Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Plasma Screen TVs -- Still not doing real HD

This is topic Plasma Screen TVs -- Still not doing real HD in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000298

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-01-2004, 02:35 PM:

I received a new advertising magazine in the mail from Ultimate Electronics today (they have a sister chain called Soundtrack in places like Colorado). There were lots and lots of ads for various HDTV models.

One ad standout was Mitsubishi's 61" PD-6130, yours for only $16,999. Just like many of the past plasma-screen and LCD screen ads, there is rarely any mention ever for the native pixel layout of the monitor. This is exactly the opposite of the advertising model for computer monitors where the maximum resolution of the screen is spelled out in an easy to understand number (such as 1600 X 1200, 1920 X 1200, etc.).

Most anyone looking to spend several thousand dollars on a new plasma screen TV may know the 1080i HD pixel specification is 1920 X 1080. The ad people never publish the number the flat panel screens carry since they never meet that number. The nearest mention I saw in the Ultimate Electronics flyer was "720p capable resolution," and that was for a monitor Pioneer was selling for $7000. There was a good number of flat panel LCD TVs that were described as "EDTVs". I suppose that means they don't even come close to the 720p specification. More likely, many are just 480 X 800 or something like that.

Incidentally, I was able to find the native pixel layout for Mitsubishi's 61" plasma screen on their website: 1365 X 768. Well, sorry. I don't have $17,000 to blow on a plasma screen, but even if I did I would not waste it on a so-called HDTV that really didn't hit the full HDTV specification.

To finish, what monitors are sold to the market which actually hit a real 1920 X 1080 pixel specification? There is a broad assumption that rear projection and CRT based HDTVs do fully address the 1920 X 1080 specification. However, the rear projection TVs show an image that's just a tad on the soft side even though there is lots of detail shown. The CRT displays show a really sharp, boldly colorful image, but they don't get very large in size. I guess if I were going to buy an HD set today, I would probably just get a Sony VEGA 34" HD capable TV.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-01-2004, 03:00 PM:

A few things:
[av=k]
-It's "Wega", not "Vega". Either way it sounds ghey.

-Plasmas suck ass no matter what. They feature "burn in". You can't even play videogames on them without risking burn in, and the "bugs" that stations like to put in the lower right corner of the screen also pose a problem. Stay far, far away from plasmas forever!

-I hate any TV that is silver (ie Sony Wegas). It makes the picture area seem much smaller and is also distracting when trying to watch. Imagine a movie theater without black masking! Can you imagine how much that would suck? It would suck just as bad as having a silver TV. It is teh ghey.

-Anyone who spends $17,000 on a TV is a fucking moron. They deserve what they get.

-EDTV is usually 852 x 480. We had a plasma screen down at work that had this resolution. EDTV basically means it can do 480p, and sometimes it is widescreen. Teh ghey. And yes we played videogames on it. We didn't give a rat's ass.

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 05-01-2004, 03:22 PM:

For the $$$, the Sony Grand Wega 70" is far superior over any of those higher end Plasma Tv's.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-01-2004, 06:58 PM:

quote: Sony 70" Grand Wega Specs:
70" HDTV (displays all signals at 788p)

That is unacceptable. I want a TV that displayes 720p at 720p and 1080i/p at 1080i/p. Anything else is unacceptable.[av=p]

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 05-01-2004, 08:39 PM:

I don't know where your getting those specs from Joe, the ones on Sony's site says:

Component Video (Y/Pb/Pr) Inputs: --- 2 Rear (1080i, 720p, 480p, 1480i)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-01-2004, 09:10 PM:

Crutchfield
I'm sure they are saying that it can view material in those resolutions, but it is converted to the set resolution of the LCD. That's just the nature of the beast with LCD and Plasmas. Even computer monitors. Sure, you can set the computer monitor to display 800 x 600 instead of it's native 1024 x 768 (or whatever), but notice how blurry it looks. 800 x 600 doesn't look that blurry on a CRT. That's because it's blowing 800 x 600 up to 1024 x 768 (or whatever).

This model might not be bad. I hate the bottom part, though. I wonder if I could take the top part off (the picture part) and leave the stand/speakers elsewhere? I hate that. I already have a perfect place for a TV to sit on.[av=c]

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-01-2004, 10:28 PM:

One of the guys at "a major sound mixing facility in Northern California" mentioned the other day that they won't do plasma screens ever again because there's a signal delay equivalent to three frames of film. I don't think I could watch anything that far out of sync without it driving me insane. In fact, the LCD projector here at the theater has a similarly small delay that pisses me off every time I use it.

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 05-01-2004, 10:40 PM:

The resolution of the Grand Wega is 1386 x 788 pixels. I have a feeling that this is a typo, as I cannot find another source for this information.

As for RPTV's, I'd go with a Toshiba. Besides Grand Wega and their headphones, most of what Sony makes is extremely overpriced and the quality just isn't there.

Toshiba's " 83 " line this year has been a favorite among the HT community basically for it's cost and tweakable features via the Service Menu. They included the DVI input standard this year on all models.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-02-2004, 01:30 AM:

I read somewhere that mfr's are having to put in an audio delay circuit because of all the work the display is doing to enhance the image.

They were stating that they exceeding a threshold of sync-loss that a person could stand while watching TV.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-02-2004, 09:58 AM:

"I received a new advertising magazine in the mail from Ultimate Electronics today (they have a sister chain called Soundtrack in places like Colorado)."

Stay away from that chain completely!! I am having a go around with them right now. Some lazy moron that works at the Salt Lake City Brickyard store forgot to send my Mits HDTV tuner into Mits for repair. What it turns out is exactly what I expected is that they just wanted to sell me a new one. So far I've had to threaten them just to get any action on it at all. After waiting for about two months I called them and asked them what was taking so long....The reply, that person is not in today, he's on vacation but will be back next week. I asked why it was necessary to talk to that particuluar person at all and didn't Ultimatte know what was going on with it without me talking to that guy? After several more calls back and forth to the store with no results I got angry and threatened the guy at the toher end of the phone with legal action. So I finally get a call back from the store manager.... "Yours can't be repaired but we can sell you a new tuner at a killer deal", about $340.00. Well, little did he know that before I had taken the tuner in to them that I had talked to Mits about the tuner and they told me that it can be repaired but has to come back in for repair... as no local service stations are repairing tuners. Mits asked me to take it back where I bought it so I did. Anyway when I told the manager that info, which I had also told to the sales guy that took it in for repair, he said he would call me back tommrrow. Well low and behold he did call back and said it was possible to repair it and the cost would be 280.00. I told him to get it done and quick. It had already been sitting at Ultimatte for two months.
So far its been another month of waiting. The reason this one HAS to be repaired is because its a first generation set and tuner that uses more video and sync signals going into the set. R,G,B,H,V as compared to todays sets that use only three signals. Of course I did explain this to the original guy that took it in for repair as well and he was aware of the differences.....

Basically no one at this store did their job until I threatened them, all they wanted to do was sell me a new one. Pretty pathetic way to treat a customer that spent over 6K on this set several years ago!

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-02-2004, 11:31 AM:

What is odd is that RGBHV is a better grade of signal than Component (aka YUV, YPbPr, YR-YB-Y). RGBHV keeps all of the color space and sync signals separate. Component matrixes the color and sync together. You have a luminace signal that represents Yellow and carries the sync. In fact, if you just connect the "Y" cable from a component signal you should get a fine looking B&W picture.

I'm surprised that RGBHV did not catch on for the home since the venerable VGA connector (HD15) can be used for it. Anytime you have consumers plugging in multiple things you are asking for trouble...Composite video was okay...just one connector and for harry homeowner it is on a familiar phono (aka RCA) connector.

With S-Video...again it is just one cheesy connector (I don't know how this one caught on in the industrial/commerical world since it is a friction fit connector.) However, I my opinion, the jump to S-Video (separating luminance from chrominance) is the most significant improvenet that Joe Consumer will see. All of those rainbow effects (Chroma Crawl) from lettering or tightly spaced striped/cross hatch will disappear and look normal.

With Component...you have the need for three equally lengthed cables that in both the consumer and pro world require three separate connections. To add insult to injury...the HD version of Component normally carries the "YUV" designator. Which colored cable goes where? Very consumer unfriendly.

My prediction in this "digital is better" age is that the DVI connector will supplant Component analog video as the HD connector of choice. It brings the consumer back to a single connector. It also keeps the digital signal entirely in the digital domain. There is no need to D/A the video signal, then A/D the signal as it goes through a digital projector/TV. Each of those A/D and D/A steps can degrade the signal and add latency (time delay)...the video world is already slowing down the picture too much and causing lip-sync problems.

Give em Hell Mark.

As to true HD ...

HD is anything better than current so while you may define 1080 as HiDef it is just but one possible standard. As one goes up in resolution they consume more bandwidth...as such there is a choice of how much space you want to take up versus potential resolution.

In broadcast terms that means channels...in DVD or the like terms that means discs.

The average consumer is realizing about 250 line of resolution from their 525 NTSC picture. Even going to a true 480 system will look nearly twice as good. A 720P signal will truely look 3-times better to joe-six-pack. And with that progressive signal...no pulsating lines during the football game stats.

I do think that 1080 is where it is all heading though.

As for Plasmas...I HATE them. I think they look god awful, cost too much and suffer from burn in too easily. They are bright and flat...big deal.

As to resolution at the moment...what source material is out there that most people are going to need a 1080 system? I have a projector that is 1366x768 (aka VGA-W)...I've yet to see consumer material that exceeded its capability. 720P looks better on it than 1080I though. That is one of the problems of relating a image based on lines to one on a rigid gridarray. CRTs do better with morphic between the dots as others have pointed out. I find that if I scale to the digital resolution of the projector everything looks pretty dame good and only the limitations of source material set the perceived quality.

For me this projector was a stop gap...I wanted a system to show "movies" at home...I still use a good old CRT television for the other stuff. Speaking of which...am I alone in thinking the Sony Trinitron tube looks light-years better than the current Wega crap? The only Sony sets that look good to me now are the fine dot-pitch ones.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-02-2004, 12:20 PM:

Believe me Steve I will give em hell if they don't come through and pretty soon at that!! I agree that the tuner is superior to whats being made now. It also self adapts on its own to what ever signal is being received and takes 720p(and a couple of other odd standards) to 1080i. Many of the new tuners rely on the tv in order to do that... so basically this tuner needs to be repaired. We have 14 Digital channels here in SLC, more than any other city has to my knowledge with about half and half being 720p and 1080i.

As for the trinitron tube it does have its advangtages but not as for color purity goes, of course Sony won't tell you that!. The very best were the old tricolor 15GP22 and 21AXP22 crt based sets of the 50's and early 60's. These home sets and the studio monitors used actually decoded the NTSC signal as an I-Q based system instead of the usual BY,GY,RY system of today. There are so many advantages to using the I-Q system that it isn't funny. These crt's also produced the purest red of any color crts ever made. Once you see one you won't want to watch any other direct view type of CRT!! When I worked at Chan 38 in Chicago they had an RCA monitor with a 15GP22 in it at the transmitter site [Smile]

. Shortly after I left 38 they moved to a new studio and for what ever reason that monitor was thrown out. Good luck finding one though as these metal cone bodied crts have mostly gone to gas because of the mechanical seal used to bond the glass face to the metal cone. There are but a handful of these sets surviving today that have not lost vacuum and these have been saved by using a vaccuseal sealant at the bonding point of the face plate. They are incredible sets! The CBS color system produced color images far superior to all of the toher system though. A working CBS prototype set running with an NTSC to CBS system encoder can be seen in operation today at the Antique TV museum in Ohio.

Mark

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-02-2004, 03:29 PM:

I thought I'd mention this clip of Philo T. Farnsworth when he appeared on the I've Got A Secret TV show back in 1957. Aside fomr that clip being very interesting to see at the end of the show he talks about soon being able to view TV on a screen like device(not unlike todays Plasma TV), 2000 line HDTV, and storing TV in memory. These are obviously three things thata re now quite common today.... pretty amazing being able to predict that stuff back in 57.

There are other interesting clips at this site for those that are interested in the history of TV.

http://www.farnovision.com/media/secret.html

Mark

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 05-03-2004, 01:56 AM:

quote:
-I hate any TV that is silver (ie Sony Wegas). It makes the picture area seem much smaller and is also distracting when trying to watch. Imagine a movie theater without black masking! Can you imagine how much that would suck? It would suck just as bad as having a silver TV.

There was an article in the SMPTE journal a few years back about how a lighter color border around a given picture increases perceived contrast over the same picture with a dark border. Lo & behold, suddenly all the TV's in the showrooms no longer had black cabinets but instead silver or grey. It's all about the suckers in the showroom.

quote: Ron Lacheur
the Grand Wega

I have this picture of one of the Boohbahs wearing a crown & a grass skirt.

quote: Ron Lacheur
The resolution of the Grand Wega

This is like a law passed by one of the Boohbahs wearing a crown & a grass skirt.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 05-06-2004, 01:51 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
There is a broad assumption that rear projection and CRT based HDTVs do fully address the 1920 X 1080 specification. However, the rear projection TVs show an image that's just a tad on the soft side even though there is lots of detail shown.

Most rear-projection CRT-based HDTVs do display 1080i with 1080 scan lines, but typically only show 1440 or 1280 pixels horizontally across the picture since the 7 inch CRTs used in the TVs can't resolve more than that anyway. Sometimes, the pictures look a bit soft if the convergence isn't quite right or if the set isn't calibrated properly. It takes some test patterns and a little work to get those sets displaying the best picture possible. I've had a 57-inch Sony that displayed 1440 by 1080 using 7-inch CRTs and a 57-inch Hitachi that displays 1280 by 1080 using similar 7-inch CRTs. I love the rear-projection picture because black can be made black and when watching in a dark room, a picture with great contrast range can be shown. All you have to do is adjust the white-level to a comfortable level and have the black level set right and you'll get a great picture that looks more like a movie theatre picture than with other sets.

Of course, most people that buy HDTV sets are simply using them to watch 480i signals over cable or 480i/480p signals from DVD players. Nearly any HDTV that does a decent job of upscaling to 540p, 720p, 768p, 960i, or 1080i, will make the DVD look great, even if the resolution is only 1280 by 768.

I bought a 17-inch widescreen (16:9) LCD monitor to replace an aging CRT monitor that was having brightness fluctuation problems. The new LCD monitor produces a good image of high contrast (600:1) -- even in a totally dark room, and although its upscaling of 480i material to 768p (1280 by 768) isn't the best in the world, it looks fantastic. The monitor has component, S-Video, and composite video inputs as well as a VGA input and built in TV tuner (with cable compatibility). It makes a great little multipurpose portable TV/monitor. This model has the ability to show 4:3 with black on the sides or stretch it to 16:9 or zoom so that letterboxed 4:3 can fill the screen. I like it, since all types of DVDs can be played in proper aspect using the most screen possible.

I think the main reason HDTV and porjector manufacturers are stuck at the 1280 by 768 or 1024 by 768 resolution for now is most people are using the devices to watch DVDs and 480i broadcasts and not HDTV.

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 05-07-2004, 04:49 PM:

my friend has 32" flat screen sanyo tv and uses his S-video hookups to play his playstation 2, the picture is amazing, bright, clear and the resolution is unbelievable. i have never seen a better looking screen. another friend of mine just bought a 65" big screen tv and he uses his playstation 2 S-video hookup's and his picture is not nearly as good as the flat screen. S-video has made a difference for gamers.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-07-2004, 07:08 PM:

I dunno...I'm selling 1366 x 768 projectors now. Why get a 1.66:1 display instead of a 16:9?

The nice thing about the 1366x768 units is that for VGA power point presentations, it is still pixel for pixel 1024 x 768.

I have found that 1080 images do not scale well on internal projector scalers if the set is not a 1080 set...ie a 768 display will almost always look better with a 720 signal over a 1080 signal.

Steve