High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

High Definition News & Informative Articles Get the Latest High Definition News & Informative Articles Here! Please post newsworthy information here only! This forum is NOT for your first post. Thank you!

Plasma Bites the Dust...Hitachi Looking To Quit Plasma Market

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-05-2006, 08:02 PM   #31  
HD DVD Supporter
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stchman
If you are insulted by this I cannot help that.
I'm not insulted by your opinion. I just take everything you say with a grain of salt. After all, you're a known liar.

As for PQ, when the Pioneer PRO-FHD1 is properly calibrated, there's not much, short of a 1080p front projector, that's going to touch it. That's my opinion, and I dare say it's shared by a lot of experts in the field. Can you say the same thing about the LCD you keep touting?
Steeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 08:14 PM   #32  
HD DVD Supporter
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stchman
The plasma might have 2% better blacks but that is because plasmas are not as bright as LCDs.
Bullshit. I can make up a statistic, too. It doesn't mean it's true.

99.9% of the readers on this board feel you're full of shit.

See how easy it was to make up a random percentage and put it out as a factual number?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stchman
LCDs have brighter more vivd colors than a plasma.
I think most people would disagree with that statement, but you can think whatever you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stchman
You can't go wrong with either set, but for less than 1/2 the price I will take an LCD flat panel.
Sometimes you get what you pay for. Some people are both willing and able to pay a little more for a little higher quality.

LCDs are nice and they've made leaps and bounds compared to what they were like a few years ago. They just haven't quite made it to plasma's level yet. It may happen some day, but it hasn't yet (purely my opinion, of course.)
Steeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 08:18 PM   #33  
HD DVD Supporter
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stchman
I will say again that at over double the price for 1080p LCDs are the clear winner hands down over plasma. I don't think you will argue that point with me.
Cheaper doesn't equate to better, especially when it comes to consumer electronics. Better in terms of your wallet? Sure. Better in terms of quality? Not a chance.
Steeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 08:28 PM   #34  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

OK, I'll start by admitting that I think Plasmas look great and the *best* Plasmas look stunning. I will also admit that I've not seen a single LCD I would consider paying a premium price for, Sony XBR included (I have a dirt cheap Polaroid LCD that's just fine for our excersize area and looks much better than I would expect for it's sub-$200 price).

For LCD's to have brighter, more vivid colors than Plasma means throwing black-level down the toilet.

As for 8mS response time being "plenty fast enough"--uhm, no, it's awful. Do you realize that at the normal 60Hz refresh rate (screen updating at 16mS), that means *half* the time of the screen refresh you're waiting for the LCD image to stabilze. That's awful. Simply awful. CRT and Plasma respond to changes in less than 1mS. It's an obvious difference if you look at them side by side, as I have.

I'm not saying LCD will *never* be good enough--I honestly don't know, but they still have a long way to go for my eyes unless the prices of good LCD's get cut in half.

Last edited by BobY; 12-05-2006 at 08:38 PM..
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 08:45 PM   #35  
1080 Optical Supporter
 
Type A's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Panama City, Fl
Age: 48
Posts: 2,723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stchman
other websites state LCD better than plasma. Opinions, opinions, opinions.
Please provide links that lcds provide better blacks and color accuracy....cause I think you are completely full of shit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stchman
I will say again that at over double the price for 1080p LCDs are the clear winner hands down over plasma. I don't think you will argue that point with me.
No, but then thats NOT what I quoted you on is it? Ill even give you that lcds are brighter than plasmas. But, again, in case you missed it, this IS what I quoted you on:

Quote:
Originally Posted by stchman
LCDs have more vivd colors than a plasma.
Type A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 11:47 AM   #36  
No HD? We have a problem.
 
stchman's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 52
Posts: 2,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY
OK, I'll start by admitting that I think Plasmas look great and the *best* Plasmas look stunning. I will also admit that I've not seen a single LCD I would consider paying a premium price for, Sony XBR included (I have a dirt cheap Polaroid LCD that's just fine for our excersize area and looks much better than I would expect for it's sub-$200 price).

For LCD's to have brighter, more vivid colors than Plasma means throwing black-level down the toilet.

As for 8mS response time being "plenty fast enough"--uhm, no, it's awful. Do you realize that at the normal 60Hz refresh rate (screen updating at 16mS), that means *half* the time of the screen refresh you're waiting for the LCD image to stabilze. That's awful. Simply awful. CRT and Plasma respond to changes in less than 1mS. It's an obvious difference if you look at them side by side, as I have.

I'm not saying LCD will *never* be good enough--I honestly don't know, but they still have a long way to go for my eyes unless the prices of good LCD's get cut in half.
8ms means that the pixel can turn fully on and turn fully off 125 times per second. You mean to tell me that you can see that? I don't think so. I guess you have superman eyes.

The human eye can just preceive that at 60 times per second.

I personally don't like the look of a 1366x768 plasma in the larger sizes as the screen door effect is just too annoying. LCDs are this way as well. The 1080p plasmas and LCDs are much better.

IMO the Sony XBR3 1080p LCD looks absolutely amazing.
stchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 12:10 PM   #37  
No HD? We have a problem.
 
stchman's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 52
Posts: 2,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb
I'm not insulted by your opinion. I just take everything you say with a grain of salt. After all, you're a known liar.

As for PQ, when the Pioneer PRO-FHD1 is properly calibrated, there's not much, short of a 1080p front projector, that's going to touch it. That's my opinion, and I dare say it's shared by a lot of experts in the field. Can you say the same thing about the LCD you keep touting?
I am a know liar in your mind. What happens in your mind does not translate to fact.

I guess you had a bad home life or have a bad home life right now as you feel the need to insult people. After all it is easy to insult someone from behind your computer screen as there are no repercussions. I bet you are not nearly as bold in real life.

I act the same on here as I would in real life.
stchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 12:17 PM   #38  
No HD? We have a problem.
 
stchman's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 52
Posts: 2,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Type A
Please provide links that lcds provide better blacks and color accuracy....cause I think you are completely full of shit.



No, but then thats NOT what I quoted you on is it? Ill even give you that lcds are brighter than plasmas. But, again, in case you missed it, this IS what I quoted you on:
I never stated that LCDs have better blacks than plasmas. If you are going to quote me get it right.

You quote black levels as that is the greatest attribute to PQ. CRTs have the best black levels of any HDTV technology and yet I find CRT PQ on the lower end of the scale. What most people find to be great PQ attributes are bright vivid colors, sharpness and great level of detail.

Both LCD and plasma have these attributes. At current prices of 1080p plasmas they are just not nearly as attractive.
stchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 01:26 PM   #39  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Response time of LCD's is a "grey" area (sorry for the pun). Some manufacturers spec fully-off to fully-on to fully-off and some manufacturers spec grey-to-grey. LCD response time from one shade to another is slower than from fully-off to fully-on because the drive voltage is lower and the crytals act like capacitors from an electrical viewpoint.

You realize that in your example of the pixels turning fully on and fully off 125 times per second, *at no time* would the picture be stable (i.e. sharp)? It would not be perceived as flickering on and off (as it would on a CRT or Plasma), it would be one continuous blur.

The same affect applies if you are just turning the pixel on and leaving it on. You will see a blur while the crystals are realigning to their new positions. It isn't like there's an 8mS delay and then the picture updates instantly, the picture is blurred during the time the crystals are changing.

If you are watching a fast moving image with significant differences between one frame and the next, about half the time the image is on the screen it will be blurred while the crystals are aligning to their new positions.

I did look at the Sony XBR. It is an amazing LCD. It isn't as good as a good Plasma. It isn't worth the premium price to me. If you want to see it blurring, tune in a basketball game and watch as the camera tracks a fast moving player down the court. The background will smear into an unrecognizable mass, then will snap into clarity when the camera stops moving. Motion blur from the camera? Nope, the Plasma display right next to the Sony showing the same program doesn't have a trace of the effect. You don't need Superman eyes.

While I certainly can't make any claim to Superman eyes, apparently they are not that uncommon. The USAF, in testing pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if they could distinguish small changes in light. In the experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. That test demonstrates the ability to percieve image changes at much higher than 60 times per second.
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 01:51 PM   #40  
No HD? We have a problem.
 
stchman's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 52
Posts: 2,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY
Response time of LCD's is a "grey" area (sorry for the pun). Some manufacturers spec fully-off to fully-on to fully-off and some manufacturers spec grey-to-grey. LCD response time from one shade to another is slower than from fully-off to fully-on because the drive voltage is lower and the crytals act like capacitors from an electrical viewpoint.

You realize that in your example of the pixels turning fully on and fully off 125 times per second, *at no time* would the picture be stable (i.e. sharp)? It would not be perceived as flickering on and off (as it would on a CRT or Plasma), it would be one continuous blur.

The same affect applies if you are just turning the pixel on and leaving it on. You will see a blur while the crystals are realigning to their new positions. It isn't like there's an 8mS delay and then the picture updates instantly, the picture is blurred during the time the crystals are changing.

If you are watching a fast moving image with significant differences between one frame and the next, about half the time the image is on the screen it will be blurred while the crystals are aligning to their new positions.

I did look at the Sony XBR. It is an amazing LCD. It isn't as good as a good Plasma. It isn't worth the premium price to me. If you want to see it blurring, tune in a basketball game and watch as the camera tracks a fast moving player down the court. The background will smear into an unrecognizable mass, then will snap into clarity when the camera stops moving. Motion blur from the camera? Nope, the Plasma display right next to the Sony showing the same program doesn't have a trace of the effect. You don't need Superman eyes.

While I certainly can't make any claim to Superman eyes, apparently they are not that uncommon. The USAF, in testing pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if they could distinguish small changes in light. In the experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. That test demonstrates the ability to percieve image changes at much higher than 60 times per second.
First off there are no set standards to measure the following:

- Contrast ratio
- Black level
- Response time
- Color saturation

As far as the pixel turning on and off 125 times a second, according to the specs it is capable of this not that is does it constantly.

Contrast ratio is meanigless in a room with any other light source.

How is black level measured? I guess zero lumens would be considered perfect black level.

My opinion to one of the reasons that plasmas have a little better black level is they are not as bright.

I was at BB Magnolia watching a Pionner 1080p plasma with a new Pioneer Blu Ray playing a demo disc and was more impressed with the Sony XBR3 using the DTV HD feed.

Color saturation is a matter of opinion anyway. Some people would think a certain set has great color saturation while other may look at the same set and say tone down the color and it would look better.

In the end it is all opinion anyway.

I have watched a sporting event on an LCD flat panel and I dont detect all this blurring you talk of.

As far as pilot seeing a light flash one time for 1/220 of a second, the human eye will see the afterimage for sometime after that. If I flashed 220 different shapes in front of a pilot in one second they would not be able to identify any of them.
stchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 02:15 PM   #41  
HD DVD Supporter
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stchman
I was at BB Magnolia watching a Pionner 1080p plasma with a new Pioneer Blu Ray playing a demo disc and was more impressed with the Sony XBR3 using the DTV HD feed.
Yeah, that's fair.

You compared the PQ of two different displays using different sources? You do realize that you just added in several more variables that are affecting the comparison, right? Of course you don't. If you did realize that, you wouldn't be going on about how the Sony LCD looks better than the top of the line 1080p Pioneer plasma, based on a superficial comparison made at a BB.
Steeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 02:28 PM   #42  
No HD? We have a problem.
 
stchman's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 52
Posts: 2,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb
Yeah, that's fair.

You compared the PQ of two different displays using different sources? You do realize that you just added in several more variables that are affecting the comparison, right? Of course you don't. If you did realize that, you wouldn't be going on about how the Sony LCD looks better than the top of the line 1080p Pioneer plasma, based on a superficial comparison made at a BB.
As I said before, I don't have 12 grand laying around to buy the sets. So I have to go with whatever setups the local stores have. If I did I could take them home, hook them up with identical 1080p sources and then give you far better findings.

I tell you what since you are Mr. MoneyBags you go buy the two and present us with your findings. Until you can continue to spout other people's opinions you find on websites and talk $hit about how awesome you are.

There are also no reviews I can find that does a head to head against 46" 1080p XBR3 Sony against the 50" 1080p Pioneer plasma. Until such a review we can only speculate as to which is the superior set, right? Chances are if such a review was done the reviewers would say that the Sony has advantages over the Pioneer and vice versa and since money is a barrier that most of us have to deal with the Sony would win.

What I can say is that for less than 1/2 the price the 1080p Sony is the clear winner. Even you cannot say that the Pioneer will give you twice the PQ over the Sony.
stchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 03:04 PM   #43  
HD DVD Supporter
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stchman
As I said before, I don't have 12 grand laying around to buy the sets. So I have to go with whatever setups the local stores have. If I did I could take them home, hook them up with identical 1080p sources and then give you far better findings.
Maybe you should go to a store that will at least allow you to compare TVs using the same source. Otherwise, you'll remain as clueless as you currently are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stchman
Until you can continue to spout other people's opinions you find on websites and talk $hit about how awesome you are.
There you go lying again. When did I claim to be awesome? Is it a medical condition that prevents you from telling the truth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stchman
There are also no reviews I can find that does a head to head against 46" 1080p XBR3 Sony against the 50" 1080p Pioneer plasma. Until such a review we can only speculate as to which is the superior set, right? Chances are if such a review was done the reviewers would say that the Sony has advantages over the Pioneer and vice versa and since money is a barrier that most of us have to deal with the Sony would win.

What I can say is that for less than 1/2 the price the 1080p Sony is the clear winner. Even you cannot say that the Pioneer will give you twice the PQ over the Sony.
Can you find any reviews that rate an LCD display over that of a Pioneer Elite (at any resolution?) I've never seen one - if you have, please enlighten us.

Don't you find it odd that it's always you against several people in these arguments? You'd think that would tell you something...
Steeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 03:36 PM   #44  
No HD? We have a problem.
 
stchman's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 52
Posts: 2,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb
Maybe you should go to a store that will at least allow you to compare TVs using the same source. Otherwise, you'll remain as clueless as you currently are.



There you go lying again. When did I claim to be awesome? Is it a medical condition that prevents you from telling the truth?



Can you find any reviews that rate an LCD display over that of a Pioneer Elite (at any resolution?) I've never seen one - if you have, please enlighten us.

Don't you find it odd that it's always you against several people in these arguments? You'd think that would tell you something...
I am not going to interrupt the employees at the store to re-arrange sets to use the same identical Blu Ray player as I have no intention of buying either. I will have to be content to look at them with the setup they currently have.

Each set was also an HD DTV feed and the Sony looked better IMO but you probably won't accept that either in any case I don't care.

Go to the BB Magnolia room and see for yourself as they have the XBR3 and the 1080p plasma on display.

Since you are sum total of human knowledge where can I go to see any two HDTVs with best available source? Let me know.\

I cannot find any review that rates a Pioneer plasma against any LCD.

Truth is you are a gutless puke that sits behind your computer screen and regurgitates what he has read on websites.

Here is a review of LCD vs. Plasma that states that both have their advantages and disadvantages and that LCDs have blacker blacks.

http://www.presentationmaster.com/20...res/plasma.htm

Here is a website that states both plasma and LCD are very equal with LCDs haveing the advantage in a more brightly lit room.

http://www.cheap-plasma-tv.com/plasma-vs-lcd-tv.htm

Since these websites disagree with you they MUST be lying as you cannot be wrong. It also does not talk of the Holy Grail Pioneer Elite.

Last edited by stchman; 12-06-2006 at 03:54 PM..
stchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 04:05 PM   #45  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Stchman-

Since my previous post didn't mention most of the things you were commenting on in your response post, I'm presuming you were addressing those comments to someone else.

I didn't say the LCD was turning on and off 125 times a second, I'm simply pointing out that while it may be "capable of this", the image would be a total blur, as the crystals would never arrive at a stable orientation--they would be moving all of the time, so being "capable of this" is meaningless. If you could perform the same feat with the screen of a CRT or PDP, you would perceive the display as flickering rapidly, not blurred.

I also didn't say "watch a sporting event", I said watch the background in a fast pan of the camera as it follows a player. I watched the basketball game for several minutes before I noticed the effect. You don't notice it right away because your eyes are tracking the player, who is relatively motionless in the field of view. If you watch the background instead, you'll see what I'm talking about. Absent a Plasma or CRT display next to it as a reference, you may not think it's an issue, but when you see what the background really looks like, you can't help but wonder what damage the LCD response time is doing to other content as well.

The point of the USAF tests isn't whether the eye/brain can recognize discrete images at that rate, rather it proves the eye/brain is sensitive to changes in an image at rates higher than 60 times-per-second. The eye/brain will perceive the blurring as the liquid crystals realign. Maybe it doesn't look "bad", but Plasma looks better.

I'm not sure where you're getting your price info from. About the lowest I've seen the 46" Sony XBR3 is $3200 and about the lowest I've seen the Pioneer Pro FHD-1 is $5300.

Personally, I agree the Pioneer is pricey and I'm not ready to spend $5300 on it, but I'd do that lo-o-o-ng before I'd spend $3200 on the Sony, which is also pricey and not as good (smaller screen, worse motion response, more limited viewing angle, no 3:3 reverse pull-down for 1080p/24 films). In my opinion, and it's my own personal preference, the Sony is not nearly worth that kind of money. You don't have to agree with me, but don't act like just because it's cheaper I should ignore my issues with the Sony (I have other issues as well, the blurring was just one of them).

Ultimately, I don't share your value criteria. If something isn't twice as good, it doesn't mean it isn't worth twice the price. The best is the best and it costs what it costs. Using your criteria, no one should ever buy a Porsche or a Mercedes or Lexus because you can get a car for much less money that is probably 80 to 90% as good.

Last edited by BobY; 12-06-2006 at 04:08 PM..
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:28 AM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands