I have been holding off for a few days in my response to this message from Bert, and an accompanying message (Subject: Closer), so that I could properly reflect on what I have observed and learned since we installed our new Samsung 50" DLP-RPTV on December 23rd. It seems that Bert and I have shared some common experiences over the past week. Remarkably, we agree about more than we disagree. What is even MORE remarkable, however, is that I am finding that I may need to modify some of my previously entrenched opinions, based on real world experiences. The area in which I am most conflicted, is related to how consumers will view the new SMALL high resoluton screens such as Bert's new 26" LCD panel, and a similar 26" panel that my close friend Dan got for Christmas. MUch more on this in the accompanying message. But first a few comments about Bert's observations. At 7:16 PM -0500 12/29/04, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >This is a little surprising, considering that the shorter >life and burn-in problems with plasma panels don't exist >with LCD TVs. And with rear projection LCDs, even the >size differences between LCD and plasma go away. The >saleskid at Best Buy tried to show me a direct comparison >(he preferred plasma too), but unfortunately there were >no comparable sets side by side. This MAY be a transitional phenomenon, due in large part to the disparity in screen sizes between current LCD panels and Plasma panels available at retail. Plasma panels typically start at 42" and are available in sizes up to 60" diagonal; i.e. they are designed for the BIG SCREEN viewing experience. The vast majority of LCD panels are smaller than 30 inch diagonal, although many larger LCD panels have been "announced." Based on recent experiences, I believe the real issue here is how much resolution is needed for the smaller LCD panels that are likely to replace direct view CRTs over the next few years. There is no question that we need 1 Mpixel displays when the diagonal is 40 inch or larger; some may believe that we need 2 Mpixel resolution for screens smaller than 100" although I have not changed my position on this. The "problem" that I observed Friday evening is that there is TOO MUCH RESOLUTION on these smaller (<30") screens, when they are showing HDTV source. Dan has had a 36" Sony, HD capable, direct view CRT (4:3) for several years, and he added a Scientific Atlanta HD STB from Cox cable. After getting the 26" Samsung LCD panel he got a second HD STB for it. Friday night the two displays were sitting side by side, both showing the 720P HD broadcast of the Peach Bowl. There was not a huge difference in the 16:9 picture sizes; about 33" for the Sony CRT versus 26" for the LCD panel. The Sony was NOT AS SHARP as the LCD screen, but the larger size made it more enjoyable to view at the designed viewing distance for the room - about 7-9 feet. At this distance the LCD panel was almost useless, because the picture was so small. A bit of aliasing was noticeable, due to the fact that the details were running together. Moving closer to the CRT display made the picture look softer; moving closer to the LCD display made the picture look sharper, while making it possible to resolve the added detail. The problem is that to fully enjoy the picture on the LCD panel I had to move to a distance of about three to four feet from the display, which is not much different than the distance we sit from a computer display. The picture was great, but for this size display, it be came a "personal" viewing experience; no more than two people could sit together this close to the screen. When the LCD panel was switched to an SDTV source, the situation became as I expected - the preferred viewing distance was comparable to that for a direct view 26" CRT. I had to move back to about 7 feet to enjoy the lower resolution pictures. This is NOT what I was expecting, and I am now eager to get more feedback from the people who are buying these panels (like Bert) to determine the distance most people find desirable for these "smallish" but high resolution LCD panels. Please note that in the accompanying post I have reported a VERY DIFFERENT experience with our new 50" display. > >Here are some reactions from playing with my new 16:9 >26" direct view LCD toy. > >1. The factory settings were ridiculous. I had a hard >time adjusting it so the dark scenes wouldn't vanish >entirely. Finally, I settled on these settings (just to >show how off the factory settings were): > >contrast was 100% and is now 47% >brightness was 75% and is now 85% >color was 50% and is now 21% >sharpness remains at 50% > >The hardest part was to get the brightness right so >the dark scenes didn't just completely disappear. >Way excessive contrast settings out of the box >certainly didn't help matters. But the brighness >adjustment just isn't capable of washing out the >scene, as it can on CRTs. This can be a real issue with LCD panels. I have seen a great deal of variation in performance on these panels. The brightness issue is VERY different, as with a CRT you are adjusting the actual pixels; more brightness necessarily means less contrast. But with panels and RP displays using LCD, DLP or other "lithographed" devices, you have constant backlighting (brightness), while the traditional brightness and contrast setting are independent. An interesting aside on our DLP display; it took me a long time to even FIND the traditional TV controls. Brightness, contrast, et al were buried in menus that were not intuitive. Also, the lamp used in the Samsung display takes several minutes to reach full brightness if the set has been off for awhile. In other words, its a whole new ball game. It was also interesting to see the difference in the way controls behave on DLP versus LCD. The control software for Dan's Samsung LCD panel and my Samsung DLP projector is virtually identical. The performance in the black regions is MUCH BETTER on the DLP display. > >2. NTSC sources are different from what they appear >on a CRT. Fine detail doesn't exist, but they are >viewable close up as opposed to not viewable close up. >And things like print on signs is incredibly clear >and sharp. This has little if ANYTHING to do with CRT versus LCD. What Bert is seeing - finally - is the benefit of progressive scanning. What Bert is now enjoying is the MAJOR REASON I bought a 4:3 HD ready display several years ago; the de-interlacing makes watching legacy sources feasible on screens that present higher levels of details as opposed to higher levels of artifacts. Unfortunately, the de-interlacing performance of the Samsung displays is not as good as my older Hitachi CRT display. I believe this is due to two issues: 1. The analog CRT display (even when operating in progressive mode, is noticeably softer than the "lithographed displays - this tends to hide some of the artifacts. 2. The quality of the analog source is very critical - if the picture is even a little noisy, the artifacts increase significantly. Analog component SDTV source from a DVD did not suffer from this problem. > >3. DVDs, over S-video interface, are really very nice. >Not HD detail, but considerably nicer than NTSC TV. >I've saved the component video inputs for my future >ATSC STB. Bert: Go ahead and buy a set of component cables; you will need them for your ATSC receiver anyway. You will be amazed how much better the quality will be from the component outputs from a DVD player than the S-video output. >Watching regular 4:3 TV sources in 4:3 pillarboxed mode >is fine, since there's no distortion, but it's no fun. There is some truth in this. Our 4:3 picture is now an inch smaller in diagonal than before, but it seems MUCH SMALLER. But we have largely gravitated to the pillarbox mode for most 4:3 sources. > >Watching in "panorama" is totally unacceptable. The >distortion is just plain dumb, even if it's mostly at >the left and right edges. I too don't care much for this, although it is very much content dependent. This mode works great for the 24/7 news channels, where the "lack" of action is almost always in the center of the screen. As an added benefit, the edge distortion tends to magnify the text crawls at the bottom of the screen, making it easier to read them. > >Watching a normal 4:3 show in 16:9 mode creates an >even stretch of everything. So overall the distortion >is *less* objectionable than in panorama mode, but >everyone still looks rather short and fat. This mode is totally unacceptable to me. > >Watching normal 4:3 shows in "letterbox" mode essentially >fills up the vertical black pillars with image, and crops >out the top and bottom of the picture. But, just like >John Sprung said, a lot of 4:3 shows seem to have been >shot to make this work quite well. And of course many >of NBC's prime time shows, much of what on PBS, and >also some UPN shows, are letterboxed, so they work out >fine. Oh, and so is BBC News. Cool. The Samsung offers two zoom modes, one of which can be useful, the other being mostly useless. The first zoom mode seems identical to Bert's, filling the width of the screen and cropping top and bottom. There is a vertical position control on my set in this mode, that allows you to shift the picture up or down to see more of the top or bottom. The ideal time to use this mode is when the source is 4:3 letterboxed. For this kind of source, in 4:3 mode you see a smaller 16:9 image surrounded by black; when you zoom, the screen is filled (if the letterboxed source is 16:9). The second zoom mode crops even more of the picture; I can't figure out any use for this, other than possibly monitoring a region of a screen (as with Bloomberg news or other sources that have dedicated screen regions for different sources of information. There is one thing that this mode does well - you and really see the underlying artifacts. So thanks to Bert for relating his experiences. perhaps others have similar experiences to relate? Regards Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.