Dpp1978
Posts: 1007
Joined: 2/4/2006
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD
quote:
ORIGINAL: paulyboy
Just to address and refine this point (at the risk of DPP showing up and making me look like a wally), Plasma's generally have a glass screen, hence they're susceptible to screen glare from light sources in the room (particularly sunlight), most of them have anti-glare coatings but this doesn't alleviate the problem completely. Obviously with a matte finish and no glass to speak of an LCD or LED TV doesn't have this problem, aside from some models that have a gloss screen that is. That said I even think there's the odd Plasma knocking about with a matte screen these days, but I have no idea how these perform.
As for black levels not being as good on a Plasma unless you’re in a dark room, yes and no. If black levels on a Plasma are seemingly lacking in a well lit room, it's only because of the screen glare you may or are liable to be suffering, chances are if the glare is that bad black levels will be the least of your worries, you won't be able to see bugger all anyway. Discounting the glare issue for a second however, generally speaking black levels and contrast ratios are where Plasma has always excelled in the past; it's one of their main advantages. That said LCD's have come on leaps and bounds in that area over the years, my early 2005 Samsung LCD is a nightmare in that regard, but my brother's recent Samsung LCD from last year is a testament to how much they've moved on. With LED backlighting they're supposed to have improved even further, but aside from viewing in store I've had no real hands on experience with LED TV's.
Viewing angles was always something else to consider with LCD/LED TV's but as the technology has progressed it's become less and less of an issue, just as screen burn for Plasma's is no longer a real bugbear. LCD/LED technology also consumes far less power than a Plasma, so expect to see a few pounds knocked off your electric bill also.
Personally I'm of the opinion that other than the screen glare issue mentioned above there's very little to separate the technologies to the average laymen who doesn't care about such things.
3D performance between the technologies I'm not overly familiar with so can't comment beyond what I've read, like Plasma's having better 3D veiwing angles or less cross-talk because of their higher response times etc, but I've also read opinions to the contrary as well.
paulyboy this post is awesome, thanks for giving us some actual technical insight! Very interesting read and helps explain the difference i noticed between Plasmas and LEDs and LCDs in the store demo i saw. 
I agree. Nice post paulyboy.
The best modern screens according to many videophiles are still the late model Pioneer KUROs which went out of production in 2010. They are Plasma screens with some patented technologies which mean the blacks were for all intents and purposes completely black. They are considered to rival CRT screens for black level performance. CRTs are still considered the gold standard for black level performance, although the gap is ever diminishing.
Apparently Panasonic bought a lot of Pioneer's plasma patents and some of their plasmas have a derivative of KURO technology.
LCD and LED sets both rely on an LCD panel, the main difference is the way they are lit.
An LCD set is backlit by an array of flourescent tubes. It is always on and because the LCD screen cannot become 100% opaque there is always some light leakage; something readily noticeable during dark scenes.
An LED display is lit by an array of LEDs. On the better LED screens the LEDs will dynamically switch off on dark areas of the screen so there is a dramatic reduction in light leakage. This leads to dramatic increase in black level performance.
So on balance a good LED TV will perform, with respect to black levels, on a similar level to a good plasma. the gap is certainly getting smaller.
Where, at least according to some, plasma is still king is motion resolution. Apparently there are those, who take their TVs very seriously, who have run tests and found many LCD based TVs lose a significant of image fidelity where there is movement on screen. Apparently plasmas perform better, and a good plasma's image will be as highly resolved in a high motion scene as it is when stationary footage is displayed.
It has never really bothered me as I use mine primarily to watch film, where motion blur is endemic. If I hadn't read about it I doubt I would even have noticed. Some of those who are very keen on video games take this very seriously; almost as seriously as they take input lag.
New screen types (OLED for example) promise to be the best of all worlds, at least according to manufacturers.
One other thing. You can never equate how a screen looks in the shop to how it looks at home. They will be set up to stand out in a brightly lit environment, not to have good image fidelity. People have been shown to prefer a brightly lit highly saturated image, and when you pump these up it can lead to washed out blacks.
If forced to choose I still prefer the image on a good plasma over that on a good LCD or LED set. It seems more natural to me.
quote:
ORIGINAL: porntrooper
Thirdly, regarding the dimming and potential loss of colour in 3D. I've never experienced it while watching 3D in a home environment, particularly on sports. It's never been an issue at all in football or during tennis. The few films I've watched in 3D at home didn't suffer as much as I expected. In particular Thor didn't seem too affected by it, and I was really expecting it to look duuf during the early battle against the Frost Giant's as I thought that was dull even in 2D. Tangled, Cars 2 and Captain America were all really bright during home viewings, but I've found that animated films in 3D at the cinema never really loose brightness either. I watched some of On STranger Tides in 3D at home too and I really saw an improvement on what I remember from the cinema version. It was a lot brighter and had more depth to it, I recall the cinema showing being really dim and flat. I can only assume that as the Brother In Law has control over his settings he has things set in a way that loss of colour and brightness just doesnt happen as much. Maybe cinema projections vary simply due to the skill level and quality of equipment and people they employ in different screens. For example, the 3D in Prometheus was pretty damn stunning and it was never dim or lacking in detail, it was one of the best cinema presentations I've ever seen, 3D or 2D, it was amazing. However, weeks later in a seperate screening of Amazing Spiderman, the effect was dim and blurry. Was it due to Spiderman being a post conversion vs Prometheus' native 3D? Was it the quality ot the screen or projectionist equipment? Dunno, but I would suspect home 3D can improve the effect as a viewer can adjust settings to his/her preference.
Home setups typically use a flat panel. These devices emit the light you see directly. They are typically much brighter than a cinema screen and the owner can easily pump up their screen's light output to counteract the effect the glasses have.
Cinema screens reflect the light from the projector, which is a really inefficient way of doing things, but necessary to fill a large screen economically. As such they are very badly affected by ambient light. Black levels on even a very good cinema screen will typically be outperformed by a good flatpanel. . Factor in the fact they are usually run for peak economy rather than peak performance and it isn't surprising that there are complaints about brightness.
Cinema standards state that there should be around 14 foot lamberts of illumination on the screen when shone through the open gate of a film projector. That is the equivalent of an all peak white image from a digital projector. When showing actual content the recordable light output will be much lower. An all black image would ideally measure 0 foot lamberts. The polarising filters in the projector and the glasses both eat some of the light leading to a dimmer image.
The obvious solution would be to pump up the light level in the projector, but that would eat into profits.
Home projection can potentially suffer the same drawbacks but the owner is in control.
So it isn't in the least bit surprising that 3D at home can neatly outperform 3D in the cinema.
I'm a big fan of good 3D. I'm of the opinion that a post processed film can look just as good as natively shot footage. After all, all native 3D films have post processed shots. I think the automatic hatred reeks of confirmation bias in many cases.
I wonder how many of those who really hate on 3D have never seen really good 3D?
|
Printable Version
RE: 3D Blu Ray: The Future! - 
Mod Candidate 2013
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread