So? Does that make him immune from myths?
Who did?
So you think printing produces better images than an LCD or CRT then? You think a pro knows what they look like on an lcd even though he refuses to use one?
You might say that, I would stick with what I said before. The camera and microphone have nothing at all to do with the display device.
No, have you been drivel in a another life?
Who said he refuses to use one?
Would that that were true ... All flat screens, no matter whether LCD or plasma, and no matter what they cost, or who makes them, suffer from motion artifacts, due to lag in the panel, and digital processing times. These effects are exacerbated by the speed of the motion, and when the set is working in a non-native resolution i.e. at 'standard' transmission resolution, rather than HD.
There *are* flat screens where these issues have been addressed, and which are very much better than others, and that is a cost issue but, seeing these things all the time in the course of my daily work, IMHO they still can't hold a candle to even a cheap-priced CRT set working on a good signal, and for that reason alone, I won't be trading my large-screen CRT Tosh for a flatscreen, anytime soon. :-)
Arfa
OLEDs are unlikely to be a practical proposition for large screens, although they are very good on small screens, such as may well be fitted to your mobile phone.
The big technology leap for large screens will likely be SEDs (surface emitter devices). These flat screens already exist, and are able to be manufactured in large sizes, but I seem to recall reading that the reason that we are not yet seeing them in commercially available sets, is due to some kind of legal pissing contest that the manufacturers have embroiled themselves in.
SED elements are like micro-miniature CRTs, which emit light, like plasma elements, but unlike LCD elements which are back-light transmissive. They do not, however, require to be pre-charged, struck, and sustained like plasma elements, hence they do not suffer motion lag, in the same way that CRTs don't. If they manage to get the manufacturing issues out of the way, it is my opinion that they will quickly knock both LCD and plasma, right off the market, in the same way that DVDR spelt the end for VCR, and now, relatively quickly, HDDR is replacing DVDR for time shift recording.
Arfa
Depends on the OLED. Ultimatley its not much different in manufacture than an LCD.
Actually all SCREENS.
Phopshor persistience..speed of scan,. is nothing perfect?
Same goes for CRT of course.
Digital TV is far far worse than analogue TV, than LCD is to CRT.
Of course it depends on the CRT quality too. Some don't have enough DPI - some have the wrong phosphors.
Before I bought my DLP rear projector I was intending buying a Loewe due to having seen one at a friend's and being impressed. It was a 32" widescreen CRT. I wanted a larger one and intended getting their 36" model
- but it was nothing like as sharp, and had poorer reds, which effected the flesh tones badly. I've a feeling they'd bought in the tube from a different maker to the smaller one.
Are you suggesting that modern crt TVs don't use digital processing? Of course they do - with the resultant side effects of artifacts etc.
Everyone to their own of course - but I *am* someone who has always been very fussy about picture quality (I can remember driving TV engineers mad with my insistence that they spend much time with a cross-hatch generator while they adjusted the convergence until it was as near perfect as possible! (that was in the days when you could adjust convergence of course!)).
I put off buying a flat panel set for the very reasons you outline - but things *have* improved - and I am extremely satisfied with my 37" plasma (that I have spent some time with - setting the picture up just right). I can't vouch for it's picture quality on analogue signals - because I never watch anything other than via Sky or the built-in Freeview but with good quality digital signals the picture is excellent - and with HD it's superb. I often find myself watching HD programmes that I wouldn't normally watch simply to revel in the picture quality!
DIY
Speed of scan and phosphor persistence are optimised to minimise flicker and to use a sensible bandwidth for the transmission, whilst not, in themselves, producing significant motion blur ...
Of course I'm not, but there is no requirement for the set, when operating in normal resolution, with a standard signal going in, to process that signal to make it fit the resolution of a panel device that has individual and digitally switched, picture display elements - that's LCD or plasma 'cells'. In order for this to take place, the signal has to be written into memory at one rate, and clocked out at another, with the resultant requirement of dropped or duplicated pixels to get that 'fit'. That's all very well, until something is moving fast across the screen - that's a football or a racing car, for instance. In this case, the electronics have a job 'keeping up' with the translation process, to say nothing of the decoding delay when the incoming signal is digital. A further consequence is that 'interference patterns' are generated within the translation algorithm, which manifest on the screen as motion atrifacts. These artifacts are not apparent on CRT sets, which do not have the requirement to have the translation done. That said, I have noticed recently, that as all outside broadcasts go digital, motion artifacts from the programme originators are creeping in. A good example was this year's World Snooker Championship. Slow motion replays, and freeze-frames, were covered in digital artifacts, which had not been apparent previous years.
"improved" - key word, I suggest ...
I don't dispute that a good quality plasma, as you say, 'properly' set up (Pioneer offer a super set-up option through their dealers, where a specially trained engineer visits you to spend the time that is impractical in the factory for cost reasons, to set up your set to perfection) is very acceptable, particularly at a 'sensible' viewing distance, but with the best will in the world, they are still not, in my opinion, as good overall at displaying *any* and *all* picture content as a decently functioning CRT set. They are a fashion compromise, striving to be as good as the mature technology of CRTs, but at nothing like as good a price.
I never touch the brightness and contrast settings on my CRT Tosh, from top quality studio video sources such as the news, through films to some low bit-rate satellite transmissions, but when I am working on flat panel sets, I find myself wanting to adjust them all the time depending on picture content, and I wince at the motion blur and display artifacts that appear under *some* circumstances ...
Arfa
At the moment, OLED size is limited to around 11", although larger screens are feasible. However, these are not expected to be in practical production until at least 2010. There are some production issues still to be addressed. SEDs OTOH, are already able to be manufactured in large sizes, and have current contrast ratios of around 50,000 : 1, with 100,000 : 1 on the cards. They also exhibit very short lag times, making their performance comparable to existing CRT technology (setting aside that digital processing is required to provide the drive, which may well result in displayed artifacts). Given that there is still some time before large screen OLED sets will be available at an affordable price, there will be every opportunity for SEDs to displace them, and indeed LCD and plasma, if the legal issues can be resolved ...
Arfa
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.