[opendtv] Bert's new LCD panel (was Mark's memo)
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 13:08:05 -0500
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.
Other related posts:
