Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: LCD TV image quality

This is topic LCD TV image quality 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=000400

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 04-10-2005, 04:33 AM:

I won an LG RU-20LA80C 20" LCD TV in a drawing recently. Since I did't have a TV before and rarely watch TV anyway, I saw that as a sign of fate and ordered TV services. But I have to say I am quite disappointed with the actual image quality. I have cable TV now, but even with DVDs the image quality is way below what I know from CRT TVs.
Especially the contrast and sharpness are not very good, colors are not very natural and the whole image is rather pixely and has edge artifacts.
Even after setting it up with the "THX optimizer" found on some DVDs, and some more subjective fine tuning, I still find the image quality hardly watchable.
What bothers me most is that the backlight shines through the panel unevenly. The top right and bottom left corner are brighter than the rest of the image. It looks like the backlight is actually spilling through on the sides.
What are your experiences with LCD TVs, from LG and other manufacturers?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-10-2005, 07:50 AM:

I've seen some LCDs that look decent, but the black levels are always a problem.

At least it's better than plasma, which has to be the most overrated technology ever. I have yet to see a plasma TV with a picture that looks good to my eyes.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 04-10-2005, 10:14 AM:

Michael, the dang thing was free... I doubt anything like a LCD TV would turn out to be perfect. There has to be something wrong with it. You should have just returned it at Wal-mart without a receipt, taken the store credit, and bought yourself something pretty! [Razz]

And no way could I pay for TV, it's bad enough that cable companies charge for local broadcast channels.

Well, obviously something with a higher resolution would be better. Your 640 x 480 is just standard. Compared to what quiet a few other LCD screens are 1024 x 768 and above or maybe because they have non-interlaced(XGA) or (WXGA) resolution instead of the VGA.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-10-2005, 11:04 AM:

Uneven backlighting in LCDs is inexcusable these days. Every LCD manufacturer should at least be able to get THAT right. Black levels are still the biggest weak point of LCD. It's more like "dark bluish-gray levels" than black. Sony's top of the line rear-projection LCD sets get the black levels better than anyone else's LCDs (to a point that I find acceptable), but even they can't match CRTs. As for plasma, the apparent success of that technology is a mystery to me. They never look good to my eyes, and their problems with image burning make them not worth my consideration. I can't warm up to single-chip DLP either because just knowing there's something called a "color wheel" in there just isn't very appealing to me. [Wink]

All in all, it seems like LCD has the greatest promise right now. But that could change tomorrow (and probably will).

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-10-2005, 12:15 PM:

My LCD computer monitor is freakin' awesome, but I don't think any TVs are made as well as an Apple Cinema Display. My aunt has an LCD HDTV (is yours HDTV? Is it widescreen?). It's not bad. It is a JVC and I can't see any edge artifacts other than a bit of ghosting in the menus and whatnot. It was a mid-range quality TV (27 inches widescreen) that she got for a discount because she worked for Ultimate Electronics Corporate and she got it in the goin-outta-bidness-sale.

Anyway, false colors are a big problem with LCD, and that's a reason why I can't work in Photoshop with an LCD monitor (except for my ACD). Mid to low range LCDs will have a hard time distinguishing between red and green in the small details. The mouse cursor also turns to fuzz when it moves (again, except on my ACD). Consumer pocketbook friendly LCD has a long way to go.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-10-2005, 12:24 PM:

I've never been impressed with any of LG's pictures. In the LCD world Panasonic, Sony (their new 2k SXRD imager), and JVC seem to have a good handle on implementing the technology. FWIW the current 50" Panasonic LCD is what gets used for DVD picture evaluations over at AnimeOnDVD. I've seen it and it is quite good. Fill factor is very high and black levels, though still too high, are getting better. In a lit room you'd hardly notice them anyway.

As for plasma--me too thinks, "Meh." I don't give a shit if I can hang the damn thing on a wall. At plasma prices the only "cool" factor I care about is the picture. Plasma just ain't cool enough, not to my eyes anyway.

I've also yet to be impressed with real-world HD pictures as delivered over cable. Cable companies vary widely in pix quality, even within the same market area. Was in the neighborhood Ultimate Electronics last night (roommate just got his bonus and was drooling over a $1600 55" Mits which may end up in the house in a couple of weeks). The HDNet pictures they were using in the showroom just didn't satisfy. I know I'm spoiled since I regularly see HD as good as it gets--on the match monitors inside HDTV production trucks and studios. And I know that even with digital distribution there is a drop-off in pix quality between the truck and the living room. But that drop-off is still disappointly large, still too much like the analog days of NTSC and PAL. Except NTSC and PAL degrade more gracefully.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-10-2005, 01:11 PM:

I don't like the look of plasma screens. THe images look so fake with no depth. Almost like watching a coloring book on the screen. LCD looks to washed out in the black levels wich is very anoying.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-10-2005, 02:56 PM:

Michael,

What it the claimed resolution of your set in pixels....XXX-x- XXXX ? Will it do HD or near HD resoltion? I find that non-HD capable LCD sets are generally pretty crappy looking but that HD capable sets look far better and little to no pixilation or artifacts. Since you won it sell it off and get a better set. Pay for TV pogramming.... NEVER! There's plenty of good free HD programming over the airwaves for free.
__________________________

quote: Paul Mayer
In the LCD world Panasonic, Sony (their new 2k SXRD imager), and JVC seem to have a good handle on implementing the technology.

Actually I dislike the Panasonics but they are a great company with one of the best customer support operations in the industry, haven't paid attention to Sony because I dislike Sony in general.

When it comes to anything LCD the best bet to getting the best picture quality is to buy from the two giants that manufacture 95% of the LCD panels in the world and that is Samsung or Sharp. Not only do they own most of the patents but they are also going to reserve the best technology derived from their manufacturing experience for their own marketing divisions!! I have a 17" Samsung LCD HD set and Motorola micro HD tuner in my bedroom and it looks excellent, has little to no artifacts of its own and has excellent colorimetry, almost no perceptable "ghosting", or "Lag'. You have to have your eyes right up to the screen to even see the pixels. Head end artifacts that are broadcast do show up though as they will on CRT sets, especially from old HD programming made during the first year or so of HD broadcasting. Keep in mind that none of the available technology...LCD, Plasma, and DLP. The Samsung HD LCD's make even the better plasma sets look like crap!

quote: Paul Mayer
Was in the neighborhood Ultimate Electronics last night (roommate just got his bonus and was drooling over a $1600 55" Mits which may end up in the house in a couple of weeks).

Best to look at Ultimate and then buy it some place else. I've been shafted by them in regards to my Mitsubishi HD set more than once. The last time they stung me was when I took my Mits dedicated tuner to them to send to Mits for repair and I've never seen it again.... that was almost year and a half ago! I really ought to hire an attourney and go after them [Mad]

!! They offer absolutely zero customer service after the sale! Also, they are closing several stores in this area so this may also be a hint of their impending doom [thumbsup]

Hopefully!

Mark

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 04-10-2005, 03:12 PM:

On the LG.Philips LCD web site they are claiming to be the World's #1 LCD company... Yeah, right... And isn't LG supposedly the first company to come out with an LCD monitor on a refrigerator. I doubt I'll spend that much time in my kitchen.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-10-2005, 03:28 PM:

Jen,
I thought you were into the chocloate chip cookie thing by baking at home and were giving Mrs Fields a run for her chips.... You'll need one of those refridgerator tv sets won"t ya?

Actually I thought they were two different companies?? LG is a Korean company and Phillips a Dutch Company..... perhaps they were recently bought up along with MGM and UA to be folded into some closet at Sony.

Mark

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 04-10-2005, 03:33 PM:

It looks like they combined forces from the looks of this site.
http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeContain/jsp/eng/common/cmn000_j_e.jsp

Mark, I'm not much of a cook. But if I tried... I'll be living in a studio loft and have a huge Flat Screen HDTV positioned just right to be able to see from the kitchen. [Big Grin]

With surround sound BABY! Forget that little tiny 12" stuck to the frig.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 04-10-2005, 04:51 PM:

This one only has 640x480. The backlight is really uneven, and as Joe also mentioned, colors are a real problem with this one too. Well, I won it, so it cost me absolutely nothing, but I wouldn't spend anything like the about $700 it costs for it.
I also thought about ebaying it and getting a nicer CRT, but somehow that seems "wrong" to me. After all, fate decided I should have it...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-10-2005, 07:56 PM:

Yea, 680 X 480, thats poor resolution thats for sure, not as good as most laptops. Take a good look at Samsung and Sharp direct view LCD sets before you buy CRT. CRT's are actually getting obsolete...... I bought my Samsung on sale at Best Buy for just under 800 and the HD Tunner was about 250 on sale at Circuit City. I have no compalints about it and I used to work in television....... This is one panel that can easily keep up with the action in a football game!!

Also be wary of sets that have seemingly goofy image enhancement stuff built in. Too much aperature correctionm in any set can lead you into thinking that a Tv has great resolution when in reality is really doesn't. Get your self a copy of the Video Test Standard DVD if you're really fussy about pix quality.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-10-2005, 08:17 PM:

Yeah keep it Michael. You can use it as a second screen when you get something better.

FWIW Sony is growing their own LCD (SXRD) imagers now. They've also abandoned plasma displays as of this year. They've had some problems getting the yields up on their LCD production lines (don't remember if it's both the 2k and 4k lines or just the 4k), so it'll be interesting to watch how they do on these rollouts.

My roommate gets points (dollars) from Canon on printer and scanner sales through his employer, but Canon restricts where the points can be redeemed. Ultimate is on the list, Best Buy was just taken off the list. The Mits he looked at last night is a 55515 for $1800 and change which is a good price for a CRT RPTV with built-in ATSC OTA tuner, CableCard slot, and FireWire input. I've passed along the warnings about Ultimate. The salesman last night didn't know what he was talking about--tried to tell us the lamps in the LCD sets are good for 30,000 hours. [Roll Eyes]

Sounds like some theater owners I know. We'll see how this plays out.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-10-2005, 09:06 PM:

quote: Paul Mayer
The salesman last night didn't know what he was talking about--tried to tell us the lamps in the LCD sets are good for 30,000 hours.

Well, that statement is close for direct view LCD sets... about 50,000 hours.

Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-12-2005, 02:23 PM:

Kodak is licensing its NUVUE Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) technology and materials to quite a few manufacturers:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=1473/1481/1490&pq-locale=en_US

quote:
KODAK OLED Licensee Manufacturers
Kodak supplies exclusive OLED materials and expertise to the companies with which it has licensing agreements. These include:
DENSO Corp.
eMagin Corp.
Lite Array Inc.
Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd.
Opsys Ltd.
Opto Tech Corp.
OPTREX Corp.
Pioneer Electronics Corp.
Ritek Corp.
Rohm Ltd.
Samsung NEC Mobile Display Co., Ltd.
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., a Kodak joint-development partner
TDK Corp.
TECO Electric & Machinery Co., Ltd.
Truly International
Varitronix International Ltd.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 05-03-2005, 02:47 PM:

Actually Samsung is now quoting 60,000 hrs for their LCD's and for their plasma halflife.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-03-2005, 06:15 PM:

Do you have to change lamps in rear projection TVs (the kind that are self-contained, not the kind you point at a wall)?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-03-2005, 10:49 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Do you have to change lamps in rear projection TVs (the kind that are self-contained, not the kind you point at a wall)?

Although many rear screen projection televisions still use CRTs, AFAIK those that use other imagers (e.g. LCD, DLP, D-ILA)have lamps that will eventually fail or lose light output.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-11-2005, 12:26 PM:

I have a friend who swears by CRT projection, and after seeing his setup, so do I. He claims the ones made in the 1980s and designed for corporate use, then in the $15k to $25k range, can now be gotten used for 1/3rd their original high cost. And there seems to be a large number of these used units available because the corporations which were their original intended market quickly retired these projectors once the small portable LCDs and DLPs became available.

The three gun CRT projectors are big and VERY heavy; they certainly are not portable, which is a big disadvantage compared to the much smaller current crop of vidprojectors. The CRTs also had the disadvantage of having a virtually fixed image-size-to- throw-distance -- another fairly big negative for most people.

But all that aside, if you can live with these three gun monsters in your home theatre, the picture quality blows everything else out of the water, be it DLP or 3LCD. CRTs give super sharp, brilliant images, saturated colors and real, black-blacks. And from what he says, you never have to worry about what signal you feed it -- there is nothing it cannot reproduce. Because of the nature of the CRT system itself, these units will handle any HD signal up to 2500x2000 and they can produce images widths to 20ft-25ft wide.

Unfortunately they cannot compete with DLPs and 3LCDs in the brightness department. This isn't too much of a disadvantage if you intend to keep the room dark (hence "Home THEATRE," not "Home Den") and when a silver screen is used, the brightness looks just fine.

I never knew about the larger CRT projectors until my friend called me over to see his newly purchased, newely installed Sony. We watched DVD OKLAHOMA! and I was very, very impressed. I do know about CRT projection because the first thing I did when I got my first apartment, I bought what was then only in its test marketing stage, Advent's VideoBeam. It isn't the size or the resolution of these larger units, but I purchased it in 1977 and the image hasn't deteriorated at all. In all these years, I've only had to replace the green gun and a flyback transformer. Other than that it is one awesome piece of equipment. Blacks are TOTALLY black. And as Kloss told us at a demo, interlace is not a negative in and of itself, it's only when the circuitry can't line up the lines perfectly that they are a distraction. He claimed that his VideoBeam had better interlace accuracy than broadcast monitors. He was right; from 3 feet away, you cannot see any line structure at all.

Anyway, that's my take on 3 gun CRT video projectors.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-11-2005, 12:57 PM:

CRT-based projectors are undoubtedly still the leader in absolute image quality, but they require very careful setup to extract that performance. Brightness can be increased by "stacking" multiple projectors.

The thing about attaining absolute black is kind of interesting, because you rarely see absolute black or anything close to it in a movie theatre. The closest to absolute black I've seen from film was "Minority Report" which I believe was printed on Kodak Vision Premier 2393 stock. Most release prints don't come close to replicating that kind of black. Yet there's no denying that home theater components that can't do black well come off looking deficient.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-12-2005, 03:01 AM:

I was in a bar last weekend that had some kind of a big screen flat TV...might have been plasma, I don't know. Here is my question: Why are all "widescreen" TVs mounted in bars and restaurants set up to where the "ESPN" (or whatever) picture fills the wide screen from side to side, looking like a "flat" movie with the "scope" lens in? Don't these people notice that IT DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT?!

I was thinking maybe all owners of those sets were idiots, but that can't be right. (Can it?)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-12-2005, 04:08 AM:

quote:
Don't these people notice that IT DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT?!

No no, these people aren't idiots. The people you describe are called "morons". They may or may not notice it, but they don't care since they are morons. Their logic is that they paid for a wide screen, and every frame of video shown on it should fill its entire real estate, dadgummit! Certain types of TVs like plasma and rear projection have burn-in that happens within only a few minutes of any static image, so owners of those sets stretch all video in a vain attempt to avoid burn-in. But these people are still morons for having purchased those types of sets to begin with.

The population really does need to be decreased.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-12-2005, 11:44 AM:

The irony is that running a plasma in stretch mode just equalizes the burn across the entire screen. Try explaining that to someone who's just shelled out $5K+ on a plasma. [Big Grin]

I gotta concede though that the most current generation of plasmas look pretty damn good.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-21-2005, 09:19 AM:

Friend of mine has a Pioneer wide screen and it has a circuit that stretches the image as mentioned, with one exception...it doesn't stretch it linerly; the center of the screen remains normal, i.e., non-streched -- the sides of the image are gradually stretched so that they fill the 16:9 frame.

At first I was appalled than I could even have a friend who could look at a deformed image and worse yet, expect me to sit and watch it. As it turns out, it was not as offensive as I thought it would be. Most of the time the action that you are supposed to focus on is framed in the center anyway, and it looks normal. For watching sitcoms and the rest of the wasteland that is TV, it's not terrible, albeit it does give the picture a "fish-eye" look when the camera does any paning (I just make believe I am watching Dome Imax). And I guess if I bought a $5000 projection tv, I would take steps to insure that I didn't burn in the center portion of the screen. Watching a wide screen movie and seeing two discolored bars making it look like Cinerama would make me more crazy than I alread am. If doing the stretch thing for non-essential stuff I guess is a good compromise.