Looks good, if they have fixed the flickering I might have to get one.
LCD/LED vs PLASMA
- Thread starter Virex
- Start date
Looks good, if they have fixed the flickering I might have to get one.
There's certainly a bottom cut-off point. For example, I wouldn't expect much from a TV with a poor quality panel and weak electronics. So your basic Supermarket budget Vestel clones aren't going to be a calibration candidate. However, once you raise your sights from scraping the bottom of a barrel then you'd be surprised at what can be achieved.
As for the TVs on AV Forums. As far as I can tell there's a lot of folk downloading the AVS disc and thinking that that somehow means they have calibrated their TV. So it's hardly surprising that the results are variable.
The guys using meters get consistently better results. Without a meter then all someone is doing is setting up the TV to PLUGE. It's certainly worthwhile doing, but it's not calibration and so you can't judge it in the same way.
Actually, it does.
You don't need a trained eye to know when something is right. All you need is to be either interested or aware. I think most people can look at a photo and tell the difference between a portrait shot on a basic camera and one shot on decent gear. That's the only skill one needs to appreciate the benefits of calibration.
Quite often it's the midrange TVs that respond the best to calibration. High-end TVs are bought for picture quality as much as features. It's the midrange TVs that are bought for size and features where the factory settings are geared to "showroom bang" that can yield the biggest improvements.
I'll admit though, I can't do anything with any TV or projector for someone who just isn't interested.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 10,858
- Location
- Nottingham
The main issue is a lot of people don't care what the standard is and just want to set up to to their personal preference, I remember when tons of people used to use Digital Vibrance on their Nvidia cards even though it messed the colours up.
There will be people who do the same on their TV's, they don't care about the standards.
There will be people who do the same on their TV's, they don't care about the standards.
As a simple experiment try setting your contrast, brightness etc. using some calibration images or a disk and then set your TV to the "warm 2" setting.... That will get you much closer to a calibrated image and will probably look a lot better just for that. Most TV's are blue on the factory defaults which actually looks bad once you are aware of it but it looks ok in a showroom for example.
I think it is more that they are ignorant to what it should look like... Surely when people buy a decent quality screen it is because they want good image quality. Calibrated image always looks better than the standard settings just people do not realise it and assume the settings are right. Most people probably dont even know that you can get your screen calibrated using a meter.
It depends which CRT you are comparing it to and with what content. Nearly all crts will be better at standard def than plasmas and not just because they're smaller. It's easy to forget how good standard def can look if you've been using flat panels for years. It looks awful on even the best plasma, don't start me on lcd/led, yet perfectly natural and closer to what we get with HD content on panels with a crt. And that's just with rubbish like Neighbours
HD wise crts suffer because they were phased out before it came into it's own - they don't have hdmi for example - but try outputting a signal to a FW900 and any current plasma and you will see the difference in image quality. And yes, it's much smaller, but it can handle the same resolution (higher actually), has greater depth to the image, motion, blacks that are actually black and not grey, better colours, everything.I never said go out and buy a CRT (unless you can find a FW900 and have a PC desk big and strong enough to handle it, in which case you should!) There's quite a lot of lcd/led bashing on this forum and there's no harm in reigning that in a little in reminding people that in pretty much everything that plasma does better than lcd in terms of pq, crt does better than plasma - and with pretty much the same leap in quality.
We didn't get many HD crt in this country. They were far more common in the states. My 32" crt is HD (1125i) and runs at 50/60hz, like most tvs. It doesn't flicker like a strobe light at 60hz like with crt monitors. Not sure why or what the difference is. My monitor is 24" with a max res of 2304 x 1440 at 80 Hz, but with a sweet spot of 1920 x 1200 @ 85 Hz.
You're right, they're massive and ugly as sin! The pictures are beautiful, though, and I'll be sad to see them go.
You're right, they're massive and ugly as sin! The pictures are beautiful, though, and I'll be sad to see them go.
Yep. Or they believe that the out-of-the box settings are correct. Even if they do want to tweak the settings, most of the function names don't really help the average user.
So lets see how Mr Average might get on...
