Seeking advise on buying a new tv.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Well I don't want it to be too big. About 16 to 18 inches in high
(screen). Don't know what the diagnal measure would be. (normal 27"
is 16" high).
I would like picture in picture (moveable).
Of course complete adjustments (color, cont, bright, tint, sharp)
The biggest thing is that I watch a lot of older tv shows (tapes and
dvd's) in the 4:3 ratio so I would want to be carefull about side burn
in. (Probly would not like gray on the side) Even the chassis of all
my equipment is black.
I don't like "velocity scan modulation" since it makes everything
look ghosty. (be able to turn it off)
Something that will last many years. I like lots of inputs, And
variable outputs for speakers. (hooked up to a stereo when you turn down
the vol on the tv, the sound on the stereo goes down as well).
Of course I would like to be able to sit at the side and not have the
screen darken. And best quality picture goes without saying.
I've started shopping now so I've got a couple years untill the
broadcast stations go digital.
Hopefully my old 27" high "resolution" will hold out that long.
TIA, mes.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

MES Jones wrote:
> Well I don't want it to be too big. About 16 to 18 inches in high
> (screen). Don't know what the diagnal measure would be. (normal 27"
> is 16" high).

But the big advantage to HD is that the picture quality holds up for
really big screens. With SD, you got a fuzzy picture on the 40 and 50"
RP TVs. Movies on DVDs hold up very well on a 42", 50" or bigger
widescreen TV.

To answer your question, for a 4:3 SD screen, the height is 0.6 of the
diagonal, width = 0.8 * diagonal. (Old 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 ratio).

With a 16:9 widescreen, the height is 0.49 * the diagonal, width =
0.87 * diagonal. So to get the same height in a widescreen as a 4:3 set,
multiply the SD diagonal by 1.22. Hence for a 27" SD, a 33" widescreen
will have the same height.

If you are looking for a main TV, I would recommend you to get at
least a 34" widescreen (massive CRT) or a 37" (plasma or LCD) for a
decent picture size. I have a 42" HD plasma monitor which is a fine TV
but if I had to do it all over again, now that I have moved to a new
place and prices have dropped by a lot, I would get a 50" plasma.

> I would like picture in picture (moveable).
> Of course complete adjustments (color, cont, bright, tint, sharp)
> The biggest thing is that I watch a lot of older tv shows (tapes and
> dvd's) in the 4:3 ratio so I would want to be carefull about side burn
> in. (Probly would not like gray on the side) Even the chassis of all
> my equipment is black.

PIP depends on the set and how you get your signal. If it is through a
cable set top box, then the PIP for two channels has to be provided by
the set top box.

> I don't like "velocity scan modulation" since it makes everything
> look ghosty. (be able to turn it off)

You don't see this technology listed for digital HD sets. Noise
reduction is the buzz word for digital sets. But you want to get a set
where you can turn it off. The Samsung DNIe for example is widely panned
as not very useful and something that can't be turned off on some sets.

> Something that will last many years. I like lots of inputs, And
> variable outputs for speakers. (hooked up to a stereo when you turn down
> the vol on the tv, the sound on the stereo goes down as well).
> Of course I would like to be able to sit at the side and not have the
> screen darken. And best quality picture goes without saying.

When you get the HD TV, you will also want to upgrade for 5.1 sound,
if your sound system does not support this already. The broadcast
networks are still upgrading their sound systems, but many shows have
gone to 5.1 sound in the past year. Movies on the premium channels are
usually in 5.1.

> I've started shopping now so I've got a couple years untill the
> broadcast stations go digital.
> Hopefully my old 27" high "resolution" will hold out that long.
> TIA, mes.

Almost all broadcast stations are broadcasting in digital now. The
problem is that many of them, especially in the smaller markets, are at
low power. However, the big 4 stations in the top 100 markets (ABC, CBS,
Fox, NBC) were required to go to full power this summer for their
digital channel. Check www.antennaweb.org to see what is available in
your area.

If you want to read up on HD, www.avsforum.com is the place to go.

Alan F

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ [...] 0FINAL.pdf

Sorry if this has already been posted. Attempts to dispel myths about
plasma displays.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:24:45 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>Phil Witt wrote:
>
>> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ [...] 0FINAL.pdf
>>
>> Sorry if this has already been posted. Attempts to dispel myths about
>> plasma displays.
>
>What myths might those be?
>
>Matthew

The ones refuted in the articles, mainly that plasma screens suffer
permanent burn-in and have short brightness lives. Read the test
results and comparisons and decide for yourself.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Phil Witt" <w4imm@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ido7g1trpqu9n2fa3b9km9ak29ee1tk4ph@4ax.com...
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ [...] 0FINAL.pdf
>
> Sorry if this has already been posted. Attempts to dispel myths about
> plasma displays.

Great. Many of us here try to dispel myths, too. This article attempts to
examine these "myths":

*Screens are subject to permanent image retention (commonly referred to as
"burn in" )
The conclusion is that they do not. The reality is that with a properly
calibrated display "burn in" is much less of a concern than in early PDPs,
but it can still happen if extended static displays are used, just like a
CRT based set. It is not a concern for educated consumers, however, for the
uneducated it could be a significant issue.

* Lifetimes are short
Clearly, newer sets are being rated at much longer life expectancy than
early PDPs. Again, educated consumers who properly calibrate their sets and
vary use will likey find that this is not an issue. Less well educated
consumers will get less life out of their sets. The bottom line is that the
life of curent sets is likely longer than in the past but as the article
points out only long term use and testing can make real conclusions.

* Black levels are less than CRTs (and other technologies)
Black levels have improved greatly in PDPs. What the article does not
address, and what has not been tested nor quantified anywhere, is the low
level activation noise in dark colors that still can be seen in all PDPs.
It is typically seen as a splotchy, grungy, motteled look to very dark
areas. If one is sensitive to it viewing can be unpleasant. If one does
not notice it then PDPs can look great.

* Viewing angles are no different than TVs using other technologies
I don't recall ever hearing anyone say anything other than this is an area
where PDPs are superior to most other displays. The degree to which it is a
matter of concern varys with the user and the application.

* Screen brightness is worse than TVs using other technologies
LCD has always had an advantage here and I can't recall anyone arguing
otherwise on this either. Again, the significance of this issue is
application specific and for most people a non-issue.

* Color accuracy is the same as TVs using other technologies
Once again, I don't recall great debates nor a great deal of play for this
"myth". There are differences between technologies but PDPs generally
excell here. There are also significant differences in performance between
models and brands within the same technology.

So what should we conclude from this article? Well, my conclusion is that
someone wrote a white paper to support PDPs. Some of the information is
very good, but the context is clearly one of bias in favor of plasma
technology and must be interpreted in that context. Several of the "myths"
seem to be stretches to fill the paper and to have a reason to show the
advantages of PDPs. Regardless, we should conclude what we already know,
PDPs can be great if one is willing to pay the price, properly calibrate,
vary image displays, and don't need the slightly greater brightness of LCD.
What the article does not emphasize is that there are still picture issues
that some people find annoying, just like with every other technology. If
you don't like the grunge, don't get a PDP. If you see the rainbows or
streaks, don't get DLP. If you don't like the motion blurring don't get
LCD. If you are sensitive to convergence don't get a CRT based product.
The article also does not emphaisize the importance of educating oneself and
viewing carefully before buying. The differences between models or the
misapplication of any of the technologies can overwelm any of the advantages
of any technology.

Useful article, but certainly not to be taken as Gospel...

Leonard

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Leonard Caillouet wrote:

Deliberately quoted in its entirity.

> "Phil Witt" <w4imm@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:ido7g1trpqu9n2fa3b9km9ak29ee1tk4ph@4ax.com...
>
>>http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pio/pe/images/portal/cit_3424/273087528Pioneer%20DTV%20White%20Paper%20-%20FINAL.pdf
>>
>>Sorry if this has already been posted. Attempts to dispel myths about
>>plasma displays.
>
>
> Great. Many of us here try to dispel myths, too. This article attempts to
> examine these "myths":
>
> *Screens are subject to permanent image retention (commonly referred to as
> "burn in" )
> The conclusion is that they do not. The reality is that with a properly
> calibrated display "burn in" is much less of a concern than in early PDPs,
> but it can still happen if extended static displays are used, just like a
> CRT based set. It is not a concern for educated consumers, however, for the
> uneducated it could be a significant issue.
>
> * Lifetimes are short
> Clearly, newer sets are being rated at much longer life expectancy than
> early PDPs. Again, educated consumers who properly calibrate their sets and
> vary use will likey find that this is not an issue. Less well educated
> consumers will get less life out of their sets. The bottom line is that the
> life of curent sets is likely longer than in the past but as the article
> points out only long term use and testing can make real conclusions.
>
> * Black levels are less than CRTs (and other technologies)
> Black levels have improved greatly in PDPs. What the article does not
> address, and what has not been tested nor quantified anywhere, is the low
> level activation noise in dark colors that still can be seen in all PDPs.
> It is typically seen as a splotchy, grungy, motteled look to very dark
> areas. If one is sensitive to it viewing can be unpleasant. If one does
> not notice it then PDPs can look great.
>
> * Viewing angles are no different than TVs using other technologies
> I don't recall ever hearing anyone say anything other than this is an area
> where PDPs are superior to most other displays. The degree to which it is a
> matter of concern varys with the user and the application.
>
> * Screen brightness is worse than TVs using other technologies
> LCD has always had an advantage here and I can't recall anyone arguing
> otherwise on this either. Again, the significance of this issue is
> application specific and for most people a non-issue.
>
> * Color accuracy is the same as TVs using other technologies
> Once again, I don't recall great debates nor a great deal of play for this
> "myth". There are differences between technologies but PDPs generally
> excell here. There are also significant differences in performance between
> models and brands within the same technology.
>
> So what should we conclude from this article? Well, my conclusion is that
> someone wrote a white paper to support PDPs. Some of the information is
> very good, but the context is clearly one of bias in favor of plasma
> technology and must be interpreted in that context. Several of the "myths"
> seem to be stretches to fill the paper and to have a reason to show the
> advantages of PDPs. Regardless, we should conclude what we already know,
> PDPs can be great if one is willing to pay the price, properly calibrate,
> vary image displays, and don't need the slightly greater brightness of LCD.
> What the article does not emphasize is that there are still picture issues
> that some people find annoying, just like with every other technology. If
> you don't like the grunge, don't get a PDP. If you see the rainbows or
> streaks, don't get DLP. If you don't like the motion blurring don't get
> LCD. If you are sensitive to convergence don't get a CRT based product.
> The article also does not emphaisize the importance of educating oneself and
> viewing carefully before buying. The differences between models or the
> misapplication of any of the technologies can overwelm any of the advantages
> of any technology.
>
> Useful article, but certainly not to be taken as Gospel...
>

Thanks for a great usenet post. It's on topic, well written and very
informative. That is a rare combination.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Tam/WB2TT" <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote in message
news:wdmdnXwEaoAgA5neRVn-sA@comcast.com...
>
> "Phil Witt" <w4imm@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:ido7g1trpqu9n2fa3b9km9ak29ee1tk4ph@4ax.com...
>> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ [...] 0FINAL.pdf
>>
>> Sorry if this has already been posted. Attempts to dispel myths about
>> plasma displays.
>
> I noticed the report did not mention resolution. I looked at the specs for
> all the plasma sets in the B&H catalog last night, and 100% of the sets
> smaller than 50 inches had less than 1280 horizontal pixels. Also, they
> don't meet the HDTV requirement of being square.
>
> Likewise, no mention of power dissipation or RFI generation.
>
> Tam

no investigation of color accuracy at low brightness levels either - the
muddy night scenes issue

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11g8vgog6td43e7@corp.supernews.com...
> Thanks for a great usenet post. It's on topic, well written and very
> informative. That is a rare combination.

Just as I thought, you are intelligent and can be sincerely gracious. I try
to make posts that are useful and keep things in context. Good to know that
I succeed occassionally.

Leonard

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Randy Sweeney" <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jcqdnXLrCt8bLJneRVn-og@comcast.com...
>
> "Tam/WB2TT" <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote in message
> news:wdmdnXwEaoAgA5neRVn-sA@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Phil Witt" <w4imm@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:ido7g1trpqu9n2fa3b9km9ak29ee1tk4ph@4ax.com...
>>> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ [...] 0FINAL.pdf
>>>
>>> Sorry if this has already been posted. Attempts to dispel myths about
>>> plasma displays.
>>
>> I noticed the report did not mention resolution. I looked at the specs
>> for all the plasma sets in the B&H catalog last night, and 100% of the
>> sets smaller than 50 inches had less than 1280 horizontal pixels. Also,
>> they don't meet the HDTV requirement of being square.
>>
>> Likewise, no mention of power dissipation or RFI generation.
>>
>> Tam
>
> no investigation of color accuracy at low brightness levels either - the
> muddy night scenes issue

Randy, this is the one thing that I keep seeing on even the best PDPs and it
is a deal breaker for me. What concerns me about it is that I can't get
much info out of the manufacturers about it. The best description that I
have received about the cause is that it is very hard to control the
variability in activation potential of individual cells which results in
uneven output. The differences in level are very small and not noticeable
at higher output levels but are apparent in near blacks. This seems to make
sense, but it was just speculation from a tech rep at Panasonic. A Sony rep
confirmed that this is a pretty good explanation but that they are not
really sure and basically are not even attempting to address the problem.
Seems like the only way to do it would be to have tighter tolerances in
manufacturing and/or to monitor and control current to each cell, a la the
AKB systems on CRTs. I suspect that this is impractically costly. Anyway,
we really don't know for sure why it happens and there are no ways to
measure it at this time that I know of. Are you aware of anything?

Leonard

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I agree, as far as that speculation goes. There is one factor common to
> all fixed pixel displays with regard to low light scenes. The
> quantization steps at the low end of the output scale are quite far
> apart on a percentage basis. The eye is very sensitive to gradations
> like that.

This is one case where extra resolution might help.

A 3840x2160 display could use at least 4 pixels to display each incoming
pixel. That gives the designers a lot more flexibility in how to partially
activate the pixels in order to keep the color smooth and accurate. I can
think of a way or two that might work, although not knowing the exact
timing of the cells means that this sort of thing might make no difference
at all.

--
Jeff Rife | "These are not scraps. These are historic
| remains of a once-great society of hair."
|
| -- George Costanza

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:66jNe.66937$Ji.33277@lakeread02...
>
> "Randy Sweeney" <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jcqdnXLrCt8bLJneRVn-og@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Tam/WB2TT" <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote in message
>> news:wdmdnXwEaoAgA5neRVn-sA@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Phil Witt" <w4imm@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ido7g1trpqu9n2fa3b9km9ak29ee1tk4ph@4ax.com...
>>>> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ [...] 0FINAL.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Sorry if this has already been posted. Attempts to dispel myths about
>>>> plasma displays.
>>>
>>> I noticed the report did not mention resolution. I looked at the specs
>>> for all the plasma sets in the B&H catalog last night, and 100% of the
>>> sets smaller than 50 inches had less than 1280 horizontal pixels. Also,
>>> they don't meet the HDTV requirement of being square.
>>>
>>> Likewise, no mention of power dissipation or RFI generation.
>>>
>>> Tam
>>
>> no investigation of color accuracy at low brightness levels either - the
>> muddy night scenes issue
>
> Randy, this is the one thing that I keep seeing on even the best PDPs and
> it is a deal breaker for me. What concerns me about it is that I can't
> get much info out of the manufacturers about it. The best description
> that I have received about the cause is that it is very hard to control
> the variability in activation potential of individual cells which results
> in uneven output. The differences in level are very small and not
> noticeable at higher output levels but are apparent in near blacks. This
> seems to make sense, but it was just speculation from a tech rep at
> Panasonic. A Sony rep confirmed that this is a pretty good explanation
> but that they are not really sure and basically are not even attempting to
> address the problem. Seems like the only way to do it would be to have
> tighter tolerances in manufacturing and/or to monitor and control current
> to each cell, a la the AKB systems on CRTs. I suspect that this is
> impractically costly. Anyway, we really don't know for sure why it
> happens and there are no ways to measure it at this time that I know of.
> Are you aware of anything?
>
> Leonard

I am aware of the fundamental cause of the problem. It is as you say, the
plasma technology has fundamental problems with low outputs because it take
a certain amount of energy to turn on the plasma discharge. You can keep the
discharge on longer or brighter or turn it off completely for black, but
there are real problems controlling the output at low levels.

There are a bunch of very very clever control strategies that attempt to
work around the problem - and indeed, the cartoon-like "contouring" of the
earlier/cheaper panels is largely gone in the up-market parts.

The muddy low end is not completely solved as far as my eyes go, but for
bright/saturated/high contrast images, the plasma's are stunning.