Re: Plasma display recommendations
Re: Plasma display recommendations
- Subject: Re: Plasma display recommendations
- From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:41:37 +1000
Richard Wagner wrote:
Posterization or poor shadow detail? I've never seen it on this
display. To the contrary, the images look stunningly realistic, to the
point that you can forget you're watching a TV. I've watched people
flinch and try to move when watching a Blu-ray "Pearl Harbor" on the 60"
unit with a good sound system. It's unreal. By far more intense than a
movie theatre.
How many levels does it have then, and are they linear light, or
on a gamma curve ? (technical information seems sadly lacking,
which is all too typical. Lots of flashy prose, and no
detail.) Is it still using dithering to get the levels, or
are they native ?
[ I've walked through many a TV display area and been amazed at
how awful the large screen pictures are. Almost without exception
they are covered in artefacts such as dithering, "fizzing", JPEG
artefacts, MPEG motion compression artefacts, posterization etc.
One that stands out is coverage of sport being played on
grass. As the camera pans, the grass becomes a fuzzy green
mess, and then after the camera stops panning and the first
I-frame comes along, it pops back into sharpness. I can only
imagine that such displays impress the untrained eye by the sheer size,
brightness and dazzlingly over sharpened, over saturated colors,
but it seems to me there is a race to the bottom of having the
biggest resolution numbers, and the most "enhancement" gadget
stickers on the side of the set, without regard to fundamental
image quality. Usually these "enhancements" all make the picture
worse, because of the artefacts they introduce. Recently
I tried to watch a DVD on a large screen set that had some
awful temporal filter in it that seemed impossible to
turn off, presumably aimed at reducing color noise. The results
were highly distracting, with faces in particular having
a "bobbing", ghosty lag added them. The race to 200Hz is just
laughable too. I'd much rather not have the upsampling interpolation
artefacts that you are going to get in displaying an image four times
as fast as was originally captured, and twice as fast as the human eye
can actually detect. You simply can't see updates faster than about 85Hz,
and motion blur in each frame is actually what makes the motion look smooth.]
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden