LCD Specs Routinely Inflated – Plasma Still Better

[westcott]

I agree with Clint. It is just a matter of time for LED. I just went over to a buddy of mines using a handheld front projector from Dell that uses LED. Supposed to run 50,000 hours. Now, it is only 800x600 but for the price and the life of the lamp, it sure is a bargain and a great way to get a large display for a little amount of money. I was really impressed with the color accuracy and brightness. It is tiny. Something you could take with you anywhere and hook up to your laptop. I might just talk my boss into getting one for my presentations. Yep, LED is where it is heading. Low heat, lower electricity usage, and lower maintenance costs over the long run.

[clayman88]

This is sad. I'm SOOO glad I snatched up a Pioneer Elite before they're all gone.

How exactly do LCD manufacturers get away with massively over-exaggerating the contrast ratios. These are the types of things that totally swindle most TV consumers. Where do they even come up with a number like 1,000,000:1?! Are these numbers total fabrications or is there some truth to them? Anyone know?

[Wayde Robson]

How exactly do LCD manufacturers get away with massively over-exaggerating the contrast ratios.

I haven't looked into this issue specifically but my guess is that they measure it differently. Just like the "Rise/fall" spec, it's long been a swindle. Change how you measure a spec so you can come out looking better.

You'd think there are standards regulations to deal with this though.

Rise/fall should be the speed at which a single pixel in a display can rise to white then fall to complete black. Some manufacturers, looking for better numbers to publish, measure it in some kind of grey-to-grey timeframe. ie. measure how long it takes to go from white to grey or black to grey, roughly half the time as a true black to white.

This is what owed partly to LCD becoming a 'faster' display. You know what they say: Fake it 'til you make it!

[AVTguy]

Why do we even care about a study that was performed on sets from three product generations ago?? SONY XBR4, are you kidding me? XBR 9 is out now! Similar trim XBR models were the XBR2, XBR4, XBR6, and now XR9. XBR4 is WAY OLD news!! And seriously, comparing those models to the Panasonic professional?? It was a great set, but at least throw it against a 1080p Pioneer from the time.

To be fair though, the newer LCDs have improved leaps and bounds from three generations back. 240hz is becoming widely available in top trims from most manufacturers, and 120hz is alsmost standard across the board. HOWEVER, with exception to the top LCD's out there, the Plasma's still kick the crap out of most of the LCDs out there!! May plasma live on, and its proud manufacturers take their love of deep blacks and awesome motion processing into the O-L-E-D world and begin the our planet's next-gen super-contrast, super-bright, super-green, supertechnology!

[wiyosaya]

I haven't looked into this issue specifically but my guess is that they measure it differently. Just like the "Rise/fall" spec, it's long been a swindle. Change how you measure a spec so you can come out looking better.

You'd think there are standards regulations to deal with this though.

Rise/fall should be the speed at which a single pixel in a display can rise to white then fall to complete black. Some manufacturers, looking for better numbers to publish, measure it in some kind of grey-to-grey timeframe. ie. measure how long it takes to go from white to grey or black to grey, roughly half the time as a true black to white.

This is what owed partly to LCD becoming a 'faster' display. You know what they say: Fake it 'til you make it!

Unfortunately, there are no industry standards. Many have decried contrast "specs" for a long time, but the industry still has not responded by introducing a standard. In essence, "contrast ratings" are the display equivalent of "snake oil," especially to the uninformed. Just like the way that all display manufacturers have the settings on the displays set to "knock your eyes out" in the showroom when perhaps calibrating them before they leave the factory would allow the average consumer to make a better decision in the showroom. IMHO, this is the main reason that LCD "looks better" than plasma to the uninformed in the showroom.

Personally, I think LED LCD is a transitional technology. LCD, no matter how you look at it, suffers other problems, too. To me, the most notable of those problems besides viewing angle is the fact that color gamut is something like 80% of NTSC. I recently read an article where someone claims to have made that much closer to 100%, but for the majority of LCD based displays out there do not have the capacity to faithfully reproduce color.

I've been watching the development of OLED for a long time, and it looks poised to make a major market influx between now and 2014. LG is releasing a 15" set this December. Sony and Samsung claim to be ready to release sets in the 20" - 30" range next year. LG is targeting 2012 for a 30" at $3,999 US. While that may sound expensive, and we can likely count on "expensive" for the latest models, it sounds like there will be a fair amount of competition from the outset, and that should drive prices down rather quickly. Epson claims to have a production ready technology that allows "printing" OLED displays, and my bet is that their claim to fame with that technology is that the production costs for displays made with that technology will be extremely low.

OLED is superior to LCD for color gamut, too; some of the specs I have seen are 120% NTSC. Not to mention it is emissive like plasma and, therefore, does not have the viewing angle problem like LCD.

Just my take, but it seems not all that far off, and perhaps cheaper, initially, than either plasma or LCD initially were.

Anyone interested in more info might try this site among others.

[BMXTRIX]

three letters: LED....

LED what?

People are already confused enough but LED is really screwing things up because manufacturers are glomming onto the term without any real specification of what they mean.

LED for projection technologies is awesome, but the only things using it right now are toy projectors or very expensive models. No $1,000-$3,000 HT or business class models available.

LED backlit LCDs are actually being marketed as LED TVs, which they are NOT. It is a complete ef you to consumers who are thinking that they may be getting something better, when they are getting the same old stuff with a bit of a twist. On top of which, LED can be locally dimming to improve ANSI contrast or it can be edge lit (Samsung) to make the display thinner.

Then we get the four letter version: OLED

OLED is the bee's knees for upcoming LED technologies, yet seems to be forever away from reality at any usable size and price point. I mean 30" for $4000 is great and all, but I'm not replacing my 60" Pioneer with a 30" anything - even for free.

Panasonic still has the displays which are getting high marks and hopefully they will be able to work with Pioneer to get some real quality stuff out which can come close to giving us what we have enjoyed with Kuro for years.

[Patrick_Wolf]

I'm hoping, eventually, these new thin LED panels (w/ local dimming) become the norm while OLED slowly pushes it's way into the market.

Though if OLED is going to succeed it must be affordable and have a clear advantage over LCD/LED through the eyes of mainstream. 30" for $3-4k isn't going to cut it, except for Mr. Money who needs pristine PQ for his bedroom.

[bandphan]

Though if OLED is going to succeed it must be affordable and have a clear advantage over LCD/LED through the eyes of mainstream

There is already a better choice than LED lcds, plasma Eyes of the mainstream are tainted with shooty marketing and misinformation

[corey]

LED what?

LED for projection technologies is awesome, but the only things using it right now are toy projectors or very expensive models. No $1,000-$3,000 HT or business class models available.

I take it that you mean FRONT projection. Samsung's REAR projection LED sets are alive and well, and a great way to get a fairly large screen at........

Oops, I just looked on Samsung's site - no more RPTV. I guess I missed the news of Samsung dropping them. Glad I got mine last Black Friday. I still don't get why people mind a TV that's a little over a foot deep - my speakers stick out that far anyway. RIP

[Pyrrho]

The way most people watch TV, it makes sense for them to buy LCD instead of plasma. Most people do not watch in a darkened room, so the greater brightness of the typical LCD works better for them.

If you look at the "shootout" you can see the brightness is significantly greater with the LCDs they used than the plasma (see Table 1).:

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut.htm

Also, people are careless, so any possibility of burn-in should be avoided by such people.

And it is not just LCD manufacturers who give outrageous numbers for contrast; plasma manufacturers do the same sort of thing. Just look at the numbers in Table 1, and look up what Panasonic typically claims for their plasma contrast ratios.

The problem, of course, is that there are no standards for this, so people measure these things any way they want to make their own product seem good. The same problem existed with home amplifiers before power measurements were standardized. People made all sorts of wild claims about power output, with high numbers to sell products. The only way to avoid such things is through legislation governing claims of products, but many people want "government off our backs" and don't like legislation restricting people. So we end up with unregulated claims.

I am looking forward to the day when OLED takes over from both of them, as it is supposed to be as good as or better than both in every way for picture quality, and better than both for power usage and thinness.