While I agree with every point made in the flat screen fight off, there is one extra demerit that I've noticed... When watching digital TV (cable or freeview) LCD screens seem to highlight the artefacts caused by poor bandwidth of many DTV channels - this is not a fault of the screens as such, but rather the crazy (accountant led?) decision to have more and more channels rather than the much better quality that the digital system is capable of. A BBC engineer I met some time ago was telling me of a demonstration he had seen of the freeview system before it was implemented and before the bandwidth restrictions had been decided - he was amazed at the astounding clarity of the digital picture better even than the very high quality of analogue images hew was used to. Sadly we are now stuck with scenes containing banded blue skies, and eerily posterised smoke filled rooms. Things seem unlikely to get better; as there is likely to be no way that the public will ever have a real input and soon they’ll have no choice at all, when analogue gets the big switch off. I'm going to stick with my lovely 100hz CRT for the foreseeable future. It's flat if fat, and at least the CRT display has a tendency to diminish the digital artefacts.
Going off at a tangentthis mirrors Digital Radio! The same steps are being taken to increase stations and reduce bandwidth. The quality of DAB will deteriorate too. I don't know the full facts although I read recently there is something that can be done. Contact your MP and encourage them to take an interest. When members of the public were polled about DAB, over 60% cited better quality of sound over increased choice of stations as being their preference. The powers that be seem to have ignored the public. (Sorry I can't remember the Magazine the article was in, but it was an August or September one.)
Would it be possible to expand bandwidth and keep a greater number of channels/stations? Is it only a matter of expense that holds this back from happening?
Bandwidth is controlled by two things, physics and the government. The first is immutable - there is only so much room in the electromagnetic spectrum. The second sells the space available to the broadcasting companies. For arguments sake, lets say that the FM band was cleared of all current UK broadcasts - that would free up some space for more digital stations - however the same situation would apply, those who "own" the right to broadcast on that bandwidth could choose either to maximise profit by selling on multiple low bandwidth channels {hmm, home shopping channels on the radio anyone?} or have less numbers of higher quality channels. Anyone care to take bets? :o(
Thanks for the informative comparison between plasma and LCD. I have a 42" plasma - a Fujitsu screen modified by Electrograph Delphi - the DD42E, which was an expensive ‘early adoption’ in November 2001. It still appears to hold its own against (some)more recent screens. My only concerns are how long it will last without a drop in quality; that it’s not as slim as some more recent screens and that its cooling fan can sometimes be heard.
I'd like to expand the discussion and throw in a few more questions!
What about the signal input format? My Delphi Plasma is supposed to process the input signal differently, and I was advised to feed it using S-VHS (as this utilised some advanced on-board circuitry) and would provide better picture performance than its composite or component inputs. I currently feed in video via S-VHS from my Sky+ box and route the sound via the digital optical output to my Linn AV5103 (ignoring the plasma screen’s on-board speakers, which I’ve never connected). Are the results of the Plasma/LCD comparison the same regardless of signal type/source?
Would the test results be the same for all sources, e.g. DVD, Laser Disc, Video (VHS) Broadcast – both analogue, Freeview and Sky?
We know that picture quality varies between different Plasma screens and between different LCD screens. Which are the key determinants of final picture quality? Is it signal source (DVD, Broadcast, etc) or the interface (S-VHS, Component, HDMI, etc)? Is it on-board processing electronics? And finally, which manufacturers look to be at the leading edge with each technology – is there a clear leader for each type? What technologies are being used to produce better results?
What is the most that a consumer should pay for each type of screen before additional cost just buys a brand, aesthetics or diminishing returns?
What about the next generation of Broadcast, e.g. Sky’s High Definition. Will both Plasma and LCD be equal or close choices here too? Are all High Def-ready claims really equal
Finally, should we be looking to projectors for more or less in terms of quality, especially with high-def on the horizon? I’m thinking that I’ll probably have to replace (or move to another room) my current Plasma before its 5th birthday in November 2006. Should projection be a contender for a high definition display? Which technology would you get your hard-earned cash for 2006 to 2010?
Some interesting and intelligent questions there Stephen and the answer to just about all of them is… it depends. Oh, I know people hate me when I give that answer to apparently “simple” questions, but it really does depend on exactly what one is considering. To take your questions in order… Signal input format: The signal is certainly important – the best display in the world can only be as good as the signal fed into it. Conventional wisdom is that RGB is best – with the more recently available Component Input (also known as high-band component input or YpbPr) taking the crown on more recent sets – for some reason Europe has been slower to get this upgrade, many of the AV tuners available here having manuals that show the American and Japanese versions have Component Inputs fitted, though they don’t appear on the Euro version. (My own Yamaha included.) I suspect because we already had the Scart as a “standard” - which never caught on in the USA - so that the dynamics of the market meant that when Component Input became available US sets needed it more than we did! However, you mention that your Delphi Plasma specifically recommends SVideo. - Just being pedantic here :o) but that’s the proper name for the signal, usually mixed up with the SVHS tape format from whence it derived – I have no knowledge of that specific model or brand, but it seems reasonable that they would know best which to use. As you mention this is due to the SVideo signal path undergoing signal processing that the other inputs do not. Have you ever tested the results of using different inputs? Of course if the picture is already pleasing to you there may be little point! On a previous TV (A Mitsubishi) I found an enormous difference in picture quality between a picture transferred via RGB and a picture from the same source using composite input, (NB composite{Which mixes the colour signals together for transfer} , not to be confused with Component!{ Which keeps them separate}) On my New Thomson TV they are almost indistinguishable – not because the RGB is not good, just that the composite seems hugely better! Given that most of us operate mixtures of AV equipment it’s never going to be a certainty that any particular mode of signal transfer is going to be the “Best.” But when purchasing, ensuring that RGB and/or Component modes are available is bound to be good “future proofing.” With regard to, the soon to be available, High Definition TV, the standards are still in flux, and whereas a week ago I’d have said “you can only get HD signals via HDCP,” the powers that be (Sky) have now said that this is no longer the case and that there will be an output on the Sky HDTV box for unlimited analogue HDTV. Personally I’ll hold of buying anything HD until they are actually broadcasting it!
I’ll take a break there and answer you next point in a separate message :o)
“Are the results of the Plasma/LCD comparison the same regardless of signal type/source?”
As I suggested in my earlier post, differing sources may impact different displays. Certainly if one had a “Perfect” source – perhaps a particularly well encoded DVD – one could judge display performance on an equal footing, however the low encoding rate of Terrestrial DTV and Sky Digital means that all sources are not equal, and it is my experience that the particular qualities of LCD displays show this up more than alternate display technologies. More importantly, will *you* notice? Well I do. My sister, however, is delighted with her LCD TV displaying NTL Digital Cable and I am not going to point out my reservations to her! :o)
“Would the test results be the same for all sources, e.g. DVD, Laser Disc, Video (VHS) Broadcast – both analogue, Freeview and Sky?”
There’s not much doubt that a “Good” analogue TV signal is superior to a digital TV picture – just because the broadcasters are so miserly with the bandwidth. What is less obvious is how many people have a “Good” analogue signal available to them. DVD is superior to laser disc because encoding is of a much higher bandwidth than was available on the old discs. With differing sources having differing characteristics, there exists the possibility of different displays handling them… differently. Again we have to ask, “Will you notice?” It depends on how much difference there is in that particular set-up and more importantly, how hard to please you are!
“We know that picture quality varies between different Plasma screens and between different LCD screens. Which are the key determinants of final picture quality? Is it signal source (DVD, Broadcast, etc) or the interface (S-Video, Component, HDMI, etc)? Is it on-board processing electronics? “
Well it’s the old, old, story; any system is only as good as its weakest link. Everything needs to come together for the ideal picture.
“And finally, which manufacturers look to be at the leading edge with each technology – is there a clear leader for each type? What technologies are being used to produce better results?”
That is a very subjective question, and the only answer I can give objectively, is “You have to look at the picture on a set before making up your mind.” I have an engineer friend who sets up his Sony widescreen in a manner that would not have got a pass at the college where we were educated – taste comes into the equation – he likes to have so much brightness that as far as I am concerned his TV has no true black. So its horses for courses, someone may tell you that “Wexavision” make the best TVs, but you may not like them! As for technologies, there are a lot! There’s Plasma, LCD, DLP Projection and Rear Projection we know, waiting in the wings are SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display), OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diodes), FED (Field Emission Display), LCoS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) not to mention “Thin” CRT displays! Even if there was a definitive answer to your question, developments will continue and new technologies will surely evolve!
OK, I’ve had a cup of tea and I’m ready to return to the fray ;o)
“What is the most that a consumer should pay for each type of screen before additional cost just buys a brand, aesthetics or diminishing returns?”
Boy, you sure can ask them! :o) Naturally, what someone can afford has to come into the equation as well. I don’t think your question can be answered, but I had a conversation with a friend of mine today and he mentioned “Oh I never worry about the cost!” Unfortunately most of us have to bear cost in mind but I never pay the first price asked – I always want a discount, and I usually get it too! Even if your question could be answered, by next week, or even tomorrow, that answer would be out of date, you just have to do your research and don’t buy in Harrods!
”What about the next generation of Broadcast, e.g. Sky’s High Definition. Will both Plasma and LCD be equal or close choices here too? Are all High Def-ready claims really equal”
Virtually no claims for HDTV are truly valid for this country at the moment as the HDTV system is not yet settled, so it remains to be seen. I do think that definition wise LCD is superior as the pixels tend to be smaller than Plasma – but I am generalising there!
”Finally, should we be looking to projectors for more or less in terms of quality, especially with high-def on the horizon? I’m thinking that I’ll probably have to replace (or move to another room) my current Plasma before its 5th birthday in November 2006. Should projection be a contender for a high definition display? Which technology would you get your hard-earned cash for 2006 to 2010?”
Again, “Suck it and see” is the best advice I can give, but even the very best projectors are best viewed in a darkened room and there are huge differences in performance depending on the “throw” of the image and what it’s projected upon. I’ve never seen a projector that can handle the sun! For my money CRT is still the best for picture quality but, it’s just my opinion! :o)
Thanks for the brain download! I think that the best thing for me to do is wait until there is some HDTV out there and then see what results I can get with my current diplay. If it's a big improvement over what I currently have then that would be worthwhile in itself, and I could then wait for my plasma to burn itself out and/or for HDTV displays (of whatever type) to sort themselves out in to clear winner and for prices to drop a little.
I'm happy with SVideo (thanks for the correct terminology) but realise that my aerial (and possibly the distribution system) may need some tweaks as it's not as good as when the nice aerial man representing OnDigital fitted me a superb array for just £40 - It was one good thing to come out of OnDigital!
I like so many probably feel completely confused by the debate which is best?? Taking tentative steps in to purchasing a new TV after many happy years peering at a tv taking up the space afforded to a standard armchair has resulted in the need for a wall mounted tv. So with a budget of £1500.00 (thats all she who must be obeyed will allow) the quest has started so any advise as to which brand or model is favoured or best to avoid who be helpful.... No pressure though!!
A friend of mine just purchased a 32" Panasonic Vierra LCD - From Currys at £800 - I'm certain that it can be obtained much more cheaply from the net - However the point is that it is the best LCD that I've ever seen and I would swap it in a moment for my otherwise perfect Thomson 32" CRT (just to save some room!) It's HD ready (Just requires a HD source) came with freeview, twin HDMI sockets, twin Scarts for backward compatibility, and has the most glorious picture I've seen on any tv (Inc CRTs) Dot pitch is very fine - not as fine as a computer monitor, but at any reasonable viewing distance it is invisible. It gets a big approval rating from me. I hope that helps.
I would support Mike in his assertions.Worth paying a bit more and getting the latest model -the 32LX600- as it has the 1080p processing chip which will future proof you for Blue Ray and HD-DVD.
just got my new Samsung 37 inch HD lcd (LE37R7)details below. and set it up with my ps3 and xbox 360 wow wow wow the blu ray dvds look out of this world and both ps3 and 360 games look great, sky via a rgb scart looks around the same as my 40 inch panasonic vierra none HD plasma, but i do note that the samsung lcd highlights the artefacts caused by poor bandwidth by around 3 to 5 % more than my plasma,the LCD features an impressive 5000:1 contrast ratio and a 1366 x 768 resolution for a richly detailed picture. Samsung’s unique Digital Natural Image Engine further enhances colour, contrast, motion and clarity within the picture. A handy Picture in Picture feature allows you to view a second smaller window on the same screen and tuning is simple with the auto setup function. A 170° viewing angle allows you to enjoy perfect pictures from almost anywhere in the room. all in all i am very happy with my new LCD ...is it better than my panasonic vierra plasma ? i am not sure. but it is a great LCD tv. all i need now is a new sky HD box.....i better stop now the Wife may see the word new sky box....
I CAN SAFELY SAY THAT THIS DEBATE IS CRUCIAL TO ALL CONSUMERS OUT THERE AT THE MOMENT. I AGREE WITH THE FRUSTRATING LACK OF CHOICE GIVEN TO CONSUMERS. I OWNED A VERY NICE JVC 32 INCH 100HZ TV THAT WAS STOLEN, COULD I REPLACE IT JUST SIX MONTHS LATER? NO. I NOW HAVE A JVC 32 INCH 50HZ TV AND FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN OF LCDS I MAY BE KEPPING IT FR A WHILE. MY POINT THOUGH IS THAT I CLEARLY REMEMBER JVC DOING A 37 INCH 100HZ CRT, THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOW GONE IN THIS COUNTRY AS IS ANY 100HZ CRT. THE CLARITY AND DEPTH OF MY JVC PICTURE WAS SUPERIOR TO THEM ALL. I GUESS THIS COMES DOEN TO THE FACT THAT AFTER 30-40 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT, THEY HAD REACHED A PINNACLE IN CRT DESIGN, HENCE OUR LOVE OF THOSE NOW DEMISED PICTURE QUALITIES, LCDS AND PLASMAS ARE SO NEW THAT NOT ALL THE TWEAKS COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN IRONED OUT.
There was a brief time a few months ago when some manufacturers were talking about making HD ready CRT TVs. Guess that didn't come to anything i guess..?
Hi Nick, I've never seen one, but I believe they were produced for the US market. However all is not lost. I've just forsaken my 32" 100hz CRT for an LG HD ready plasma. there seems to be a world of difference in the HD ready sets compared to those that went before. Large LCDs have improved immensely since this thread was started too!
Yeah the quality really seems to be on the up. Especially in terms of motion and contrast. The early generation of flat screens looked frankly rubbish. All washed out and smeared pictures. Look forward to them getting better and better!
If you are interested, I've written up my experiences with my new LG 42" Plasma (and I'll be writing more) in my Blog, here... http://www.avreview.co.uk/forum/forummessages.asp?URN=16&UTN=1675&last=1%20&%20SP%20=%20%20&%20V%20=%201
