Team-BHP - View Single Post

reignofchaos · 19th April 2008, 12:42

^^Its a fallacy to compare plasma and LCD resolutions simply by the number of dots. First of all you won't be able to see individual pixels from 8-10 feet which according to you is the viewing distance. The apparent resolution of LCDs is signficantly lower than 1920x1080 at viewing distance because of motion blur. Because of this the apparent resolution drops significantly as the individual pixels can't change fast enough. There are techniques to improve the response time such as Overdrive. However overdrive leads to a perceptible loss in image sharpness. Plasmas have no such issues with response times as their response time is virtually zero.

The S-IPS panels are a bit better in this regard. The S-PVA panels that Sony sources from samsung are absolutely terrible in terms of response times. In addition most of these have input lag which absolutely kills the experience when playing an XBOX or a PS game on the panel. There's nothing much different between these LCD TVs and high end LCD displays used for computers. The good thing about high end computer monitors is that they typically have an option to turn off overdrive when working on completely static screens. I'm not sure if televisions allow the same. Please note I'm talking about high end monitors based upon IPS or MVA/PVA panels and not the el cheapo TN panels which have flooded the market now. *VA panels were always classified as slow even for computer applications so its a shame that they are now being put into LCD TVs which will only aggravate the issue.

Coming to the contrast ratio, the whole deal about dynamic contrast is a scam created by lcd marketeers to beat plasmas on paper. Dynamic contrast doesn't work half the time or creates unnatural hues and skin tones. While an LCD can claim a contrast ratio of 20000:1 only on the basis of dynamic contrast, their real contrast ratio is not more than 2000:1 or 3000:1 at max. The plasmas have a native contrast ratio of atleast 10000:1 and the latest generation has a 20000:1 contrast ratio. They don't even need the cheap tricks of dynamic contrast. Add to this the color gamut. LCDs are typically limited to 8 bits per pixel or at max 10 bits per pixel in the newer panels. Plasmas on the other hand have a color gamut of 12bits per pixel or more. Thats an order of magnitude higher than the best that LCDs can do.

Add to all this the massive issues that LCDs face when scaling from a non native resolution. Its just completely unacceptable how poor the image quality is at anything other than their native resolution. People now have 1080p TVs but where is the content?

Bottomline is that LCDs are great as computer displays. I don't discount that fact. However as a TV, they don't hold a candle to plasmas.

19th April 2008, 12:42	#981 (permalink)
reignofchaos Senior - BHPian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Bangalore Posts: 1,041	^^Its a fallacy to compare plasma and LCD resolutions simply by the number of dots. First of all you won't be able to see individual pixels from 8-10 feet which according to you is the viewing distance. The apparent resolution of LCDs is signficantly lower than 1920x1080 at viewing distance because of motion blur. Because of this the apparent resolution drops significantly as the individual pixels can't change fast enough. There are techniques to improve the response time such as Overdrive. However overdrive leads to a perceptible loss in image sharpness. Plasmas have no such issues with response times as their response time is virtually zero. The S-IPS panels are a bit better in this regard. The S-PVA panels that Sony sources from samsung are absolutely terrible in terms of response times. In addition most of these have input lag which absolutely kills the experience when playing an XBOX or a PS game on the panel. There's nothing much different between these LCD TVs and high end LCD displays used for computers. The good thing about high end computer monitors is that they typically have an option to turn off overdrive when working on completely static screens. I'm not sure if televisions allow the same. Please note I'm talking about high end monitors based upon IPS or MVA/PVA panels and not the el cheapo TN panels which have flooded the market now. VA panels were always classified as slow even for computer applications so its a shame that they are now being put into LCD TVs which will only aggravate the issue. Coming to the contrast ratio, the whole deal about dynamic contrast is a scam created by lcd marketeers to beat plasmas on paper. Dynamic contrast doesn't work half the time or creates unnatural hues and skin tones. While an LCD can claim a contrast ratio of 20000:1 only on the basis of dynamic contrast, their real contrast ratio is not more than 2000:1 or 3000:1 at max. The plasmas have a native contrast ratio of atleast 10000:1 and the latest generation has a 20000:1 contrast ratio. They don't even need the cheap tricks of dynamic contrast. Add to this the color gamut. LCDs are typically limited to 8 bits per pixel or at max 10 bits per pixel in the newer panels. Plasmas on the other hand have a color gamut of 12bits per pixel or more. Thats an order of magnitude higher than the best that LCDs can do. Add to all this the massive issues that LCDs face when scaling from a non native resolution. Its just completely unacceptable how poor the image quality is at anything other than their native resolution. People now have 1080p TVs but where is the content? Bottomline is that LCDs are great as computer displays. I don't discount that fact. However as a TV, they don't hold a candle to plasmas. Last edited by reignofchaos : 19th April 2008 at 12:57.*