Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: LG brand & Plasma or LC

This is topic LG brand & Plasma or LC 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=000708

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-26-2009, 07:26 PM:

I have a friend who works for the store where I had purchased my Denon receiver that deals with quality audio products and television. I told Steve I will be buying my HD set from him very soon and told him what what kind of TV I want that has a Liquid Chystal display, 1080p, two or more HDMI inputs and a screen at least 42 inches in size. Instead of L.C. , Steve highly recommended Plasma and told me that he has a set I will be very happy with. It is the LG42PG20 and it is 720p and not 1080p and the screen size is 42 inches and has three HDMI inputs. He told me unless, I was getting a very large HD screen, I will not see any difference between 1080p and 720p and his reasoning makes sense. If not the LG brand, Steve also recommended the Pioneer 42PX80. Both of this sets sells for under $800.00 which is a price I am comfortable paying. What are your thoughts?

-Claude

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-26-2009, 08:45 PM:

Plasma has many advantages over LCD (I own LCD), including better blacks, better viewing angles, less (no?) motion blur.

But plasma has one HUGE drawback: BURN.

If you watch a lot of letterboxed or windowboxed content (vertical or horizontal black bars); or if you have FOX news or CNN on all day with their logos and text crawls, you will very likely end up with visible burned areas.

Do NOT believe anyone who tells you plasma burn is no longer a problem.

Yes, I know LCD is susceptible to image retention, but it's much less likely or severe than plasma burn, and it's potentially reversible. Plasma burn is NOT reversible. All you can do with plasma burn is equalize the burn across the entire screen.

If plasma didn't have the burn issue, I would buy a Pioneer Kuro plasma without hesitation, while they're still real Pioneer and not made by someone else who's going to slap the Kuro name on an inferior display (my expectation now that Pioneer is getting out of the TV business).

With regard to 720 vs. 1080, you can get 40"-42" 1080p LCDs with 120Hz processing for around or even less than $1000. The LG 42LG70 is an example. I gave one as an Xmas gift, paid $930 for it. Very very nice TV. If you don't care about 120Hz processing, you can pay less than that. So why even consider 720p at almost the same price.

The Samsung LN40A550 1080p LCD sold for as low as $850 here right after Xmas. Another great TV and very close to your $800 price point. (Edited to correct that Samsung model number)

[ 02-26-2009, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: David Stambaugh ]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-26-2009, 10:08 PM:

Plasma does have the advantage of true black and he may like that because of his photographic background. I doubt that he's going to use it to play video games on and almost all DVD players in existance have a screen saver. Now I do have an LCD set myself (Samsung) but you do have to get into the higher end LCD sets (1500.00 and up) to get even near the good black range that Plasma can give you... and it's still not going to be absolute black. Now don't forget that at least NTSC is not capable of absolute black anyway. Its black level begins at 7.5 IRE or 7.5% above 0 where 0 would be absolute black! There exist today broadcast monitors that are LCD based that can produce true black as well as afford a 15,000 to 1 contrast ratio. This E-Cinema monitor only costs 37K! Today E-Cinema LCD's are the top of the line in Broadcast monitors. Sony has been displaced to second... they used to be the refrence for many many years back in the CRT days with the BVM series one of which I am lucky enough to own (BVM-1310).
Some of you may find this site interesting... there is some easy to understand technical jargon there as well.
Broadcast Monitor Buying Guide
Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-26-2009, 10:50 PM:

Higher priced LCD-based televisions, such as the Series 7 and Series 8 TVs from Samsung or the XBR-series of Bravia TVs from Sony produce very good black levels -deeper than a lot of low priced plasmas.

To get very rich black levels out of a plasma TV you have to dig in your pocket pretty deep. I have not been impressed with many of the entry level plasmas. Low priced LCD TV sets have their shortcomings too.

If I was going to buy a plasma-based TV I would only consider the native 1080p Pioneer Kuro models or a certain model from Panasonic (which is also pretty expensive).

Some of the newest and most expensive LCD televisions are moving to RGB LED back lighting. The black levels are even deeper and color range is improved to cover nearly all the Adobe RGB model. The next notebook PC I buy absolutely will have a RGB LED-based display rather than the usual cold cathode fluorescent lamps. That's based on a recent experience with a dead notebook display (which was able to be repaired thanks to the generosity of a fellow F-T member who shipped me a replacement part from a decommissioned notebook).

LED technology isn't perfect. But nothing in TV technology is. The nice thing about LED back lighting, aside from the improved color and contrast handling is the longer lamp life as compared to fluorescent lamps.

We're probably at least a couple years or so from seeing OLED-based HDTV sets scale to sizes of 50" or larger and do so at price points that won't break the bank account.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-27-2009, 06:19 AM:

Agree 100% with Bobby.

I, personally, would only consider 1080p displays for sizes 42" and above. Actually, I even have a 1920x1200 display as my 24" computer monitor.

If I had to go plasma, indeed I'm VERY dissapointed (including black levels) with most offers when seen side-by-side on stores (except some which I guess could be considered "top of the line").

Still, I have seen better pictures from some LED backlit LCD's (i.e. some Samsungs) than from ANY plasma, including Pioneer Kuros, seen side-by-side.

I think LCD's have reached a point where they can be considered, GENERALLY and across the border, as "better" than plasma. A lot of people will disagree. Fine with me, but I don't concurr.

That, of course, doesn't mean that SOME plasmas are better than SOME LCD's.

So I would buy:
-1080p
-LED backlit 120hz LCD

If it doesn't fit my budget, then:
-Conventional lit 120hz LCD TV.

If it doesn't fit my budget, then:
-Traditionally lit LCD.

And only would consider plasma if it was a heck of a deal on a 1080p top-of-the-line display.

Also, generally, while being actively used, plasmas usually consume more power than most LCD's. This is no longer such a big issue, though, as plasmas today switch to low power modes when needed, so the difference is not too large (say 10/20%). Some plasmas may even use on average a bit less than some LCD's, but the opposite is usually the case.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/01/12/power-guzzling-plasmas-could-be-barred-by-eu/
[link is to an article dated Jan 2009 on how certain plasma displays could get into trouble for not meeting European Union energy conservation regulations on appliances]

Plasmas, though, are generally cheaper to manufacture in large sizes, so they still hold some advantage for sizes 50" and above. A lot of manufacturer's have stopped producing 42" plasmas and outsource them to one of the few that still produce the size.

Bottom line is that there is no longer EXTREME differences in the technologies:

-"Burn" on plasmas has reached much better levels.
-"Motion blur" on LCD's is but gone on fast-switch panels (for up to 60hz sources, like movies and TV). Except on some cheap chinese panels around, of course.
-Power consumption on plasmas has been reduced on the average to reasonable levels.
-Contrast ratio on both technologies have improved to levels that FAR surpass even cinema presentations.
-Color uniformity on LCD's is no longer a (significant) issue on all but the cheap manufacturers low-end models.
-Viewing angles on LCD's are no longer an issue for most models and most viewing conditions.
-Black levels on (dynamic lit) LCD's have reached comparable (or even generally better) levels than Plasma. I.e:

Plasma:
Pioneer Kuro PDP-5080 Plasma - 0.008fL
Panasonic TH-42PZ700U Plasma - 0.015 ftL
Samsung PN50A550 Plasma - 0.026fL
Samsung FP-T5884 Plasma - 0.029fL

LCD:
Samsung LN52A750 - 0.009fL
Mitsubishi LT-46144 LCD - 0.019fL
Samsung LN-T4671F - 0.019fL
NuVision NVU52DCM LCD - 0.024fL
Sony KDL-52XBR4 LCD - 0.032fL

In short: buy whatever you want. It's all "good enough" for the mere mortal. Audiophiles and Videophiles will never be happy with the level of perfection reached, as otherwise, there won't be anything left to talk about or new models out in the market next year [Wink]

Other technologies such as OLED or FED won't happen at large sizes for quite some time, so no point in worrying about them for another 2 years. And even then, only if your pockets are deep enough.

LG/Philips (now LG displays) is one of largest manufactures of LCD panels in the world, with some years being number 1, some years number 2, behind another korean manufacturer, Samsung. Between them, they make 50% of all LCD's panels in the world (aprox. 25% each).

And as you may already know, a lot of manufacturers buy the main component (i.e. panel, backlight, driver) of a lot of their models from other manufacturers.

Thus, i.e, you see Sony TV's with Sharp's panels or Pioneer sourcing some of their plasmas from Panasonic (Pioneer announced recently a TOTAL withdraw from the TV market, though). It's all a lottery and no longer a brand name guarantees good or bad. See it for yourself, compare side-by-side, and make the decission.

I also don't trust a lot of media reviews. Based on those, my parents bought a very (very) expensive Sony 46" LCD summer before last and I can assure you I couldn't believe (I still can not believe) how crappy it is with such incredible good reviews on "the press". The video processor produces so many artifacts with all sources that it is almost unbearable to me (no, it can't be completely turned off). Illumination uniformity is a joke. Switching speed is awful. Convinience like auto-size adjustment are non-existant. Granted it's almost 2 years old and since then things' gotten much better, but for that price, it was downright robbery based on brand-name and (dubious) reviews. My daughter's 42" philips is much better. Even my bedroom's 39" $750 Philips is better.

So be careful. Expensive and/or good reviews doesn't always mean good or, at least, not worth the price.

[ 02-27-2009, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-27-2009, 08:14 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
aside from the improved color and contrast handling is the longer lamp life as compared to fluorescent lamps.

That remains to be seen! Just ask any technician that has worked with high power leds! Althogh LEDs have gotten better they still suffer from a given characteristic fade rate... no way around it for now. Discharge type back lights are in most cases replacable and quite inexpensive. The real reason for going to LED is to dynamically control the contrast ratio, eliminate the mercury aspect that discharge lamps have in them, attempting to reduce power consumption. Flat panel TV's are actually fairly power hungry, almost as bad as many old tube type TVs are.

quote: Julio Roberto
And only would consider plasma if it was a heck of a deal on a 1080p top-of-the-line display.

Thats exactly whats happenning right now since plasma is on it's way out. Costco has great deals on 1080p Panasonic plasmas in several sizes. Personally, I never read media reviews myself... they are almost always ony subjective anyway. While reviews of broadcast equipment are often backed up with hard data...

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-27-2009, 09:15 AM:

quote:
That remains to be seen! Just ask any technician that has worked with high power leds!

I work them all the time in my job. Electronic variable message centers and electronic billboards rely on LEDs exclusively now. The LEDs themselves are, by far, the most reliable components on those systems.

When a driver board (one of the LED tiles in the sign) goes bad it's almost always something else that has failed in that component. If the fade issue was as bad as you're suggesting, every LED billboard and message center in existence would never be able to maintain any consistent level of contrast and color across those tiles.

LEDs may indeed fade, but the rate of fade over a period of several years is only going to be noticeable or bad if the cheapest, no name types of LEDs are used. Nevertheless, TV manufacturers going the route of LED back-lighting need to design their monitors so those LED components can be replaced if something fails.

Fluorescent lamps also fade over time and can even change color characteristics. Look closely at the quality of interior lighting of some outdoor pylon signs. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between a business who has only been replacing one bad lamp at a time versus a business who paid a bit extra to get his sign completely re-lamped.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 02-27-2009, 11:16 AM:

I helped my brother-in-law install a Samsung LN40A650 40" LCD back in November, and I was quite impressed with the picture quality and range of features. We compared it against Sony's V and Z series and went with the Samsung because of the price and aesthetics.

Once I took a few minutes to calibrate the settings, OTA HD and Blu-ray content looked great! I would hesitate to purchase one for myself if I didn't already have an HD set in my living room.

If money were not as big a deal as it always seems to be for me, I would buy a Kuro plasma or like unit. Low-end plasmas tend to suck pretty badly, so for an equivalent price, I've usually seen LCD's that look better, esp. in the $1000 - $1500 range.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-27-2009, 02:21 PM:

With the exception of David who had alerted me to the 'Burn In" problem attributed to Plasma panels, no one so far has answered the question I had asked regarding the Plasma LG and Panasonic models that was recommended to me by my friend. I am very grateful to all of you and your responses but I am now more confused then ever with many of your comments . As a professional image maker for almost forty five years, I have been very impressed with the various HD sets I have seen at Best Buy, Costco and the soon to be defunct Circuit City at various price levels. Because of the excellent picture quality I have seen on displays costing as little as $600.00, I can see no reason to spend thousands of dollars on HD now when I have other financial priorities. I have decided that a forty two inch screen will be just right for the room I watch my movies on BD, DVD and regular television. Beside the screen size, amount of HDMI inputs, name brand /warranty service and price are the main considering factor. So far, I have seen sets that cost between $700.00 and $900.00 that interest me by LG, Panasonic, Samsung, Toshiba and Sony and with the exception of the LG, all have 1080p with a Liquid Crystal display. I was also impressed with some Vizeo sets but my friend told me to not even consider that brand because of the lack of service support in the United States. Is that true?

-Claude

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-27-2009, 02:52 PM:

Again Claude, I would never buy a set that is not 1080P... ever! If I had a choice of the two I'd go for the Panasonic... They have one of the best plasma sets on the market but the Pioneer would be better but far more expensive. I also recocmend spending the extra 79 bucks or what ever for the extended warranty. I;m sorry I didn't back when I bought my Olevia... I did when I bought my Samsung. They are also much easier when it comes to warranty repair, service, and parts. I worked for them as a bench tech for over 5 years and they are a really good company.

Bobby, You'd have to work with LEDs as a technician not as a sign designer! LEDs all have a built in fade rate... it's different for different LEDs but none the less it's there. Just ask any LED manfacturer... The curve of the fade rates are also different for different devices but high power devices always fade faster then low powered devices.

Mark

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-27-2009, 03:52 PM:

Mark,
Based on all of the excellent sets I have seen at the stores I had mentioned in my previous post that are 1080p/Liquid Crystal sets that are in the price range I am willing to spend I can see no advantage in getting anything less. My friend did make a convincing argument why I should consider the 720p Plasma but I now agree with your feeling about not getting anything less then a 1080p display.

-Claude

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-27-2009, 03:53 PM:

Claude,

I have no personal experience with Vizio, but here is an article about them:

http://news.cnet.com/The-secret-of-Vizios-success/2100-1041_3-6203488.html

quote:
Additionally, Vizio tries to project itself as the company that can provide better and more personal service. TVs are packaged with poster-size service guides. It also offers free in-home support during the warranty period and a "no bright pixel" guarantee for the life of the product for many TVs. Bright pixels are faulty pixels that become a pinpoint of light on a TV's display.

To summarize my position: buy whatever TV you like, but do make it 1080p. Just about any 42" today is a good buy, but you are more likely to find a cheap-ish one that is good on LCD than plasma.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-27-2009, 05:33 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Steve highly recommended Plasma and told me that he has a set I will be very happy with.

Well Claude I can't answer your question but I can translate that from Retailer to English for you.

What he means is, he has a back room full of Plasmas he can't sell and/or he gets a higher commission on the brand he's recommended. It's one or the other. Nobody in a large retail establishment will ever recommend "what you want" when they have a stack of items they "need to move."

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-27-2009, 06:13 PM:

Mike,

Steve Soon and I go way back and he is a true friend who has done a lot for me in the past. Our relationship is much more than a commercial one and I trust him with his recommendation but my final decision when I buy a HD set will be based on evaluating all of the information you have all been providing here at FT and my personal observation of the high definition television set that interests me at the stores. I know for sure, it has to be 1080p.

-Claude

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-27-2009, 10:39 PM:

quote:
Bobby, You'd have to work with LEDs as a technician not as a sign designer!

Mark, my expertise on working with LEDs (with how they relate to electronic variable message centers) is quite high. I can pull the guts out of a "jumbotron" and fix what's wrong with it. There's a lot of complicated daisy-chained crap in those devices -and that doesn't even get into the controller(s) making it all come together. I can also design some kick ass graphics to animate on the things. I train end users how to get the most out of the things. The only thing I lack is the manufacturing capacity to make the LED parts themselves. You don't manufacture LEDs in your day job or deal with LEDs on the sort of large scale that I do.

You're also on very shaky ground if you want to insist that a fluorescent lamp is going to be more reliable than a RGB LED cluster on maintaining consistent brightness and color temperature levels over a set period of time. CCFLs are not as good as you think.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-28-2009, 10:07 PM:

Something else Mark stated above needs correcting:

quote:
Now don't forget that at least NTSC is not capable of absolute black anyway. Its black level begins at 7.5 IRE or 7.5% above 0 where 0 would be absolute black!

Wrong. Even though the US version of NTSC uses setup to put picture black at 7.5 IRE, the match monitors are set for light cutoff while displaying 7.5 IRE. That way when the signal level is at 7.5 IRE the monitor is displaying true black. That's the SMPTE standard that is used in all high-end production - 7.5 IRE = cutoff. And cutoff is judged in a totally blacked-out room too - no ambient light in the room (some of the west coast video guys I worked with went so far as to black out all the equipment pilot lights and match-switcher button lights to ensure that the match room was as dark as possible).

Over the years I've seen a few guys try to set up monitors so that they displayed a visible raster when displaying 7.5 IRE, but that is not the standard used in high-quality network-level production.

At my home monitor black level becomes an issue when I need to look at Japanese NTSC, which is often. In Japan, NTSC picture black occurs at 0 IRE - they do not use setup. When displaying Japanese NTSC on a monitor calibrated to the US standard, the blacks become too dark and end up looking crushed. The solution is to raise the monitor brightness level so that light cutoff occurs when displaying 0 IRE instead of 7.5 IRE.

These days, I watch mostly Japanese-produced material, so I tend to leave the monitors set for cutoff at 0 IRE, and settle for raised black levels when watching US-produced stuff. Of course if I need to view pictures critically, I'll reset the monitor black levels accordingly.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-01-2009, 08:19 AM:

Paul,
You're absolutely correct that 7.5 is refrence black and monitors are set that way however the actual signal transmitted is still not true black when it is at 7.5 and that was my point... The Japanese did do it right and we could have also done it that way. In theory this gives the Japanese system more contrast range than ours is capable of. I've always wondered why it is that we also did not use true 0 IRE for black level? Doing so doesn't cause any transmission related problems nor can signal processing chains not handle true 0 level....

And for Bobby... From the most basic info(Wikipedia)on LEDs I could rummage up! You will find on each manufacturers specifications of a particuluar LED the L75 and L50 spec. When we spec'd our own relacement LED for the DTS Timecode reader we went for the longest time to L75 since below that much you then fall below the ability to set the reader to the required level 4 volt level. We also see degradation over say an average 7 year period in the USL hearing departed units which utilize an array of IR LEDs. Once the IR LEDs have faded below a certain level the receiver is no longer able to pick up sufficient light level to operate. So in your signs one can assume that you operate you LEDs well within their maximum current. However in your area hot weather may actually effect your LEDs more than any other factor while winter months will prolong their life span. Either way over time you're still going to have a measurable amount of fade.

From Wikipedia:

"Solid state devices such as LEDs are subject to very limited wear and tear if operated at low currents and at low temperatures. Many of the LEDs produced in the 1970s and 1980s are still in service today. Typical lifetimes quoted are 25000 to 100000 hours but heat and current settings can extend or shorten this time significantly. [19]

The most common way for LEDs (and diode lasers) to fail is the gradual lowering of light output and loss of efficiency. Sudden failures, however rare, can occur as well. Early red LEDs were notable for their short lifetime. With the development of high power LEDs the devices are subjected to higher junction temperatures and higher current densities than traditional devices. This causes stress on the material and may cause early light output degradation. To quantitatively classify lifetime in a standardized manner it has been suggested to use the terms L75 and L50 which is the time it will take a given LED to reach 75% and 50% light output respectively."

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-01-2009, 12:28 PM:

There's two very simple things you're not factoring into your negative opinion of replacing CCFLs with LEDs in LCD-based HDTV sets:

1.: LED technology has improved radically over the last 10 years. Outdoor rated, high intensity LEDs didn't see commercial use until the mid 1990s.

2.: CCFLs aren't going to do as well as LEDs in terms of performance and maintenance. CCFLs do fade and can even get sickly yellow before they fail. On average CCFLs won't last nearly as long as LEDs.

If RGB LED back-lighting was such a flawed technology it wouldn't be featured at all in any HDTV sets at this time. Computer manufacturers like Apple and Dell would not be featuring it in their best monitors and notebooks.

I would only be worried about HDTV manufacturers using LEDs if they wrongly chose to use white LEDs instead of RGB clusters. A white LED is really an over-driven blue LED and because it's over-driven it will have a significantly shorter rated life span.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-01-2009, 01:38 PM:

Bobby,
You need to learn how to read. I'm not comparing CCFL's to LED's only stating the true fact that LEDs have a given fade rate. No matter how good or long of life thay claim the fade rate is inherent in the beast itself.

Mark

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 03-01-2009, 02:59 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I've always wondered why it is that we also did not use true 0 IRE for black level? Doing so doesn't cause any transmission related problems nor can signal processing chains not handle true 0 level....

oooooh ooooh ooooh wait a minute wait a minute . . . I know this one . . .

searching memory . . . searching memory . . .

So in NTSC, the DC level was established by a clamping circuit, and the reference for the circuit was that the DC sync pulse level was always at a fixed distance (40 ire) from the blanking signal. So the idea was that if black level was at 0 ire, then there was a chance that there could be a low-level video excursion beneath blanking and into sync, which would cause the clamping circuit to lose reference and collapse the image. So the so-called pedestal level was set at 7.5 ire to give the video some breathing room and avoid that happening.

At least that's how I remember it. How does NTSC-J get away with it? Beats me.

*******

Claude, or anyone else thinking of buying an LCD set: a piece of advice I always give people in your situation. When you are at your local electronics dealer, and you have in mind a set you want to buy, always ask for the remote control. Punch the "menu" and "video settings" buttons, and see what adjustments you can make manually. Try to find a set that will allow you to vary the intensity of the backlight, and make at least some colorimetry adjustments, RGB gain/bias and the like. I've found that by changing the level of the backlight and playing with the picture and brightness controls, you can arrive at a much more pleasing contrast level. On my Sony XBR5 LCD, which I only LOVE, I brought the backlight intensity way down and the contrast up a ways, and got a picture that was, to my eye, much more viewable then the one it had out of the box. Additionaly, being able to establish custom color settings (which not all sets do) will add to your pleasure over the long haul.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-01-2009, 04:04 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I'm not comparing CCFL's to LED's only stating the true fact that LEDs have a given fade rate.

Bullshit. Otherwise your comments about LEDs would have no purpose other than to act rude and argue.

Obviously you prefer HDTV sets to stick with current technologies rather than progress to something different, like using RGB LED clusters. Let's have some proof on why the old ways are better. If not, move onto another discussion and stop acting like an asshole.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-01-2009, 09:02 PM:

I'll post it again. The only mention I made of CCFLs was this...

"Discharge type back lights are in most cases replacable and quite inexpensive."
Now what I say in that line is very true! Perhaps you can explain how I'm arguing in that line that CCFLs are something thats competitive with LED's. Please note again that 99.8% of my whole discussion other than the above line has been on the fade rate of LEDs????

Now you have me laughing my head off!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-01-2009, 09:49 PM:

Mark, you are an idiot and a troll. You loser bastard.

LEDs are actually cheaper than fluorescent lamps. Your pissy little theatrics about the terrible nature of LEDs is serving nothing. Once again, you're pathetically doing nothing more than looking for a fight and looking like an asshole jerk in the process.

By the way, I got a great laugh out of how Tim Reed put the beat down on your ass a few days ago. I notice you didn't respond to him at all on what he said, mainly since it cut just a little too close to the bone. You may think you can have some fun screwing around with me, but I sure as hell won't be exchanging any funds with you. Verbal jabbing is the only thing I'm putting at stake with someone like you. And that amounts to nothing. No loss to me. Ha ha.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-03-2009, 03:43 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
stop acting like an asshole.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
you need to learn how to read.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Mark, you are an idiot and a troll. You loser bastard.

A guy would think professionals should be able to communicate without resorting to this kind of thing.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-03-2009, 09:08 PM:

I agree Mike. But there are also some here who are obviously not professionals and we have to give them some leeway at times. Lets see Mike... Didn't I replace your analog LED last time I was up because it had faded and we couldn't make Dolby Level?

quote: Mark Ogden
So in NTSC, the DC level was established by a clamping circuit, and the reference for the circuit was that the DC sync pulse level was always at a fixed distance (40 ire) from the blanking signal. So the idea was that if black level was at 0 ire, then there was a chance that there could be a low-level video excursion beneath blanking and into sync, which would cause the clamping circuit to lose reference and collapse the image. So the so-called pedestal level was set at 7.5 ire to give the video some breathing room and avoid that happening.

Mark, I'm aware of all this BS. And its really just NTSC BS from many years ago. Circuits could easily have been developed to keep video from having excursions down into the sync area... there are also other signals in that sync area too... VITS among them. The Japanese did it right in my opinion and didn't have any problems of the sort with video going below zero level. Now have you ever seen the a video signal as it goes through the modulator stages at the transmitter??/ Because of non linearities inherent in the driver stages and finals the signal is sometimes grossly pre-distorted to compensate. This is the only place I could see they may run into problems. Still our Japaneese friends figured out how to do it....

Mark

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 03-03-2009, 09:58 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
there are also other signals in that sync area too... VITS among them.

Naw, that's not really true. VITS, or VIR, whatever you want to call it, is outside of sync. Remember that vertical sync ends with an equalizing pulse on line 9. Anything after that is technically fair game for modulation, it's just that it's traditionally blanked until line 21. VITS is on line 19. Time code usually starts on line 12.

Look, I was still swimming in my father's balls when all this rubbish got decided. I'm not defending it, and I'm happy it's going. But that's just the way it worked. Hell, if the company I work for had it's way back then, your TV would have had a motor and a big spinning disc in it. Probably would have looked better, too.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-03-2009, 10:46 PM:

I agree, thats why I labeled it NTSC BS. Actually a museum in Ohio has a spinning disk CBS set that is in working condition! I guess this country always has to be first at stuff... then another bright country comes along and perfects what we started to do...

Mark

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-03-2009, 11:12 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I agree Mike. But there are also some here who are obviously not professionals and we have to give them some leeway at times.

Uhh... you do realize he was saying that your "you need to learn how to read" comment wasn't acting professionally, do you not?

Sure, Bobby wasn't being nice in how he said things to you but it would seem like you somehow think you were taking the high road by saying he's illiterate.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-04-2009, 09:23 AM:

Chris,

Actually Mike does know that I do know how to read... you forget that he is one of my customers.

As for Bobby... I quit reading 99% of his posts several years ago. They are always too long winded and generally don't have any pertinance to anything that goes on around this site. I do read posts by people in the know like Steve G., Brad, Sam Chavez, Gord, Julio, and several others that can speak from practical experience.

As for Bobby's language... I grew up around the Chicago area and am quite used to it. However I can say that hearing it as much as I did while growing up was the best example for me not to use it in daily life. Seems people like that are trying to show off their masculinity or some other aspect of their being that normally doesn't come though very well... What ever! Or its possible that Bobby is carrying around alot of signage from years past... who cares! At any rate it does make me laugh today that people still think they have to communicate this way, its very primitive indeed.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-04-2009, 11:08 AM:

Mark,

Stop trying to act like you're taking some sort of high road. You're routinely rude in your posts and it's pretty obvious you get off on that sort of thing. You lack the ability to stay focused on the discussion and prefer to belittle what others say and twist it into personal attacks if they're not walking lock-step in agreement with your opinion. The volumes of bile you spewed with your support of HD-DVD is proof of that.

It's refreshing to see those tactics blow up in your face, like how Tim Reed responded to your personal insults against him a few days ago. I'd rather be known for being a sign designer than a cheat or fraud. I notice you still haven't responded to what Tim said.

Now, we were talking about fluorescent lamps and LEDs. Despite your obvious lack of respect for my job, I deal with both of those technologies a lot more than you do. You can only pull crap off Wikipedia while I'm going by work experience.

You're holding onto this notion about how LEDs are terrible because they can possibly fade a little after a few years. Instead of acknowledging CCFLs and plasma technology has even worse limitations you just resort to getting rude like you usually do.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
As for Bobby... I quit reading 99% of his posts several years ago.

You sure respond to a lot more than 1% of them.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-04-2009, 11:17 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Lets see Mike... Didn't I replace your analog LED last time I was up because it had faded and we couldn't make Dolby Level?

As a matter of fact, you did. And, I had to replace about 10 banks of LED lights in our seats recently because they had faded and/or gone completely out. I don't know anything about LEDs and this foregoing discussion about them is obviously completely over my head, but when they first came onto the scene it was a fairly common assumption that LEDs would last tens of thousands of hours in applications such as aisle lights. But that's clearly not always the case.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-04-2009, 11:52 AM:

Bobby,
All I am trying to do is state a fact that all LEDs have a fade rate this is also taken into account in the MTBF spec for a given part or LED. An LED may indeed still light up but if the output of it is compared to the MTBF spec you may find that below a certain level it is considered dead. What is so difficult about understanding that? As far as CCFL vs. LED goes I wouldn't know and I made no such direct comparison of the two. If I did please post it in quotes for me to read. In reality its way too early in the game to know how long LED backlit screens will actually last. I bet though they are more expensive to replace... they are quite a bit more expensive to buy. The only advantages I see of CCFL is they are inexpensive, they are a prooven long lasting technology, they are inexpensive to replace although not all of them can be replaced. CCFL's are toxic to dispose of because of the mercury and phosphor contained within but then disposing of alot of LEDs may also present some toxic hazards as well. Only time will tell on LEDs used for as backlights.

Mike... Didn't know you had aisle light going out... Too high of voltage on them can cause premature failure. We can check the fully loaded voltage when I'm there.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-04-2009, 12:01 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I don't know anything about LEDs and this foregoing discussion about them is obviously completely over my head, but when they first came onto the scene it was a fairly common assumption that LEDs would last tens of thousands of hours in applications such as aisle lights. But that's clearly not always the case.

Not all LEDs are created equal. The best quality LEDs, from companies like GE, are rated to last 100,000 hours at full brightness -basically 24 hours a day for over 11 years.

There is a glut of cheap LEDs mainly from China flooding the market, particularly in border lighting products for building interiors and exteriors. You have to be careful which products to choose.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-04-2009, 12:23 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Actually Mike does know that I do know how to read... you forget that he is one of my customers.

Where did I forget that he's one of your customers? And I wasn't at all saying you don't know how to read, or maybe since you misread my post completely, you do? [Wink]

See, I was saying that Mike called both of your actions unprofessional while you responded that the reason this happened is that Bobby isn't professional, thereby acting like none of the behavior was your fault.

And the fact that he's one of your customers only furthers my point. Someone you don't work closely with, complaining to about your behavior doesn't tend to hold as much weight as someone who knows you fairly well.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-04-2009, 01:12 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The best quality LEDs, from companies like GE, are rated to last 100,000 hours at full brightness -basically 24 hours a day for over 11 years.

OK, this is not a hostile challenge. I'm just asking nicely...

Is there a source you can refer us to for that statement? I ask because I've never heard of any claims for LEDs to last that long (not that I'm an expert). I do see lots of references to numbers like 5 years and/or 50,000 hours. Even in traffic light applications, where lives are arguably at stake, I don't see claims of 100,000 hours. [Confused]

Maybe it's there and I'm just not seeing it. I do frequently see references to 5 years of continuous service for consumer appliances like LED-based LCD TVs (like the Samsung 950). Even then it's assumed that after that much time the LED brightness will have gradually deteriorated to around 50% of its original rating (brightness halflife).

GE Signage LED Products

GE Traffic Signal LED Products

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-04-2009, 02:40 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
See, I was saying that Mike called both of your actions unprofessional while you responded that the reason this happened is that Bobby isn't professional, thereby acting like none of the behavior was your fault.

In my post, I originally had just the two examples of Bobby spewing profanity but then I thought it made the post read better if I showed that it was an argument.

I like a well-placed profanity just as well as anyone, in fact sometimes they're downright necessary to make a point (or get a laugh). My point was that it shouldn't be necessary to use that kind of language in a discussion between two smart people. Never mind that it's becoming the "norm" in today's society....that doesn't make it a good thing.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-04-2009, 03:19 PM:

quote: David Stambaugh
Is there a source you can refer us to for that statement? I ask because I've never heard of any claims for LEDs to last that long (not that I'm an expert).

100,000 hour claims have been common on many product spec sheets for things like electronic variable message centers not that all of those claims are correct. Do a Google search for "100,000 hour LED" and you'll find all sorts of stuff like this recent article about Gallium Nitride based LEDs.

Manufacturers like GE feel safer using the 50,000 hour claim from a liability standpoint while companies like Phillips will show higher lifetime claims like 70,000 and 80,000 hours with some clarification. They define an LED as having failed when it dims to 70% of its original light output. Others using 100,000 claims may simply using the criteria of whether the LED still lights up at all.

Also bear in mind, these companies sell a lot of white LEDs. Those are really over-driven blue LEDs and won't have nearly the same life span as a RGB cluster of LEDs. I'm scratching my head about the design of Apple's new 17" MacBook Pro, whose screen is back-lit with white LEDs and features a battery you can't remove. The battery thing scares me more than that white LEDs in the computer screen.

Even a claim of 50,000 hours is pretty impressive. That's close to 6 years of 24 hour per day operation. Who's going to do that with their TV set or computer display? Divided down to 8 or 12 hour per day usage levels you'll still get past a decade of life span.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-04-2009, 04:21 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Who's going to do that with their TV set or computer display? Divided down to 8 or 12 hour per day usage levels you'll still get past a decade of life span.

Movie theaters for sure. They can pile the hours on stuff very rapidly with 12 to 14 hour days 7 days a week and stuff is sometimes run at extremes. I have changed about a half dozen LEDs in theater equipment this week alone... DTS readers, and Dolby LEDs mostly.

Mark

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-05-2009, 12:10 AM:

I knew if I waited long enough this thread would take a turn toward civility.

Can we all put this one to bed while it's back on a high note?

There does not seem to be much left to debate except the fade rate of LEDs and who is going to wait around for five years or more to be proved correct?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-06-2009, 08:23 PM:

I think after all of that heated debate, I think it would be better if we get back to the original topic I had started. Since I originated the thread, I have continued to look at more HD sets at stores like Best Buy and Costco. There is a very nice forty inch Toshiba (#405-300) at Costco with a $850.00 price tag and it is a full 1080p LCD set. It has three HDMI inputs and many other features that sound great. The picture quality is gorgeous. Does anyone know much about Toshiba HD sets, especially this model?

-Claude

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-07-2009, 12:17 AM:

I was at Costco today and saw the new Vizio 55" LCD 120hz model. I could definitely tell the difference between the 60hz one and this one, but while I was watching it, I noticed how "loose" the image was and in some places it looked sped up when it shouldn't be. Anyone else notice this?

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 03-07-2009, 01:50 PM:

Most new TVs have a "feature" that makes stuff shot on film look like video. It's somewhat amusing in the same way as playing a record at the wrong speed. Fortunately you can turn it off, though they seem to default to on out of the box.

BTW, how the hell can you tell if a set is capable of displaying PAL? I'm gonna have to bring in a PAL-capable DVD player and a test disc to the stores when I'm ready to buy my new TV. Some will display it with no conversion, but others like Samsung give you a "Format not supported" message.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-07-2009, 08:50 PM:

I believe it's called 2-3 pull down... many also have a 24P cinema setting on them to mimik what 24 fps is like.

Mark

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-07-2009, 11:12 PM:

For Jesse, that's the way I went - a cheap PAL-capable DVD player, which also can play any or all regions (the main reason I bought the thing). Even though it was cheap it makes a reasonable picture on my 20" monitor, and is minimally acceptable on projected images up to about 8' wide (if you sit back far enough and aren't too picky). The thing (a CyberHome) cost all of about $60 at Best Buy in 2001 and is still going strong. It's the last DVD player I'll ever buy.

For Claude, I am still a fan of Samsung, after getting to watch my old roommate's 50" LCD projection LED set for several months.
Was a steal at $1100 during blowouts at Costco and on-line last year. Of course self-contained projection is pretty much a thing of the past now.

Still not quite ready to jump into Blu-ray, mostly because that will require a substantial upgrade in the rest of my sound system (especially the receiver or pre-pro) to do justice to the new audio formats now available. Just not ready for that yet.

Maybe after my performance review at the airline next month - we'll see if they give me a raise or fire me.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-17-2009, 06:53 PM:

I found a smoking deal on a top of the line projector, a Pioneer Kuro FPJ1... thankfully the economy has made some high end items somewhat obtainable.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 03-17-2009, 09:36 PM:

quote: Mike Heenan
a Pioneer Kuro FPJ1

Grab it while you can, as Pioneer is closing down all of its product lines except car electronics and pro DJ gear and there will be no future models of any of their home theater products nor anything video related past the end of the year.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-17-2009, 10:09 PM:

They're getting out of home electronics altogether? I heard it was just TV products.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-17-2009, 11:10 PM:

Pioneer is getting out of DVD and Blu-ray players as well. They totally screwed the pooch on getting the BD product line. Companies like Panasonic and Sony are rolling out BD Live players for $300 and under and all Pioneer can do is vomit out a limited Bonus View player for $700? It's obvious a few executives there need to be written up or perhaps even fired.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 03-17-2009, 11:11 PM:

Yup, yer right, I stand corrected. Display devices are out. Remaining: Home audio, car electronics, DJ, cable boxes (!).

The Master Plan for Pioneer.