to line loss, crosstalk, etc.

The HDMI 1.3 has increased bandwidth (almost twice HDMI 1.1 @ 4.x Gbps) and can handle the throughput demanded by 1.3 as a result of the higher definition video formats (packets) and up to 36 bit color. I beleive 1.3 also increased the pixel depth to higher level of bits but I can't even remember what 1.1 was.......

It's always a matter of "you get what you pay for"....The higher end manufacturer's, Sony, Hitachi, JVC, Samsung, usually cost more than say a Visio but they're usually worth it in discernable pix quality.

Edited February 16, 2008 by kaydee457

[mRx 16]

and LCDs are really bright, and don't seem to display dark inky blacks very well. Both are still way more expensive than the DLPs and LCoS.

I've read time and a again that although mfg's tout the screen resolution as the defining factor in pix quality, the real defing factor is :

1) contrast ratio

2) color saturation

3) vertical resoltution- 720/1080

Contrast ratio is really the parameter that determines the "inky blacks"....There are many LCD sets out there that a reasonably priced but have some pretty bad contast ratio's...300:1 is an example.

I think your 123s are backwards. PQ is reliant on the amount of lines of resolution. By your theory, an ancient 480i with a ridiculous ratio would be better than a 1080p. This is simply untrue. The more lines of resolution means a more accurate and detailed image can be displayed. That to me is picture quality.

The whole contrast marketing scheme was explained by Lucky earlier. An LCD could be 100,000,000:1. That just means it may be bright enough to illuminate the galaxy, but any amount of light interference (i.e. lamp, outside light, even the light emitted from a cable box or reciever) would have a huge effect on how black that screen will go. That effect changes the contrast ratio dramatically.

Since liquid crystals do not emit light alone, they have a CCFL backlight. Since the backlight is constantly passing light to the crystals, the display relies on shudders to control the amount of backlight that is exposed to the crystals. The shudders cannot gauge how much light you have in your TV room prior to releasing light to the crystals, so you are certain to have a much brighter daytime picture, blacks and whites. No contrast ratio can correct this, but marketeers will try their damnedest to convince you otherwise.

[kaydee457 13]

and LCDs are really bright, and don't seem to display dark inky blacks very well. Both are still way more expensive than the DLPs and LCoS.

I've read time and a again that although mfg's tout the screen resolution as the defining factor in pix quality, the real defing factor is :

1) contrast ratio

2) color saturation

3) vertical resoltution- 720/1080

Contrast ratio is really the parameter that determines the "inky blacks"....There are many LCD sets out there that a reasonably priced but have some pretty bad contast ratio's...300:1 is an example.

I think your 123s are backwards. PQ is reliant on the amount of lines of resolution. By your theory, an ancient 480i with a ridiculous ratio would be better than a 1080p. This is simply untrue. The more lines of resolution means a more accurate and detailed image can be displayed. That to me is picture quality.

The whole contrast marketing scheme was explained by Lucky earlier. An LCD could be 100,000,000:1. That just means it may be bright enough to illuminate the galaxy, but any amount of light interference (i.e. lamp, outside light, even the light emitted from a cable box or reciever) would have a huge effect on how black that screen will go. That effect changes the contrast ratio dramatically.

Since liquid crystals do not emit light alone, they have a CCFL backlight. Since the backlight is constantly passing light to the crystals, the display relies on shudders to control the amount of backlight that is exposed to the crystals. The shudders cannot gauge how much light you have in your TV room prior to releasing light to the crystals, so you are certain to have a much brighter daytime picture, blacks and whites. No contrast ratio can correct this, but marketeers will try their damnedest to convince you otherwise.

You have me searching for the article I read. The article compared a 720p to 1080p, and the 1080p intentionally having inferior color saturation and contrast ratio.

In comparing the pix quality, with EO test equipment via a collimator that mimicks the humans eye integration rate, the 720p image, as a whole, over the FOV that a viewer would see, was measured to be superior overall. It was also put to the "human test" by a panel of voters that chose the 720p over the 1080p. Sharpness is only one factor in picture quality.

The result found that screen resolution is not the sole determing factor when determing overall picture quality.

I agree with you however that 1080p is superior to 720p if all other things are held constant.

The order of parameters, and their importance were published by this study.

[kaydee457 13]

I meant to add this in but waited too long and couldn't edit the above post.....

Additionally, if in the future there's a 2160p resolution no doubt that there's going to be little discernable difference between the 1080p and the 21xxp. The law of diminishing returns.....Your eyes can only discern so much....

[mRx 16]

and LCDs are really bright, and don't seem to display dark inky blacks very well. Both are still way more expensive than the DLPs and LCoS.

I've read time and a again that although mfg's tout the screen resolution as the defining factor in pix quality, the real defing factor is :

1) contrast ratio

2) color saturation

3) vertical resoltution- 720/1080

Contrast ratio is really the parameter that determines the "inky blacks"....There are many LCD sets out there that a reasonably priced but have some pretty bad contast ratio's...300:1 is an example.

I think your 123s are backwards. PQ is reliant on the amount of lines of resolution. By your theory, an ancient 480i with a ridiculous ratio would be better than a 1080p. This is simply untrue. The more lines of resolution means a more accurate and detailed image can be displayed. That to me is picture quality.

The whole contrast marketing scheme was explained by Lucky earlier. An LCD could be 100,000,000:1. That just means it may be bright enough to illuminate the galaxy, but any amount of light interference (i.e. lamp, outside light, even the light emitted from a cable box or reciever) would have a huge effect on how black that screen will go. That effect changes the contrast ratio dramatically.

Since liquid crystals do not emit light alone, they have a CCFL backlight. Since the backlight is constantly passing light to the crystals, the display relies on shudders to control the amount of backlight that is exposed to the crystals. The shudders cannot gauge how much light you have in your TV room prior to releasing light to the crystals, so you are certain to have a much brighter daytime picture, blacks and whites. No contrast ratio can correct this, but marketeers will try their damnedest to convince you otherwise.

You have me searching for the article I read. The article compared a 720p to 1080p, and the 1080p intentionally having inferior color saturation and contrast ratio.

In comparing the pix quality, with EO test equipment via a collimator that mimicks the humans eye integration rate, the 720p image, as a whole, over the FOV that a viewer would see, was measured to be superior overall. It was also put to the "human test" by a panel of voters that chose the 720p over the 1080p. Sharpness is only one factor in picture quality.

The result found that screen resolution is not the sole determing factor when determing overall picture quality.

I agree with you however that 1080p is superior to 720p if all other things are held constant.

The order of parameters, and their importance were published by this study.

All these tests you speak of are very subjective. It's the same 'ol tech-war #######. AFAIK there is no universal standard to obtain a contrast ratio. So every mfg may very well use a different means to obtain their ratios. Thus discrediting the ratios all together.

Calibration is a HUGE part of getting optimal PQ. Perhaps the tested TVs were not calibrated whatsoever. Some TVs look better out of the box than others do. I find it very hard to believe that anyone can find a 720p source superior to a 1080p source.

[mRx 16]

I meant to add this in but waited too long and couldn't edit the above post.....

Additionally, if in the future there's a 2160p resolution no doubt that there's going to be little discernable difference between the 1080p and the 21xxp. The law of diminishing returns.....Your eyes can only discern so much....

Ultra High Def or something. 7,680 x 4,320 pixels. Uses 50 TeraByte live-protein coated discs. I agree, you would have to have over a 100 inch screen to enjoy that.

If only I could fit a 100 inch screen in my apartment.

[kaydee457 13]

I think that the point of the tests are to determine if we've reached "saturation" in terms of vertical resolution.

The point was that the human eye can hardly discern the difference between 780p and 1080p, and that a high end 780p set can outperform a low end 1080p if color sat, and contrast ration are inferior.

If they keep increasing the vertical resolution it will cease to be relevant at all in terms of comparing one set to the next, but that of course won't stop the marketing people from using it as a selling point.

[kaydee457 13]

Well, I haven't found the original article but found another referring to the same thing....

source

How important is resolution?

Not as important as you might think. According to the Imaging Science Foundation, a group that consults for home-theater maufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio, the second most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy. Resolution comes in a distant fourth, despite being easily the most-talked-about HDTV spec today.

In other words, once you get to high-definition, most people are perfectly satisfied with the sharpness of the picture. All other things being equal--namely contrast and color--HDTV looks more or less spectacular on just about any high-def television regardless of its size or the HDTV signal's resolution itself. The leap from normal TV to HDTV is so big that additional leaps in resolution--from high-def to higher-def, let's say--are tiny by comparison.

Nonetheless the HDTV landscape is littered with resolution discussions, in regard to both sources and displays, so a little knowledge of how they interact is a good thing.

Edited February 17, 2008 by kaydee457

[mRx 16]

Well, I haven't found the original article but found another referring to the same thing....

source

How important is resolution?

Not as important as you might think. According to the Imaging Science Foundation, a group that consults for home-theater maufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio, the second most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy. Resolution comes in a distant fourth, despite being easily the most-talked-about HDTV spec today.

In other words, once you get to high-definition, most people are perfectly satisfied with the sharpness of the picture. All other things being equal--namely contrast and color--HDTV looks more or less spectacular on just about any high-def television regardless of its size or the HDTV signal's resolution itself. The leap from normal TV to HDTV is so big that additional leaps in resolution--from high-def to higher-def, let's say--are tiny by comparison.

Nonetheless the HDTV landscape is littered with resolution discussions, in regard to both sources and displays, so a little knowledge of how they interact is a good thing.

Although I can't say I agree with any one thing in that article, thanks for finding it anyway.

CNET is garbage. This article proves it. They are running 1080i source to a 1080p and a 1080i screen in a comparison. Then they say the difference is minimal. Well, of course it will be. A 1080p won't upconvert a 1080i source. That would need to be handled by a processer. Anyways... Old article, I guess.

They only briefly touch on contrast ratios. But nothing changes the fact that lux affects the contrast ratio. I don't think its much of a problem of avoiding a screen with an extremely low ratio, but more of a mfg touting an extremely high ratio for marketing purposes. Gray scale and color saturation attribute more to the picture than the contrast ratio.

I will however agree that a certain minimum contrast ratio must be met in order for the image to pop. But gray scale, color sat, and contrast ratio would be nothing without a high resolution screen capable of accurately displaying the image.

edited for spelling

Edited February 17, 2008 by Matt85

[kaydee457 13]

What about the organization they reference?

According to the Imaging Science Foundation, a group that consults for home-theater maufacturers and trains professional video calibrators,

Perhaps they are acquiring their opinions from the same technical article I read?

[mRx 16]

What about the organization they reference?

According to the Imaging Science Foundation, a group that consults for home-theater maufacturers and trains professional video calibrators,

Perhaps they are acquiring their opinions from the same technical article I read?

Well, ISF are big on calibrations and they know their stuff. I just find it odd they make such statements that are so easily disputed. Debating contrast can easily get confusing. For example a 10,000:1 ratio (my TV) means that the black is 10,000 times darker than the white. When you really think about it, what if absolute black is achieved at 1000xwhite. Then wouldn't that mean the 9000 extra amount to nothing?

Since the 9000 in between doesn't mean that it can articulate more within that black/white range, because that function is handled by your screen's gray scale processer.

[kaydee457 13]

What about the organization they reference?

According to the Imaging Science Foundation, a group that consults for home-theater maufacturers and trains professional video calibrators,

Perhaps they are acquiring their opinions from the same technical article I read?

Well, ISF are big on calibrations and they know their stuff. I just find it odd they make such statements that are so easily disputed. Debating contrast can easily get confusing. For example a 10,000:1 ratio (my TV) means that the black is 10,000 times darker than the white. When you really think about it, what if absolute black is achieved at 1000xwhite. Then wouldn't that mean the 9000 extra amount to nothing?

Since the 9000 in between doesn't mean that it can articulate more within that black/white range, because that function is handled by your screen's gray scale processer.

Intersting. I thought that the "black" that the human eye discerns is a function of the "white" that it sees, and processes and if the "white" >> the black then your eye, or brain doesn't recover.

Sort of like the flash from a camera that opens your iris and blinds you. I thought that contrast ratio had that effect on your vision.

[mRx 16]

What about the organization they reference?

According to the Imaging Science Foundation, a group that consults for home-theater maufacturers and trains professional video calibrators,

Perhaps they are acquiring their opinions from the same technical article I read?

Well, ISF are big on calibrations and they know their stuff. I just find it odd they make such statements that are so easily disputed. Debating contrast can easily get confusing. For example a 10,000:1 ratio (my TV) means that the black is 10,000 times darker than the white. When you really think about it, what if absolute black is achieved at 1000xwhite. Then wouldn't that mean the 9000 extra amount to nothing?

Since the 9000 in between doesn't mean that it can articulate more within that black/white range, because that function is handled by your screen's gray scale processer.

Intersting. I thought that the "black" that the human eye discerns is a function of the "white" that it sees, and processes and if the "white" >> the black then your eye, or brain doesn't recover.

Sort of like the flash from a camera that opens your iris and blinds you. I thought that contrast ratio had that effect on your vision.

Seems like that would distort your vision. I don't think it's a form of visual psychology.

[William33 110]

You guys are in the "technical" weeds here.

How about a translation into a 42" size product recommendation? Plasma or LCD, and brand/model#?

That would be a big help.

[kaydee457 13]

You guys are in the "technical" weeds here.

How about a translation into a 42" size product recommendation? Plasma or LCD, and brand/model#?

That would be a big help.

These days you're probably not going to find a plasma at that size as most mfg's have switched to LCD exclusively at that size.....

Kind of hard to specifically recommend of particular brand/model....

Read back a few posts and decide which parameters are most important to you and then its off to the store, because that's where everything comes to intuition and subjection.