my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » LCD-Based Rear-Projection TVs (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: LCD-Based Rear-Projection TVs John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-06-2003 12:27 PM                        David Stambaugh wrote: "Also, it had a pixel stuck on (blue one). Wasn't really visible from a normal viewing distance, but was easy to pick out up close. I would want to find out whether that's considered a defect or not under the warranty. For $4000 there should be ZERO bad pixels." I guess if there were any visible "dead pixels" out of the box, I'd return the monitor immediately. The real question is what the failure rate over time will be. Unlike a digital camera, where you can interpolate to "hide" dead pixels, a failure of digital display pixels is there for all to notice, especially when stuck in the "on" position. BTW, did anyone notice the horrible digital artifacts on the Fox Network coverage of the NFC playoff game between the NY Giants and SF 49'ers yesterday? It was almost unwatchable at times, with severe "jaggies" and strobing.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-06-2003 07:32 PM                     Dave said "it's definitely garbage in - garbage out" I wonder if an the Panasonic LCD set has the equivelent of line doubling built...or if that can even be done......Judging by what you stated I don't think it does that...... My Mitsubishi 50" HDTV has built in line doubling and allowing even so so looking video to look a bit better than it might otherwise. I've always liked this feature about the set. The biggest percieved difference between NTSC, and HDTV is only in apparent resolution....and there are still no visible scan lines at any format. Mark  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-06-2003 09:19 PM                     My father has one of those big Mitsubishi sets. I agree, the stock line doubler does a pretty credible job with NTSC material --IMHO, noticeably better than how a lot of flat panel screens treat NTSC. Many flat screen TVs on the market, with perhaps the exception of the really expensive models, leave much to be desired in terms of image quality. Flat screens have a long way to go.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 01-06-2003 09:37 PM                        I have a Sony RPTV with their 1st-generation DRC line doubling, Digital Reality Creation. The idea is it not only does line doubling, but it's supposed to supply what it thinks is the "missing information" for the image being uprez'd. DRC is definitely a mixed bag. If you feed it a good, clean signal, it does a pretty good job. If you feed it something nasty like bad VHS or the worst of the DSS stuff, it looks pretty bad. Mark, the set I was commenting on is the Sony KF-50XBR800. (I did mention a Panasonic, but the Sony seems to blow it away.) Bobby, if you have nothing better to do, you should check out that Sony if you can find it on display someplace. It's not perfect, but it's very very good. Be fair to it -- judge the picture from a normal viewing distance. I'm not going to rush out and buy one, especially given that I haven't seen it with any film-sourced material or DVD yet. But on HD video, it's pretty sweet.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-06-2003 10:08 PM                     Will check it out since both Circuit City, and Worst Buy are within a mile of my house. I don't think the Mitsubishi line doubler does the same thing the Sony's is doing. The Mits doesn't try to replace missing info....and that can't really be done properly except in DTV with error correction. The Mits is just always running in line double mode for everything. The lack of scan lines is really nice. Never have seen VHS on this set as I don't own one. Its pretty much obsolete in my book. I have analog Cable(how bout that Steve Guttag?), DVD, and Laser Disk feeding it. As well as the Mitsubishi HDTV tuner which is a wonder of computer chips and other stuff in and of itself...... I did have one problem once with the Mits after about two years...it ate a deflection yoke and took some transistors out when it went. Luckily the CRT's have a protection circuit that really works as there were no burns in the CRT's at all once I got it going again. Mark  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 01-12-2003 08:17 PM                        Toshiba has a 57" LCoS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) rear-projection with true 1080p resolution (that's 1080p, not 1080i ) . Uses 3 1920 x 1080 chips. Priced at $9000 Toshiba LCoS  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 01-12-2003 08:30 PM                        David Stambaugh wrote: "Also, it had a pixel stuck on (blue one). Wasn't really visible from a normal viewing distance, but was easy to pick out up close. I would want to find out whether that's considered a defect or not under the warranty. For $4000 there should be ZERO bad pixels." Sometimes I get a little piece of dirt stuck to my NEC LCD display that makes it look like a blue stuck pixel. Maybe the store display unit was dirty? Then again, with kids slapping their paws all over it, I wouldn't doubt the existence of busted pixels.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 01-12-2003 08:40 PM                        Bad pixels (may be stuck on or off) has always been a nuisance issue with LCD displays. I've seen many older notebook PCs with stuck pixels. A few of the more reputable sellers of used notebooks on eBay will tell you if what they're selling has any stuck pixels. I read somewhere that some manufacturers of LCD-based displays used to have a written policy as to the percentage of pixels that could be bad on a display while under warranty before they would consider it defective. Don't know if that's still true. Anyway, this Sony LCD set definitely had a bad pixel -- wasn't dirt or anything like that.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 01-12-2003 09:23 PM                     While walking through Sears and Costco today, Sears had one of those Plazma screen TV's for 7,000 bucks. I was not impressed with it. The closer I got to the screen, the worse the picture "fell apart." At Costco, a HDTV set was on display. The picture looked good, but I did notice that the viewing angle was critical, and the fall-off was almost as bad as watching a movie on a silver screen. Naturally, there is no comparison about picture quality with the old scanning raster system as we know it form the days of old. However, I cannot justify spending 7000 bucks to watch clearer commercials or box office flops on DVD or VCR.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-12-2003 11:39 PM                     The Toshiba LCOS based set is a step in the right direction. I personally believe any flat-screen TV maker should not be allowed at all to use the term "HD" or "Hi-Def" on any TV set not equipped to show 1080 X 1920 native pixels in its display. That is a very basic standard bar all of the manufacturers should meet. What I am asking for is perfectly reasonable as well, considering the TV manufacturers want people to hook their computers and gaming machines up to these large displays. I'm not doing any kind of computing at all on a screen that shows less than 1600 X 1200 pixels. No way. Not negotiable. 1280 X 1024? Go back to the drawing board. 1920 X 1080 native based displays should only be a starting point as well. I strongly believe the resolution specs should be upped by a great degree. If "convergence" with computer hardware is an ultimate goal, then display standards like QUXGA 3840 X 2400 would be perfectly reasonable for any large, high end monitor. HD Video display is not the only application. How about viewing digital camera photos on these monitors? Affordable cameras have surpassed the 3 and 4 million pixel mark. Higher end units have been marching past the 6 Mpixel level. We will see affordable digital cameras with 10Mpixel image capture in the next 2 to 5 years. CCD imagers and 3D accelerator chips seem to be the most rapidly improving types of computer components in the entire industry. The technology in video monitors is going to have to keep up.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-17-2003 03:39 PM                        I agree, 1280 x 1024 pixel resolution is old news. Kodak announced a 14-megapixel camera at PhotoKina that is very competitively priced (likely less than $5000): Kodak DCS Pro 14n Digital Camera http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02092304kodakdcs14n.asp http://www.bjphoto.co.uk/cms/words/news_and_news_features/75.shtml  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 03-18-2003 02:52 PM                        Widescreen Review's review of the $6000 Sony KF-60XBR800 says the manual for the set claims that stuck pixels are "a structural property of the LCD panel and not a malfunction."  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-18-2003 10:00 PM                     "At Costco, a HDTV set was on display. The picture looked good, but I did notice that the viewing angle was critical, and the fall-off was almost as bad as watching a movie on a silver screen." ______________________________________________________________ Paul, Thats because these sets all use some sort of lens thats part of the screen. Not quite fresnel, but on that order. They have gotten ALOT better than they were back in the late 70's early 80's!! Back then you had to be seated right in front of it. David....Stuck pixels....I think ALL LCD panels, and DLP, or wjhat ever is used for that matter are going to have at least some percentage of bad ones. But I think the term structural property is only a lame term devised by the Sony marketing department to cover it all up. If customers were aware they were getting bad Pixels would they buy them???? Remember....Sony, No Baloney! Had a long talk with a projection TV expert the other day.....LCD vs. CRT and we both came to the conclusion that CRT is still far and away more practical for home use and will give the best results. Consider for instance how many metal halide lamps one would use in 7 years. These lamps are in the 500.00 to 750.00 range for alot of decent LCD projection sets, but CRT's for even a decent Barco CRT set is still only 300.00 each. The original set of CRT's should last around 7 years by themselves if image burn in is not a factor in its use. CRT's also have far greater contrast ratio range and much better resolution, especially horizontally. Better colorimitry for now too. With a line doubler as is integrated into many sets these days scan lines are practically unnoticable. While pixels are still visible. Granted other types of displays are getting better the CRT is still outpacing the others in most parameter departments, and may continue to do so for quite some time. Mark  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.